Pretty sure he only missed one game with injury.
Favourites
- Thread starter nut
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Pretty sure he only missed one game with injury.
- Banned
- #27
you would but only if in those sub par performances there were 1 or 2 performances that said, yep we should perservere here in the 1s, since we didnt expect that from a developing tall although we did however expect mistakes.
Thats what you and others fail to grasp, that you cant develop on a nothing platform on someone that just looks not up to it. They are now waiting for Ty to produce the goods too. Unfortunately this time, he has come with that media pumping him up etc etc, so the opposition ups the ante and he is in nowhere land atm. Lets hope he finds his way out of nowhere land, because he is now one of those players we are used to. The ones where we wait and wait and wait and wait and hope and wait and 8 years down the track, we are still waiting and hoping.
Rodney Dangerfield
Doesn’t matter
The difference clearly though is that Vickery has shown he can play.Post in my opinion shows nothing and hasn't looked like it.
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,704
- 13,425
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #29
Second hand?....it was from houli him self
Vickery has had greater opportunities .
- Aug 18, 2009
- 7,234
- 6,736
- AFL Club
- Richmond
The Richmond coaches knew that with Houlis foot skills he would be able to hold down a role on the wing or half back flank in a poor team to put him in the core group of players for the future. Last year nobody was pressureing ffor those spots so it was a safe bet, whereas post was on the same level as grimes/astbury so whoever was in form got the call up on merit last year. This year post is clearly behind grimes and batchelor looks like a 200 game player while post could be anything. therefor post doesnt get the promises Houli got. As I said Maric wouldve got the Houli spiel due to his position which nobody could argue with. It's horses for courses.
Long term doesn't equal 1 year mate. Vickery has the ability & I would say once he fixes his 2012 issue between the ears he has at the moment you and many others will swiftly jump back on him
Reality is every coach has favourites, and these guys get a little more latitude than others.
Probably due to his ability to execute the coaches orders?
Post has never yet looked at home out on the ground and I doubt 22 gifted matches would change that much either. Astbury would have taken Pots spot rnd 1 if available.
Very very few talls look comfortable previous to playing numerous games on end . Astbury was poor in defence last year , he 's a forward .
Rodney Dangerfield
Doesn’t matter
That's my point. 2 poor games and everyone forgets how much progress he made last year.Long term doesn't equal 1 year mate. Vickery has the ability & I would say once he fixes his 2012 issue between the ears he has at the moment you and many others will swiftly jump back on him
Reality is every coach has favourites, and these guys get a little more latitude than others.
- Banned
- #36
no one forgets anything dude. What you forget is that its 2 POOR games and that is about all those who you suggest forget are saying. So by what you are saying, its ok Ty you can produce s**t and we will stick with you because of s**t you produced last year, is that correct?
I don't disagree with anything there RP. My point was that it made sense for him not to play last week considering the match ups. No point cocking up the structure just to give him continuity.
FWIW I haven't written him off because, as you say, talls need some game time to get the hang of it. Post hasn't had that. And on the Carlton game he got hammered with 65 inside 50s playing on a mountain, one out. Sure, made a couple of shocking blunders but with less than 20 games under the belt that's to be expected also.
Seriously, who cares???? he played 22 games and finished top 5 or 6 in the B&F.
End of story!
End of story!
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,704
- 13,425
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #39
It just keeps on keeping on dude.
The thing is that they dont employ people with no idea about footy, the employ people who have an idea, but that idea then makes them look like they have NFI.
As for who sees things that nobody else can see, lets put it this way, there are about 3 on this board that go around blowing the trumpet as loud as they can about the pluses of having the Tucks, Hacksons etc in the team, so there you have the definition of brilliant minds that see what no one else can see which ties in to what the brains trust can see as well.
So when you factor in that one of them wasnt wanted by any other club at the trade table and then factor in the masses here who suggest that we wont go anywhere with their inclusions, tipping when it comes to not seeing what blind freddy can see, then those who are employed are front and ****ing center.
How many games did we win with Tuck in the side last year champ?
- Mar 16, 2002
- 21,704
- 13,425
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #40
So our coaches knew more than the Essendon coaches???
What I see with Houli is a fantastic outside player.... with limited inside ability. You just dont see those type of players in the top 4 teams.
- Aug 18, 2009
- 7,234
- 6,736
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Umm actually yes they do. Look at Grant Birchall for Hawthorn. Would be in their top 3 best kicks, is rated super highly both in and outside of hawthorn yet would rarely win the hard ball because it isn't his role.
Houli wasn't uterlized properly under Knights as Essendon placed greater emphasis on pace which is now outdated and didn't suit Houlis style. Houli would get a game with Hawthorn over guy like Whitecross because of his foot skills however as I said he would not be guaranteed games because Hawthorn already have their core group of players so Houli would merely complement it.
Rodney Dangerfield
Doesn’t matter
no one forgets anything dude. What you forget is that its 2 POOR games and that is about all those who you suggest forget are saying. So by what you are saying, its ok Ty you can produce s**t and we will stick with you because of s**t you produced last year, is that correct?
