Past #1: Daniel Currie - officially traded to Gold Coast in exchange for a third round selection (#53)

[Black2Blue]

Agree, but we still need that back up ruckman. Either Daw comes in, or Petrie spends more time on the ball.

Daw's time is now. Whether he makes the grade or not is still to be seen but he has been groomed as our ruck-forward and, in all honesty, with the form of Currie and Petrie he can't do any worse.

 

[Joshen]

Unfortunately just isn't good enough at ground level to be anything other than the first ruckman, shouldn't play unless Goldy is injured.

 

[Lavy_Panther]

Nup, not copping this structure excuse. If Daniel Currie fits your best structure, then change your structure!!

 

[Saintly31]

Brad Scott was in the gun last year for playing one ruck and relying on a tiring Goldstein late in games. He now plays two ruckmen and is now in the gun for doing so. Who would want to be a coach?!

The problem is that Currie isn't the second ruck option, especially when he has to play 75% of the game in the forward line. He should either be number 1 ruck, or not played at all, and with Goldstein clearly our number 1 ruck his chances aren't looking good.

Turn it up Mr. Blonde concerning the Brad Scott comments, he doesn't pull the right reign every time, just like any other coach.

If Currie could play it wouldn't be an issue as he would provide up forward and in the ruck. Fact is he looks very ordinary. I now know why he was discarded by Sydney as he just isn't an AFL player.

We really need to start playing guys who have talent and make the structure fit around that, not fill gaps with poor or unfit AFL players to suit a structure.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Turn it up Mr. Blonde concerning the Brad Scott comments, he doesn't pull the right reign every time, just like any other coach.

If Currie could play it wouldn't be an issue as he would provide up forward and in the ruck. Fact is he looks very ordinary (can a player move any slower than Sandilands? Currie maybe does) and now I know why he was discarded by Sydney.

We need to start playing guys wo have talent and make the structure fit around that, not fill gaps with poor AFL players to suit a structure.

I actually agree with you Saintly. What I was trying to say is that everyone was screaming for a second ruck (Currie) to play last year. He is now playing and the call is to get him out of the team.

Currie is a ruckman, that is all. He is not a forward and shouldn't be played there. We either need Daw to fill that role or play Drew in the ruck more. A pure ruckman as a forward has never worked in the history of AFL football.

 

[The Nostradamus]

The only positive of the game is that currie has to be dropped

 

[Saintly31]

I understand the selection. As I said pre game, picking Currie to play today was as much about next week as it was about this week.

Unfortunately for the coach, he was horrible today. Hopefully Daw's VFL performance is enough for him to take Currie's spot or they go small and pick Nahas again

Sent from my Nokia 3210

Nah, he has been horrible every time I've seen him in 2014, including pre-season.

Your pre-game post had merit for next week, but was far too complementary to Currie as no point playing two rucks when only one is AFL standard.

 

[Jay-Z]

Nah, he has been horrible every time I've seen him in 2014, including pre-season.

Your pre-game post had merit for next week, but was far too complementary to Currie as no point playing two rucks when only one is AFL standard.

Yeah I know he's been poor in all 3 games but you can forgive the match committee for giving him time to adjust. If we dropped every debutant that struggled in their first game we wouldn't have many players.

Anyway, there is no way we aren't taking a second ruck to Perth next week so hopefully Maj is deemed to be fit enough otherwise it could get ugly on here on Thursday night

Sent from my Nokia 3210

 

[verypoorboy]

Wasn't why we loss today, but my gosh he's a spud

 

[Saintly31]

I actually agree with you Saintly. What I was trying to say is that everyone was screaming for a second ruck (Currie) to play last year. He is now playing and the call is to get him out of the team.

Currie is a ruckman, that is all. He is not a forward and shouldn't be played there. We either need Daw to fill that role or play Drew in the ruck more. A pure ruckman as a forward has never worked in the history of AFL football.

Excellent post and I 100% agree with you.

Feel free to contact the club to put your hand up to make the selections, would be a vast improvement.

 

[Saintly31]

Wasn't why we loss today, but my gosh he's a spud

No one has said he is the reason we lost.

