View Full Version : We should do what the Lions do for next week
Dry Rot
31 May 2003, 18:05
Next week will be our tenth loss in a row v Eagles at Subi.
The Lions regularly rest Lynch for good cause - why not rest some of our players like Croft, Kretuik and maybe one or 2 midfielders, so that we have some chance the following week v Swans?
dancingdoggie17
31 May 2003, 18:49
Yep, i reckon why not. The young guys have played as a team before, might bring a bit more confidence knowing how each other play.
Isdogisgood
31 May 2003, 21:00
Even if we lose next week, we need to keep the momentum going. We have put in good efforts over the last 3 weeks. We don't have many experienced players as it is. It will only make it harder to be comptetitive. We don't want to get thrashed, we will only go backwards. Croft and Krekiuk haven't played that many games this year anyway, so why do they need a rest? What we really need is a magic wand to make Bandy fit so he can relieve Darcy. I am not say that Bruton was that bad when he was on, but as soon as he came on you could almost hear the sigh of relief from the Roos players. They knew that had a better chance when Darcy wasn't there and they grabbed it. Midfielders should be able to read it off both ruckmen but Darcy not being there does seem to give the oposition more confidence.
gridlocked
1 Jun 2003, 23:08
When in Perth do as the Lions do. ;)
Fossie 32
1 Jun 2003, 23:46
Give Brownie a few drinks and tell him they're all ATMs.
After their loss today, the Eagles will kick our arse. Won't matter if we rest some.
Fossie 32
2 Jun 2003, 00:47
OK so how many years is it since we've lost 10 in a row??
:rolleyes:
At this stage I just I don't want us to lose 11 in a row.
We have to beat the Swans.
Fossie 32
2 Jun 2003, 01:08
I imagine it feels particularly bad for the younger supporters going through this sort of slump for the first time. For us oldies its a grim reminder of times like the early 80's.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fossie 32
OK so how many years is it since we've lost 10 in a row??
:rolleyes: [/QUOTE
1981?
gridlocked
2 Jun 2003, 16:19
There's no chance that we will beat Sydney, because we will be travelling back from Perth. No team has won the week after playing in Perth have they? Its not like we will. Our next win will most likely come in round 14 against Hawthorn.
brother fish
2 Jun 2003, 16:57
agree with isdog - have to keep some sort of momentum, and I see no point in resting players just for the sake of it. However if a player was 50-50 in terms of injury, e.g. Browny, then I wouldn't risk it.
But otherwise, put out the best team we can.
If fit, we should play everybody who will be playing next year. Unlike the Lions, we have a game plan to learn.
Mr. Walker
2 Jun 2003, 17:53
Originally posted by stefoid
If fit, we should play everybody who will be playing next year. Unlike the Lions, we have a game plan to learn.
Sort of agree. Don't know what the future is for Kretiuk and (possibly) Croft but even if they are not continuing next year they must play to give some support to the pups.
So K-Mac, Cross and Faulkner to be considered in the rotations for the rest of the year while Picken and maybe Wiggins are left in the Bees.
Originally posted by gridlocked
There's no chance that we will beat Sydney, because we will be travelling back from Perth. No team has won the week after playing in Perth have they? Its not like we will. Our next win will most likely come in round 14 against Hawthorn.
Thats no a gimme either. I am assuming Hawthorn will be playing for their careers and for pride by then just like us as they are gone for 2003.
Thompson is out for 4 weeks and due back for that game. Typical.
Originally posted by Fossie 32
I imagine it feels particularly bad for the younger supporters going through this sort of slump for the first time.
Sure does fossie, they prob havent lost 10 in a row since i was born. These are tough times, but we all need to keep showing the guys how much support they have(im sure everyone will keep supporting them), and we will get through it, and be a better team in the years to come.
Chicago1
2 Jun 2003, 18:36
Originally posted by Fossie 32
I imagine it feels particularly bad for the younger supporters going through this sort of slump for the first time. For us oldies its a grim reminder of times like the early 80's.
I agree. However, the wins back in the early 80s, though scarce, were rich in memories. I doubt if anyone who was there at the Junction Oval on 14 June 1980 will ever forget Footscray 25.17 167 - Fitzroy 18.15 123. However, after experiencing a winning decade like the 90s, I'd take the latter any day!
To even think of letting up and "resting" players because of an anticipated loss should be aneathema for all players and supporters. The team out on the oval should be the best available, always! Injured players are another thing all together. Lynch's "ailment" would fit into this category.
