Sheahan's Comments [Archive]

jod23

21 Mar 2004, 20:59

This is what he said in the lift out season preview in the Sunday Times....

"Tough yeah ahead. Despite an honourable eighth last year, there are obvious deficiencies in the list. They are in trouble down the spine and have an unhealthy reliance on Matera for goals. The plus is a brilliant midfield. Will struggle to hold ground"

Ok ... so does this clown know anything about football at all???

Let's look at his main two bad points. We rely too much on Matera? That's like saying the Bombers rely too much on Lloyd or the Swans rely too much on Hall. He is our main goal scorer of course we rely on him!!

It aint unhealthy either seen as we got 30 odd from Sampi and a lot of goals from our midfield of Judd, Cuz, Kerr, Fletch and Embers. Not to mention the emergence of Doogs. We share the load. I see nothing unhealthy about it.

And his other point, trouble down the spine? What is he on about? Last year we had an aging and clearly past it McIntosh, we had the inconsistent Haynes at FF, not even really a FF and we had the out of his depth Jakovich at CHB. If anything we have improved our spine problems.

With Milli retired Glass has full reign on FB and is definitely a better option than the aging McIntosh. Lynch has almost arrived and gives us our best option at CHB since Jako about 4 years ago. McDougall is ready to rumble at FF and Johnson although a project looks the goods for CHF. Not to mention Gardiner at CHF with Cox shouldering most of the rucking duties.

Our spine problems, whilst still a concern, are way better this year than they were last. I swear to god Sheahan has no idea...

Clayton

21 Mar 2004, 21:12

The guys a tool, our spine is in better shape then last season & whats up with him thinking our midfield ( the best in the AFL mind you!) will struggle to hold ground:confused:

Black JuJu

21 Mar 2004, 21:36

jod23

21 Mar 2004, 22:27

Originally posted by Black JuJu
Well frankly, if your taking a pessimistic view of the season ahead for the Eagles - Mike is pretty much bang on.

While it's always nice to hear good things about the unproven, untested and essentially unknown young players in contention for a role in the key positions it shouldn't be a given and if it's what the guy honestly thinks, his opinion is not completely without base.

You can defend the reliance on Matera to kick goals but everyone here is also desperate for the young KKP to stand up so we DON'T have to rely on Fido.

I think many of my fellow Eagles fans are jumping the gun and expecting too much for this coming year - perhaps I'm a pessimist but I don't put a whole lot of stock in Wizard cup performances. There is A LOT of work ahead and none of the weaknesses from last year have been solved just yet.

Yeah but as young and inexperienced Johnson, Lynch, Doogs and Glass are it certainly beats nobody, Jakovich, Haynes and McIntosh. We will struggle to hold ground? In the same article he says Brisbane are a cert for top 4 just because they have 12 home games?

I think Fortress Subi is better than the GABBA and we will win just as many homes games as they will. A few on the road and we are top 4. I just dont see how another year from Judd, Kerr, the emergence of Embers and Fletch and a full preseason behind Wirrpunda and Chick can make us hold ground? Not to mention the young talls that are putting there hands up.

Not sheahans comments but the article also says that "The retirement of McIntosh and departure of Haynes will hurt more than many think"

Im sorry but if McIntosh didnt retire and Haynes wasnt traded I would still pick Glass at FB before Milli and definitely Doogs at FF before Haynes. Dont know what these journos are on??

Kenny_01

21 Mar 2004, 22:40

Every team's supporters think that they will improve on last season (except maybe Lions' supporters). It all comes down to opinion about which teams will be more likely to improve. All you can really do is wait and see how things go after the season gets underway.

E2EK1EL

21 Mar 2004, 22:41

Read what he wrote about Hawthon and you know not to take this mans words seriously...

p.s: especially the Croad comment :P (What a joke)

coasting

21 Mar 2004, 22:56

Originally posted by E2EK1EL
Read what he wrote about Hawthon and you know not to take this mans words seriously...

p.s: especially the Croad comment :P (What a joke)

Agree that Sheahan is a tool. What did he say on Croad?

