View Full Version : Do we regret the loss of Hudson, Welsh & Mattner in one week ??
After 10 rounds these three former players seem to be thriving at their new clubs, Welsh is still kicking goals & enjoying playing as a number two target to B Johnson while Hudson is having a good season as the doggies main ruckman.
One of my fav players in Marty Mattner would be high on the Swans top ten for their B & F award & every time i see him play i say to myself why oh why did we let him go with out so much as a whimper ?
Still believe we could have done a bit more to hold onto Hudson but i guess in the end the guy just wanted out.
The upside to losing these three is that it has opened the door for others to show their talent but jeez why Marty Mattner !!!!
marty mattner and welsh yes, havent got a nice thing to say about hudson though
The Crows Truth
3 Jun 2008, 13:32
we could use the hardness and tackling ability of each of these guys right now
Mattner? Probably, although Symes has been a pretty decent pick up and should do well in the longterm.
Welsh? Not really, has allowed us to experiment more with our forward line which I've been impressed with (until the last couple of weeks).
Hudson? No way, Griff has been playing well enough. He is starting to look a little tired now which is perfect because Maric is in now and playing really well.
We're 7-3 in a year that we were supposed to be competitive but struggle to win games.
I don't regret anything.
Rave Slave
3 Jun 2008, 13:57
I'd take Mattner back in a heartbeat but I hope the guy destroys it.
Welsh and Hudson can sit on it.
Capitalist
3 Jun 2008, 13:57
Noddy - its your worst thread ever - Its only worth posting on so I can ask the mods to delete.
IddyBiddy
3 Jun 2008, 14:02
We're 7-3 in a year that we were supposed to be competitive but struggle to win games.
I don't regret anything.
Agree. Also, the club is looking long term. We have some great prospects on our list at the moment. Most people on this board were expecting us to struggle this year, as of now we have surpassed all genuine expectations. What that has done has made us susceptible to once again believing we are one or two players away from being a premiership force again. To regret the loss of those three players is essentially to live in a false economy of hope.
Mattner for Symes is the only semi dubious decision, but we are not comparing like for like here.
Hudson wanted to go home to Melbourne. He put an unreasonable deal to the Crows to facilitate that move. So while I lament his loss - I certainly don't regret his loss as he didn't really want to stay.
Welsh - no - it was time for our forward line to move on and consistency of physical performance and mental application is always an issue for Scott while he is in a comfort zone.
Mattner - this is one of those situations that I hope Craig explains in his memoirs at some stage. I really don't understand what happened to Marty. I would have prefered he stayed. It's interesting to note that Sydney are playing him in essentially the same role as we were last year (rebounding half back). I see a fair bit of Sydney....and while he is getting plenty of the ball....his awareness and use hasn't improved all that much.
Sparno17
3 Jun 2008, 14:11
Hudson wanted to go home to Melbourne. He put an unreasonable deal to the Crows to facilitate that move. So while I lament his loss - I certainly don't regret his loss as he didn't really want to stay.
Welsh - no - it was time for our forward line to move on and consistency of physical performance and mental application is always an issue for Scott while he is in a comfort zone.
Mattner - this is one of those situations that I hope Craig explains in his memoirs at some stage. I really don't understand what happened to Marty. I would have prefered he stayed. It's interesting to note that Sydney are playing him in essentially the same role as we were last year (rebounding half back). I see a fair bit of Sydney....and while he is getting plenty of the ball....his awareness and use hasn't improved all that much.
I share you views almost to a tee.
The only thing that makes the mattner deal barable is the acquisition of symes. Symes is in our best 22 and seemed to be improving weekly. He can pay a number of roles for us, including midfield support. Symes will be no worse of a player than mattner with everychance of surpassing him if we were to compare apples with oranges. A neutral decision thus far
The time to judge these decisions is 2010 (Hudson and possibly Mattner) and 2009 (Welsh), not this week.
That's because Hudson wanted a 3 year deal but was offered 2; Mattner got 3 years from the Swans (not sure how much the Crows were willing to give him); and Welsh wanted 2 but was offered 1+1.
IF Hudson is playing better than Griffin, Maric, Tippett and Tommy Porridge in 2010, then in hindsight it was the wrong decision. Somehow, I doubt it.
IF Welsh would definitively command a forward spot in the middle of some combination of Walker, Tippett, Sellar, Hentschel, Burton, Porplyzia, Goodwin next year, then maybe it was the wrong decision.
Marty's a harder one to judge - he's still one of my favourite players.
Freddy Bassett
3 Jun 2008, 14:34
Im surprised by some of the responses on this thread by people calling for Bassett and Edwards heads saying they would have the four back in a flash... If those four were still here then you can bet your bottom dollar McKay, Symes, Griffin, Douglas, Vince wouldnt of had the same oppurtunities as they have had.
Right now, at 7-3, we are in a position to give the top 4 a real shake and because of that reason only, it would be nice to have them... But long term its the best thing that has happened to our club as we now have the oppurtunity to play these kids in big games and hopefully finals.
Vince Van Mackay
3 Jun 2008, 14:36
Im surprised by some of the responses on this thread by people calling for Bassett and Edwards heads saying they would have the four back in a flash... If those four were still here then you can bet your bottom dollar McKay, Symes, Griffin, Douglas, Vince wouldnt of had the same oppurtunities as they have had.
Right now, at 7-3, we are in a position to give the top 4 a real shake and because of that reason only, it would be nice to have them... But long term its the best thing that has happened to our club as we now have the oppurtunity to play these kids in big games and hopefully finals.
Agree, but there is only three.
Sounds like everyone's a winner. Welsh and Hudson have been just what the doctor ordered for the Bulldogs and Adelaide have filled their positions nicely.
Throughandthrough
3 Jun 2008, 14:40
ALikstair Clarkson described the Ben Hudson trade as the most important of the season, in his post match interview on Saturday.
So if you guys are happy he's gone, we'll call it a win win.
I think MD nailed this thread.
I don't give a half a ____. The team is better for it long and arguably short term. On Mattner - I deeply regret that NC made him a shit player in our side, but I don't regret trading him for a second.
cmndstab
3 Jun 2008, 14:52
Mattner for Symes is a fairly fair trade, Mattner is ahead of Symes but also older. Hudson for Moran is yet to be judged. I really liked Moran in the preseason but he's been injured since. If Moran turns out to be a handy defender then we'll have got a decent trade considering Huddo only has a few years left. Losing Welsh for nothing hurts, but if we claim that kicking out Perrie was pivotal in getting Aaron Kite then I guess Welsh leaving is every bit as responsible.
ALikstair Clarkson described the Ben Hudson trade as the most important of the season, in his post match interview on Saturday.
