True that! It seems made up that Taylor Walker played his entire first season in the 2s.
Bigman’s Training Reports
- Thread starter George Kramer
- Start date
- Tagged users None
True that! It seems made up that Taylor Walker played his entire first season in the 2s.
Golumless
A bigger deal out west.
Yup, the joys of being a mid-tier prospect in a position that is locked down by someone else.
- Feb 8, 2013
- 3,280
- 4,353
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Yeah, so the same as what I said just different wording. I'm the first to admit I'm not an eloquent campaigner...
Has looked ok at AFL level for premiership points. But must admit, I haven't seen SANFL, scratchie or his form on the training deck. Obviously, the least valuable determinant is actual AFL output. Did you happen to notice where he went wrong with his running patterns?
Yeah I think Nank should be given a go and developed. Has some nice traits.
Regardless of whether you think Nankervis should play (he should), the idea that Hamill is still being given one of the precious 26 spots in the trial match is a joke. He simply doesn't have it. Move on and try someone else.
I seem to recall bigman being rather surprised and complementary of a fair amount of his pre season training form?
Unless he's all of a sudden become Grant Birchall then not sure he's worth investing time into over the Nank.
Nice story Bros….
The Facts
1) Prior to Brayden’s selection for the Melbourne game he had “racked up” an average of 15 disposals and 0.75 goals per game (the new David Mackay) in his 4 previous games in the SANFL, playing predominantly on the wing.
2) With Rachele suspended, Laird injured, McHenry illness, Michaelanney managed and Sholl omitted we brought in FIVE SANFL players (Cook, Crouch, Schoenberg, Nankervis and Hately).
3) IMHO Cook had a reasonable game against the Demons with a Mackay like 15 disposals and 2 tackles in 84% TOG mostly playing on the wing. Of the other SANFL promotions, Crouch had 22 disposals and 9 tackles in 76% TOG, Schoenberg had 23 disposals and 3 tackles, Nankervis had 16 disposals and 1 tackle playing mainly off half back, Hately was the sub.
4) With Laird, Soligo and Michalanney returning (and Rankine and Murray injured) someone had to go. We retained Nankervis, Crouch and Schoenberg (which of these would you have dropped?), dropped Cook and Hately (sub) and moved Sloane to the sub. Clearly poor decisions by our selectors since we only belted Poort Pear by 8 goals.
Regarding running patterns (I appreciate it is less obvious on the tellie at the golf club), Brayden just seems to run to the wrong spots. It could be the fact that he was a bit older when he took up footie.
P.S. Did you add to the four games you have attended at Adelaide Oval since 2016 (two of them Pear matches) that you mentioned in a post a bit over a year ago?
PPS. Do you still claim that the Crows finances are in disarray and we will never be able to get a loan for new club rooms?After all you we’re absolutely accurate in stating that the AFC was an ongoing concern
?
Last edited:
I have lots of respect for bigman but there is only so much you can tell from preseason training form and drills.
I can't even remember the last time I saw Hamill in a match where he looked like he belonged.
I’d love to know the thing they’re trying to get him to work on
Because there’s something there they’re trying to fix , can’t pinpoint it though and he’d be in my round 1 calculations
- Aug 30, 2021
- 15,179
- 27,724
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Thread starter
- #1,712
Nice story Bros….
The Facts
1) Prior to Brayden’s selection for the Melbourne game he had “racked up” an average of 15 disposals and 0.75 goals per game (the new David Mackay) in his 4 previous games in the SANFL, playing predominantly on the wing.
2) With Rachele suspended, Laird injured, McHenry illness, Michaelanney managed and Sholl omitted we brought in FIVE SANFL players (Cook, Crouch, Schoenberg, Nankervis and Hately).
3) IMHO Cook had a reasonable game against the Demons with a Mackay like 15 disposals and 2 tackles in 84% TOG mostly playing on the wing. Of the other SANFL promotions, Crouch had 22 disposals and 9 tackles in 76% TOG, Schoenberg had 23 disposals and 3 tackles, Nankervis had 16 disposals and 1 tackle playing mainly off half back, Hately was the sub.
4) With Laird, Soligo and Michalanney returning (and Rankine and Murray injured) someone had to go. We retained Nankervis, Crouch and Schoenberg (which of these would you have dropped?), dropped Cook and Hately (sub) and moved Sloane to the sub. Clearly poor decisions by our selectors since we only belted Poort Pear by 8 goals.
Regarding running patterns (I appreciate it is less obvious on the tellie at the golf club), Brayden just seems to run to the wrong spots. It could be the fact that he was a bit older when he took up footie.
P.S. Did you add to the four games you have attended at Adelaide Oval since 2016 (two of them Pear matches) that you mentioned in a post a bit over a year ago?
