'05 Draft: Pendlebury or Ryder?

[Kong]

Both are current guns and future elite players.
but pendlebury, the midfielder with so much ilk, poise, time and skill, or ryder, the fast, tall, smart athletic player capable of playing anywhere?

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Pendlebury, to me, is a more solid chance of going on to have a top notch career filled with B&Fs and AA selections, at this stage.

Ryder is still a chance to stagnate without ever really finding a solid position. That said, I would still be stunned if he didn't become a star from where he is now.

If I was choosing between the two for Collingwood, I'd take Pendlebury, given that our young backline is looking pretty solid as it is, with Brown, O'Brien and Goldsack to build around.

 

[Astro_]

The doggies would love Ryder in their side.

I rate the guy very highly.

 

[Carn Hawkas]

We would love Ryder down back at Hawthorn.

 

[hellfire]

TOTALLY different players, bad comparison. Pendlebury is what we need more, and I personally think he will end up a better player, though obviously it's impossible to say. Depends on the needs of the team, because both will be guns.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Kind of a Jennifer Hawkins or Miranda Kerr comparison. You can't lose.

Pies need Pendles more because our midfield is suspect.

 

[Tonche]

I rate Pendles but Ryder has been sensational this year and has more room to grow in my somewhat biased opinion.

 

[dave_27]

Im bias but I wouldnt swap Ryder for Pendlebury, and Collingwood supporters wouldnt swap Pendlebury for Ryder for that matter aswell.

Would love to have Pendlebury at Essendon though.

 

[BABYBOMBERS2007]

Ryder is by far better.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

One thing to consider - For those fans that are unbiased on the matter - Is that Pendlebury is a Vice-Captain already, and was runner-up in our B&F last year, so he's obviously on his way to being a leader of our club.

 

[The Grover]

Difficult choice but I'll go with Ryder because I think its harder to find a Ryder type than a Pendelbury type.

Once Bombers actually realise Ryder should play on the best forward instead of Fletcher & Michael, I think he'll develop into an awesome player.

 

[Blueboys7]

Pendles could be a great player but then ryder just a great talent and will eventually be a better player.

Silly comparison when one is a midfielder and the other KKP (who knows where he should play lol)
Its like when they compare judd and buddy...silly

 

[Dundalis]

Ryder is by far better.

How about not. Ryder and Nathan Brown is a much better comparison.

 

[pieman123]

pendlebury dominated today with 33 disposals,11 marks and 7 tackles could of had 40+disposals if he didnt get rested for most of the last quarter and should of probably kicked 2-3 goals

 

[HBK619]

pendlebury dominated today with 33 disposals,11 marks and 7 tackles could of had 40+disposals if he didnt get rested for most of the last quarter and should of probably kicked 2-3 goals

Yep, he was good yesterday, but one match doesn't make the player...

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

No, one game doesn't make the player, but Pendlebury's shown a lot to date, and the difference between the two on a big stage was pretty stark.

 

[bomberstomake8]

No, one game doesn't make the player, but Pendlebury's shown a lot to date, and the difference between the two on a big stage was pretty stark.

im sure if your team got thumped by 73 points then your defenders wouldnt have a good game either

 

[Jef Costello]

Very tough will both be great l think. Ryder just because harder to find.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

im sure if your team got thumped by 73 points then your defenders wouldnt have a good game either

He didn't show much of anything though...

Sure, it's not all his fault, but even when the game was in the balance he was beaten, and not doing much.

And it's relevant because Pendlebury is part of the reason we won by 73 points.

 

[Magpie Magic]

Pendlebury just but both will be stars. Pendles has good skills, composure under pressure and the ability to weave through traffic whereas Ryder has shown signs of being a good, athletic key position player. Not really a fair comparison.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

They're both terrific prospects. Team needs would have a big say in which one you'd prefer. Teams after KPPs would go Ryder; others after mids would go Pendles.

Don't think you could go wrong either way.

 

[Kong]

He didn't show much of anything though...

Sure, it's not all his fault, but even when the game was in the balance he was beaten, and not doing much.

I beg the differ. When the match was still in the balance, I think it's fair to say Ryder held Cloke very well, and arguably even beat him in most plays. It was only once the game was over that Cloke did any serious damage.

 

[mattdwyer]

is it just me or does scott pendlebury seem really really slow ???? he just has no pace what so ever .. great player !! and i do rate him very highly .. and i voted for him

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

He's got okay, but unspectacular pace - He just generally doesn't need it.

His evasiveness is so good that he just looks like he has all the time in the world while he's standing still.

 

[HBK619]

He's got okay, but unspectacular pace - He just generally doesn't need it.

His evasiveness is so good that he just looks like he has all the time in the world while he's standing still.

That's the basketballer in him, I think that is why so many Scouters are looking towards Basketball, they have an inane ability to evade and get in spaces that no other person can, there is a high number of footy players in the AFL right now that were good basketballers before joining footy and it is rare that you find a bad one.