So if you guys are happy he's gone, we'll call it a win win.
Important to the Bulldogs - yes. Prior to pilfering Hudson from us at half price you would have had a chance of being their first ruck, and when you weren't available your missus could have been the 2nd ruck.
Important to the Crows - no. We have the luxury of 3 young ruckmen in Griffin, Maric and Tippett all developing well for the future at this level, who may not have got that opportunity if that ingrate Hudson had have stayed with the club that plucked him from obscurity and gave him the chance that no-one else would have.
ALikstair Clarkson described the Ben Hudson trade as the most important of the season, in his post match interview on Saturday.
So if you guys are happy he's gone, we'll call it a win win.
Look, given the choice, of course we would have liked Hudson to stay but we have to look at the positives and that is his departure allows us to pump more game time into Griffin whom we are confident will develop into a good ruckman. Maybe not as hard and in-and-under as Hudson but one with more agility and better skills.
I'm still yet to be convinced by Symes. He gets plenty of the pill and is a pretty hard player but his disposal and decision-making leave a lot to be desired at times. I'm not so sure he's in our best 22 until he fixes up those deficiencies.
Capitalist
3 Jun 2008, 14:56
ALikstair Clarkson described the Ben Hudson trade as the most important of the season, in his post match interview on Saturday.
So if you guys are happy he's gone, we'll call it a win win.
oh heck I didn't realise that Clarkson was the guy who rating trades, I should have checked first :rolleyes:
cmndstab
3 Jun 2008, 14:59
I'm still yet to be convinced by Symes. He gets plenty of the pill and is a pretty hard player but his disposal and decision-making leave a lot to be desired at times. I'm not so sure he's in our best 22 until he fixes up those deficiencies.
You could have said the exact same thing about Mattner.
Throughandthrough
3 Jun 2008, 15:09
oh heck I didn't realise that Clarkson was the guy who rating trades, I should have checked first :rolleyes:
Possibly knows more about footy then you or I do.
You could have said the exact same thing about Mattner.
Mattner has issues with his decision-making but he has a terrific long kick (as opposed to Symes' short, loopy kicks which have next to no penetration). Mattner is also prone to complete and utter brain explosions which Symes has so far not demonstrated yet.
Sounds like everyone's a winner. Welsh and Hudson have been just what the doctor ordered for the Bulldogs and Adelaide have filled their positions nicely.
I agree with Butane.
Mattner has done well at Sydney, but Symes was going nicely until he got injured.
If Hudson had stayed, would Griffen or Maric be getting a game? The last time I looked Griffen was well ahead of Hudson in hit-outs and possessions.
If Welsh had stayed, would Tippett have played up forward? Although I still think Welsh is the player we miss.
I have been very happy with Mattner and it has been great to have him especially when you consider Malceski and Kennelly keep injuring themselves. It will be great to have all 3 fit and playing so they can all rotate through the midfield. Mattner is playing very well.
Though he does occasionally do stupid things like against Port Adelaide 2 weeks ago when he got a handpass from another player who was in a huge pack of Port players and dispite the fact that Mattner was only a couple of metres away from the nearly Port player he decided to stop and weigh his options. needless to say he was caught and i was left cursing at the tv.
Though overall his positives far outweigh his negatives.
James_37
3 Jun 2008, 15:44
Mattner for Symes is a fairly fair trade, Mattner is ahead of Symes but also older. Hudson for Moran is yet to be judged. I really liked Moran in the preseason but he's been injured since. If Moran turns out to be a handy defender then we'll have got a decent trade considering Huddo only has a few years left. Losing Welsh for nothing hurts, but if we claim that kicking out Perrie was pivotal in getting Aaron Kite then I guess Welsh leaving is every bit as responsible.
Thats all well and good mate, but the trade was effectively Meesen for Moran. For Hudson I think we got picks 30 and 38, which are Jacky and Cooke, we also gave away 43 in that deal.
cmndstab
3 Jun 2008, 15:56
Thats all well and good mate, but the trade was effectively Meesen for Moran. For Hudson I think we got picks 30 and 38, which are Jacky and Cooke, we also gave away 43 in that deal.
You're right of course, I always get the Meesen trade and the Hudson trade mixed up.
If Jacky turns out as good as Neil Craig seemed to think he would that will probably be a good trade. Otherwise...
Meanwhile, Meesen for Moran is a good trade in my opinion. Moran showed more in one preseason than Meesen did in his entire Crows stint.
needless to say he was caught and i was left cursing at the tv.
You'd better get used to cursing at the tv!
Don't get me wrong, I like Mattner. Overall he's good value. But when he gets it wrong he gets it wrong big time, and he'll cause you to curse like no other player.
It's a real pity, because if it wasn't for his major clangers, he'd be a great player. As it is, he will always leave you wondering when's he going to make a mess of things next.
Capitalist
3 Jun 2008, 16:13
Possibly knows more about footy then you or I do.
Possibly
Or he was looking at excuses to why his team lost ;)
James_37
3 Jun 2008, 16:14
You're right of course, I always get the Meesen trade and the Hudson trade mixed up.
If Jacky turns out as good as Neil Craig seemed to think he would that will probably be a good trade. Otherwise...
Meanwhile, Meesen for Moran is a good trade in my opinion. Moran showed more in one preseason than Meesen did in his entire Crows stint.
Yeah the Bullies did really well out of the Hudson trade IMO, they really screwed us over. One reason I really am not happy with Hudson is that he could have repaid us a favour by saying that if a deal wasn't done, he would consider staying at the crows or something, just in return for the faith we showed in him, that way we might have been able to get a decent deal. As for Welsh, well pissing off after the trade period was just low, although its probably not all his fault, surely the crows could have ensured he was signed before trade period.
Mattner was a shame that he left, but I can understand why and wish him the best. Do I miss them, probably not, because of all the exciting youngsters that have come in have really excited and the club needed that, it needed to move on from the Ayres era and I guess, with those three leaving and the other delistings, probably signalled that we had pretty much left that shadow.
Capitalist
3 Jun 2008, 16:23
I can't belive people still care, shit i watched a bit of the bullies game and completely forgot Hudson had played for us. Welsh was a bit of shame especially after friday night but I really can't see how we would be any better off with them in the team. The only thing they offer is a reason for this board to bitch and moan that we either traded them "undervalue" or if we kept them, they are holding up the youth policy.
I don't need any smartarse answers with smileys or whatever and i don't need stupid stat comparisions for the year because i really don't give a shit about the stats for this year. If we didn't do it this year it would have to be next (or the year after that) Imagine if we had to wait THAT long to see what we are now.
