View Full Version : Bond and Lockwood to be kept
Macca19
20 Oct 2001, 21:33
Mark Williams stated today that both Shane Bond and Bowen Lockwood are required players at Port Adelaide and will not be delisted.....Mark is giving Bondy a chance to get over his injuries and win his place back in the side - ala Cockatoo Collins...while Bowen Lockwood it seems is going to be given one last chance
I hope for both their sakes they take this oppurtunity with two hands and turn their AFL careers around
Porthos
20 Oct 2001, 21:37
Hmm, ****. Well, I guess if Bond stays, players like Poulton and M. Stevens should remain nervous, eh.
I agree with keeping Lockwood. I don't believe he got a real chance to prove himself last season. I believe he is the best natural tall foward we have in the squad and I would love to see him get a real oppertunity to string a few games together next seaon.
As far as Bond goes, just like his brother he is injury prone. Even if he does have a good pre season there is no way he will go through the season injury free, just delist him now, he is no great loss.
Porthos
21 Oct 2001, 11:26
Well, he is a loss, because he's a bloody good back pocket player when he's fit. I reckon you've undervalued him with your assessment there.......but the question is, is he more valueable to us right now than keeping a Jared Poulton on the list?
If Port could say "Shane Bond will be fit to play 22 games next year", then I'd definitely want us to keep him.
Grave Danger
21 Oct 2001, 14:12
It's a pity they've moved the pre-season draft to December (I think it used to be in February), because the club could have made a final decision about keeping these players after putting them through a rigorous pre-season. Let's hope they have to pass some sort of medical/fitness test before Port settles on its final list.
The Doctor
21 Oct 2001, 14:24
Originally posted by Porthos
Well, he is a loss, because he's a bloody good back pocket player when he's fit. I reckon you've undervalued him with your assessment there.......but the question is, is he more valueable to us right now than keeping a Jared Poulton on the list?
If Port could say "Shane Bond will be fit to play 22 games next year", then I'd definitely want us to keep him.
what happened to Poulten this year? he looked a good player the previous year.
blackdiamond
21 Oct 2001, 15:46
Originally posted by Grave Danger
It's a pity they've moved the pre-season draft to December (I think it used to be in February), because the club could have made a final decision about keeping these players after putting them through a rigorous pre-season. Let's hope they have to pass some sort of medical/fitness test before Port settles on its final list.
Last season the Pre-Season draft was in December, previous to this it had always been in February.
I don't have a problem with the Pre-Season draft being in December. Most clubs would have started training again by mid November after having a six week break, by the time the Pre-Season draft comes up they should have formed a concrete opinion as to whether a player should be kept on the list or not. If you remember last year, Port had plenty of time before deciding on what the fate of Cockatoo-Collins would be.
Any player that Port think of looking at for the Pre-Season draft will no doubt be put through a medical/fitness test. With about 3 weeks between the National and Pre-Season draft this should give us plenty of time.
Porthos
21 Oct 2001, 20:14
I think that the combination of delaying the November draft, and bringing forward the February draft, is a major downside for young players trying to get on a list by training with a club
They've got about 3 weeks between drafts to try and convince a club that they're worth drafting/rookie listing...thats pretty poor.
And where did Poulton go? Pretty simple answer here.....someone had to make way for Wanganeen and Che Cockatoo-Collins being fit all year.
Originally posted by Porthos
Well, he is a loss, because he's a bloody good back pocket player when he's fit. I reckon you've undervalued him with your assessment there.......but the question is, is he more valueable to us right now than keeping a Jared Poulton on the list?
If Port could say "Shane Bond will be fit to play 22 games next year", then I'd definitely want us to keep him.
Porthos with the team list being so small these days, you can't afford to keep players who are always out because of injury. I can't remember the last time Bond strung 3-4 games together without doing a hamstring.
There is no doubt he was a good player in the early days but you cant go by what sort a player he was then you have to go by what sort of player he is now and no one knows because he hasn't played any sort of football for 2 good seasons. If Port can let Flash go then I can't see any reason why they would keep Shane Bond.
Tredders#16
22 Oct 2001, 14:48
Originally posted by carb70
If Port can let Flash go then I can't see any reason why they would keep Shane Bond.
I'm tipping there may be some differing circumstances in these two cases.
powerboi
22 Oct 2001, 15:14
Sentimentality is all very nice but a good coach has to make the hard decisions and cut out the driftwood! Mark Williams needs to toughen up. Bond definitely has to go - his time is up. As for Lockwood - I feel for him, but the idea of someone recovering 100% from back injuries and throwing themselves into contests again with the same level of fearlessness - I can't see it happening. I hope he'll prove me wrong.