Originally posted by Chicago1
I agree. However, the wins back in the early 80s, though scarce, were rich in memories. I doubt if anyone who was there at the Junction Oval on 14 June 1980 will ever forget Footscray 25.17 167 - Fitzroy 18.15 123. However, after experiencing a winning decade like the 90s, I'd take the latter any day!
To even think of letting up and "resting" players because of an anticipated loss should be anathema for all players and supporters. The team out on the oval should be the best available, always! Injured players are another thing all together. Lynch's "ailment" would fit into this category.
I agree, Chicago! (I agreed with you before, only not the bit about boycotting the club, but hey... Good to see you back!) I've only had to correct one spelling mistake in your post, hehe. :D
Originally posted by Chicago1
I agree. However, the wins back in the early 80s, though scarce, were rich in memories. I doubt if anyone who was there at the Junction Oval on 14 June 1980 will ever forget Footscray 25.17 167 - Fitzroy 18.15 123. However, after experiencing a winning decade like the 90s, I'd take the latter any day!
Was that the day Shane Loveless kicked 6/7???? If so I was there.
Originally posted by Chicago1
To even think of letting up and "resting" players because of an anticipated loss should be aneathema for all players and supporters. The team out on the oval should be the best available, always! Injured players are another thing all together. Lynch's "ailment" would fit into this category.
I presume that if you were Churchill you would have saved Coventry and lost the war. ;)
The only chance we have of winning a game in the next 2 rounds is resting guys from this week.
Chicago1
3 Jun 2003, 01:54
Originally posted by Curly5
I've only had to correct one spelling mistake in your post, hehe. :D
You nasty person! LOL I looked the word up on my AOL Dictionary and added the "a" and forgot to delete the "e" which I had originally used . Not an everday word even for me!;)
Chicago1
3 Jun 2003, 02:22
Originally posted by Dry Rot
I presume that if you were Churchill you would saved Coventry and lost the war. ;)
The only chance we have of winning a game in the next 2 rounds is resting guys from this week.
Please don't mention the war, any war in future!;)
Won't all of the players have a rest the weekend of the 21st/22nd? (Just in time for us to regroup and beat Collingwood?:D ) I see your point, but the players are professionals and, if fit, should play every match if their form warrants selection. The idea of "sacrificing" one match to save another is too much of a "Sophie's Choice" conundrum (Like that word, Curly?) to me. I think the use of "resting" any fit player is a luxury that only clubs who are strong enough and most likely to win without the usage of regularly selected players can afford to have.
Based upon my reading about the last few losses, one reason we have been overridden is because we have had no one "stand up" when the playing gets tough. I'd much prefer having a Kretiuk or a Croft out there to possibly lead the way rather than an inexperienced player who, when faced with a pressure situation, will fall to pieces. On the other hand, I found it interesting to read of the coach's public rebuke of Kretiuk for giving away a 50 metre penalty which resulted in a certain goal for the Kangaroos at a crucial stage of the match rather than the Roo player having an "iffy" shot from the boundary. See what I mean when I say "conundrum"? I guess we Monday morning coaches have it pretty easy compared to the real thing!
Chicgao1,
Simple fact is that this year no Vic team has won the week following a match at Subi, and we have no chance over there.
Therefore my theory about standing down a few so that we maximise our chances v Swans @ the SCG.
Call me selfish, but if the Dogs played in Chicago once a year, you'd be trying anything for a win. (Given the coverage given to non-Swans teams, Sydney & Chicago are probably equidistant form Melbourne).
Chicago1
3 Jun 2003, 15:32
Originally posted by Dry Rot
Chicgao1,
Simple fact is that this year no Vic team has won the week following a match at Subi, and we have no chance over there.
Therefore my theory about standing down a few so that we maximise our chances v Swans @ the SCG.
Call me selfish, but if the Dogs played in Chicago once a year, you'd be trying anything for a win. (Given the coverage given to non-Swans teams, Sydney & Chicago are probably equidistant form Melbourne).
LOL I forgot you were in Sydney, Dry Rot! How very selfish of you......... I'd never try to convince people of anything as devious as what you're suggesting!;) :D
Of course, if the Bulldogs ever were to play here in Chicago, I'd think of the good of the team on the whole and their welfare and ......... yeah, sure........ I'd even try to pay off the opposing team to see the Doggies win! Hmmm..... the Bulldogs playing Collingwood at Wrigley Field and winning ---- now that would be heaven on earth!:D