View Full Version : Line up?
SkARkS_69
12 Oct 2003, 23:55
B: A.Jones L.Penny M.Hudghton
HB: B.Voss J.Koschitzke S.Koops
C: S.Powell R.Harvey L.Montagna
HF: A.Hamill N.Riewoldt X.Clarke
F: S.Milne F.Gehrig A.Murray
R: M.Allan L.Hayes L.Ball
I: S.Baker B.Brooks J.Blake B.Goddard
Delisted or traded:
Brett Moyle
Troy Schwarze
Heath Black
Craig Callaghan
Chris Oliver
Matthew Capuano
Steven Lawrence
Justin Peckett
Gain:
Matthew Allan. Also Steven Koops (as part of the Black trade)
Tom_Sainter
13 Oct 2003, 14:31
Moyle and Peckett have been offered one year deals.
We wont be getting Allan, i think the club is keeping faith in Brooks. Trent Croad will be a saint next year, and play at CHB, releasing Kosi and Riewoldt.
Koops wouldnt interest GT, he seems like a loose cannon
SkARkS_69
13 Oct 2003, 14:54
But does that line up look alright?
Koops isnt any worse than Black , and Brooks needs backup and Knobel isnt the man for the job.
I would think Dal Santo would be in our best 22.
riccardo
17 Oct 2003, 11:27
The only change to our best 22 I can see right now is switching Blacks name for Gram's.
St-KriS
17 Oct 2003, 13:27
I wouldn't think Gram's an automatic inclusion just yet...
I'd give Fisher a go at claiming a regular spot in the team. I was very impressed with his first 6 games.
WILKO_6
17 Oct 2003, 18:31
FB: L Fisher M Hudghton B Voss
HB: B Guerra L Penny A Jones
C: N Dal santo R Harvey L Montagna
HF: B Goddard N Riewoldt S Powell
FF: A Hamill F Gehrig X Clarke
R: J Koschitzke L Hayes L Ball
Inter: S Baker M Maguire J Blake S Milne
Emerg: B Brooks D Wulf J Peckett
Damn that side looks pretty good!
Sawf Dawg
17 Oct 2003, 19:48
Therefore, others to miss out:
Thompson
Black
Callaghan
Lawrence???
Ferguson
Oliver
Houlihan
Knobel
Murray
Schwarze
Moyle
Gram
Our depth is starting to look good too.
Tremendo!
dan warna
18 Oct 2003, 11:33
Thompson is in our best 22 as is black.
thompson played the end of the season after coming back from some pretty bad surgery, i suspect he was rushed back early as the kids lost it for a while mid season.
fisher guerra and milne are not auto starts, but fisher does look good.
i suspect some of our players will ASK to be traded end of next year as they compete for places on our list and can't break in.
our running rotation includes Harvey, ball, lenny, the glove, black, powell, thompson, snipper moyle, dal, monty, etc...
not as good as brisbanes or Collingwood, but so many are so young, theres a chance we'll overhaul collingwood, but brisbane are still a season away for matching their physical power.
brisbane have the krays, pike, v1, akkers, lappin, power, black, etc.
collingwood have figjam, wowowowoewidin, burns, licuria, holland etc.
Welcome aboard Dan. We need as many as we can get to give the other sides hell as we move up the ladder.:)
B: Voss, Penny, Hudghton
HB: Jones, Riewoldt, Goddard
C: Dal Santo, Hayes, Black
HF: Montagna, Koschitzke, Hamill
F: Milne, Gehrig, Clarke
R: Brooks, Harvey, Ball
INT: Maguire, Powell, Guerra, Thompson
Banger35
19 Oct 2003, 19:03
Originally posted by vergs
B: Voss, Penny, Hudghton
HB: Jones, Riewoldt, Goddard
C: Dal Santo, Hayes, Black
HF: Montagna, Koschitzke, Hamill
F: Milne, Gehrig, Clarke
R: Brooks, Harvey, Ball
INT: Maguire, Powell, Guerra, Thompson
Agreed. Don't think we could name a better side than that.
saints fan44
19 Oct 2003, 19:46
have 2 agree i love the way that sides lookin:p
Lumbo24
19 Oct 2003, 20:28
B: Voss, Hudghton, Fisher
HB: Jones, Penny, Goddard
C: Dal Santo, Hayes, Powell
HF: Montagna, Riewoldt, Hamill
F: Clarke, Gehrig, Koschitzke
R: Maguire, Harvey, Ball
INT: Milne, Guerra, Thompson, Baker
EMERGENCY: Gram, Black, Peckett, Blake - Knoble if we need a tall
couldn't possibly have:
Black before Baker or Powell
Brookes before Maguire
Wulf or Schwarze before ANYBODY!!!
Originally posted by Lumbo24
couldn't possibly have:
Black before Baker or Powell
Brookes before Maguire
[/B]
If Black played his best footy then he would be named on a wing before Powell or Baker. He may not rack up as many possesions as Powell, but he would be more damaging. Brooks would be named before Maguire simply because he is a specialised ruckman, Maguire is not. Maguire should just be used as key position depth.