Mattner; sad to see a club player go, but in all fairness he was playing shit for us, he has found a niche with the Swans and good luck to him. We didn't lose anything except a potential F/S pickup.
Oh and Messen I couldn't give a rats toss about, ____ing cry baby has got what he deserves - more chance my arse.
Freddy Bassett
3 Jun 2008, 16:24
Agree, but there is only three.
Was thinking of Meesen aswell, but good observation VVM:D
johnnypanther
3 Jun 2008, 17:03
No regrets - IMO given the state of our list at the time and with the advent of the GC club, the couple of extra unexpected draft picks in hindsight were a blessing (providing the selected draftees succeed!). Furthermore, it enabled the club to give game time to the younger blokes such as Griffin,Tippett, Mackay etc).
Symes (or pick 28) for Mattner i'm ok with (although my personal preference in hindsight would be Marlon Motlop)- i see Symes as a long term depth player in the mould of Doughty & co.
Moran for Meesen - i'm comfortable with that now although Moran hasnt been able to get on the park yet - i still see him as a ruckman very capable around the ground. As for Meesen: well i rated him but so far seeing that he cant even break into Melbourne's side ahead of such illuminaries as Jarmar & Johnson suggests that i was wrong!
Welsh - i think that has enabled the club to try younger players and new structures up forward. Although we received no direct traded pick for him due to the last minute departure, one can argue that in effect we got the opportunity to use pick 71? with which we selected a bottom-ager in Aaron Kite - who i think has exceeded at this stage the expectations of him (particularly in view of the adverse comments about him by various of his former coaches etc)
Hudson - i had no problem with him leaving as i preferred to get more game time and look at the future with Griffin ,Maric & Tippett.
I do think we got dudded receiving only picks 33 & 38(upgraded from 43), unfortunately in the circumstances that probably was as good as we could do anyway other than losing him in the PSD for zilch.
However, in a stroke of good luck, it appears to me that as the draft turned out, we did not really lose on the Hudson deal because initially i believe most of us thought that we should receive a high 2nd round pick for him (around 22?). Now given that we rated Otten at 11 in the draft and Jacky at 12 but actually got them with picks 27 & 33 then even had we got the higher pick 22 or whatever for Hudson, we still would have used it to pick up Otten & Jacky (along with our normal pick). And in that case pick 43 may not have been upgraded to 38 in which case we may missed out on Cook if another club took him before our original 43 pick.
Have i confused you yet because i sure as hell have myself :D
showdownhero
3 Jun 2008, 17:20
I caught Roo in a vulnerable moment while he spent some time in Lincoln. He said that trying to know what Mattner was going to do with the ball was impossible. While he provided great dash from defence it was always very difficult to know what he was going to do with it. His natural instincts make him a too irregular. I wonder if the Swan's players agree, he still seems to turn it over a lot but 12 tackles a game from 1 player would be nice.
Stiffy_18
3 Jun 2008, 18:29
All 3 are very good players and while we haven't felt their loss so far this year, I still think that trading Marty wasn't a great move and that the picks we got for Hudson weren't enough.
With Burton out suspended we sure could use a Scott Welsh for the next couple of weeks.
On the positive side, departure of these 3 have opened up the door for other kids who have performed on a high level for us which in the long run will be more beneficial for us.
thebirdman 24
3 Jun 2008, 18:41
I'm still yet to be convinced by Symes. He gets plenty of the pill and is a pretty hard player but his disposal and decision-making leave a lot to be desired at times. I'm not so sure he's in our best 22 until he fixes up those deficiencies.
Disposal is not AFL standard, and i dont know if it can improve, its one of those things.
Disposal is not AFL standard, and i dont know if it can improve, its one of those things.
Chris Knights' disposal has improved heaps since he arrived at the Crows.
Freddy Bassett
3 Jun 2008, 18:59
Disposal is not AFL standard, and i dont know if it can improve, its one of those things.
Symes was fitting in well. He will be a good player for us.
of course losing those guys was bad for us.
we could use all three right now, and all three would walk into our starting line up.
what's worse is that we got jack all for them.
People lose sight how good a ruckman Hudson is; lets see if either of Griffen or Maric actually ever become better ruckman.
Clarkson is right, you don't just gift wrap a player like to someone; whilst we are doing ok, the doggies seem to be doing even better.
If Hudson had remained and Biglands hadn't done a knee again, would Griffin and Maric be playing this year? Huddo will be gone in a couple of years and our two will still be in the early part of their careers,and with a heap of games under their belts.
Synergy12
3 Jun 2008, 22:00
Do we regret the loss of Hudson, Welsh & Mattner in one week ??
No, I only regret losing Jason Torney.
CrowMagnum
4 Jun 2008, 01:11
Let's not kid ourselves, these 3 are all in the starting 18 of strong clubs and would be in our 18 if they were still with us. Of course we miss them, just like Richmond are missing Rodan and should be kicking themselves for giving him away.
There are lots of reasons why they left, and we could have done better if our club was any good at trading, which its not. Would we perform better this year with them in? yes we would.
Are we better off without them in the long term? Maybe, but we just don't know the answer to that yet.
Hudson wanted to go home to Melbourne. He put an unreasonable deal to the Crows to facilitate that move. So while I lament his loss - I certainly don't regret his loss as he didn't really want to stay.
Welsh - no - it was time for our forward line to move on and consistency of physical performance and mental application is always an issue for Scott while he is in a comfort zone.
Mattner - this is one of those situations that I hope Craig explains in his memoirs at some stage. I really don't understand what happened to Marty. I would have prefered he stayed. It's interesting to note that Sydney are playing him in essentially the same role as we were last year (rebounding half back). I see a fair bit of Sydney....and while he is getting plenty of the ball....his awareness and use hasn't improved all that much.
I disagree with Hudson and Welsh. Thats the reason why the Bulldogs are so much better this year because of those two players. Welsh tore us apart in the first game of the season, it was nasty! - even worse, we got nobody for them but a positive sign is that we are developing younger players, they'll get bigger and stronger and so will we. I think its a (yes, another) preliminary final exit this year at the very best.
jenny61_99
4 Jun 2008, 08:47
No point in having regrets and really it's a moot point because none of them wanted to play for us anyways.
There's no doubt that Bulldogs are a much better side with Welsh/Hudson however I don't think that would necessarily be the same had they stayed with us. New club, new energy etc. The positives FOR us is that we've been forced to play our younger players and explore new structures as a result. Far more positives than negatives in my opinion.
