View Full Version : Willi v Frankston
bradrowe#32
13 May 2007, 16:12
RESERVES
Williamstown 3.3 8.5 10.9 14.13 (97)
Frankston 6.3 9.8 13.12 15.17 (107)
GOALS:
Williamstown: Stretton 4 Clark 2 Lyons Toulmin Boyd Hedditch MacAffer Beaumont Weir Darvell
Frankston: Whelan 2 Dickson 2 Clark 2 Luxa 2 Shinners 2 Barker Bosward Beaton O'Carroll Rafferty
BEST:
Williamstown: Miller Lyons Stretton Toulmin Chiu Beaumont
Frankston: Shinners George Luxa Beaton Stanley Ulms
REPORTED PLAYERS:
Williamstown: Nil
Frankston: Nil
SENIORS
Second quarter score:
Williamstown 2.5 8.9 . .
Frankston 2.7 3.10 . .
campbell023
13 May 2007, 17:28
Updates?
We were 40 or so points in front at three quarter time, so I presume we won.
Will wait for some Willi watchers to fill us in on our boys.
2007 TRUenergy VFL Seniors
Williamstown 2.5 8.9 14.11 19.17 (131)
Frankston 2.7 3.10 5.13 8.18 (66)
GOALS:
Williamstown: Williams 8 Limbach 4 Rose 2 Reid 2 Johnson 2 Greene
Frankston: Dore 4 Conroy Berry Clarke Winterton
BEST:
Williamstown: Goldsack Stanley Cook Proctor Williams Davis
Frankston: Conroy Dore Oliver Winterton Pollard Eames
REPORTED PLAYERS:
Williamstown: Nil
Frankston: Nil
Danny Stanley getting amongst it. Lets hope he starts to turn it on. Goldsack will debut this week coming IMO
We were 40 or so points in front at three quarter time, so I presume we won.
Will wait for some Willi watchers to fill us in on our boys.
only saw the first half but reid presented well and kicked a few and brown and stanley did some nice things down back. leon going ok, egan not much,richards was doing quite well and goldsack is going to be a player very good
No neither did Shannon Cox according to the results website.
bradrowe#32
13 May 2007, 19:03
I'd like to see Goldsack, Cook and Stanley get a run in the 1's. I'd prefer them to Nicholls at this stage.
Agree with Goldsack and Cook not Stanners yet. Goldy and Cooky have put in solid games for the last 2 - 4 weeks. Stanley hasn't been this consistent yet but definitely think Cook and Goldsack should get a run.
GeneralDisarray
13 May 2007, 19:32
Bring on the sack of gold!
No neither did Shannon Cox according to the results website.
The team named had 14 Collingwood players in it, and against Frankston who are stand alone you are only able to play 12 I think. So obviously Medhurst and Cox were left out instead of Nicholls and Cox on the bench. Both must have been carrying niggles, Medhurst still may be recovering from the ankle, and they may have thought it was a good time to give Cox a rest.
It would be very nice to eventually get Medders up and running.
Hopefully Stanley takes something out of this week and keeps working hard
Snoop Dog
13 May 2007, 20:24
Cook needs to be more consistent. The games I have watched I would not have thought he is close.
Think Mick alluded to the guys he is looking at yesterday - Goldy, Wellingham and Nicholls. Nicholls will be good.
Yep I don't think it's all doom and gloom for Nicholls. The only player I'm writing off at this stage is Davies and he could easily come into the side and do something.
Lonie_from_50
13 May 2007, 21:21
Goldsack, what a gun.
Too bad, Wakes and Nicky were very solid in defence when it mattered, as was Heath Shaw.
bradrowe#32
13 May 2007, 22:03
Yep I don't think it's all doom and gloom for Nicholls. The only player I'm writing off at this stage is Davies and he could easily come into the side and do something.
Agreed. Makes you wonder - and it's still very early in the season - who will be moved on at the end of the year. I can see a fair bit of potential in most of the players in the VFL.
