View Full Version : wallet in the hun
davo dog
26 Aug 2004, 11:28
our old mate wallet is up to his "whats best for me" antics again in his colum in the hun yesterday. he reckons that we should be playing crofty and garlo against the bummers and if dont we are more or less trying to lose. in this day and age of people getting slagged for conflict of interest i think wallet should be keeping his solarium face shut on this issue. wouldnt he blow in his pants if we won and his "belovered" tigers got 2 of the top 4 picks.
Ipaidmy200in89
26 Aug 2004, 11:49
our old mate wallet is up to his "whats best for me" antics again in his colum in the hun yesterday. he reckons that we should be playing crofty and garlo against the bummers and if dont we are more or less trying to lose. in this day and age of people getting slagged for conflict of interest i think wallet should be keeping his solarium face shut on this issue. wouldnt he blow in his pants if we won and his "belovered" tigers got 2 of the top 4 picks.
No doubt that was his motivation. I agree he should shut the F*** Up about the Bullies.
I think he has enough to concern himself with taking on the Richmond job.
He had his chance to coach us and influence our selection policy....What a deluded F***. If this game was being played at Whitten Oval and Rawlings, Daniel Gia, Bob, Harris were all playing I might consider us a chance. But to suggest that not playing Crofty and Garlick sends a message to the footy world that we don't want to win is just plain stupid. We have won only one game a Telsra Dome this season. It just happened to be last week. Our record, the players out injured or suspended and Rhodes game plan will determine if we can win......not playing two guys who don't figure in the future of the club and nor should they regardless of the great service both have provided.
Wallet needs to focus on his own scum bag list and not suggest we are going to tank for priority selections.....that he wants for himself. Typical self servicing crap from a self centered P***k.
Not that I am upset about it at all.....
Goodfella
26 Aug 2004, 11:57
Would they also get him out of the Dogs polo in his photo as well!
davo dog
26 Aug 2004, 12:01
Would they also get him out of the Dogs polo in his photo as well!
just thinking the same thing yesterday.i reckon he sold all his doogies gear in the trading post after he felt "i cant take this list any further". wonder what he did with his swans gear?
Templeton31
26 Aug 2004, 12:28
I'm not a vindictive person and think its fine that Wallet decided to leave however this bit in an article about the Tiges in the Hun today made me laugh:
".......The Tigers are working with strategic planners, their priority being the budget for the football department.
"There's going to be restrictions on how many people he (Wallace) wants for financial reasons . . . we are going to be a very tight ship," Miller said.
"So who finally finishes up on the team is a little bit up in the air as we work out what we can afford and not afford."
I seem to remember when Terry walked out on us it was because of restrictions on footy dept. AND so he could get the perfect next job. Ha ha! good work tezza going to bottom of ladder Tiges with restrictions on who he can hire. no wonder he's picking up all our cast-offs (Armstrong, Rohde etc).
anyway not a vindictive person but made me laugh...... :D
Wallace's motives aside, Crofty is about the only one who could match it with Lloyd. I say, play him.
And Garlo. ;)
USER NAME
26 Aug 2004, 12:34
Wallace shouldn't really be making comments like that on Footscray players.. even though he doesn't officialy take on the Tiger job till Oct 1, it's not good form.
Davo loves his Tigers.
And templeton, Id say he'd still have a reasonably larger budget at Tigerland than at The Dogs.
BUT, the way he left the Dogs wasn't cool IMO, and I expect you guys to probably smash the Tigers next year... You have all the ammunition needed.
Ipaidmy200in89
26 Aug 2004, 12:42
Wallace shouldn't really be making comments like that on Footscray players.. even though he doesn't officialy take on the Tiger job till Oct 1, it's not good form.
Davo loves his Tigers.
And templeton, Id say he'd still have a reasonably larger budget at Tigerland than at The Dogs.
BUT, the way he left the Dogs wasn't cool IMO, and I expect you guys to probably smash the Tigers next year... You have all the ammunition needed.
Based on what? LOL. There wont be alot left for anyone else......he is on plenty....
Yeah. Fancy someone who is currently employed as a journo, writing an article stating that a bloke who kicked 5 and was one of the best on ground in a huge win should probably be playing.
DAMN HIM, DAMN HIM TO HELL.
BulldogMike
26 Aug 2004, 12:52
I'm not a vindictive person and think its fine that Wallet decided to leave however this bit in an article about the Tiges in the Hun today made me laugh:
".......The Tigers are working with strategic planners, their priority being the budget for the football department.
"There's going to be restrictions on how many people he (Wallace) wants for financial reasons . . . we are going to be a very tight ship," Miller said.
"So who finally finishes up on the team is a little bit up in the air as we work out what we can afford and not afford."
I seem to remember when Terry walked out on us it was because of restrictions on footy dept. AND so he could get the perfect next job. Ha ha! good work tezza going to bottom of ladder Tiges with restrictions on who he can hire. no wonder he's picking up all our cast-offs (Armstrong, Rohde etc).
anyway not a vindictive person but made me laugh...... :D
I had to laugh when Terry said he would be looking at guys like Rory Hilton to retain on his list. He excused him not being good enough for football by saying he has had injuries.I suppose if he knows little about his own list he shouldn't be telling us how to select our side.