I disagree with Hudson and Welsh. Thats the reason why the Bulldogs are so much better this year because of those two players. Welsh tore us apart in the first game of the season, it was nasty! - even worse, we got nobody for them but a positive sign is that we are developing younger players, they'll get bigger and stronger and so will we. I think its a (yes, another) preliminary final exit this year at the very best.
tore us apart ??.....:confused:
10 kicks - 4 goals........3 of which were in the first qtr from memory.
that's not a toreapartisation
he is averaging 8 kicks and 2 goals a game this year.....not exactly nose bleed territory. In a dominant side - I would have thought it was more of a peripheral contribution.
RealSlimShady
4 Jun 2008, 11:11
We're 7-3 in a year that we were supposed to be competitive but struggle to win games.
I don't regret anything.
The majority of those wins against teams outside the top 8.
We have a very hard run in the next couple of months with Hawks, Geelong, Collingwood(at the MCG), Brisbane(Gabba) to name but a few. I wouldnt be surprised to see us be 8-7 by end of round 15, especially with Burton out for two and some real problems with the way the team is traveling right now. I would still expect us to make the finals but a top 4 finish is going to be a struggle - 6th spot is my prediction.
Capitalist
4 Jun 2008, 14:51
The majority of those wins against teams outside the top 8.
We have a very hard run in the next couple of months with Hawks, Geelong, Collingwood(at the MCG), Brisbane(Gabba) to name but a few. I wouldnt be surprised to see us be 8-7 by end of round 15, especially with Burton out for two and some real problems with the way the team is traveling right now. I would still expect us to make the finals but a top 4 finish is going to be a struggle - 6th spot is my prediction.
8-7 is still much better than anyone predicted or expected
still a win for the club
Freddy Bassett
4 Jun 2008, 16:52
8-7 is still much better than anyone predicted or expected
still a win for the club
True. But I think we will again surprise everyone. We will have Reilly and Knights with match fitness now and I think at AAMI we may just surprise the Hawks and cats... "Adelaide have only beaten crap sides" will play into our hands as teams will take us lightly, until we beat one of the top two. We are in a bloody good position being 7-3 and written off by everyone including our own supporters. Beware of the underdog!
Capitalist
4 Jun 2008, 17:07
True. But I think we will again surprise everyone. We will have Reilly and Knights with match fitness now and I think at AAMI we may just surprise the Hawks and cats... "Adelaide have only beaten crap sides" will play into our hands as teams will take us lightly, until we beat one of the top two. We are in a bloody good position being 7-3 and written off by everyone including our own supporters. Beware of the underdog!
I will be shocked if we beat the cats- the hawks not so much
one thing i'm not looking forward to is the wanker interstate supporters who seem to pop
up when there team finally looks like winning here.
kamikaze krow
4 Jun 2008, 17:48
Yes, yes and yes. Anyone who says 'no regrets' in some act of blind support for the club doesnt really have a clue.
showdownhero
4 Jun 2008, 18:21
Yes, yes and yes. Anyone who says 'no regrets' in some act of blind support for the club doesnt really have a clue.
You don't think there are any benefits from having other players step up to the plate?
Capitalist
4 Jun 2008, 18:30
Yes, yes and yes. Anyone who says 'no regrets' in some act of blind support for the club doesnt really have a clue.
you have NFI :thumbsd:
Eastern Crow
4 Jun 2008, 19:37
We're 7-3 in a year that we were supposed to be competitive but struggle to win games.
I don't regret anything.
well said, not to mention, ther absense of these players have provided Tippett, Griffen, Symes, Vince, MacKay and co plenty of opportunity, these are the lads that will lead us to success
No point in having regrets and really it's a moot point because none of them wanted to play for us anyways.
you mean they didn't want to play under the terms we offered them.
I wouldn't work for less than market rate either.
tore us apart ??.....:confused:
10 kicks - 4 goals........3 of which were in the first qtr from memory.
that's not a toreapartisation
he is averaging 8 kicks and 2 goals a game this year.....not exactly nose bleed territory. In a dominant side - I would have thought it was more of a peripheral contribution.
he's on track to kick roughly 50 goals a season, and that's peripheral?
how many people kick 50 goals a season for us? that's one of the best returns for a mid sized forward in the league.
Capitalist
4 Jun 2008, 20:12
he's on track to kick roughly 50 goals a season, and that's peripheral?
how many people kick 50 goals a season for us? that's one of the best returns for a mid sized forward in the league.
lets face it if he was playing someone else in our team wouldn't be
We have scored more goals this year than last, so surely that goes along way to proving he isn't a big loss for us.
James_37
4 Jun 2008, 21:16
he's on track to kick roughly 50 goals a season, and that's peripheral?
how many people kick 50 goals a season for us? that's one of the best returns for a mid sized forward in the league.
Goodwin and Burton are pretty much on track, although Burton's little break won't help and Goodwin's spending more time in the midfield, so they may not make it in the end, but definitely on track at this stage.
he's on track to kick roughly 50 goals a season, and that's peripheral?
how many people kick 50 goals a season for us? that's one of the best returns for a mid sized forward in the league.
Stiffy Johncock from a flank and Carey on one leg in 2002 (ish).
It's not exactly dominant in the context of the post replied to
he's on track to kick roughly 50 goals a season, and that's peripheral?
how many people kick 50 goals a season for us? that's one of the best returns for a mid sized forward in the league.
He's on track for 44. Actually, make that 42 - he hasn't had his annual tearing apart by Scarlett yet.
Goodwin's on track for 50, and Burton 56 (even allowing for him missing the next 2).
SpringChoke
4 Jun 2008, 21:43
Welsh - Definately not.
Hudson - Definately not.
Mattner - Yes, one of our worst trades.
Stiffy Johncock from a flank and Carey on one leg in 2002 (ish).
It's not exactly dominant in the context of the post replied to
precisely. so something we don't get regularly is peripheral???
He's on track for 44. Actually, make that 42 - he hasn't had his annual tearing apart by Scarlett yet.
Goodwin's on track for 50, and Burton 56 (even allowing for him missing the next 2).
finals? he's on track for roughly 50.
and as we all know, we have had precious few 50 goal a season players; certainly not enough to diminish the achievement.
kamikaze krow
5 Jun 2008, 00:10
You don't think there are any benefits from having other players step up to the plate?
Maybe but if we lose a leading ruckman for very little there isnt really a point to it. As for welsh and mattner we havent had anyone step into their positions.
Basically we've pretty much strengthened our opponents significantly and ruled ourselves out in a pretty open year to have a shot a getting into a grandfinal.
kamikaze krow
5 Jun 2008, 00:12
tore us apart ??.....:confused:
10 kicks - 4 goals........3 of which were in the first qtr from memory.
that's not a toreapartisation
he is averaging 8 kicks and 2 goals a game this year.....not exactly nose bleed territory. In a dominant side - I would have thought it was more of a peripheral contribution.