Mead

22 Mar 2004, 00:26

Originally posted by coasting
Agree that Sheahan is a tool. What did he say on Croad?

That the recruitment of the likes of Croad and Beamount would cover for the loss of Rawlings- iirc, also went on to say what a huge fan of Croad he was and that he had a big year ahead of him. :rolleyes: I would say that pretty much sums up Sheahan's knowledge on all things football.

Every supporter group has its optimists and its pessimists, but here's how I look at our chances this year.

- the midfield running game works. For 15 rounds we were one of the best 2 sides in the competition, we beat all the big teams, including very convincing demolitions of the likes of Port, Brisbane and Collingwood- Therefore doesn't it follow that on paper our best 22 is good enough to beat anybody at all?
So why should that be any different this year? I can't for the life of us see why anyone would tip us to be a chance drop down the ladder as BJJ has done before- if anything it'd be reasonable to expect that such a young midfield would improve? Certainly, I'm yet to hear any convincing argument as to why the likes of Cousins, Judd, Kerr, Fletcher and Embley are going to drop in production!

So, assertion one- West Coast's midfielders and ruck are the key to our gameplan. On the basis of last years results, it seems clear that if those midfielders remain fit and in form for the bulk of the season, we are comfortably a top 4 side. Isn't that entirely reasonable?

Okay, so far, thats the optimist's view. The other thing last year
showed was that we were very light on depth and key position players. If the midfielders or ruckman who were fundamental to our gameplan got injured, we found ourselves in the crap, because the backups couldn't play at the same high octane level, and, when playing sedentary football our kpps were exposed as not very good at all.

Chances are that at one point or another next year, we're going to have to deal with that situation. It'd be nice if Cuz, Gardie and Co could remain fit and in form for 22 games (and if they do, I'm off to buy my prelim final tickets), but sooner or later, we'll probably have to deal with an injury crisis of a similar scope to the one that hit us late last year.

When that happens, we're going to need to a.) have quality backup midfielders and ruckmen to pick up the slack, and b.) decent kpps who can keep us competitive when we aren't dominating out of the centre.

So, are we better, the same, or worse equipped to handle that injury crisis when it happens? In terms of the guys we used as kpps towards the end of last season, we've lost Haynes (decent, but not really kpp sized) McIntosh (very average last year) and Sierakowski (er.. .Good club man.)

The question is, do you think that McDougall, Johnson, Lynch, Glass, Gaspar and Staker are going to be better or worse than those guys last year? Obviously we can't be sure, but personally I've very confident that 3 or 4 of those guys will come up in a big way. They've all shown promise at one point or another, and the first three have played quality preseasons where they've shown an awful lot.

In terms of midfield depth, I would say the biggest difference is that Cox should be a much better player this year, which makes an enormous difference to the load on Gardiner's shoulders.

Due to a combination of Cox freeing up Gardiner, probable significant improvement from the young midfield, and a reasonably likelihood of a few kpp types making their mark, (even if only one of Doogs, Johnson and Lynch become a quality kpp, thats still one more than we had last year) I think even if we have a similar injury list to last year, its a reasonable call for us to advance about 3 places up the ladder, which would put us 3rd or 4th going into the finals.

thegur

22 Mar 2004, 04:55

Originally posted by Mead
assertion one- West Coast's midfielders and ruck are the key to our gameplan. On the basis of last years results, it seems clear that if those midfielders remain fit and in form for the bulk of the season, we are comfortably a top 4 side. Isn't that entirely reasonable?
.....

The question is, do you think that McDougall, Johnson, Lynch, Glass, Gaspar and Staker are going to be better or worse than those guys last year? Obviously we can't be sure, but personally I've very confident that 3 or 4 of those guys will come up in a big way. They've all shown promise at one point or another, and the first three have played quality preseasons where they've shown an awful lot.

These are obviously the two biggest questions ... Personally, we would have to be unlucky with injuries once again for our midfield to be hurt as badly as what it was at the end of last season. Embley, Fletcher and Gardiner all at the same time. Any team in the league would struggle when taking those roles out of their first team.