Agree with Goldsack and Cook not Stanners yet. Goldy and Cooky have put in solid games for the last 2 - 4 weeks. Stanley hasn't been this consistent yet but definitely think Cook and Goldsack should get a run.
the thing with goldsack and stanley is that they are both ready physically.stanley is very solid and he is not slow
The Royal Sampler
13 May 2007, 22:27
Go Stanners! :thumbsu:
Goldsack will surely get a look in soon, although the Dogs lack tall forwards. Keep it up Tyson. :)
Medstar
13 May 2007, 22:37
Good to hear stanley had a good game but when i have seen him play ive noticed he has poor footskills and you need to use it well if you play down back.
bucksisbest
13 May 2007, 23:48
Goldsack exceptional , dominated for 3 quarters as a key back , then went on to a wing and just strolled through traffic and won ball at will.
Cook was played as a back flanker and looked good , attacked it well and very quick and direct on the rebound.
Stanley also played back flank/wing and looked to be moving better , won plenty only criticism was some errant footpassing.
Reid led up to the ball well , took some nice marks and contested well , it's just building up the body with him.
Clarke was good , dominant last quarter and contested well all day. Still some silly mistakes but his run and endeavour was first class.
Nicholls was good , tenacious full of run , nice left boot.
Wellingham was OK.
Egan was reasonable , Davis quite good , pretty much what you'd expect from them without dominating.
Brown was solid , still think he doesn't look to be sufficiently aerobically fit,for him to lift it a notch.
Davies was just OK did nothing to raise the eyebrows.
I've forgotten 2 it seems... who presently escape me.
Medhurst and Cox didn't play.
Timmy from Thomastown
14 May 2007, 10:01
Goldsack exceptional , dominated for 3 quarters as a key back , then went on to a wing and just strolled through traffic and won ball at will..
He sounds like a taller, more defensive version of Pendlebury. I'm very excited.
It also means the that Lonie's days at Collingwood are numbered.
Magnus the Magpie
14 May 2007, 10:09
Yep I don't think it's all doom and gloom for Nicholls. The only player I'm writing off at this stage is Davies and he could easily come into the side and do something.
Can anyone tell us a bit more on Davies?- I noticed the papers had him BoG last week. The bit I've seen of him in the Ones, I've liked: has size, reasonable pace and seems to get a fair bit of the footy. What is the downside to him that I've missed?
Time to have a look at The Sack in the big time.
Magnus, his kicking really lets him down. He is an outside mid with poor kicking. He is physical and brave enough to be a more inside onballer IMO but he is poor at getting it the ball and giving a handball off in traffic. He doesn't have great defensive skills either and isn't very accountable. I think we should've turned him into a tagger.
If he does get the chop, he'd be one of the best "auto-delistings" we've had for a while.
Timmy from Thomastown
14 May 2007, 11:19
The ball's in Stanley's court. If he keeps getting amongst the best in the VFL he should avoid the chop, almost irrespective of how relaible his kicking is. He and Cook started the season with the most to prove, and while its early days yet, its good to see they are getting named amongst the best on ground.
The Royal Sampler
14 May 2007, 12:43
He sounds like a taller, more defensive version of Pendlebury. I'm very excited.
It also means the that Lonie's days at Collingwood are numbered.
Like I said a few rounds ago, trade him to Richmond. They can always use players with exceptional kicking skills who also happen to be soft as butter. And they should have an extra draft pick this year too on current performances.
ChipDouglas
14 May 2007, 12:56
The ball's in Stanley's court. If he keeps getting amongst the best in the VFL he should avoid the chop, almost irrespective of how relaible his kicking is. He and Cook started the season with the most to prove, and while its early days yet, its good to see they are getting named amongst the best on ground.
Why do people think Stanley is a canidate to get the chop? He was taken as a bottom age player and could have played another year of TAC cup. I haven't heard anything out of the club that says they're disappointed in his development, infact he's being mentioned in dispatches about being a senior player by our coach, and I think he'd have a better idea than impatient web jockies.
Stanley gets a 3rd year at the club if he gets in the top 6 or so for Willy a couple more times as he could potentially fill a few holes for us as a senior player as an inside mid or a tough back pocket player.
