stevethemanjordan

Agree that those names once fit and in the side will make an obvious difference. Even though Petracca has never played a game at AFL level, his skill set and the fact he has now been in a full-time AFL environment for well over a year and has been able to rebuild his body for the rigours of AFL will be a big boost for the side. Hogan, Brayshaw, Petracca and Trengove fit and firing. They'll make a great deal of difference. Here's hoping we see them all in the side together as early as possible.

I'm getting de'ja' vu'

I repeat: Thanks for providing your definition of 'regular' starter. I'd say it would be at odds with almost everyone else's on this forum.

Nahhhhh.... That's an argument you just decided to make up in your head. Feel free to read over what I was 'arguing'.

I'm not entirely sure why you've entered the argument when it was another poster who chose to greatly exaggerate as a means to downplay a really inexperienced bulldogs outfit. Are you speaking on behalf of the the poster? They used the words 'better than a dozen' and 'regular starters'. You are the one trying to dig yourself out of a hole and you're now clutching at straws. Now tell me the total games played for all those players? And ask yourself again if you still think there are 'better than a dozen regular starters' in that list that played on Sunday? If your answer is still yes, then I refuse to continue because you're clearly an Eristic. Also, thanks for providing your definition of 'regular' starter. I'd say it would be at odds with almost everyone else's on this forum.

I'm sitting on the edge of my seat. Remember. You did use the words 'better than a dozen' and 'regular starters'. Cool.

'A few games' - Wiseblood 'Regular starters' - RM 'Aliens' - STMJ

Semantics?! haha. The poster said something that was complete [censored]! How the fark is me asking him to prove what he claimed arguing semantics!?

I'm not certain, but I think he may have said 'regular starters'. Not sure though.. Can you confirm?

Oh oh. Now you're in a hole... Name them? Andddd go.

Read ^^^ Would love to know what you think..

The humorous thing about this thread is the extremities in views about yesterday's game and Tom McDonald's game. There are those of us pointing directly at McDonald's weakness as a player and focusing on that, there are those who choose to rebut that point entirely because of the strengths he does possess as a player. Then you've got posters exaggerating the words of the critical posters, and conversely you've got the critical posters exaggerating the words of the defending posters. Right up until 'Ricky P' makes a really solid contribution: 'Like all guns, he (McDonald) doesn't give a [censored] about the NAB cup'. That one was particularly funny. Great job Ricky. Here's the truth. Tom McDonald possesses some traits that would be termed 'elite' for a key defender. His contested spoiling, marking and negating are generally top level. Generally. I'm almost certain every Melbourne supporter would agree with that. These are the areas of his game that he is recognised for in the wider AFL community and are the reason he is talked up as one of the most promising young key defenders in the competition. If everyone is on the same page with that information and in agreeance, why in the name of the lord do posters have a problem with other posters making the most valid of points on a day in which the point had to be made: The fact that McDonald contributed three goals to the opposition team due to basic kicking and decision making skills yesterday. Something which he is notoriously known for. Below average kicking and decision making skills. When a single member of your team gives three goals away along with other scoring opportunities due to direct turnovers I think it is absolutely fair that the microscope is pointed straight at him. Especially given the history he has with these particular weaknesses. I cannot for the life of me understand why so many choose to vehemently defend the bloke nor can I understand why posters who should rightly point these things out are lambasted for it. If we are serious about wanting to improve as a side, you simply cannot have a player in your team make these same errors over and over again unless you are playing at Hawthorn. That is not an exaggeration. It is the darn god truth. McDonald kicked a ball out on the full yesterday by trying to hit a target he should not be trying to hit. There were safer options for someone of his skill-level. These are things that he should know at his level of experience. If people are willing to argue against any of that, then you're literally insane. A kicking error here and there are absolutely forgivable. Salem, Harmes, Jones. These guys all made turnovers yesterday. But it's the regularity of these blunders that are genuinely worrying for McDonald. Not only that, what is equally as worrying is that he is seemingly unaware of this glaring weakness in his game. He could minimize so many of these turnovers by either giving off a handball to a player with a better kick or just generally going the safe option when he is kicking. That screams to me that he isn't very composed and struggles to think clearly when under pressure. None of this post is pot-shotting McDonald. It's fair and it's considered. It's just being honest. And again to be clear, the 'worry' is not these isolated incidents (although three goals gifted to the opposition from one player is pretty worrying), but it's McDonald's general career to date. He has not, and is not improving these areas. And that is [censored] worrying. There are others yes, and that also contributes to the 'worry'.

Would love to read the posters that wrote that, wow. That's full-on. I reckon you'll be searching the thread for a while though..

Lols. Extraordinary.