Take out those 4 goals and we would of won. Some would say that makes him a match winner.
Carl Spackler
5 Jun 2008, 00:40
you mean they didn't want to play under the terms we offered them.
I wouldn't work for less than market rate either.
This is the key point. Would any player (or employee) be expected to stay where they are when they could get a better deal elsewhere? Especially in what is a short term occupation.
Successful clubs obviously find it difficult their player group together. Team wins, players play well, their reputation grows, market value increases... and it becomes difficult to stay under the salary cap. Club loses players and comes back to the pack. AFL's equalisation policy in action, in theory anyway.
Now, I may be heading in to "urban football myth" territory here but will plow ahead anyway. Brisbane allegedly was able to get around this problem and keep the bulk of their 2001 squad together. The players made a "vow" to sacrifice salaries and to reject better offers in order to keep the team together. There was a feeling that they were on the verge of something special.
Essendon were premiers in 2000 but struggled to keep their squad together partly due to the spiraling wage demands of four genuine champion players that the club were desperate to keep. They lost players and it wasn't long before they felt the effects.
Geelong players (again allegedly, no proof...) have made a similar vow to the Brisbane one in order to keep the key players from their 2007 premiership together.
Now, what Geelong 07 and Brisbane 01 had in common was that there was a better than fair chance that they would be pushing for multiple premierships or at least be around the mark in the short term. Adelaide could certainly not dangle that carrot in front of Hudson, Mattner or Welsh. In fact the trio would be able to mount a very strong case that they increased their chances of being premiership players PLUS got a better contract by switching clubs. Who can really blame them?
jenny61_99
5 Jun 2008, 01:00
you mean they didn't want to play under the terms we offered them.
I wouldn't work for less than market rate either.
And I wouldn't want to pay them more than I thought they were worth. Neither should the club (and they didn't).
Whilst I understand the players looking after themselves, I also understand the Club's need to do the same. Clearly the players weren't desperate to play with us, and frankly I'd rather we had players that want to be here and not only interested in themselves.
Yes, yes and yes. Anyone who says 'no regrets' in some act of blind support for the club doesnt really have a clue.
Yes - you are 100% right .
This was the reason I first came on this web site - Welsh should never have been sent packing ! As for the argument "oh well , we got Burton /Goodwin blah blah" and ' it gives the young ones a go'' that is utter garbage.
If Welsh was in that forward line he would be taking probably the opposition's 3rd best defender (Burton, Tippett, Goodwin - who IMO should be played in the midfield anyhow) ) for a change - stick him on the flank or in a pocket - he was our most accurate goal scorer and could kick goals from 45degrees - he chased and tackled and held the ball in the forward lines.
What did he kick against us in the Bulldogs game,3 or 4 ? Well, take that off the Dogs score - add it on ours and it's a win!
Mattner should have been kept too - same with Torney. Hudson wanted to go - fair enough, but the AFC lost credits with me with the way they treated Welsh.
It will bite us on the a___ come finals if we make it - guaranteed.......:(
Baron Winds
5 Jun 2008, 01:19
Yes - you are 100% right .
This was the reason I first came on this web site - Welsh should never have been sent packing ! As for the argument "oh well , we got Burton /Goodwin blah blah" and ' it gives the young ones a go'' that is utter garbage.
If Welsh was in that forward line he would be taking probably the opposition's 3rd best defender (Burton, Tippett, Goodwin - who IMO should be played in the midfield anyhow) ) for a change - stick him on the flank or in a pocket - he was our most accurate goal scorer and could kick goals from 45degrees - he chased and tackled and held the ball in the forward lines.
What did he kick against us in the Bulldogs game,3 or 4 ? Well, take that off the Dogs score - add it on ours and it's a win!
Mattner should have been kept too - same with Torney. Hudson wanted to go - fair enough, but the AFC lost credits with me with the way they treated Welsh.
It will bite us on the a___ come finals if we make it - guaranteed.......:(
In your opinion, of course.
Some of you guys talk as if these three took us to a grand final last year!
For haven's sake, have a reality check.
The question that should be asked, if you take personal likes and dislikes away, is - Is this year's team as good or better than last year's? If the answer is yes, then there should be NO REGRETS.
I personally liked Mattner and was sorry to see him go, but as for the betterment of the team, we have not gone backward.
As far as how well is Welsh playing, at the moment, he has a point to prove so he is trying hard. Wait till he is settled in and see if the bad habits return. As far as his contribution is concerned, I think that Douglas will contribute as many goals as him but will be more versatile as he will be able to be played in different roles.
Markthirtytwo
5 Jun 2008, 10:03
Some of you guys talk as if these three took us to a grand final last year!
For haven's sake, have a reality check.
The question that should be asked, if you take personal likes and dislikes away, is - Is this year's team as good or better than last year's? If the answer is yes, then there should be NO REGRETS.
I personally liked Mattner and was sorry to see him go, but as for the betterment of the team, we have not gone backward.
As far as how well is Welsh playing, at the moment, he has a point to prove so he is trying hard. Wait till he is settled in and see if the bad habits return. As far as his contribution is concerned, I think that Douglas will contribute as many goals as him but will be more versatile as he will be able to be played in different roles.
No and they wouldn't have either. Agree with everything you said.
Take out those 4 goals and we would of won. Some would say that makes him a match winner.
Take out Kurt Tippett's 2 goals and we would have lost by 3......
potato....potarto
Capitalist
5 Jun 2008, 10:38
Yes - you are 100% right .
This was the reason I first came on this web site - Welsh should never have been sent packing ! As for the argument "oh well , we got Burton /Goodwin blah blah" and ' it gives the young ones a go'' that is utter garbage.
If Welsh was in that forward line he would be taking probably the opposition's 3rd best defender (Burton, Tippett, Goodwin - who IMO should be played in the midfield anyhow) ) for a change - stick him on the flank or in a pocket - he was our most accurate goal scorer and could kick goals from 45degrees - he chased and tackled and held the ball in the forward lines.
What did he kick against us in the Bulldogs game,3 or 4 ? Well, take that off the Dogs score - add it on ours and it's a win!
Mattner should have been kept too - same with Torney. Hudson wanted to go - fair enough, but the AFC lost credits with me with the way they treated Welsh.
It will bite us on the a___ come finals if we make it - guaranteed.......:(
mate you need to rethink why your here - i'm just looking through out finals record and seeing were Scott Welsh got us into a GF
or won us a final........
The same goes for Hudson and Mattner - there comes a time when just making the finals isn't good enough, Why is Welsh and Co more immune to our failures than others ?
the AFC did the right thing and if you can't see that we are no worse off without him then your going to have a long few seasons
[quote=Capitalist;11261327]mate you need to rethink why your here - i'm just looking through out finals record and seeing were Scott Welsh got us into a GF
or won us a final........
