Bomber on Sen1116 Wednesday 5.00pm

Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Posts
1,537
Likes
7
Location
Niddrie
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Airport West & Man Utd
Thread starter #1
Some comments made by Bomber on the run home

- The defenders did not lose the game for the cats against Sydney in the last couple of minutes. It should never have got to that stage as we dominated the game, especially in the second term and the forwards just did not convert enough chances. ( must say myself and della got shot down for saying that ).

- David Johnson ranks very highly in the playing group and is a huge chance to be in the leadership group of 6 that will announced on Monday.

- 2007 is the year that we will be at our peak with 20 odd guys with 100 games under there belt.

- Playfair and Tenace to be the big improvers in 2006.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Posts
1,717
Likes
31
Location
Here and there
AFL Club
Geelong
#2
Jack-Packenham said:
- Playfair and Tenace to be the big improvers in 2006.
I bet that bought a tear to your eye Jack. Go Henry.

I caught some of the interview, interesting to hear him say last pre season was so bad, re injuries. And we still did well. All looks good for this year.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Posts
31,435
Likes
55,526
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Moderator #3
Jack-Packenham said:
- The defenders did not lose the game for the cats against Sydney in the last couple of minutes. It should never have got to that stage as we dominated the game, especially in the second term and the forwards just did not convert enough chances. ( must say myself and della got shot down for saying that ).
I haven't heard anyone say the defenders lost it for us. The main message I've heard is that it wasn't our forwards that lost the game - it was Davis who won the game for Sydney as well as our whole team falling apart.

Bomber's words: "Under the massive pressure that you can only ever experience (in finals), we still never delivered," he said. "Our game plan dropped away and we fell apart."
 

Turbocat

Premium Platinum
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Posts
35,947
Likes
31,515
Location
Newtown
AFL Club
Geelong
#4
Jack-Packenham said:
Some comments made by Bomber on the run home

- The defenders did not lose the game for the cats against Sydney in the last couple of minutes. It should never have got to that stage as we dominated the game, especially in the second term and the forwards just did not convert enough chances. ( must say myself and della got shot down for saying that ).
- David Johnson ranks very highly in the playing group and is a huge chance to be in the leadership group of 6 that will announced on Monday.

- 2007 is the year that we will be at our peak with 20 odd guys with 100 games under there belt.

- Playfair and Tenace to be the big improvers in 2006.
Yeah , Jack , heard it and thought of your point of view at the time.
The thing is poor forward conversion is not new.I have always maintained that our conversion has been a problem, not just in that game. So if the problem has always been there why did we lose it. (IMO)
Although we didnt put them away, we were ahead right till the death. We went into the game with plan to score more than the Swans with in a tight shut down contest. We lost it when , the swans where forced to changed their approach to a more offensive game around half way thru the third and were unable to hold them back. Our onballers were stuffed from the effort used, we had no tall to control the ball in the centre,so we lost drive from the middle and the Swans had too much quick ball in the forwardline from rebounding players running and centre clearances.
Yes If we had kicked straight we might have been further ahead but why pick on a weakness that was apparent the rest of the year. KK is what he is and sharp shooter he is not. He wastes ball and effort.He is not a good shot at goal in a normal game, let alone a high presure finisher in a crunch game. If he is in our side that say more about our options in the the third tall area and questions why we have persisted with him when we knew his capabilities.

Thompson is much better at deflection than most appreciate.It will be interesting to see his reaction when KK misses key shots from here on. I believe that if a player cant be at 80% from basically direct in front then he should not be apart of our structure. If nothing cahanges then we are condeming ourselfs to future failure.
 

kriso182

Club Legend
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Posts
1,217
Likes
36
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Too Old, Too Slow, Too Good.
#5
He also said 30 players are on the track compared to 18 at the same time last year.

The main concerns are King, Ottens and Harley who are on modified programs because of injury.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Posts
31,435
Likes
55,526
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Moderator #6
Turbocat said:
Thompson is much better at deflection than most appreciate.It will be interesting to see his reaction when KK misses key shots from here on. I believe that if a player cant be at 80% from basically direct in front then he should not be apart of our structure. If nothing cahanges then we are condeming ourselfs to future failure.
I've never understood this argument and I understand I'm probably in the minority on this. Say for example we say, alright Kent, you've had your chances and your kicking is just too inconsistent to win us a flag. So you put someone else there, say Tom Longergan. Tom kicks 25-30 goals for the year. But, Kent would have kicked 50+. Why rob yourself of at least 25 goals for the year in a season where you are trying to position yourself as high as possible on the ladder for the best possible chance at a tilt at the flag?
 

