View Full Version : Round 13 Team Vs West Coast
Glassjaw
19 Jun 2008, 18:08
Geelong unchanged.
B: Tom Harley - Harry Taylor - Andrew Mackie
HB: Darren Milburn - Max Rooke - Corey Enright
C: Brent Prismall - Cameron Ling - Jimmy Bartel
HF: Steve Johnson - Cameron Mooney - Mathew Stokes
F: Paul Chapman - Tom Lonergan - James Kelly
Foll: Mark Blake - Joel Corey - Gary Ablett
Int: Brad Ottens, Travis Varcoe, Joel Selwood, Josh Hunt
S "Thinks He's Daicos" J
19 Jun 2008, 18:14
Emergencies?
CatmanForever
19 Jun 2008, 18:15
no change from last week. Wojak probably being given this week and next week (split round) to recover and freshen up. Let's hope the lads have a good game over there and not another flat one like we did against freo
Glassjaw
19 Jun 2008, 18:17
Emergencies?
None were listed.
stevie20
19 Jun 2008, 18:24
no change from last week. Wojak probably being given this week and next week (split round) to recover and freshen up. Let's hope the lads have a good game over there and not another flat one like we did against freo
Bomber has a slight hamstring!
Team Extreme
19 Jun 2008, 19:27
The emergencies are
EMG: Ryan Gamble, David Wojcinski, Kane Tenace
Vegas 15
19 Jun 2008, 19:34
Bomber has a slight hamstring!
Dropped.
Kent_Kingsley
19 Jun 2008, 19:42
fair enough...not like we hadany passengers on sunday anyway. wouldve liked to have seen Wojo play but thats life.
cat_fanatic_21
19 Jun 2008, 19:43
Omitted, originally.
Vegas 15
19 Jun 2008, 19:47
Omitted, originally.
Correct.
KardiniaPark
20 Jun 2008, 08:25
Does anyone know whats going on with the starting time. There was a gas leak or something blew up and they were going to start the game early ?.
YYYAAABBBLLLEEETTT
20 Jun 2008, 08:34
Pretty sure it would be to late to change the start time this close to the day. To many things to organise and wouldnt be any television coverage with 2 games already on sat. arvo. To much of a logistical nightmare.
Happy about no changes to the side for this week but jeez theres going to be some unlucky players over the next few weeks. Scarlo and Wojack come back which would prob suggest posssibly Harry T out, not Rooke cause we need his toughness and the only other one i'd drop would be Varcoe for Wojack, even though different positions, its prob the only spot available even though Varcoes chasing and pressure has been great i just think he may be the unlucky one
darren forssman
20 Jun 2008, 09:49
Omitted, originally.
Correct.
brenton sanderson and ken hinkley everyone.
seriously, who is the source?
dtrainium
20 Jun 2008, 12:01
Apparently Selwood and Stokes are both in doubt...
Vegas 15
20 Jun 2008, 12:03
brenton sanderson and ken hinkley everyone.
seriously, who is the source?
The man himself good enough for you?
darren forssman
20 Jun 2008, 12:06
The man himself good enough for you?
thompson or wojak???
then why did he not play vfl?
Vegas 15
20 Jun 2008, 12:12
Bomber ;).
Didn't play VFL as they needed an emergency to stay with the senior team, as the VFL side was in Bendigo.
Satisfied?
S "Thinks He's Daicos" J
20 Jun 2008, 12:21
Apparently Selwood and Stokes are both in doubt...
Source?
Vegas 15
20 Jun 2008, 12:22
Source?
SEN, thread on Geelong board.
darren forssman
20 Jun 2008, 13:40
Bomber ;).
Didn't play VFL as they needed an emergency to stay with the senior team, as the VFL side was in Bendigo.
Satisfied?
excuse my scepticism, there are too many here claiming they know something but dont really know jack.
i dont think he should have been dropped for one bad game, if that was a geelong policy the team would have a revolving door.
Vegas 15
20 Jun 2008, 13:43
excuse my scepticism, there are too many here claiming they know something but dont really know jack.
i dont think he should have been dropped for one bad game, if that was a geelong policy the team would have a revolving door.
That's fair enough, and I agree with you - I don't think he deserved to be dropped. But he was.
However, I would probably rather that the club be willing to drop a guy who does some undisciplined things, as opposed to just giving him a rest. The team would have certain standards set for players (just like we have seen with NDS at St Kilda) and perhaps Bomber was seen to be letting the team down. Pretty harmless at this stage of the season, and if 'rest' is a by-product, then all the better.
darren forssman
20 Jun 2008, 15:02
That's fair enough, and I agree with you - I don't think he deserved to be dropped. But he was.