As stated by the board in general, and reiterated here, I think Cox will be better suited to handle the first ruck duties this season, and for back up in the midfield, well I suppose we can only hope that the likes of Chick (who was not at his peak last season) and some unprovens (Adkins, Selwood etc...) can take that next step.

Regardless of what I write in the next paragraph about our talls, the game is decided by our midfield. And that's not a bad thing, it's a good thing. Look at it this way, is there another group of 6 players in the league who if firing you would choose over our top 6 for the ability to win a game??? Would be an interesting argument ...

I too think that our spine will be better this year than last. It could not be much worse could it? Yes, McDougall has actually not returned much on his investment. Lynch went a whole season without playing a game. Staker is built like a flanker, Glass and Gaspar are still injured, Jako is playing CHF, Johnson has one handball to his credit for his career and Trent Carroll is still on our list ...

but when it comes down to it, at least a handful of those kids are commanding their spots in the team right now, and deserve to be their in Round.1 as opposed to being selected just to make up the numbers. That's the big difference to where we are now, to where we were Judge-era. When Antonowicz and the others all got their one senior game in Brisbane that year, it was not because they deserved it, it was because we had no one else. I fully believe though that McDougall, Lynch, Staker etc ... deserve their games. In the end it is not unreasonable to believe that virtually all those players will continue to improve throughout the season.

which brings me to the point, I can't see us doing any worse than last season, at the very least.

rant over

thegur

carlyp

22 Mar 2004, 09:18

I think we'll see a slight improvement. Where as last year we lost a few close games because oppositions held our midfield. In 2004, we will have the likes of Mcdougal and Staker, lynch and Johnson all who will be there to provide a marking contest and hold an opposition key forward and to fight hard when the midfield goes down.
We'll be right guys!

Streaker

22 Mar 2004, 11:23

The print media are a joke.

Todays West has this beautiful quote "Michael Collica got through the Perth and East Fremantle match without mishap."

The guy is shown on the tv as he limps off the ground with a hamstring injury and all reports on the electronic media say he has done his hammy yet The West were obviously watching the golf.

Anyone would think that WA was another world away.

Black Thunder

22 Mar 2004, 12:13

Most of what Sheehan says is pure tripe and it sounds more or less that this is the same.

I really can't see (barring major injury or complete loss of form) us doing any worse than last year.

Our spine was our problem last year, and i can't see this year being worse than last year.

Whilst guys like Judd, Kerr, Cousins, Fletcher, Embley, Gardiner, Cox, Wirrpunda, Hunter, Glass, MacDougall, Staker and co are all still young and are only going to get better (at least you'd think that).......

Mr Q

22 Mar 2004, 12:34

Originally posted by jod23
This is what he said in the lift out season preview in the Sunday Times....

"Tough yeah ahead. Despite an honourable eighth last year, there are obvious deficiencies in the list. They are in trouble down the spine and have an unhealthy reliance on Matera for goals. The plus is a brilliant midfield. Will struggle to hold ground"

Ok ... so does this clown know anything about football at all???

While I think its a bit downbeat, its got a kernel of truth to it.

Assume our spine is Glass/Carroll - Lynch - <midfielder> - Johnson - McDougall, well none of them are really proven at AFL level as yet (only Glass, Carroll and whoever we name in the center have any real experience worth talking about). So we could indeed have trouble down the spine.

The positive is that we have potential solutions, but until they come through we don't have anything. Of course if Cox can successfully hold down the ruck we can use Gardy as a KPP and that's a solid improvement already.

As for an unhealthy reliance on Matera, it was notable that our output did go down after Matera was out for a few weeks and had trouble getting back to his best late in the season. This is again tied into the KPP issue though - if McDougall and or Johnson (or some other KPP we haven't thought of yet) makes a fist of FF, Matera would be a bonus.