LifeSpan-Void

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Posts
6,223
Likes
2,009
Location
The belly of a snake
AFL Club
Geelong
#7
catempire said:
I've never understood this argument and I understand I'm probably in the minority on this. Say for example we say, alright Kent, you've had your chances and your kicking is just too inconsistent to win us a flag. So you put someone else there, say Tom Longergan. Tom kicks 25-30 goals for the year. But, Kent would have kicked 50+. Why rob yourself of at least 25 goals for the year in a season where you are trying to position yourself as high as possible on the ladder for the best possible chance at a tilt at the flag?
I'm not suggesting that we drop Kingsley, because he can kick them, but the reason why he kicked 50+ in 2005 was through lack of other options. If Ottens and S. Johnson had played complete seasons, I doubt Kingsley would have kicked so many. Replacing Kingsley with Lonergan wouldn't really impact the team if the team is actually there. Of course, there are some on this board that don't rate Tommy, so I won't say anything more. ;)
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Posts
1,537
Likes
7
Location
Niddrie
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Airport West & Man Utd
Thread starter #8
The Hulkster said:
I bet that bought a tear to your eye Jack. Go Henry.

I caught some of the interview, interesting to hear him say last pre season was so bad, re injuries. And we still did well. All looks good for this year.

I want Henry to succeed as much or more than anybody, I just don't think he will. There is a difference. I would love to see Henry kick 30-40 goals, average 15 kicks and 8 marks a game and come in the top 10 in the b&f, becuase if he can we are a huge chance to win the flag. I just don't think from what I have seen that he will ever get to that level.
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Posts
1,717
Likes
31
Location
Here and there
AFL Club
Geelong
#9
Jack-Packenham said:
I want Henry to succeed as much or more than anybody, I just don't think he will. There is a difference. I would love to see Henry kick 30-40 goals, average 15 kicks and 8 marks a game and come in the top 10 in the b&f, becuase if he can we are a huge chance to win the flag. I just don't think from what I have seen that he will ever get to that level.
Lets hope he can prove you wrong then, i agree i would love to see him do that. The difference is i think he MIGHT, how confident of that am i, mmmm not sure, but this is nearly a crunch year for him, he must STEP UP. Good luck H coz if you dont we will be hearing Jack bag him all season.
 

Turbocat

Premium Platinum
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Posts
35,947
Likes
31,515
Location
Newtown
AFL Club
Geelong
#10
catempire said:
I've never understood this argument and I understand I'm probably in the minority on this. Say for example we say, alright Kent, you've had your chances and your kicking is just too inconsistent to win us a flag. So you put someone else there, say Tom Longergan. Tom kicks 25-30 goals for the year. But, Kent would have kicked 50+. Why rob yourself of at least 25 goals for the year in a season where you are trying to position yourself as high as possible on the ladder for the best possible chance at a tilt at the flag?
With the amount of shots KK has he under achieves. He will continue to under achieve because he is wastefull. I think we agree on this.
Believe it or not my argument with KK is a bit like yours with H.You may think that KK will give us extra goals than Loners and this maybe the situation will continue unless you give him time in the main game.KK gives us ave. 100 SAG per season, the one thing I guarentee is that 15% less shots at goals from TL will give you more goals and the more he plays the more he will develop the skills to get more possesion.

KK is quite quick,good on a lead but rarelly does he devellop his own ball froma less than 50% ball, the way NA has shown a couple of times or the way really good forwards can. He is a converter than cant convert.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Posts
31,435
Likes
55,526
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Moderator #11
Turbocat said:
With the amount of shots KK has he under achieves. He will continue to under achieve because he is wastefull. I think we agree on this.
Believe it or not my argument with KK is a bit like yours with H.You may think that KK will give us extra goals than Loners and this maybe the situation will continue unless you give him time in the main game.KK gives us ave. 100 SAG per season, the one thing I guarentee is that 15% less shots at goals from TL will give you more goals and the more he plays the more he will develop the skills to get more possesion.

