2017 Delistings

Remove this Banner Ad

Pure_Ownage said:
There is risk with all of it but realistically bews tuohy both guthries stewart and thurlow are at this time much more solid prospects than cunico/murdoch mccarthy/parsons/gregson/narkle, highlighting our comparison of qualities in each position.
Click to expand...
Of course.

I do think by delisting Ruggles we are committing ourselves to drafting one defender, this draft period I think we have higher priorities. Would have held him for another year and if no progress then move him on in a stronger draft.
 
cats_09, said:
"I would suggest that if a trade presented itself then both the player and the club would have been open to discussions - so for all we know, no other club made and enquires or offers. Doubtful the club would have denied trade options when delisting was seen as the end result rather than a new contract.

I wouldn't be surprised if the nail on his coffin at the club was the development of Zuthrie over the second half of the season who continued to do the job asked of him - and one can expect that Zuthrie would have more improvement in him than Ruggles would.

Maybe no other club saw any value in Ruggles for the same reason others on here have suggested - while he may present with mongrel, clubs will want more and his disposal let's him down too often".

Pretty much sums it up for me.
 
Last edited:
The rabbi said:
cats_09, said:
"I would suggest that if a trade presented itself then both the player and the club would have been open to discussions - so for all we know, no other club made and enquires or offers. Doubtful the club would have denied trade options when delisting was seen as the end result rather than a new contract.

I wouldn't be surprised if the nail on his coffin at the club was the development of Zuthrie over the second half of the season who continued to do the job asked of him - and one can expect that Zuthrie would have more improvement in him than Ruggles would.

Maybe no other club saw any value in Ruggles for the same reason others on here have suggested - while he may present with mongrel, clubs will want more and his disposal let's him down too often".

Pretty much sums it up for me.
Click to expand...
Maybe they saw him as a potential DFA. Not saying it's true but it doesn't make it false. And we'll never know unless it happened.

But clubs would be talking about it trying to fill voids.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

winty said:
Thought it was Gibson actually.

Still can't believe why we didn't try him up forward last pre-season. Would've thought his aggression at the ball and defensive pressure was something we were lacking up there all year.
Click to expand...
Exactly I think I alluded to this in my reply to Rabbi.
 
Down at K Park said:
More likely the nature of his turnovers that would often result in opposition goals.
Click to expand...
So try him forward then. Pretty bs when the coach is happy to try everyone else in positions that don't fit them as players but not Ruggles. Pretty obvious Mooney was right when he said there's a communication disconnect at the club
 
Doctor Gero said:
Of course.

I do think by delisting Ruggles we are committing ourselves to drafting one defender, this draft period I think we have higher priorities. Would have held him for another year and if no progress then move him on in a stronger draft.
Click to expand...

I agree with that last sentence especially but i still think we are pretty well stocked for defenders to need to draft one this year.
 
Don't think even Tom himself would be as surprised by his delisting as some here appear to be.

Two factors outside of his control made it very difficult for him to be retained:

(1) Missing so much footy this year due to injury meant that he didn't get to press his case for how his game has potentially developed from last year; and

(2) The emergence of 'new' players off both the primary and rookie lists who showed some real promise playing in the same part of the ground where he was looking to get a guernsey.

I understand the notion of looking at him as a defensive forward but I just don't believe he covers the ground well enough to make that a really viable option.

Not sure at all that he'll get a run elsewhere in the AFL but obviously wish him all the very best if he does manage to get on a list somewhere.

As for Hayball, even those of us afflicted with #waybillfever can totally understand that he is quite fortunate to be looking at further time in the AFL system.

He would need to lift massively next year in how he impacts VFL games to have any prospect of hanging around for longer.

But keeping the avatar for another year suits me just fine.

And should he ever actually make it, the 'Waybill' banners at his debut game will be truly something to behold.:cool:
 
Last edited:
Ruggles can consider himself unlucky but it was the right call to delist him in my view. People on here complain about all the list cloggers we have or have had in the past, but they want to keep Ruggles as depth. Clearly they didn't see him as having a future with us, and we are pretty well stocked with that type of player on the list. So the right decision was made imo. It perhaps opens up a spot on the list for a mature aged state player or a DFA.
 
ShaunWDT said:
I really dont understand the Ruggles disposial argument, he went at 75% last year and ran at 70% in his 4 games this season.
Click to expand...

The old saying .... throw enough mud and a certain amount will stick.
30 possessions in the reserves and bog but gets delisted it's another Geelong mystery.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Goodbye Tommy, I'll never forget your greatest contribution at Geelong: giving Dermie an aneurysm on your debut because he thought we'd found another one :thumbsu:
 
Its been reported he strained a hamstring sending the "jack" down to set up the end.

He'll be right to go though in 3 or 4 weeks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

catempire
List Mgmt. Narkle, Evans, Tsapitolis, Stevens and Williams delisted
2 3 4 5
Replies
109
Views
4K
Gee Class Loco
Gee Class Loco

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top