PPS. Do you still claim that the Crows finances are in disarray and we will never be able to get a loan for new club rooms?After all you were absolutely accurate in stating that the AFC was an ongoing concern
So Cooks one game was reasonable at AFL level, with 16 touches, not bad for someone playing his only one game for the year. Maybe he could have played another game during the year.
Given Sloane sucked against Essendon, Giants and then Melbourne, no way could he have been dropped and Cook made sub right?
Murphy only played for a sick McHenry, played average but was retained.
Yeah no way would it have been reasonable for the club to give a guy 2 AFL games when he played a “reasonable” game against a top 4 side at the G.
It’s laughable you’re comparing his disposal count with a bloke who we picked for over 200 games and thinking you’re on a winner.
It’s a shame you went to so much effort with your usual arrogance only to make a s**t point
Last edited:
- Sep 3, 2018
- 4,200
- 5,480
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Good distinction. We do see a few of our players playing injured though - Butts last year a good example - and I would have thought that decision would sit firmly with Burgess and his team as opposed to the coaches?
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
I was critical that we played Butts in the early games last year. He was struggling with a shoulder injury and seemed reluctant to spoil with his bad arm. As it happens, he gradually improved and was starting to play some good footy before a different injury occurred followed by his foot injury late in the season.
I’m not sure if this proves his selection was right or wrong but it was very frustrating watching him running around trying to avoid Richard Kimble.
- Sep 3, 2018
- 4,200
- 5,480
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
My point or question though is my understanding is the high performance team say whether a player is good to go or not good to go. Player and coach would have a voice obviously - particularly player, but Burgess team would ultimately pass a play fit or not fit to play. Not the coaching staff
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
As expected you prefer to chuck s**t than respond to the points I have made.
Cook was brought in to play on the wing despite pretty average form in the SANFL. He literally was the last (wing)man standing. Everyone agreed that Sholl’s form had steadily declined and should be dropped. Soligo was really struggling in interstate games and it was a good move to rest him. Sloane’s experiment as a wingman was no longer working.
The choices were
1) Bring back Soligo and drop Cook. Chayce Jones had been moved to the wing and was looking promising and we were also giving Hinge and Smith some time on the wing.
2) Move Cook to half back and drop Nankervis. Cook had struggled defending in the SANFL so this wasn’t a great idea.
3) Drop Murphy and play Cook as a high half forward even though Cook had had limited experience as a forward in the SANFL up to that point in the season.
4) Play Cook as the sub and drop Sloane. This was my preference but no doubt the usual suspects would have been outraged if we played him as a sub.
Brayden had a good game when our Twos ripped the Magpies apart but his form was just O.K. In the Twos for the rest of the season.
- Aug 30, 2021
- 15,179
- 27,724
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Thread starter
- #1,717
You don’t think you chuck s**t? Pretty hypocritical of you there.
I did address your points, you’ve just chosen to delete them when you quoted me and then complain I didn’t, that’s quite odd.
Usual suspects, see you’ve done it again, you put a target on your back. You’ve even said you would have preferred Cook as sub over Sloane and the “usual suspects” would have preferred this too.
You completely downplayed Cooks game against Melbourne, which given it was his first AFL game in a long time, playing against a top 4 side at the G, it was a good performance and showed he could play at this level. You’re hanging your hat on SANFL form too much when some players just excel at the higher level and Cook has played some decent AFL footy for a kid.
He's a troll, if he posts more than 2 lines, it's a waste of time reading it.
- Oct 2, 2022
- 4,379
- 5,746
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I think in your metaphor, Butts is Richard Kimble?
- Oct 2, 2022
- 4,379
- 5,746
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
He's hardly a troll. He's one of the better posters here. Pretty much every post explains his thinking and gives evidence for it.
You might disagree, but that doesn't make him a troll.
- Oct 2, 2022
- 4,379
- 5,746
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I think he said the Usual Suspects would have complained about this?
Sloane being dropped would have been the better move in my opinion as well, but it wasn't black and white, and we did win well the following week with the team they chose. Cook didn't demand continued selection, unlike the others.
I thought the points he felt you didn't address was about going to games and finances? Though that also doesn't seem that relevant.
I almost entirely agree when he's talking about football, but he is one of those obnoxious types that believes he's one of the few whose opinions are actually valid. And the longer his pists go, the more excited he gets abou5 his perceived intellectual superiority and the less the pists are about football. "The tools, trolls blah blah blah". His short posts are good, which is why I read them.
The latter no doubt a strawman. A few years ago our balance sheet showed negative working capital, which was a year after we lost support of westpac and had to find another lender. I merely pointed out that we weren't a financial powerhouse and there was genuine concerns re our liquid position at that balance date. From memory, there was even an auditor qualification which referenced prepaid membership revenues with respect to our cash position following that date. Old mate 5hen strawmans this into ridiculous statements.
- Aug 30, 2021
- 15,179
- 27,724
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Thread starter
- #1,724
That was directed to 1970crow