KK is quite quick,good on a lead but rarelly does he devellop his own ball froma less than 50% ball, the way NA has shown a couple of times or the way really good forwards can. He is a converter than cant convert.
Reading this post I don't think our opinions differ all that much. I suppose where I would differ is that I think our best option at FF at this point in time is Kingsley. The reason for this is that while it may be true that someone like Lonergan could develop into a good player in this position (although I have grave doubts), we are in a window of opportunity where we can't afford to make a sacrifice like that for the sake of nursing someone through who in all likelihood will never be more effective than Kingsley is now.

I suppose the same goes for Henry. I actually don't think there is a better option at CHF. If there was of course I would advocate it. But I just don't think there is.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Rosso

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Posts
1,964
Likes
1,175
Location
Down South
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Kansas City Chiefs
#12
So we all agree that Hank is the man at CHF coz we aint got anyone better. Although given the amount of improvment he showed between 2004 - 2005 another big preseason may make quite a few of us eat our words. Lets face it, he's not a CHF that will take the game by the scruff of the neck like a Brown or a Tredrea, but what we need him to do is constantly present and provide a contest in our forward 50. He showed in a few games taking 10 or so marks that he can be a capable link man and will be a better player when he has Otto, Nathan & Kent up forward with him with Gary, Chappy & Johnno swooping when the pill hits the turf..

Kent will spend his time lurking around mainly at FF but will also spend time on a flank and you could probably book him in for 50-60 goals come seasons end with quite a few misses although he is capable of a 70+ season if everything clicks. He is first and foremost a leading target and a good one at that. He showed some good signs when given the freedom to run around on the flank using his deceptive pace to his advantage leading to space. I think we need to love him for who he is coz he was 30 goals better than anyone else we had this year.
 

Turbocat

Premium Platinum
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Posts
35,947
Likes
31,515
Location
Newtown
AFL Club
Geelong
#13
Rosso said:
So we all agree that Hank is the man at CHF coz we aint got anyone better. Although given the amount of improvment he showed between 2004 - 2005 another big preseason may make quite a few of us eat our words. Lets face it, he's not a CHF that will take the game by the scruff of the neck like a Brown or a Tredrea, but what we need him to do is constantly present and provide a contest in our forward 50. He showed in a few games taking 10 or so marks that he can be a capable link man and will be a better player when he has Otto, Nathan & Kent up forward with him with Gary, Chappy & Johnno swooping when the pill hits the turf..

Kent will spend his time lurking around mainly at FF but will also spend time on a flank and you could probably book him in for 50-60 goals come seasons end with quite a few misses although he is capable of a 70+ season if everything clicks. He is first and foremost a leading target and a good one at that. He showed some good signs when given the freedom to run around on the flank using his deceptive pace to his advantage leading to space. I think we need to love him for who he is coz he was 30 goals better than anyone else we had this year.
I think we are missing the point here. KK could kick 100 goals if we gave him enough ball supply.( probably around 200 shots at goal).saying that we can book him in for 50-60 means little and it doesnt prove he is the man for us. Since Thompson has been in Geelong has continually made reference to dialing in a style of football that wins finals. Kicking 100 goals thru the year or 70 or 50 means little if in finals when the games are tighter and there is less ball supply and the ball supply is less than perfect that one cant rely on his conversion.Think of the GF, Hall nails a shot from 50, put KK there and WC win.We need to have higher skilled players that can perform under pressure. To me , Im happy enough with KK in everything except his Set Shots.If he could kick the man could be a weapon in the same level as a McKenna, and of course if a Gelding had the equipment it would be a Stalion. SetShots require good technique , so that under pressure the errors that are magnified are smaller.