Looks like Wallaces favourite sons will be Hilton,Blumfield and Marsh after all :rolleyes:
Borgsta
26 Aug 2004, 13:06
I dont want Croft or Garlick to play purely because I believe last week was the perfect way for both of them to bow out. They can look back on their last game in 5 years time and say "******** me what a great game". I doubt it will happen if they play this week.
Ipaidmy200in89
26 Aug 2004, 13:22
Yeah. Fancy someone who is currently employed as a journo, writing an article stating that a bloke who kicked 5 and was one of the best on ground in a huge win should probably be playing.
DAMN HIM, DAMN HIM TO HELL.
So you think he is the future of the club.....gee maybe extend his contract......
The point is Terry Wallace is not just a journo! He has a vested interest in the Bulldog winning this week.
He also has a vested interest in deflecting pressure from himself and Richmond by suggesting that we will be the next big thing if we get our selections right.
So look at the big picture and stopping being so naive .
davo dog
26 Aug 2004, 13:43
Wallace shouldn't really be making comments like that on Footscray players.. even though he doesn't officialy take on the Tiger job till Oct 1, it's not good form.
Davo loves his Tigers.
And templeton, Id say he'd still have a reasonably larger budget at Tigerland than at The Dogs.
BUT, the way he left the Dogs wasn't cool IMO, and I expect you guys to probably smash the Tigers next year... You have all the ammunition needed.
change ya "username" and then come on this forum "trolling".isnt that the pot calling the kettle black. tell all ya tigger cronies their bleating has got me banned from their board :D yellow pricks :(
So look at the big picture and stopping being so naive .
So how do you justify dropping (Croft has already said he'd play if needed) a player who was in the bests the week before?
I'm sorry, i like to win, and i don't really care if it's at the expense of the number 3 picks.
SonOfScray
26 Aug 2004, 14:19
Crofty was very lucky in that he got to go out on a massive high, pretty much the fairytale end. Last week was his last game and was built up as such, for him to get a call up this week would ruin all that.
Wallace loses a bit of credibility as a journalist with that rubbish, you can't write articles like that unless you are being objective and with him about to take the reigns at Richmond thats just about impossible IMO. He had his time at the Dogs and couldn't get us the ultimate success- I don't feel that he has much right to be telling us what do.
Ipaidmy200in89
26 Aug 2004, 14:22
So how do you justify dropping (Croft has already said he'd play if needed) a player who was in the bests the week before?
I'm sorry, i like to win, and i don't really care if it's at the expense of the number 3 picks.
He also did a lap of honour, in honour of his last game and retirement.
If you really think we will win because Croft is in the team then you are really over playing his importance.
Of course last Saturday night was great and he certainly done himself and the club proud. It was a great way to see out his senior footy life at the Bulldogs.
Will Minson played only 17 minutes because Croft was in the team. Make no mistake Croft played great but big Will is the future and he can hold his own at this level and will develop quicker playing ones and getting good ground time. You see how much Adam Cooney has developed in recent weeks with more game time. If Garlick not playing this week means Farren Ray plays then even better.
We want a team being developed to play meaningful roles in final series in the near future, not a team that is just competitive. Look beyond a win this week. What is right for the medium to long term future. Not just one or two individuals......
Will Minson played 17 minutes because of a strained muscle in his back, not because Croft was on the field.
I understand playing for the future, but i also understand playing the best 22.
I'm also not saying i want Croft to play this week. The memory of last week is very nice, but what i am saying is, if someone who's played brilliantly the week before puts their hand up to play this week, how do you justify not playing him, which is what i think Wallace is getting at.
Ipaidmy200in89
26 Aug 2004, 15:00
Will Minson played 17 minutes because of a strained muscle in his back, not because Croft was on the field.
I understand playing for the future, but i also understand playing the best 22.
I'm also not saying i want Croft to play this week. The memory of last week is very nice, but what i am saying is, if someone who's played brilliantly the week before puts their hand up to play this week, how do you justify not playing him, which is what i think Wallace is getting at.
The justification is it was his farewell match! The club hadn't played him for most of the year. The club made this clear........months ago.
Don't you think Wallace understands this. What really motivates Wallace to write about us.........
Do you think he wanted Richmond to win the last two games? Because that is what he is suggesting about us this weekend......
He is using our club to deflect attention from himself and the task he has at Richmond. Ask yourself why???
In respect to Crofts game on Saturday......it was great.....when was the last time he had an influence on a game like that for the Bulldogs in a winning side???
I don't know either........
Draft Pick
26 Aug 2004, 15:30
The ball won't come into the forward line as qick this week. Crofty would have it much harder. Fletcher is a bit more difficult than watt and urch.
Matty01
26 Aug 2004, 15:36
Wallace is full of $h|t end of story.