50 goals over the year probably helped get us into the finals - eh?
And players like Richard Douglas will ???????? Jacky ???? Maric????? Jericho????????
Put it this way - would Welsh,Hudson Mattner (IN THEIR CURRENT FORM)and perhaps even Torney not be included in the first 22 if they were still on the list?
Rest my case......:rolleyes:
And why should I be content with a few long seasons anyhow...why should rebuiilding include chucking out good players - apparently it wasn't even Welsh's form - it was "off field issues" - never heard what that was all about either.
Sorry, but I was, and still am a big fan of Welsh and he was shafted.
In your opinion, of course.
Of course it's my opinion - am I not allowed an opinion ? Isn't this all about opinion and subjective viewpoints ? What a dumb comment.
Of course it's my opinion - am I not allowed an opinion ? Isn't this all about opinion and subjective viewpoints ? What a dumb comment.
Of course you are & don't ever take for being told otherwise.
We all can't take the same view on all things as what a boring & dull life that would be if that was so.
I still regret the loss of Marty Mattner & i suppose to a lesser degree the other two but life goes on & we all hope that when we play their respective new clunb that we wallop them.
cmndstab
5 Jun 2008, 11:42
Of course it's my opinion - am I not allowed an opinion ? Isn't this all about opinion and subjective viewpoints ? What a dumb comment.
I think it was response to your "guarantee" that it would come back to bite us in the finals.
We probably do miss them a bit this year but that is almost always true for players that are either kicked out or traded. Unless a player has completely turned to rubbish, they are usually moved on at a time when they could still be useful to the club. There is always a bit of short term pain while new players try to fill the void and create their own name in those positions.
Hudson and Welsh leave holes in our side, no question about that. However, by having a chance to develop young ruckmen (Maric, Griffen) and young forwards (Tippett, Douglas) we will be in a better position in a couple of years than if we had left them on our list. Have a look at West Coast who had Gardiner playing, getting the most hitouts in the competition back in 2003. He is suddenly delisted due to "off-field issues" and next thing you know a young ruckman named Dean Cox steps in. West Coast probably missed Gardiner for a year or so before they realised they were better off with Dean.
Mattner was a pity to lose but in reality, we weren't getting his full potential anyway. If Symes turns out to be a good player like he was starting to become earlier in the year we'll get a similar level of service out of him, and for longer.
Call me cynical if you like but I just don't see Welsh, Hudson or Mattner as being the difference between the Crows winning a premiership and not winning a premiership this year - but in three or four years time they could be on the negative side of that ledger.
Of course you are & don't ever take for being told otherwise.
We all can't take the same view on all things as what a boring & dull life that would be if that was so.
I still regret the loss of Marty Mattner & i suppose to a lesser degree the other two but life goes on & we all hope that when we play their respective new clunb that we wallop them.
Thank you Nodmeister....:o
I think it was response to your "guarantee" that it would come back to bite us in the finals.
We probably do miss them a bit this year but that is almost always true for players that are either kicked out or traded. Unless a player has completely turned to rubbish, they are usually moved on at a time when they could still be useful to the club. There is always a bit of short term pain while new players try to fill the void and create their own name in those positions.
Hudson and Welsh leave holes in our side, no question about that. However, by having a chance to develop young ruckmen (Maric, Griffen) and young forwards (Tippett, Douglas) we will be in a better position in a couple of years than if we had left them on our list. Have a look at West Coast who had Gardiner playing, getting the most hitouts in the competition back in 2003. He is suddenly delisted due to "off-field issues" and next thing you know a young ruckman named Dean Cox steps in. West Coast probably missed Gardiner for a year or so before they realised they were better off with Dean.
Mattner was a pity to lose but in reality, we weren't getting his full potential anyway. If Symes turns out to be a good player like he was starting to become earlier in the year we'll get a similar level of service out of him, and for longer.
Call me cynical if you like but I just don't see Welsh, Hudson or Mattner as being the difference between the Crows winning a premiership and not winning a premiership this year - but in three or four years time they could be on the negative side of that ledger.
I understand that - really I do - but I believe a club is judged also on how it treats it's players - It goes back to Modra I think. When players have performed well, contributed week in week out and have managed their injuries so that they can be selected , a little loyalty wouldn't hurt. We didn't even get much for Welsh. (Pick 73 or something?)
I just do not see the players I mentioned, Douglas, Maric , Jericho as better players. As topjars said - we already were going to lose Roo - our other good kick for goal - and now we are expecting a midfielder (Goodwin) to kick set shots when for the past ten years he has been kicking them on the run. :(
cmndstab
5 Jun 2008, 12:06
I agree that loyalty is a good thing. Torney's delisting was probably a surprise. Welsh on the other hand had a whole host of off-field problems and didn't want to sign a performance-based contract, or at least that's what my memory says. It doesn't matter how talented an individual is, they have to go along with the coaches party line or else they shouldn't be there.
Capitalist
5 Jun 2008, 12:08
I understand that - really I do - but I believe a club is judged also on how it treats it's players - It goes back to Modra I think. When players have performed well, contributed week in week out and have managed their injuries so that they can be selected , a little loyalty wouldn't hurt. We didn't even get much for Welsh. (Pick 73 or something?)
I just do not see the players I mentioned, Douglas, Maric , Jericho as better players. As topjars said - we already were going to lose Roo - our other good kick for goal - and now we are expecting a midfielder (Goodwin) to kick set shots when for the past ten years he has been kicking them on the run. :(
Welsh waited until AFTER the trade period to be a prissy pants about it all. We got nothing for him except the opportunity to play others up forward.
I know you are a fan of Welsh, but surely you can see how beneficial it has been for the club since he moved on. Our current headache is really the 3rd forward position now it’s the CHF which Welsh doesn’t play. I also prefer Douglas in their as apposed to Welsh.
I’m not going to say that Welsh is a shit player, but I am also not going to say the AFC is worse off when clearly it isn’t (even the stats show that). The same argument could be used for Hudson we haven’t lost as much as people think in the short term. In the long term once again its going to be better for us.
Mattner is the only one I will concede was disappointing, but even then who would people drop to have him in the team atm ?
Capitalist
5 Jun 2008, 12:10
I agree that loyalty is a good thing. Torney's delisting was probably a surprise. Welsh on the other hand had a whole host of off-field problems and didn't want to sign a performance-based contract, or at least that's what my memory says. It doesn't matter how talented an individual is, they have to go along with the coaches party line or else they shouldn't be there.