This post would make sense if it was about Jimmy from the under 12's 'who's been struggling with his kicking but it's okay because he's been part of a back six that have really had a tough time recently'.... Supporters are unreal. Let's not demand more from an AFL player who has below average kicking skills because he's had a tough time playing in the backline the last few years.

Or just look at the context of yesterday's game and demand more as a supporter. If we had beaten them by 50 points I'd be really pleased. If we had doubled their score in shots on goal but had kicked mostly points I'd still be happy. It'd be a sure sign that we're improving across the board. Look, you and your merry-men can continue to bask in the glory of a two goal win over a side missing fifteen senior players. I'd prefer to look at the broader context. Things like the way we applied ourselves from the start yesterday, the skill level of some of our players, the input of certain experienced players etc etc. Pre-season games are about signs. And yesterday wasn't a good sign. But continue to spin it into a positive. There's no point arguing with people who refuse to see a broader picture. I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. The excuses just keep coming, it's incredible. If we played the way we did yesterday against a bulldogs team who were almost at full strength like us, we would have been flogged. They had fifteen starting 22 players missing and we trailed for almost all three quarters and started terribly. We are judging our team by it's performance. And it was underwhelming to say the least.

There's no point. They won't understand the logical and balanced view you provide. A wins a win apparently and that's all that counts.

Cause it's demonland bro. There's even a thread going around at the moment celebrating our 'two nab challenge' wins. I like that you named 15 of the dogs starting 22 players who missed today, yet people still howl you down for pointing it out. Comedic really. Today again highlighted the weaknesses that have existed and haunted us for years. Lack of quality senior players and a lack of kicking skills and decision making skills all over the ground but in the backline especially. How many goals came from turnovers in our back-half?

However would you know that? And to what degree? If they were indeed nasty hits and he truly was hurting, why the fark would he continue playing when it's NAB challenge? If there was any discomfort or lingering pain he would have sat the rest of the game out like any other player during practice games. Clearly, neither injury was bad. Whether it's a decision against him, a goal conceded or a bump or 'hit', Garland loves to let the world know about it. End of discussion.

Nasty hits? Haha. They really can't have been that nasty. He reminds me of a soccer player sometimes the way he carries on after being 'hit'.

Clearly it's problematic. Whether you choose to defend Garland or not. The proof is in the pudding. A whole pre-season and it's the same story. Aren't you also sick of it? Having a back six who's common thread is an inability to hit targets and make good decisions often enough is hugely problematic if we want to see the club move forward. The idea is to improve the longer you play at AFL level but there are number of players in the 25+ age bracket who have either stalled or are going backwards. Can you tell me what Garland has offered over the past two games? Do you not expect and demand a higher level of football from someone like him? I even witnessed Roos having a go at him on the pine at one stage.

What on earth do you mean? Anyone can acknowledge his strengths, he is a really strong one-on-one defender and offers a lot from that perspective. However if you disagree with what anyone is saying about his skills and decision making, I think it's you that needs a wake up a call.

Something I wish we had addressed in the off-season. Kicking skills and decision making in general from our back-six. I will again go on record as saying Garland literally adds nothing to our back six currently. Today he offered nothing. Turned the ball over again, gave away free-kicks, he never spreads hard enough, wasn't nearly urgent enough, seemed to get what looked like a serious injury at least twice but within minutes was back to normal. He basically looks like a kid playing his first game such is the way he carries himself on-field. I honestly can't understand it. I'm baffled. Is there another excuse I'm missing as to why in both NAB challenge games he has been so incredibly underwhelming as a senior member of our back six? WTF. McDonald competes hard but has a limited skill-level. In disposal namely. It's [censored] awful. Lynden Dunn is another who just hasn't commanded the same presence since his stellar year at FB. I understand the club has prioritised adding talent and depth to the midfield but there are some other areas on our list that badly need addressing and our back-six have always been problematic in one way or another in my eyes. Next year it's absolutely paramount we add some class to this list. Players who are composed with ball in hand. We have gone all out on contested ball winning mids but we lack class and composure on every line. Garland, Dunn, McDonald, Frost, Pederson. I don't feel confident when any of them are taking a kick. That's nearly our entire Key position brigade. It's an enormous worry. Kicking should be a [censored] prerequisite for almost every player brought to the club in this age of football. Have Hawthorn not stamped that on every club's forehead for the last few years?!

Garland. Same farken story again haha. I think we'll know we've turned a corner when we start beating teams who have more than half of their starting 18 not playing. Until then, we'll continue to see the same Melbourne. Skll-set of our back six has got to be the worst in the league.

It was a long time ago. And it was for one year. Like many of our past and even present players, extremes in form fluctuation seems to be the norm. Which is why Nathan Jones is the only member of the 'past' who should hold his head high. The only one of any substance.