I'm saying that 2 poor games doesn't mean that all of a sudden he's a spud.if he gets dropped for poor form good and well.
I'm more on about people who were whinging about him even last year and are now saying I told you so,I told you he was no good.
_RT_
Hall of Famer
- Sep 17, 2006
- 44,834
- 83,681
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- Furies Premiers 2010
I've got no idea what you're complaining about, you say you want to see players given games based on merit then you suggest that we should continue to gift games to others because they haven't had the same opportunity that others have supposedly had.
If you truly want competition for spots then that applies to everyone and unfortunately some of our players that have been given an opportunity or two or even more to secure a spot haven't been able to step up and grab their chance so they get sent back to give someone else, who has earnt a game on merit, a chance.
- Banned
- #45
Lets switch it up then. Lets say he came out and kicked a bag of 4 in both games. Tipping 2 top games and the tigerheads were hailing an elite forward.
The bar has been raised for Ty and he has come up well short in 2 games. He is not alone, but at the end of the day, he was the next big thing, given "natural" improvement and growth and experience. In both games so far, we could have had a total newbie who might have offered more.
The thing that I cant quite understand is this "he had a bad day" excuse. Its as if he has played 200 consistentl good games and low ane behold he had two bad games and so we can give him the benefit of the doubt.
I would be very surprised if he gets dropped this week, but 3 bad days aint gunna look good when the selection panel sits for R4 and beyond.
The team need him to lift the end. If he doesnt or cant against top shelf defenders, we have persevered with a no 8 KPD who will be a run of the mill KPD who will carve out an AFL career and then dissappear into the sunset.
Rodney Dangerfield
Doesn’t matter
We're on the same page cogga no doubt. I know exactly what you're saying and you're right. I think I get more annoyed by the he is/he isn't brigade from week to week.
Personally I'm confident he won't be one of those 7-8 year cats we waste time on you refer to,but agree his form is shitfull at the moment.
Think Benny Gale I reckon.Remember how ordinary he looked at times in his first 80 odd games sometimes. So up and down but worth it in the end. I reckon that's Ty
Personally I'm confident he won't be one of those 7-8 year cats we waste time on you refer to,but agree his form is shitfull at the moment.
Think Benny Gale I reckon.Remember how ordinary he looked at times in his first 80 odd games sometimes. So up and down but worth it in the end. I reckon that's Ty
Lets switch it up then. Lets say he came out and kicked a bag of 4 in both games. Tipping 2 top games and the tigerheads were hailing an elite forward.
The bar has been raised for Ty and he has come up well short in 2 games. He is not alone, but at the end of the day, he was the next big thing, given "natural" improvement and growth and experience. In both games so far, we could have had a total newbie who might have offered more.
The thing that I cant quite understand is this "he had a bad day" excuse. Its as if he has played 200 consistentl good games and low ane behold he had two bad games and so we can give him the benefit of the doubt.
I would be very surprised if he gets dropped this week, but 3 bad days aint gunna look good when the selection panel sits for R4 and beyond.
The team need him to lift the end. If he doesnt or cant against top shelf defenders, we have persevered with a no 8 KPD who will be a run of the mill KPD who will carve out an AFL career and then dissappear into the sunset.
You cant take much notice of the first two games as our new press is forcing Vicks up the ground instead of staying in the F50 like last year. Lets also remember he has less than 50 games under his belt and most weeks plays on someone with 2 to 3 times as much experience.
In our first two games he has hardly touched it so the club needs to either change his role or send him to the twos for sometime........ I know which I prefer.
I am hoping we see a return of our pre-season game plan this week against the Dees and if so I expect Vicks and any other "Dimma favourites" to produce the goods
- Jun 21, 2010
- 8,816
- 8,703
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Stop making up lies RP, I'm pretty sure we had a similar discussion about Astbury in another thread and I had proven you totally wrong.
Simple as that??
Source? What you're suggesting is the tail is wagging the dog; and I doubt that the RFC, Selection Committee and Benny Gale would not have such terms dictated by a coach.
Sorry, but common sense tells me what you're suggesting is highly unlikely.
And re your thread title, it's actually unrelated to your OP.
Is Houli a 'favourite', or was he "promised 22 games to lure him to the club"?
His performances and polling in the clubs B&F suggest he earned his spot, therefore, not a favourite.
That just leaves you to produce a source for your 'promise' of 22 games claim.
- Banned
- #50
You cant take much notice of the first two games as our new press is forcing Vicks up the ground instead of staying in the F50 like last year. Lets also remember he has less than 50 games under his belt and most weeks plays on someone with 2 to 3 times as much experience.
In our first two games he has hardly touched it so the club needs to either change his role or send him to the twos for sometime........ I know which I prefer.
I am hoping we see a return of our pre-season game plan this week against the Dees and if so I expect Vicks and any other "Dimma favourites" to produce the goods
LMAO...i like it dude...