The Royal Sampler
14 May 2007, 13:19
Why do people think Stanley is a canidate to get the chop? He was taken as a bottom age player and could have played another year of TAC cup. I haven't heard anything out of the club that says they're disappointed in his development, infact he's being mentioned in dispatches about being a senior player by our coach, and I think he'd have a better idea than impatient web jockies.
He was touted as being the most "AFL ready" of our draftees because of his body, which possibly got a few expectations up. However you're only given a two year contract, so regardless of how young you are at drafting age, if you don't show something you'll be moved on. Such is life in the big league.
ChipDouglas
14 May 2007, 13:34
He was touted as being the most "AFL ready" of our draftees because of his body, which possibly got a few expectations up. However you're only given a two year contract, so regardless of how young you are at drafting age, if you don't show something you'll be moved on. Such is life in the big league.
Yes he had a strong body but that doesn't entitle you to a senior game. Supporters see this strong kid and think he should be dominating. It's no secret that whilst he is big enough to play AFL his skills are, at this early stage, not up to standard. We are pouring millions now into player development and I'm sure our development coaches can bring his skills up to the necessay level required, It won't happen over night but it will happen.
The Royal Sampler
14 May 2007, 14:31
It needs to show serious signs of happening soon, or his contract won't be extended.
Timmy from Thomastown
14 May 2007, 15:01
Yes he had a strong body but that doesn't entitle you to a senior game. .
It entitles you to a senior game in the VFL. Last year he could barely manage that. If he plays more games like he apparently did last week, then great, he'll get another year. If not he might be unlucky, ike Yakka was last year.
I’d rather chop the likes of Davies and Iles who I can’t see be top end than Stanley but right now they might very well all go along with Richards and perhaps 1 or 2 more depending how many retire and how many rookies get listed.
Timmy from Thomastown
14 May 2007, 15:20
Possibly. A lot of it depends whether Buckley and Burns front up for another year and whether we need to promote any rookies. Nicholls is our only second year rookie and whether his form is enough for permanant promotion is yet to be seen. Wellingham's looking good, although we could keep him on the rookie list for another season before promotion
Six would be the minimum to go.
At the moment I see Buckley Richards Wakelin Lonie and Davies going and no rookie promotions. That leaves one more delisting - two if Buckley plays on - so one or two of the younger players may go - Iles, Cook, and Stanley etc. Theres not a proven dud among them, so for the first time in many years, delisting players will be a very difficult exercise.
Coin_Toss
14 May 2007, 15:26
Stanley should be busting open packs. I saw him 2 weeks ago and he was staying back getting the "cheap" kicks. In his defence, he was never going to come on and make an impact last year, despite suggestions of him being "ready made" and so fourth.
Tyson Goldsack is AFL material. The sooner we play him, the better.
How was Scott Meyer?
It entitles you to a senior game in the VFL. Last year he could barely manage that. If he plays more games like he apparently did last week, then great, he'll get another year. If not he might be unlucky, ike Yakka was last year.
he played the finals last year. i'm glad you are setting the agenda down there on who goes and who stays
Possibly. A lot of it depends whether Buckley and Burns front up for another year and whether we need to promote any rookies. Nicholls is our only second year rookie and whether his form is enough for permanant promotion is yet to be seen. Wellingham's looking good, although we could keep him on the rookie list for another season before promotion
Six would be the minimum to go.
At the moment I see Buckley Richards Wakelin Lonie and Davies going and no rookie promotions. That leaves one more delisting - two if Buckley plays on - so one or two of the younger players may go - Iles, Cook, and Stanley etc. Theres not a proven dud among them, so for the first time in many years, delisting players will be a very difficult exercise.
richards cannot go if we have no replacement. insurance
Dale Didak #134
14 May 2007, 18:53
Richards has had his turn and has screwed around for seven years. Seven years. Besides, this years draft is full of ruckmen.
Timmy from Thomastown
14 May 2007, 19:06
richards cannot go if we have no replacement. insurance
Didnt seem to bother you this year when we started the season with only three rucks. We can trade for an established ruck - throw Lonie and Davis out as trade bait. And draft another.
