binman

The worst commentator in the land. He bizarrely thinks he is a wordsmith but completely mangles words, phrases and sentences. Makes up words and expressions. Sometimes just grunts if some bit of play reinforces some idea he has. Extraordinary stuff for someone paid to make comments. The best i can say is he is consistent. When answering the question about why he thought Harmes' perfectly legal handball was illegal he mumbled something then said it 'correct indsiposal'. Sometimes his analysis is actually ok. But often not. Loved the gem in the first quarter after the GCs third goal. He reckoned we were well on top because of the win. I can see what he was trying to say. I think. But we were 2 goals down! Then in the third he was saying Oliver looked cooked and wow the dees were tiring. Just before we flicked the switch, looked the far fitter team and GC stopped like a train had them.

Agree. But not if they are not up to it. If not good enough to play they are not selected. Ever. Think Cook. We desperately needed a CHF. But we didn't ever pick him. Because he was not up to it. There is big difference between under performing and your contention that OMac has not a single strong attribute and is not up to AFL standard.

Apart from Hullet, Maynard or Keilty. ha Oh sorry they're not up to it. Can't pick a player who is not up to it. So ipso facto OMac is. Go Oscar. I've got your back.or By the by Pederson has played at CHB, is very strong and now mobile enough. Do you think they might play him back and drop o,mac for him when Gawn returns? No? Why not?

The implication being that the only reason he is selected is because of attrition. Sorry PD but that logic just doesn't hold up. It doesn't explain why he was selected all last season when we had both Dunn and garland fit and ready or why he was selected at the beginning of this year when we were not 'improvising in the ruck'. By your logic when Gawn is back we are no longer 'improvising in the ruck' he will get dropped. Which i doubt will be the case. I'm not the one selecting omac. The coaches are. They clearly have their reasons for doing so and i very much doubt it is simple an explanation as 'attrition'. Goodwin has nae it crystal clear that players not playing their role will not be selected. Full stop. So the evidence is also clear that OMac MUST be playing his role. For what its worth i agree we really need a quality back. May would do nicely. Though he won't replace Omac. Anyway don't quote me and i will brook no further comment about Omac or enter into any further debate about him.

The best since greg wells. What makes oliver so special is in addition to his ball winning ability (and pure 'want' to get it) he has, like williams, incredible vision and awareness of where his team mates are and an ability to hit them - and usually in a way that sets them up to attack. What a choice by taylor

Agree that garland would put him under pressure if fit but garland really struggles to play on talls. I see his flaws but get really frustrated at those who bag him whilst ignoring the fact that he gets selected. If he wasnt up to it is is ridiculous to suggest they would pick him just as a future prospect. And again the argument there is no one else does not hold water. A team pushing for finals does not carry a player who the coaching staff do not believe is up to it. If as bad as some say they would reorganise things just as they did when thwy dropped him. I would mention the option of bringing in keilty but some would argue he is not up to it yet. Which might be right. Bur tbat proves my point. They dont select players they dont think are up to it. I also get frustrated when his mistakes get used to confirm bias and good play gets ignored. Some got into him for brown and other key forward kicked bags. Yet those same posters give him zero credit for keeping the crows and gold coast twrrific power forwards in check. Cant have it both ways. He is a kid playing on monsters. Also no side has smashed us as reflected by our percentage. Surely the back six, including omac can take some credit for that And skuit i didagree about his spoling and ability to read the ball im flght. Last night on a couple occasions his spoling was excellent, particularly one running back with the flight that saved a vertaim mark and easy shot on goal.

No, your'e right. I didn't say he did. I just put the stat up. But they keep picking him. So it is safe to assume the coaches - and Goody in particular - pick him because they think he earns selection. And please lets forget the asinine 'because there is no one else line'. Just as you don't select a guy based on one percenters, you don't pick a guy who is not up to the job 'because there is no one else" So why do you think he keeps getting selected?

From http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2017-05-27/goodwin-praises-leaders-in-win: The Dees trailed by 30 points midway through the third quarter before completely dominating the final 50 minutes to run away 35-point victors. Goodwin said despite the big discrepancy, he was always confident his team would fight back. "We were really happy with the way we were playing in the first half, and that sounds a little strange, but we had 32 inside 50s," he said. Imagine if Goody was posting this on Demonland? As you say Nasher lets take him at his word. Why would he bother saying it if he thought it wasn't true. It wasn't even in response to a direct question about his view of our performance in the first half. Intensity was fine. The problem remains the same it has been for a long time. We turn the ball over way too often. Even Lewis seems to have caught the dees bug. Goody made the point about our kicking when he said: "I think our connection with our ball use changed in the second half and we found a way to impact the scoreboard, where early that wasn't the case.