However, I would probably rather that the club be willing to drop a guy who does some undisciplined things, as opposed to just giving him a rest. The team would have certain standards set for players (just like we have seen with NDS at St Kilda) and perhaps Bomber was seen to be letting the team down. Pretty harmless at this stage of the season, and if 'rest' is a by-product, then all the better.
again fair enough but milburn earlier in the season (against brisbane in a tough tight game) gave away either 2 50's or a free and 50, both of which resulted in goals. and both were given for arguing with the umpire.
sarah.13
20 Jun 2008, 15:43
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/new...770885893.html
Wojcinski was omitted through general soreness according to the coach! :cool:
Hood007
20 Jun 2008, 15:48
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/new...770885893.html
Wojcinski was omitted through general soreness according to the coach! :cool:
Ha. You beat me to it... :D
Vegas 15
20 Jun 2008, 15:54
You guys do realise that 'general soreness' is the reason given when there is no reason to give. It avoids making an issue of it.
Also, if he was too sore last week, why is he named as an "Emergencys" this week?
Hood007
20 Jun 2008, 15:56
You guys do realise that 'general soreness' is the reason given when there is no reason to give. It avoids making an issue of it.
Also, if he was too sore last week, why is he named as an "Emergencys" this week?
Um. Cause he's not sore anymore?
It's alright to admit you were wrong mate... :thumbsu:
Duskfire
20 Jun 2008, 15:58
You guys do realise that 'general soreness' is the reason given when there is no reason to give. It avoids making an issue of it.
Also, if he was too sore last week, why is he named as an "Emergencys" this week?
Because it being only general soreness, he wasn't being played as a precuation more then anything, and as an emergency he could play.
I don't know which one it was, but I personally finds it strange that even though Wojak was supposedly dropped for onfield discipline and general lack of form, he wasn't given a run in the two's at all. To me that speaks of an injury.
TheTimeCometh
20 Jun 2008, 16:08
surely the 'experienced' wojak had been given his chances and it was finally time to unleash the messiah on the unsuspecting public?
Vegas 15
20 Jun 2008, 16:09
You are entitled to believe what you like, but I have absolutely no reason to lie.
He was dropped, and didn't play seconds because they were in Bendigo while the seniors were playing in Geelong and Wojac was needed as an emergency.
Vegas 15
20 Jun 2008, 16:10
Um. Cause he's not sore anymore?
It's alright to admit you were wrong mate... :thumbsu:
What I am saying is why is he not named in the 22 this week, if the soreness was last week.
sarah.13
20 Jun 2008, 16:11
You guys do realise that 'general soreness' is the reason given when there is no reason to give. It avoids making an issue of it.
Also, if he was too sore last week, why is he named as an "Emergencys" this week?
He will play this week!! You don't seem to grasp the weekly rotations of gastro and general soreness that have been going on since last year.
Players get rested when they start to show signs of fatigue. :o
Hood007
20 Jun 2008, 16:12
You are entitled to believe what you like, but I have absolutely no reason to lie.
He was dropped, and didn't play seconds because they were in Bendigo while the seniors were playing in Geelong and Wojac was needed as an emergency.
No offense, but if Bomber comes out and publicly says Wojo was rested and not dropped as you say he was then I'm inlcined to believe him over you and your "source"...
Vegas 15
20 Jun 2008, 16:16
No offense, but if Bomber comes out and publicly says Wojo was rested and not dropped as you say he was then I'm inlcined to believe him over you and your "source"...
He has not come out and said it at all. It was at best a throwaway line, stock standard answer to a question posed to him during an impromptu interview.
My "source" is the man in question, there is no direct quote from Thompson in that article, what is the authors "source"?
Hood007
20 Jun 2008, 16:18
What I am saying is why is he not named in the 22 this week, if the soreness was last week.
Because maybe he's not an automatic inclusion in our best 22.
Because we won by 10 goals and nobody deserved to get dropped for him.
Because maybe the club knew one of Selwood or Stokes wouldn't get up and that he would get a game anyway.
Take your pick...
sarah.13
20 Jun 2008, 16:21
So he was rested for disciplinary reasons!!! :confused:
Hood007
20 Jun 2008, 16:23
He has not come out and said it at all. It was at best a throwaway line, stock standard answer to a question posed to him during an impromptu interview.
My "source" is the man in question, there is no direct quote from Thompson in that article, what is the authors "source"?
So in an article not even related to Wojo, they made that last sentence up out of nowhere as a 'throwaway line'?
"Whether they get up or not we should know in the next hour, but certainly, we've got a few injury concerns."
He said defender David Wojcinski was too sore to play last week and been named as an emergencys.
Vegas 15
20 Jun 2008, 16:24
Because maybe he's not an automatic inclusion in our best 22.
Bingo, yet you refuse to believe he was dropped.
I can't believe this argument has gone on this long, I have said enough.
Hood007
20 Jun 2008, 16:27
Bingo, yet you refuse to believe he was dropped.
I can't believe this argument has gone on this long, I have said enough.
He was in the team to play Kangas.
Was too sore to play Port so he was given a rest.
The team has a 10 goal win against Port.
He can't force his way back in for the Eagles game so is named as an emergency.
That's how I see it...