Gator

Are you trying to take the **** Because you said, "He averages 6 contested possessions per game..." in defence of him being soft. Clearly you've no clue about some of the metrics used to evaluate performance. Have you heard Godwin say we play "from the contest out" when asked to describe his brand of footy ? At the MFC we don't sacrifice contest for outside run. Goodwin will bring in a player who can 'reasonably' do both. An outside player should have a ratio in the vicinity of 30-40% CP to total possessions, not 25%. You've asked for opinions, but don't like the answers. Noted.

Let me put Zaharakis' 6 contested possessions in context. Jimmy Toumpas was let go by the MFC on the back of him not being able to win contested footy. Jimmy averages a woeful 27.7% of his footy as CP. Juniors with low percentage CP often fail to get drafted for this reason alone. Zaharakis averages 25.3% of his footy as CP. Worse than Jimmy. It's a damning stat and not the current brand of the MFC.

Btw, 6 contested possessions per game ? Snigger.

So you don't want to know what other posters think ? Then don't ask.

Soft and goes missing way too often.

I never said I was perfect.

I rejected it because I've seen him run around like a plonker when he's started forward at the beginning of games. Maybe you have a poor memory, but McDonald started forward in a couple of games with Roos and was shouse. He's always been better when it's happened mid game and there's been an element of surprise. This happened under Roos a couple of times (mid game) and it was ok when Goodwin tried. I was still skeptical he could be a quality permanent key forward after the West Coast game. Even now I'm not totally sold, but the evidence is mounting. I'm not sure even McDonald thought he could be a quality key forward tall a month ago. Anyway, enough. You're boring.

I tried to post this one, but it said the file was too big. Being a luddite it became too hard.

"I'm still not convinced Tom will be able to keep up his strong performances in the forward-line, but I'm a lot more open-minded than I was 3 weeks ago. I'd be silly to ignore the evidence."

Some more from the net:

OK, this is what I said,: "There is, of course, the question of what to do with the McDonalds and Frost if we were lucky enough to recruit Lever. My guess is that Frost would be traded. Oscar is developing well and at 197cms he has a tonne of physical development left. Splitting up the brothers is also problematic." This comment was made before Tom McDonald morphed into Peter Hudson on the weekend, where balls mysteriously landed in his hands in marking contests and he slotted goals that were once beyond his pay grade. To me, there wasn't much point securing Lever and retaining the aforementioned players when we also have the 191cm high leaping Joel Smith, who is also thereabouts. Has the weekend changed my views ? Yes, to an extent. Imo, Oscar and Frost have both been better without Tom down back with them. I don't like all three in the backline together due to their kicking skills out of defence*, plus, we now have enough evidence to suggest Oscar and Sam have grown without Tom. It's been win/win. I'm still not convinced Tom will be able to keep up his strong performances in the forward-line, but I'm a lot more open-minded than I was 3 weeks ago. I'd be silly to ignore the evidence. I agree with the need for outside speed and I agree the need for Lever is less than it was a month ago. But gee, Lever will be a star. *There is kicking and there is kicking. Oscar and Frost are becoming reasonably reliable in that they usually hit easy targets, but there is no flair or creativity in their kicking and I still have concerns with them under pressure or their ability to hit a difficult kick that's required at the right time and moment.

It's not wrong and it's certainly not disrespectful. If Melbourne wants Lever, and we're reported to be very keen, list management requires most people on the list being discussed as potential trades. The club will be looking at TMac's best long-term position; whether OMac, TMac, and Frost work together in the same back-line; how to fit Lever into that mix; how the high leaping Joel Smith fits in; etc. They don't look in isolation and get offended when a name is mentioned as possible trade bait. They look at all the permutations and discuss what is the best eventual outcome as they take into account the current player mix. Also, this seems to be needed to be clarified, if you throw up a player's name as potential trade bait it doesn't 'necessarily' mean you don't rate that player as highly, or more highly, as someone who doesn't want said person traded. That may be difficult for some to understand. For me it's nothing personal. It's about making us better and closer to a flag.

If we don't have a defence of Tom, Oscar, Frost and Lever then I wouldn't trade Frost either. Remember, I posted before Tom morphed into Peter Hudson.

Jockey Goody Petracca 5 - Murphy 4 5 Oliver - 4 TMac 2 3 Curnow 3 2 Kreuzer 1 Jetta 1

So you prefer this: (also stolen)

Goodwin was effusive about Oliver in his presser, so I'd be amazed if he didn't give Oliver the 4. Either coach would find it hard to ignore Tom McDonald's 4 goals, so my other guess would be Petracca getting 5 from Bolton.

When one poses a question like this on a fan forum you're on a hiding to nothing, unless the forum's player is in the positive column. I think it's a fair question and the type of question supporters leaning on a bar after the game may discuss, ergo, it's thread worthy. That said, I'm also in the camp that says this question won't necessarily be answered until after their careers, which could be 12 years from now. Some supporters may think 4 or 5 years will provide the answer, but the safe bet is post career. Even nearly 9 years on from their draft day some people would say Naitanui should have been taken and others would argue Watts has been vindicated. In reality, there's still much to play out between those two. There is a view that Curnow slipped due to his off-field indiscretion, but my gut feel is that we always had Weideman as our main target. You don't draft a key tall on how good they'll be in year two, you draft a key forward on what they'll offer in year 6 and beyond. Weideman showed in that one quarter at Casey the talent he has. All that's missing is a body and experience. Both take time and we're in a position to give him that time. So, to answer your question, it's too early to say. Curnow looks great and there's no doubt he and Hogan together for a decade would be a prospect worth salivating. But that doesn't mean Weideman was the wrong call. At this point, there doesn't need to be an either/or.

Yeah, just saw the photo on the Foxfooty article re Jetta. Great article by Anna Harrington. I've liked a few of her articles.

Wasn't that Silvagni he outmarked ?

AFLCA Round 16 CARLTON v MELBOURNE 9 Marc Murphy (Carl)5 Charlie Curnow (Carl)5 Tom McDonald (Melb)5 Christian Petracca (Melb)4 Clayton Oliver (Melb)1 Matthew Kreuzer (Carl)1 Neville Jetta (Melb)

I thought he was you for a minute.

As my Brother said yesterday, he's always had this ability to get the ball. We've often not wanted him to get the ball so often due to his back half turnovers, but in the forward-line it's a different story.