I still dont believe KK lost us the game, just like umpire decsions 99.99% dont lose you games. If we had spread the goal kicking load to the mids, if we had not lost control of the ball flow we still might have won the game, we could have won that game inspite of his performance. This doesnt mean we should butterup and set ourselves up for another year of junk kicking. Jack always claims that we cant win a flag with H, well I say if we win a flag with KK as our main tartget it will be a huge effort because it will be in spite of his waste.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Posts
31,435
Likes
55,526
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Moderator #14
Turbocat said:
I think we are missing the point here. KK could kick 100 goals if we gave him enough ball supply.( probably around 200 shots at goal).saying that we can book him in for 50-60 means little and it doesnt prove he is the man for us. Since Thompson has been in Geelong has continually made reference to dialing in a style of football that wins finals. Kicking 100 goals thru the year or 70 or 50 means little if in finals when the games are tighter and there is less ball supply and the ball supply is less than perfect that one cant rely on his conversion.Think of the GF, Hall nails a shot from 50, put KK there and WC win.We need to have higher skilled players that can perform under pressure. To me , Im happy enough with KK in everything except his Set Shots.If he could kick the man could be a weapon in the same level as a McKenna, and of course if a Gelding had the equipment it would be a Stalion. SetShots require good technique , so that under pressure the errors that are magnified are smaller.

I still dont believe KK lost us the game, just like umpire decsions 99.99% dont lose you games. If we had spread the goal kicking load to the mids, if we had not lost control of the ball flow we still might have won the game, we could have won that game inspite of his performance. This doesnt mean we should butterup and set ourselves up for another year of junk kicking. Jack always claims that we cant win a flag with H, well I say if we win a flag with KK as our main tartget it will be a huge effort because it will be in spite of his waste.
I don't disagree Turbo. If we had a better option I'd have Kent out the door in a second. Unfortunately, we don't.
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Posts
1,537
Likes
7
Location
Niddrie
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Airport West & Man Utd
Thread starter #15
Rosso said:
So we all agree that Hank is the man at CHF coz we aint got anyone better.
I don't

My arguement all along has been you can't say there is nobody better unless you have tried them. If Lonergan Spencer or Egan was given 20 odd games in a row, would they have been any less effective than Henry. If Henry goes through a run of games in 06 like he had in the middle of 05 (bulldogs, st kilda, essendon) where he was getting 3, 4, and 5 kicks a game we should TRY something else instead of just accepting the situation.

You can say Lonergan hasn't done a lot in the VFL, but did Henry ever chop up Springvale or Bendigo. Doubtful. He was given his chance on potential and the fact he was a year older than Lonergan.

If Bartel, Kelly, Riccardi, Hunt, Scarlett, Harley, Milburn, Corey, King, Ottens, G Ablett, S Johnson, Chapman, Enright, Mooney ever had a run of 6 shockers, should they be dropped or do you just say "we have nobody else better". You must pick players for the right reasons, like form and not just put a guy in the team that's not performing and say we have no body else. TRy TRY TRY other options.

With an interchange of 4 why can't we play Henry, NAblett and Lonergan and rotate them through CHF FP and bench. Within 11 weeks you will soon see who the best option is and you can plan the rest of the season with your best line up. It's unfair to give all the chances to Henry and if he was to get injured then put Tom in the side and say have a go for 2 weeks. Then all you guys will jump on his case and say he didn't do much. Well if he was given 20 weeks instead of 2 he might be better. Don't forget Lonergan has Prismall, Byrne, and other VFL players kicking the ball to him, while Henry has got Ablett Chapman Corey Bartel etc. Don't judge anybody purely on VFL form.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Posts
31,435
Likes
55,526
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Moderator #17
Jack-Packenham said:
I don't

My arguement all along has been you can't say there is nobody better unless you have tried them. If Lonergan Spencer or Egan was given 20 odd games in a row, would they have been any less effective than Henry. If Henry goes through a run of games in 06 like he had in the middle of 05 (bulldogs, st kilda, essendon) where he was getting 3, 4, and 5 kicks a game we should TRY something else instead of just accepting the situation.

You can say Lonergan hasn't done a lot in the VFL, but did Henry ever chop up Springvale or Bendigo. Doubtful. He was given his chance on potential and the fact he was a year older than Lonergan.

If Bartel, Kelly, Riccardi, Hunt, Scarlett, Harley, Milburn, Corey, King, Ottens, G Ablett, S Johnson, Chapman, Enright, Mooney ever had a run of 6 shockers, should they be dropped or do you just say "we have nobody else better". You must pick players for the right reasons, like form and not just put a guy in the team that's not performing and say we have no body else. TRy TRY TRY other options.