Wallace's have a different agenda, but the point he makes i can understand.
dumesny1
26 Aug 2004, 15:54
So how do you justify dropping (Croft has already said he'd play if needed) a player who was in the bests the week before?
I'm sorry, i like to win, and i don't really care if it's at the expense of the number 3 picks.
Croft and Garlick have been in the best players in the VFL nearly all year, should have been in the side quite a few weeks back.
Do you really think that the Bulldogs have been playing their best team?
These so called youth policies are a front to loosing games and gaining better draft picks. This week will be the test, if they are serious about winning Croft and Garlick will be playing, if not they will be in the stands.
Ipaidmy200in89
26 Aug 2004, 16:07
Wallace's have a different agenda, but the point he makes i can understand.
We will have to agree to disagree. The point he makes is not a valid one IMO. He is taking the whole Croft and Garlick playing last week out of context.....
They played not because they deserved a game, not because they are the future, not because they were in great form but only because the club decided to give them a farewell game.
Wallace is taken the opportunity to put the boot into us again. How dare he suggest we are going to do anything this week other than try to win......ps Croft/Garlick are not in our best 22.
Ipaidmy200in89
26 Aug 2004, 16:17
Croft and Garlick have been in the best players in the VFL nearly all year, should have been in the side quite a few weeks back.
Do you really think that the Bulldogs have been playing their best team?
These so called youth policies are a front to loosing games and gaining better draft picks. This week will be the test, if they are serious about winning Croft and Garlick will be playing, if not they will be in the stands.
Not in our best 22. You are seriously watching different guys go around than me.
Aquamarinejewel
26 Aug 2004, 20:37
Wallet does and says whatever is best for him, he wants to go out with a bang in the media. So nothing he says or does surprises me. I really think that solarium of his has fried his brain.
mighty_west
27 Aug 2004, 00:21
The fact of the matter is that Crofty and Garlo played their last games, last week in front of their HOME CROWD in the best send off possible, lap of honour all that sort of stuff END OF STORY.
Matthew and Simon, thanks for the memories....................
as for Terry Wallace, you are a goose.
doggies40
27 Aug 2004, 00:32
I dont want Croft or Garlick to play purely because I believe last week was the perfect way for both of them to bow out. They can look back on their last game in 5 years time and say "******** me what a great game". I doubt it will happen if they play this week.
Exactly, we want to send of those two guys, especially crofty as hes a bulldog legend, off on a high. Who knows we could get thrashed and those two guys could get injured. That may be a stupid thing to say/think of, but id rather them not play this week and remember there fantastic games last week, i dont think htey could have had there last games any better than that.
dumesny1
27 Aug 2004, 00:42
Exactly, we want to send of those two guys, especially crofty as hes a bulldog legend
Great way to treat a legend, tell him after he plays 2 games he won't be picked for senior football again regardless of form.
Captain Sensible
27 Aug 2004, 00:51
Great way to treat a legend, tell him after he plays 2 games he won't be picked for senior football again regardless of form.
FFS its ONE GAME. Its not like were halfway through the season and we have everything to play for. For once the club has made a statement and are sticking by it. That doesnt happen very often.
dumesny1
27 Aug 2004, 00:58
FFS its ONE GAME. Its not like were halfway through the season and we have everything to play for. For once the club has made a statement and are sticking by it. That doesnt happen very often.
So you accept the fact that they may not be playing their best 22 this week?
John Gent
27 Aug 2004, 09:29
Croft's performance needs to be put into context. When he was running riot, both Archer and Colbert were off the field leaving Croft to be looked after by a kid playing his second or third game.
Whilst it was great to see a PAST champion go out with a bang, it was a one-off and no he is not in our best 22 anymore. And neither is Garlick.
If we wished to tank, there are many others who would be sitting in the stands.
And by the way, Wallet can go and get .......basically.
Ipaidmy200in89
27 Aug 2004, 09:47
So you accept the fact that they may not be playing their best 22 this week?
Run a poll. They are not considered to be in our best 22 by the club, by Big Footy posters or Bulldog supporters in general. End of Story. If you think they are then you have no cred with me......or others on this board....
wedesweiler
27 Aug 2004, 12:21
Croft and Garlick have been in the best players in the VFL nearly all year, should have been in the side quite a few weeks back.
Do you really think that the Bulldogs have been playing their best team?
These so called youth policies are a front to loosing games and gaining better draft picks. This week will be the test, if they are serious about winning Croft and Garlick will be playing, if not they will be in the stands.
Just how many Werribee games have you seen this year Mr Troll?
Borgsta
27 Aug 2004, 13:16
IPM200in89 i can understand your point but to say Croft isnt in our best 22 at the moment is ridiculous. Playing for the future and BEST 22 are 2 different things. With Rawlings, Murphy, Guido, Harris and a few others out, croft is easily in our best 22. We dont have a FF or a FB FFS and Croft could play both of those positions.
* However as I stated before i dont want him to play this week.