OMac - eleven one percenters Tteam - next best six

Good result for us. Sydney are more likely to challenge us for top 8 and even though hawks are equal points with us their percentage is woeful - and of course we have a game in hand. I reckon there is real chance a team might make the finals with 12 wins and if so percentage will be absolutely critical as there is a chance that multiple sides will end the season on 12 wins.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/event-news/multiculturalround

.....in a helmet.

Why is ablett out? Currently doing a cavalcade at simmonds oval celebrating with fellow cats premiership team. Suss. Poor form from a skipper. Even if out should be helping his team mates prepare. Selfish bugger

Agree entirely. We will be simply too physical. The teams that beat us this year will be those who at a minimum can match out intensity at the ball. And i don't think the Suns can, even after rebounding from such a dismal performance against Port. They won't hurt as much in the rucking area although their height up forward might. I predict a 51 point win

Yes i know. It was an attempt at a joke. I just found it amusing he topped our list given the back and forth about him. I agree with your comments. To be honest ive never said he is a star, or even will be. But i reckon he is progressing ok and at this stage of his career is comparable to his brother at the same stage.

So what you're saying is these stats have some validity. Teflects well on omac i guess

Right about what? I posted the graphic to highlight what a great defender May is, this being a thread about May and all. Remarkably since the start of 2015 he has missed 11 games and the suns have lost them all. Critical player for them as are the other players at the top of team's lists. Some pretty good players at the top of those lists. Oh wait, i see what you're getting at. OMac tops ours Go figure.. Who would have thunk it? That Oliver lad seems to be pretty important also.

Backing that up is the article in the Age suggests they will explore neck strengthening exercises as preventative measure.

Honestly, you seem to have a significant problem with the English language, and in particular the meaning of words. Who said anything about bare minimums or minimum requirements? Until this post you did not mention anything about bare minimums or minimum requirements and nor did I. You challenged posters to give an example OMac's 'strong attributes'. Note you didn't say 'elite attributes', 'above average attributes' or anything similar. You used the phrase 'strong attributes'. Clearly he has a number of strong attributes. Otherwise he would not have been drafted by an AFL club, not would he be in the second year of an AFL career, playing regularly for a team that is on the improve and hoping to make finals. or for that matter a key player in back 6 that kept the premiership favorites - and highest scoring side in the league - to 10 odd goals on their home ground in near perfect conditions. I agree the qualities I listed as his 'strong points' are minimum requirements for a defender playing at this level. Strong attributes in other words. It makes no sense at all to suggest to he has no strong attributes. Plain silly. Similarly you stated he was not AFL standard. Despite the fact he is playing AFL and continues to get selected to play AFL senior football. And don't give me nonsense about not having other options. if he was not at AFL standard he would have been de-listed after his first season and if he had somehow avoided that fate would not be selected in the seniors this year. Again plain silly. Now to be clear i have not made similarly silly, black and white, definitive statements about OMac. He has a long way to go. We do need another defender and in particularly a really good defender like May or Lever. If we got one i believe (but will not state as fact as you seem so keen to do) he would remain in the team and be a very important tall running defender. But how about we agree to disagree and leave it there on the OMac topic. I think the one thing we can both agree on is we are not going to convince the other person our position is the correct one.

Surprise, surprise. A poster responds to your puerile offer of $10 to a poster to find 'one strong attribute that Oscar has to his game'. A poster responds with not one but two 'strong attributes' - one percenters (which is actually a goods stat in terms of assessing a players effort level) and endurance, which is an obvious strength of OMac. And you derisively reject both points. Classic case of confirmation bias if i ever saw one. OMac played well last week and was ok this week. And i watched both games. His effort, spoiling, ability to run back with the flight of the ball and not give away a free, his ability to play his part in a zone defense, his work ethic and his team first attitude are all strong attributes that Oscar brings to his game. You can give my $10 to Demonland.

Funny you should say that. I was speaking to my best mate today, who perhaps not coincedently is a big dees fan, and he said we are favourites, should be favourites, have made no changes and the oppo have made 5, they are coming off a six day break compared to our seven, we have a superior win loss record and percentage and have more talent. Ordinarily all reasons to be confident of a win. Unless you barrack for Melbourne.

He would have got us up to speed

Both of those examples you give were 'the game', so to speak. The cats game showed we could match it with the best and that were on the right path. That game gave us the chance to bury the ghost of 186 and saw the emergence of the best ruckman in the game. The hawks game confirmed that and gave us a chance of making the final. We showed we would no longer be bullied by them and came back, not once but twice, winning running away. As a nice bonus we sent the hawks into free-fall. It is worth noting we backed that win up, winning at a hostile AO against Port the following week (a game we were outsiders in). Both of these games are critical elements in our oft spoke of journey, as was last weeks epic win. Such games are indeed worth more than 4 points in the grand scheme of things. And we win our flag they will be referred to as key markers.

Weird