That said, I agree that our midfield is unlikely not to improve further (possibly Cuz excepted), our spine could not be worse than last year and there is no reason whatsoever to expect that we would slip down the table. I don't think eighth will be a struggle, but dramatic improvement may be. Sheehan would be well placed to remember it took 13 wins to make the eight last year, I think that's unlikely to repeat again in 2004.

stefoid

22 Mar 2004, 13:03

I dont know jack about West Coasts side, but Ill point out that 'not doing worse than last year' doesnt mean you wont drop down the ladder. Some other teams will improve.

steve_rat

22 Mar 2004, 14:06

Mike Sheahan is a victorian.. i think that explains his comments..

also.. did you read what he sad about richmond.. don't be suprised if they make a finals appearance.. what a joke. wooden spooners mate

Mr Q

22 Mar 2004, 14:38

Originally posted by stefoid
I dont know jack about West Coasts side, but Ill point out that 'not doing worse than last year' doesnt mean you wont drop down the ladder. Some other teams will improve.

13 wins will make the eight every year (OK so we got 12 and two draws). If we do as well in '04 as '03, we will make the finals. Since we finished eighth in '03, if we make the finals the minimum we can do is as well as last year.

Exeter

22 Mar 2004, 16:14

understudy

22 Mar 2004, 16:24

Originally posted by Exeter
Well put Mr Q. Particularly your first paragraph. I don't rate Sheehan but he has a point about our spine - its effectively untried at real footy and therefore is largely an unknown quantity. I think it will take most of the season for them to come up to speed which is why I'm not going to get too carried away with tipping runaway success for this year .

Next year however, I expect to be very different.

its easier to shot the messenger though hey.

:)

Coach Required

22 Mar 2004, 17:52

Originally posted by steve_rat
Mike Sheahan is a victorian.. i think that explains his comments..

also.. did you read what he sad about richmond.. don't be suprised if they make a finals appearance.. what a joke. wooden spooners mate

Richmonds best is good enough to make the eight, unfortunately our talls are fragile and get injured too often. Which exposes our lack of quality depth. Richmond to finish 8th to 12th

also Judd, Adkins,Braun, Johnson, Wirrapunda and Morrison are all actually from Victoria so whats your point? very stupid comment to make.

I wouldnt take what Mike Sheahan has to say serious anyway, he is usually proved wrong every year.

DanielKerr4

22 Mar 2004, 17:59

I think a few of us need to open our eyes. I wasn't happy with some things that Sheahan said, but he is correct on some too.

Our spine is possibly one of the worst in the AFL for experience and quality. For potential it could be the best. I think some of us need a reality check, we do rely on Fido, and we rely on him a lot. He kicked 60 goals last year and was our key forward, he was the one that the midfielders kicked to most when they weren't having a shot themselves. So we do have an unhealthy reliance on him.

We all say that Doogs and Johnno are going to step up, but from what i've seen from them in the pre-season matches they havent put in a match-winning performance. Doogs kicks his regulation 3 goals in the first quarter and gets one more kick for the rest of the game. Johnno doesn't do enough damage for a CHF, he wil kick one goal and that will be from crumbing. That said, we have Embers, Judd, Cuz, and Fletch to kick goals, and i think Gardi will spend a lot of time down there. So there are some positives.

Our defence, always leaky. Glassy isn't bad at all and will gain a lot of experience, Carroll isn't as bad as everyone says he is, but i wouldn't rely on him to stop the CHF from kicking goals. We don't have a player who can stop the small forwards, Collica used to be the best, but he has gone backwards in his development, Wirra isn't accountable enough and would rather go up the field instead. If you ask me, Humm will be the man this year to be the 'small-stopper', he's tough, rugged and courageous. IMO if there were a Best Player in the Pre-Season, Lynch would get it in a flash. By far he is the most improved and i think our defence looks stronger when he is in that CHB position.

Our midfield, doesn't need to be talked about. Top 3 in the league, we have attacking midfielders like Judd, Cuz and Embers, as well as defending midfielders like Kerr, Fletch and Chick. We are well set with one of the best 'back-up' ruckman in the league in big Coxy as well as the best ruckman in the league in Gardi.