From my understanding Torney is being looked after by the club off field, so loyalty has been shown if the reports are true.
I understand that - really I do - but I believe a club is judged also on how it treats it's players - It goes back to Modra I think. When players have performed well, contributed week in week out and have managed their injuries so that they can be selected , a little loyalty wouldn't hurt. We didn't even get much for Welsh. (Pick 73 or something?)
We got NOTHING for Welsh. He walked out on the club when contract negotiations broke down after trade week. Had he announced that he wanted out BEFORE trade week then we probably would have been better placed to get some compensation - he probably would have been worth a pick in the 30s (in line with what we got for Hudson).
Effectively, all we got for him was the position he freed up on the list, which became our 6th of 7 draftees (Walker was #7, taken with our last selection under the NSW Scholarship rule). That pick was #71, used to select Aaron Kite.
[quote=Capitalist;11261963]Welsh waited until AFTER the trade period to be a prissy pants about it all. We got nothing for him except the opportunity to play others up forward.
I know you are a fan of Welsh, but surely you can see how beneficial it has been for the club since he moved on. Our current headache is really the 3rd forward position now it’s the CHF which Welsh doesn’t play. I also prefer Douglas in their as apposed to Welsh.
He was no prissy pants about it - contract negotiations were stalling from both sides - and I know how much he wanted to stay but AFC made it impossible to do so. Did John Reid ever really say what went on - anyhow that is old news....
Yeah - real beneficial - 37 behinds in the last 3 weeks.....
Welsh was NEVER a CHF - he was forced to play that position coz Henschel went down and we had no-one else - put him on the flank or in the pocket - coz that's where we seem to kick the ball to ......and he would have been great - as I've said before - he always was stuck with the oppositions best defender - especially if Roo was out
-
therefore 1st forward position - Tippett /Henschel
2nd - Burton/Goodwin
3rd - Welsh - what are Douglas' stats on kicking for goal
Sorry - you will never convince me otherwise - let's just agree to disagree:o
cmndstab
5 Jun 2008, 12:37
Like I indicated before, my recollection of Welsh's contract negotiations was that they wanted to put Welsh on a performance (on and off-field) based contract and he didn't want to agree to it. The club had to do it because he had a number of off-field indiscretions. To take an extreme example, it would be like if Fevola refused to agree to a similar contract, Carlton would have no choice but to drop him.
It's not only about protecting the club from another incident from Welsh, it's also about sending the right message to the youngsters that you have to tow the company line.
Like I indicated before, my recollection of Welsh's contract negotiations was that they wanted to put Welsh on a performance (on and off-field) based contract and he didn't want to agree to it. The club had to do it because he had a number of off-field indiscretions. To take an extreme example, it would be like if Fevola refused to agree to a similar contract, Carlton would have no choice but to drop him.
It's not only about protecting the club from another incident from Welsh, it's also about sending the right message to the youngsters that you have to tow the company line.
Yet Carlton are prepared to give Fev another chance - I am not saying Welsh is a Fevola - but when it comes to off field incidents you cannot compare the two either. There was one incident reported in the media - and in this town with Rucci eager to rat on any Crows player if there was anything worse I am sure he would have sniffed it out. Anyhow - that is old news and this is a moot discussion - he's gone - I personally wish he hadn't - but I do get a bit miffed when his contribution and efforts are not recognised.;)
cmndstab
5 Jun 2008, 13:06
Yet Carlton are prepared to give Fev another chance - I am not saying Welsh is a Fevola - but when it comes to off field incidents you cannot compare the two either. There was one incident reported in the media - and in this town with Rucci eager to rat on any Crows player if there was anything worse I am sure he would have sniffed it out. Anyhow - that is old news and this is a moot discussion - he's gone - I personally wish he hadn't - but I do get a bit miffed when his contribution and efforts are not recognised.;)
My point is they give him another chance on a contract written on their terms that Fev either accepts or goes away. The same was true for Welsh, but Welsh chose the second option.
Don't get me wrong, I was a massive Welsh fan and very disappointed when he left, but now we have to move on and fill his spot, and I think we're well on the way.
Capitalist
5 Jun 2008, 13:35
[quote=Capitalist;11261963]Welsh waited until AFTER the trade period to be a prissy pants about it all. We got nothing for him except the opportunity to play others up forward.
I know you are a fan of Welsh, but surely you can see how beneficial it has been for the club since he moved on. Our current headache is really the 3rd forward position now it’s the CHF which Welsh doesn’t play. I also prefer Douglas in their as apposed to Welsh.
He was no prissy pants about it - contract negotiations were stalling from both sides - and I know how much he wanted to stay but AFC made it impossible to do so. Did John Reid ever really say what went on - anyhow that is old news....
Yeah - real beneficial - 37 behinds in the last 3 weeks.....
Welsh was NEVER a CHF - he was forced to play that position coz Henschel went down and we had no-one else - put him on the flank or in the pocket - coz that's where we seem to kick the ball to ......and he would have been great - as I've said before - he always was stuck with the oppositions best defender - especially if Roo was out
-
therefore 1st forward position - Tippett /Henschel
2nd - Burton/Goodwin
3rd - Welsh - what are Douglas' stats on kicking for goal
Sorry - you will never convince me otherwise - let's just agree to disagree:o
Sorry i meant the 3rd tall isn't our problem
CHF is our problem - which Welsh doesn't play
Tippets is the primary tall (which is sad i agree)
Burton/Goodwin the 2nd
Dougie,Mcleod , stiffy etc etc is the 3rd
it works well and it works better than our last setup which included Welsh. I'm not saying Welsh was the problem, i'm just saying he wasn't the solution either
but i'm happy to agree to disagree, especially when i'm right :p
Freddy Bassett
5 Jun 2008, 13:42
Must admit I agree with Subaru. It could very well come back and bite us in the finals as we now have very little depth. Even though Adelaide wont use the word rebuilding there is no doubt Adelaide is trying to replenish its list this year, its just we find ourselves in a position we never expected to be in at 7-3 and in reach of a top 4 finish where anything could happen. If we new we would be in the top 4 (if) I sure we would of tried to keep the 3 at Adelaide.
But long term it is definately the best thing that could of happened to the AFC.
Capitalist
5 Jun 2008, 14:27
Must admit I agree with Subaru. It could very well come back and bite us in the finals as we now have very little depth. Even though Adelaide wont use the word rebuilding there is no doubt Adelaide is trying to replenish its list this year, its just we find ourselves in a position we never expected to be in at 7-3 and in reach of a top 4 finish where anything could happen. If we new we would be in the top 4 (if) I sure we would of tried to keep the 3 at Adelaide.
But long term it is definately the best thing that could of happened to the AFC.
so in a way your answer to the initial question - do we regret the loss of...
is a no ?