With an interchange of 4 why can't we play Henry, NAblett and Lonergan and rotate them through CHF FP and bench. Within 11 weeks you will soon see who the best option is and you can plan the rest of the season with your best line up. It's unfair to give all the chances to Henry and if he was to get injured then put Tom in the side and say have a go for 2 weeks. Then all you guys will jump on his case and say he didn't do much. Well if he was given 20 weeks instead of 2 he might be better. Don't forget Lonergan has Prismall, Byrne, and other VFL players kicking the ball to him, while Henry has got Ablett Chapman Corey Bartel etc. Don't judge anybody purely on VFL form.
Jack, that all may well be true but where people disagree with you (me in particular) is that we see Henry has got potential to play well in the position and did so in the first half of last season. You seem to have dismissed out of hand any chance that he will be a solid contributor for us at CHF. On that, I disagree.

LifeSpan-Void said:
shhh... stop posting sense, it's not popular around here Jack.
Right... None of the other posts in this thread made sense?
 
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Posts
1,537
Likes
7
Location
Niddrie
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Airport West & Man Utd
Thread starter #18
catempire said:
Jack, that all may well be true but where people disagree with you (me in particular) is that we see Henry has got potential to play well in the position and did so in the first half of last season. You seem to have dismissed out of hand any chance that he will be a solid contributor for us at CHF. On that, I disagree.
I have not totally ruled him out, I am just saying there is no point in putting 3 or 4 years into one guy thats not guaranteed to make it. Develop 3 or 4 guys at the same time and pick the best one. If I turn out to be correct and Henry plays until 2008 and is still nothing but a tall target who can't hurt a team, who else is there ???

Develop Playfair Nablett and Lonergan as well as Hawkins in a year and we will not be talking about the lack of forward power in 2008. Most people agree that Nathan will be better than Henry, so why not develop him at CHF. He doesn't have to provide instant results, becuase Henry hasn't.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Posts
31,435
Likes
55,526
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Moderator #19
Jack-Packenham said:
I have not totally ruled him out, I am just saying there is no point in putting 3 or 4 years into one guy thats not guaranteed to make it. Develop 3 or 4 guys at the same time and pick the best one. If I turn out to be correct and Henry plays until 2008 and is still nothing but a tall target who can't hurt a team, who else is there ???

Develop Playfair Nablett and Lonergan as well as Hawkins in a year and we will not be talking about the lack of forward power in 2008. Most people agree that Nathan will be better than Henry, so why not develop him at CHF. He doesn't have to provide instant results, becuase Henry hasn't.
I'm glad you haven't ruled him out because it sounds remarkably like you have at times!

Absolutely agree that we must develop several options. I think we are doing that now with Ablett and Lonergan both having stints in the seniors in 2005. Don't know whether either of them will ever be centre half forwards, but I may be proven wrong. This year will be make or break for Lonergan but will be just another rung up the ladder for Ablett.
 

smelly cat

All Australian
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Posts
643
Likes
419
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
#20
Jack-Packenham said:
I don't

My arguement all along has been you can't say there is nobody better unless you have tried them. If Lonergan Spencer or Egan was given 20 odd games in a row, would they have been any less effective than Henry. If Henry goes through a run of games in 06 like he had in the middle of 05 (bulldogs, st kilda, essendon) where he was getting 3, 4, and 5 kicks a game we should TRY something else instead of just accepting the situation.
I think you're being a little harsh there citing those games as examples of Hank. That was when he came back from injury and it was obvious he was totally underdone. Up until his injuries he was definately holding his place in the side.
 

Turbocat

Premium Platinum
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Posts
35,947
Likes
31,515
Location
Newtown
AFL Club
Geelong
#21
Jack-Packenham said:
I don't

My arguement all along has been you can't say there is nobody better unless you have tried them. If Lonergan Spencer or Egan was given 20 odd games in a row, would they have been any less effective than Henry. If Henry goes through a run of games in 06 like he had in the middle of 05 (bulldogs, st kilda, essendon) where he was getting 3, 4, and 5 kicks a game we should TRY something else instead of just accepting the situation.

You can say Lonergan hasn't done a lot in the VFL, but did Henry ever chop up Springvale or Bendigo. Doubtful. He was given his chance on potential and the fact he was a year older than Lonergan.