Our depth isn't much to be desired im afraid. Outside our best 22 we don't have a lot at all. Adkins, Munro, Wooden, Chambers, Hansen, Green, Selwood, Beeck. They are similar players with the exception of Hansen and Beeck. Not enough depth there for me, so if we do get hit by a few injuries, like late last year, we may struggle. That said these players have glimpses of what it takes to be in our 22, but they just aren't consistent enough. I'm hoping that Sam Butler and Beau Waters can maybe get a few games this year, it would be good to get them on the park, but only if they are up to it. Haven't seen enough of McConnell to comment.

I think Staker, Lynch, Humm, and Sampi will all have big years. With passable years from McDougall, Johnson and Seaby.

These are just my opinions by the way. I know a fair bit of what i have said sounds negative but im always happy for your feedback.:)

Belgarion

22 Mar 2004, 19:10

I don't understand why we need to get all worked out about Mike Sheahan' opinion. He gets paid for his opinions and he mostly have very good ones and on the money.

I have read many of his articles and have seen him in Talking Footy when Channel 7 had the rights, and Foxtel in the last couple of years and the guy seems to me like a genuine lover of the game, and one of the most unbiased commentators (unlike for example Rohan Connelly from The Age).

As far as I know our KP players have potential, but that is not the same that they have arrived. Glass would be ok at FB but he's not a champion and doesn't seem to me that he could become one; and he's also injury prone.

Lynch, Johnson are largely untested and McDougall is still quite green. Gaspar seems to me the better of the lot but he's also injury prone.

In any case, I think it silly to worry about what a journo thinks. As the cliche goes, the proof is in the pudding, and time will tell if he's right or wrong and in what degree. By the way, I found with Mikek Sheahan that when he gets something wrong he has no problems in admitting it, unlike many others.

Belgarion

lil elvis

22 Mar 2004, 23:49

you will see the problems with the weagles when the bulldogs smash them in round 1

we have more chance of making the 8 then you pretty boys - who seem too keen for the girls!

Black JuJu

23 Mar 2004, 00:30

Originally posted by lil elvis
you will see the problems with the weagles when the bulldogs smash them in round 1

we have more chance of making the 8 then you pretty boys - who seem too keen for the girls!

Grant on Jacovich (sic) (http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=104572)

I think that pretty much sums up this quality bigfooty contributor.

coasting

23 Mar 2004, 00:44

Originally posted by lil elvis
you will see the problems with the weagles when the bulldogs smash them in round 1

we have more chance of making the 8 then you pretty boys - who seem too keen for the girls!

LMAO! NO< WE WILL SMASH U.

THE EAGLES OWN DOGGIES.

I AM FINISHED WITH YOUR AZZ.

thegur

23 Mar 2004, 01:18

Originally posted by DanielKerr4
we do rely on Fido, and we rely on him a lot. He kicked 60 goals last year and was our key forward, he was the one that the midfielders kicked to most when they weren't having a shot themselves. So we do have an unhealthy reliance on him.

What's the problem with having a small forwad who kicks that many goals? the reason he kicks so many goals is that he is very very tough to match-up on, and lets get this straight, as opposed to a lot of other small forwards who have kicked huge amounts of goals over single seasons, Fido has done it over numerous years, he is no flash in the pan and deserves to be treated as the consistent goal-kicking forward he is.

The reason why we dropped off towards the end of last season scoring-wise (remember for the first 16 weeks of the season it was OK to have Fido as our key forward because we were winning) was the production from the midfield fell off for various reasons. keep the production up and we keep winning.

Would we have won more games if we had of had a key position forward? Unlikely, the ball still has to get there in the first place. if memory serves me correctly we have the least amount of possesions per goal in the competition ...

i have faith in the forward structure.

rant over

thegur

jod23

23 Mar 2004, 04:44

Originally posted by Mr Q
While I think its a bit downbeat, its got a kernel of truth to it.