Freddy Bassett
5 Jun 2008, 15:26
so in a way your answer to the initial question - do we regret the loss of...
is a no ?
Absoloutely....We have passed midnight on the premiership window and lets not kid ourselves where we are really at.....7-3 flatters us... But if we are in a prelim and we have 3 injuries the week before we will be very thin......
Baron Winds
5 Jun 2008, 15:39
Of course it's my opinion - am I not allowed an opinion ? Isn't this all about opinion and subjective viewpoints ? What a dumb comment.
To put it bluntly champ; you can't guarantee squat. So it is your opinion only.
The AFC had to make the hard decisions otherwise we would have ended up like Carlton when all our seniour players retired in the one hit. I do agree with you about Marty and Torney but I can see the reasoning behind the decisions the club had to make. Torney has been looked after in other ways off field.
Welsh is 30 this year and has never really been a consistent player. Too often he wouldnt get a touch of the pill let alone goals. He walked out as he couldnt get the contract he wanted anyway so meh. Welsh has 150 games on Douglas, to compare the two is idiotic to say the least. Bar last week, Douglas' kicking on goal has been terrific.
Capitalist
5 Jun 2008, 15:54
Absoloutely....We have passed midnight on the premiership window and lets not kid ourselves where we are really at.....7-3 flatters us... But if we are in a prelim and we have 3 injuries the week before we will be very thin......
Your fence sitting you bugger :D
Since they haven’t included Torney – I have to say I did rate the guy, but I haven’t seen his SANFL form to see if we pulled off a Benny Hart – i.e knew his time was over before he did.
kamikaze krow
5 Jun 2008, 17:26
Take out Kurt Tippett's 2 goals and we would have lost by 3......
potato....potarto
its ok not to understand...
kamikaze krow
5 Jun 2008, 17:30
Yes - you are 100% right .
This was the reason I first came on this web site - Welsh should never have been sent packing ! As for the argument "oh well , we got Burton /Goodwin blah blah" and ' it gives the young ones a go'' that is utter garbage.
If Welsh was in that forward line he would be taking probably the opposition's 3rd best defender (Burton, Tippett, Goodwin - who IMO should be played in the midfield anyhow) ) for a change - stick him on the flank or in a pocket - he was our most accurate goal scorer and could kick goals from 45degrees - he chased and tackled and held the ball in the forward lines.
What did he kick against us in the Bulldogs game,3 or 4 ? Well, take that off the Dogs score - add it on ours and it's a win!
Mattner should have been kept too - same with Torney. Hudson wanted to go - fair enough, but the AFC lost credits with me with the way they treated Welsh.
It will bite us on the a___ come finals if we make it - guaranteed.......:(
thanks. In the end if we had decided that we had run our race last year which it appears we have, i wouldnt of minded if we traded them, but at least get some value for them on the market. In hindsight if we had kept the bigger bodies of those three we could of been a real chance this year.
To put it bluntly champ; you can't guarantee squat. So it is your opinion only.
The AFC had to make the hard decisions otherwise we would have ended up like Carlton when all our seniour players retired in the one hit. I do agree with you about Marty and Torney but I can see the reasoning behind the decisions the club had to make. Torney has been looked after in other ways off field.
Welsh is 30 this year and has never really been a consistent player. Too often he wouldnt get a touch of the pill let alone goals. He walked out as he couldnt get the contract he wanted anyway so meh. Welsh has 150 games on Douglas, to compare the two is idiotic to say the least. Bar last week, Douglas' kicking on goal has been terrific.
Every club will have that - what about Port in two or three years - Tredrea, Cornes, Lade, Brogan ,Burgoyne - it just depends on how good the players are when they all go at once - not how many of them there are. McLeod,Edwards,Bassett and Goodwin will leave massive holes - so it is a fact of life and yes, of course the club has to prepare for that.
What you are saying , if I am reading you right - is that you ditch proven players for the sake of the likes of Jericho, Maric, Douglas ? (who although I admit has improved has not yet convinced me) . I am not criticising the likes of Knights,Van Berlow, Riley, etc but none of these players are specialist forward goal scorers. Was Sellar Welsh's replacement?
I really hope that like in 1997 when the young Goodwin and Johnson played so well, that our young players will step up. I am more than happy to be proven wrong - believe me - but at the present time and after the last few weeks I still think that the team would have benefited from retaining Welsh in the forward line - he was our leading goal scorer last year and was a very reliable kick for goal. I hope we don't play the Bulldogs and he kicks a bag.
;)
And I am allowed an opinion , as are you Noddy said so.
mate you need to rethink why your here - i'm just looking through out finals record and seeing were Scott Welsh got us into a GF
or won us a final........
The same goes for Hudson and Mattner - there comes a time when just making the finals isn't good enough, Why is Welsh and Co more immune to our failures than others ?
the AFC did the right thing and if you can't see that we are no worse off without him then your going to have a long few seasons
are we now saying that Welsh and Hudson, 2 of our better players last year are the reason we didn't make the GF?
since they left, we are a worse team (for understandable reasons of course) and the team they went to are much better.
lets not start pretending these guys are not very good footballers.
Call me cynical if you like but I just don't see Welsh, Hudson or Mattner as being the difference between the Crows winning a premiership and not winning a premiership this year - but in three or four years time they could be on the negative side of that ledger.
first of all let me say this is all speculative. but how far away from a flag were in the years we had those guys?
if Hudson doesn't go down in 2005, we are mighty close to that premiership. 2006 we were thereabouts, and with a bit of luck... particularly with Hudson to ruck in that prelim...
2007... was an open year; none of those players were at fault for not beating hawthorn.. Bees Dick. now with the matchups we likely (?) make the GF and we saw how a hard team like Collingwood pushed Geelong in the prelim. who knows?
my point is with these guys we were in the mix, without them we are building for a push in future. Now without going into whether that is the right thing to be doing or not; we would clearly be a better team right now with them, and we are making a speculative bet that it's short term pain for long term gain.
there is no guarantee it will come off, but that's what we're doing. I don't know why people are denying we're undergoing the short term pain process.
We got NOTHING for Welsh. He walked out on the club when contract negotiations broke down after trade week. Had he announced that he wanted out BEFORE trade week then we probably would have been better placed to get some compensation - he probably would have been worth a pick in the 30s (in line with what we got for Hudson).
Effectively, all we got for him was the position he freed up on the list, which became our 6th of 7 draftees (Walker was #7, taken with our last selection under the NSW Scholarship rule). That pick was #71, used to select Aaron Kite.
I'm not sure about that, you're blaming welsh for wanting out when contract negotiations broke down?