If Bartel, Kelly, Riccardi, Hunt, Scarlett, Harley, Milburn, Corey, King, Ottens, G Ablett, S Johnson, Chapman, Enright, Mooney ever had a run of 6 shockers, should they be dropped or do you just say "we have nobody else better". You must pick players for the right reasons, like form and not just put a guy in the team that's not performing and say we have no body else. TRy TRY TRY other options.

With an interchange of 4 why can't we play Henry, NAblett and Lonergan and rotate them through CHF FP and bench. Within 11 weeks you will soon see who the best option is and you can plan the rest of the season with your best line up. It's unfair to give all the chances to Henry and if he was to get injured then put Tom in the side and say have a go for 2 weeks. Then all you guys will jump on his case and say he didn't do much. Well if he was given 20 weeks instead of 2 he might be better. Don't forget Lonergan has Prismall, Byrne, and other VFL players kicking the ball to him, while Henry has got Ablett Chapman Corey Bartel etc. Don't judge anybody purely on VFL form.
Jack , (wait for it) I...ag...(grrr) I...ag..r...e..e with you. Gees that was hard.

Seriously, if we make an honest assessment of ourselves how many positions do we see as beyond reproach. Not may if we want All Austaralians on everyline.Of course we dont need that level of player to win a flag in every position, what we need is a player that is capable of causing the oposition pain, not just being adiquate. I look at our best 18 and I see bringers of pain in a lot areas. Your bug bear and mine are probably the weakness in our best fully fit 18. To me any forward who struggles to kick the ball has dimenished his pain factor, so H and KK have a tendancy to let the other side of the hook.
The truly great forwards would either create that many chances for themslves that that the odd crook shot could be exscused ( GAS/Lockett/Carey ) or they were that deadly that ball falling into their hands resulted in a goal (Locket/Dunstall/Mckenna ).

The reason I favour H while are Im a tad harsh on KK is vague but its probably that is a taller player and still developing who plays more across half forward that he gives us a target that can lock down the rebounded ball. Can KK do this, yes he has shown he has good hands but usually plays across the flank and is not capable(I dont think) of playing at CHF. If Playfair was trying to make his name at FF I would be totally in agreement with you.
In the end, TL may yet pressure H enough to push him out the side, although I havent seen anything from him that looks close to be able to do the job. If TL could put mussle in that body of his , take some one on one,cruch a few packs, he would be worth a try.

NA however looks to be an almost natural FF,and if fit and focused has enough talent to do it in 06. IMO , if NA if fit he is in.

In 06 I want 23 in the sqaure and 18 elsewhere
 

Cattas2006

Senior List
Joined
Dec 15, 2005
Posts
196
Likes
49
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Geelong
#23
i think that bomber has to keep devloping Big H, he is 198 cm, and fairly athletic for his size. longeran from what i have seen of him isn't built yet for a CHF role, so i think that big H is mostly our best option until young hawkins arrives on the scene.

Nablett will not play at CHF, he isn';t quick enough, and well, his defensive skills seem to lack at the moment, its ok when he gets the ball, but if the opositiion gets it, it seems to be a easy turn over. But that will only come with time, i think we have to keep playing him at FF for the time being. Switching him with the big OTTO!

this year, we seem to have alot more forward options, and if we can get our foward half right. were gonna have a good few years coming up.
 

LifeSpan-Void

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Posts
6,223
Likes
2,009
Location
The belly of a snake
AFL Club
Geelong
#24
catempire said:
Right... None of the other posts in this thread made sense?
not the posts, just the philosophy that Playfair is our best CHF. Lonergan has had a full 4 games to impress, and everyone has written him off as an also-ran. at least give him HALF of what henry has had, before passing judgement.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Posts
31,435
Likes
55,526
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Moderator #25
LifeSpan-Void said:
not the posts, just the philosophy that Playfair is our best CHF. Lonergan has had a full 4 games to impress, and everyone has written him off as an also-ran. at least give him HALF of what henry has had, before passing judgement.
I haven't written him off - not at all. He's been in the system quite a while now so he really has to show something this season. Aside from that, I've never really seen him as a CHF - more as a full forward leading target. Don't think he's strong enough over head to play CHF.
 
Top Bottom