Assume our spine is Glass/Carroll - Lynch - <midfielder> - Johnson - McDougall, well none of them are really proven at AFL level as yet (only Glass, Carroll and whoever we name in the center have any real experience worth talking about). So we could indeed have trouble down the spine.

Yes but my point is that it cant be any worse than last year, in fact in can only get better. Jakovich played half the year below average at CHB. McIntosh was clearly a shadow of his former self at FB. We didnt really have a CHF, with Jako pinch hitting with some effect. Haynes was a makeshift FF who was patchy and we finally woke up and slotted in Doogs for the final 10 rounds or so.

So with McIntosh retired, Glass is now our FB. That's an improvement. McDougall's first full season as the spearhead over the patchy and not true KPP, Haynes. That's an improvement. Nobody at CHB to the emerging Lynch who was awesome in the preseason. That's an improvement. Jakovich at CHF was alright but now we have the younger Johnson who showed a bit in the preseason....not to mention Gardiner with the improvement of Cox. That's another improvement at CHF.

So yeah our spine is still young and inexperienced but I believe it is in way better shape than it was last year. And surely cant get any worse than our problems down the spine last season.... Yet it can get a whole lot better!

Originally posted by Mr Q
As for an unhealthy reliance on Matera, it was notable that our output did go down after Matera was out for a few weeks and had trouble getting back to his best late in the season. This is again tied into the KPP issue though - if McDougall and or Johnson (or some other KPP we haven't thought of yet) makes a fist of FF, Matera would be a bonus.

Take Lloyd out of Essendons forward line or Hall away from Sydney or Tredrea out or Ports lineup and you will get the same result as taking Matera away from WC. The only reason I can think of as to why Sheahan believes our reliance on goals from Matera is unhealthy compared to say the Bombers reliance on Lloyd is that Matera isnt a KPP.

Matera is our main goal scorer, KPP or not. So of course we rely on him much like the other 15 clubs rely on their main goalkicker. This comment from Sheahan was a cop out because he couldnt think of anything else bad to say.

We also have other goal kickers. We are a run and gun side which means a whole chunk of our goal scoring comes from our midfield. Cousins, Judd, Kerr, Fletcher and Embley kick a ton of goals each year. Add that to Matera, Jones and Sampi in the forward line and you have a good offensive side. Not to mention the possible move of Gardiner to CHF and the emergence of Johnson and Doogs.

I just think his comments were way off base.

jod23

23 Mar 2004, 05:03

Originally posted by DanielKerr4
I think a few of us need to open our eyes. I wasn't happy with some things that Sheahan said, but he is correct on some too.

Our spine is possibly one of the worst in the AFL for experience and quality. For potential it could be the best.

Im not denying that. But it was probably the worst last year too yet we still made the 8. This year it can only get better with a full year from McDougall and the possible DOMINATION :D from Lynch. If both only have so-so years that is still better than Haynes and the non-existant CHB we had last year? Same with Johnson at CHF. We had no CHF last year so anything from Johnson will be a plus. I just cant see how our spine problems can get any worse, only better.

Originally posted by DanielKerr4
I think some of us need a reality check, we do rely on Fido, and we rely on him a lot. He kicked 60 goals last year and was our key forward, he was the one that the midfielders kicked to most when they weren't having a shot themselves. So we do have an unhealthy reliance on him.

Dont need a reality check because I know we rely on Matera but it's no different than the other 15 clubs relying on there main goal scorer. If that was Matera first good season then sure relying on him this year would be a mistake but he has proven that he can do it year in and year out for about 5 years now. Nothing unhealthy about relying on your best goal scorer.

Is it also unhealthy to rely on good performances from Cousins and Gardiner? Of course not...it's healthy!!! Because every team relies on there best players. Someone please explain to me why it's unhealthy to rely on Matera??

Originally posted by DanielKerr4
We all say that Doogs and Johnno are going to step up, but from what i've seen from them in the pre-season matches they havent put in a match-winning performance. Doogs kicks his regulation 3 goals in the first quarter and gets one more kick for the rest of the game. Johnno doesn't do enough damage for a CHF, he wil kick one goal and that will be from crumbing.