Didnt seem to bother you this year when we started the season with only three rucks. We can trade for an established ruck - throw Lonie and Davis out as trade bait. And draft another.
you are getting rid of him that will only make 2 rucks.every other team with an established ruck are going drop every thing for those two.who are you looking at to come in. you wanted to keep cam cloke to waste a spot on the list, and as we all said he broke down again
Danny Stanley is coming along nicely, had a few niggles during the year but starting to hit his straps.
Wierd situation we're in atm. Got no duds down at Willi just a tonne of kids who at the moment can only be judged as having potential.
Bucks, Wakes, Licuria could be forced into retirement. Davies and Richards axe (although having 2 rucks would be rediculous). Maybe we bundle 2 guys together for a ruckmen-gets rid of a spot on our list and helps an area in need.
He sounds like a taller, more defensive version of Pendlebury. I'm very excited.
I'd actually liken him to a more midfield/flanker version of Matthew Scarlett. He is tall enough in time to become a fullback though IMO.
Tremendous desire to win the football at all costs, and positions himself intelligently.
Only concerns I've had thus far is his propensity to go for a run, which usually goes OK, but has got caught a few times. I don't think this is a Cole-esque problem, just early on in his adult career. He's a smart player and will learn.
His ability to play on smaller players, and with the Dogs small forward line in mind, I would drop Wakes and bring in Nuggets.
Timmy from Thomastown
15 May 2007, 10:15
you are getting rid of him that will only make 2 rucks.every other team with an established ruck are going drop every thing for those two.who are you looking at to come in. you wanted to keep cam cloke to waste a spot on the list, and as we all said he broke down again
We only have two rucks this year because Ricahrds is useless.
I wanted to keep Cloke, I agree, as a back-up. Clearly I was wrong because his shoulders were much worse than I thought. I didnt want to keep Cloke so much as wanted a fourth ruckman on the list, even a rookie. Cloke was just one option I thought we had, one the grounds that he was already at the club. He has the talent, but it seems he doesnt have the body.
Not sure who we'd trade for - it does not need to be a superstar, just somebody who can bash bodies. Hopefully we can draft and develop a superstar.
Not sure who we'd trade for - it does not need to be a superstar, just somebody who can bash bodies.
This has not worked for the likes of St Kilda or Carlton. we must learn from their mistakes.
Bryan my prove a reasonable foil for the time being, but utilise the spot on the list for an actual genuine young ruckman.
Trouble is though, young gun ruckmen are about as easy to pick as a broken nose. Flip a coing between Meesen or Woods in the '04 draft and one's a gun, the other is a possible delisting.
Timmy from Thomastown
15 May 2007, 11:20
This has not worked for the likes of St Kilda or Carlton. we must learn from their mistakes.
Agree, but for every StKilda and Carlton theres a Sydney picking up Jolly, Adelaide plucking Hudson from the VFL, Brisbane having a fantastic success record with almost everybody they draft, and a West Coast promoting Cox from the rookie list, and North devloping Hale and McIntosh.
We'd be better off trying than not trying.
Agree, but for every StKilda and Carlton theres a Sydney picking up Jolly, Adelaide plucking Hudson from the VFL, Brisbane having a fantastic success record with almost everybody they draft, and a West Coast promoting Cox from the rookie list, and North devloping Hale and McIntosh.
We'd be better off trying than not trying.
Hale and McIntosh were both top 10 selections. Hudson was a good pick up and we should do the same with perhaps a Scott Meyer. I don't know if there is a Jolly we can pick up, perhaps one of the young ruckmen playing for Adelaide or Brisbane.
Timmy from Thomastown
15 May 2007, 15:24
Hale and McIntosh were both top 10 selections. Hudson was a good pick up and we should do the same with perhaps a Scott Meyer. I don't know if there is a Jolly we can pick up, perhaps one of the young ruckmen playing for Adelaide or Brisbane.
We had two top ten selections plus a pick 20-odd this year that we chose to pass on the option of a ruckman, so its not as if we havent had the opportunity to do the same.
Re Meyer, I agree with you - should have done it this year on the rookie list. We may well find another club snap him up at the end of this season. The VFL's fast becoming a goldmine for recruiters!! Perhaps Gotch should drop him to the Willy 2's for the rest of the year!!!