It is purely about why he was picked and on what basis. I can't find any reason why a (surprisingly so slow) ruckman as 3rd forward is a good idea.

Our defensive side to our game was our weakness but we blamed it on the players.
Our offensive side to our game this year is our weakness but who do we blame now? I see one factor that coincides with both here.
You cant blame it on acquiring Tudor and playing more defensive footy.
Are our players that dumb they forgot how to kick goals in a preaseason??

To be honest we should have been beaten by 100 points. Just like round 1 when we were so inferior it was embarrassing and margin not near a reflective of how we actually were.

I think Tudor may have increased our defensive accountability so yes, helped us get players in the right spots to limit the damage.

So in saying that I think you may be onto something tazaa.

 

[Joshen]

Perhaps most importantly: he doesn't actual offer the structural benefit.

The second best defender still goes to Black and Currie gets the third, who, Currie isn't out marking and is certainly not offering anything at ground level.

 

[shinboner magic]

Petrie wasnt any better and misses to many easy shots.

Currie looks lost but has only played three games and the delivery was pathetic.

Brad scott was outcoached again

 

[Reginald0]

he was picked becos Pies played Grundy and Witts
and to see if he cld play on a sunny aftn at the G

he failed OK
he was unable to mark
he was unable to put physical pressure on opponents
now we know
don't see why you are getting wound up\ was worth a try

 

[Saintly31]

don't see why you are getting wound up\ was worth a try

Why? We already had tried Currie?

We tried Nahas last week off VFL form and he was impressive. Dropped.

Currie has been terrible all 2014 full stop. Picked.

 

[Saintly31]

Yeah I know he's been poor in all 3 games but you can forgive the match committee for giving him time to adjust. If we dropped every debutant that struggled in their first game we wouldn't have many players.

Get where you are coming from but there is a difference between a debutant that is young and may improve sharply despite poor first games....to playing a mature age cast-off from another club after multiple poor showings.

 

[Benno_900]

He isn't a forward and will never make it in this role.

If he plays another game with Goldy in the team, I'd spew.

 

[Reginald0]

nahas was in for wet weather football

just repeating that currie has been bad all year does not make it true
my recollection is his preseason form was fab

 

[Lavy_Panther]

Anyone who has seen Daniel Currie play competition football could tell you he isn't AFL standard. Just stop. There is no excuse for this selection. This isn't speaking in hind sight because it was called as soon as the team was announced. It's a call the selection committee needs to be held accountable for.

 

[Saintly31]

nahas was in for wet weather football

just repeating that currie has been bad all year does not make it true
my recollection is his preseason form was fab

Can you prove to me Nahas can't play in decent weather?

No, your recollection is wrong. Currie was far below standard in pre-season also (as a forward).

 

[hilly]

Keep him on the list to play if Goldstein is injured.

We need to keep looking for tall forwards. Daw should get his chance now.

 

[scottywiper]

Currie is just too cumbersome when the ball hits the ground. And neither he or Goldy offer a reliable mark around the ground. Hard to carry two blokes with such similar skillsets.

 

[The Ardent Army]

Cue the Tarrant / Brad Scott 'team structure' haters..... Oh wait...

 

[Benno_900]

nahas was in for wet weather football

just repeating that currie has been bad all year does not make it true
my recollection is his preseason form was fab

No, he ******* wasn't.

The only reason he is in the team is because Bon is obsessed with the three tall forward setup and he is tall. That's it.

 

[King Corey]

I actually agreed with Currie's selection. Thought it was necessary to have a second ruck structurally and one that could pinch hit up forward. Had horrors of Witts and Grundy breaking Goldie in half.

But it just didn't work with Currie being used as a bona fide focal point. He did get that one nice mark/goal but his agility is way off the level required for a key forward and when you add an out of sorts and very slow Drew to the mix, it allowed Collingwood unfettered access at easy rebound setups.

Don't want to shut the door on Dan yet. Despite his age the bloke is on his 3rd game. I like his contesting, his skills are ok and he seems like a great bloke who probably fits in well with his teammates.

Reality is performance matters and if Majak did well today (haven't watched VFL recording yet) then it's a swap worth trying.