Think about that though....If McDougall were to kick his regulation 3 goals in the first quarter and then does nothing that will leave him with a measly 66 goals for the year. Top 10 I would expect....That is actually a good thing!! Johnson doing anything at CHF is better than the no CHF's we had last year.

Im not saying these two will become stars overnight but they will give us more than we have had at either position in years. McDougall more so than Johnson.

vicki

23 Mar 2004, 10:17

Originally posted by Belgarion

By the way, I found with Mikek Sheahan that when he gets something wrong he has no problems in admitting it, unlike many others.

Belgarion

He admitted last night during On The Couch that his prediction that we would not make the eight may well "come back to bite him on the bum". Robert Walls questioned him as to why he did not have us in the eight.

WestCoastJonny

23 Mar 2004, 10:59

Originally posted by lil elvis
you will see the problems with the weagles when the bulldogs smash them in round 1

we have more chance of making the 8 then you pretty boys - who seem too keen for the girls!

lil elvis you are a retard. if you've got nothing to say eccept unrealistic digs on the coast then head back to the bulldogs low budget web page and talk crap with your doggie mates.

masai

23 Mar 2004, 11:44

Originally posted by vicki
He admitted last night during On The Couch that his prediction that we would not make the eight may well "come back to bite him on the bum". Robert Walls questioned him as to why he did not have us in the eight.

Yep watched that last night and Sheahan gave a similar answer to what he said in the quoted review, "good midfield, soft in the spine due to inexperience". I thought he was honest with his appraisal and is prepared to be proved wrong.

Note how Sheahan and Walls were both very sheepish with the selection of the Hawks to come 3rd, I think they are both retreating rapidly on that prediction.

WestCoastJonny

23 Mar 2004, 12:21

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr Q
[B]While I think its a bit downbeat, its got a kernel of truth to it.

Assume our spine is Glass/Carroll - Lynch - <midfielder> - Johnson - McDougall, well none of them are really proven at AFL level as yet (only Glass, Carroll and whoever we name in the center have any real experience worth talking about). So we could indeed have trouble down the spine.

Who is to say that Johnson can't do a Jonathon Brown and dominate at a young age. Another good example of this is Carey. While im not saying Johnson is going to be a 'Carey' he well could be. He's got what they had when they burst on the scene and that is sizes. He's MASSIVE

Streaker

23 Mar 2004, 12:35

Every year you have at least one player who takes the next step from being a player on the fringe to a dominant force. Last year it was Embley and the year before Judd. A couple of other minor players have shown promise and could make the next step, McDougall showed signs last year.

Johnson would have been close to getting a few games last year except he unfortunately broke his leg. I think he would have been up there with Doogs if he had have played those games late last year.

Lynch has shown that he is ready to take his opportunity and he isn't going to wait around in the WAFL this year. He seems to be totally commited to making CHB his and this would bode well with Woosha. I think that his commitment was questioned last year and he would have been devistated last year watching the likes of McIntosh and Seirakowski getting game time before himself.

5 weeks into the new season all of the so called experts will be jumping off of the Hawthorn bandwagon and riding the West Coast train to the finals.:p

zero

24 Mar 2004, 06:53

i havent read all three pages of this thread, but i think one thing many people miss when thinking about this years prospects is the comparison with last year. "our midfield is as good, and our KPP are better, hence we can reasonably look for a significant improvment in placing" thats not totally true, i think.

while i definitly see improvment this year, we dont just need to get better, we need to improve significantly more than the rest of the competition.

so for example, say gardy only plays 10 games, and cox and seabs dont have anywhere near the same impact as he had. say a year of looking at our gun midfield tear apart teams has meant that clever coaches have come up with ways to shut them down (there are a couple of quite clever coaches around, you know) say our spine shows good, but erratic improvement. combined with the fact that say 13 teams from last year improve, some dramatically, then you are realistically looking at dropping out of the eight, down into the next 4 spots.

i personally think this wont happen, but its not unrealistic