No point naming Waterman for the last game and not playing him.
Totally stupid.
Smh at Simpson he's ****** in the head.
You could say that about any player named on the extended bench. They have two pick three extra and then cut them.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No point naming Waterman for the last game and not playing him.
Totally stupid.
Smh at Simpson he's ****** in the head.
You can't just magically get games into these guys, it can't be rectified next season, the damage has been done.Yes, and that will be rectified next season. As I said, no point in getting upset when there's only one game to go.
You can't just magically get games into these guys, it can't be rectified next season, the damage has been done.
You're missing the point, we sacrificed the future two years in a row to lose in an EF and then finish 9th, the club is being run by incompetent morons. That is why I'm annoyed, not because we didn't pick Waterman this week.With all the retirements and added focus on youth, plus our plan to originally debut youngsters who got injured (Rioli, Waterman, Vennables), I think it's pretty safe to assume we're looking to fix it next season.
Was every player a potential debutante?You could say that about any player named on the extended bench. They have two pick three extra and then cut them.
You're missing the point, we sacrificed the future two years in a row to lose in an EF and then finish 9th, the club is being run by incompetent morons. That is why I'm annoyed, not because we didn't pick Waterman this week.
By your logic, after 2005 we should have retired everyone and played all the kids.You're missing the point, we sacrificed the future two years in a row to lose in an EF and then finish 9th, the club is being run by incompetent morons. That is why I'm annoyed, not because we didn't pick Waterman this week.
We weren't in good form last year, we played 2 or 3 good games for the whole season and this year was very predictable, particularly without Nic Nat to cover over the midfield cracks. Not sure how good you think Sam Mitchell is but he's 34 years old and his best is well behind him. I was under the impression we brought Mitchell in to mentor our young guys this year, most of whom hardly got to play with him at all. And I haven't said anything about a fall next year, I'm sure we'll be perfectly mediocre like this year with no chance of competing for a flag unless we manage to pull off an amazing coup in the off-season.You can't predict we would've finished 9th after getting Sam Mitchell or pantsed in the EF last year after the form we were in. Additionally, how do you know a fall in 2018 is set in stone? I reckon we'll be up there next year
Don't be ridiculous. I'm not saying we have to play every kid on our list in every game, but we should be playing more of them, like every single other team in the AFL is.By your logic, after 2005 we should have retired everyone and played all the kids.
Was every player a potential debutante?
We weren't in good form last year, we played 2 or 3 good games for the whole season and this year was very predictable, particularly without Nic Nat to cover over the midfield cracks. Not sure how good you think Sam Mitchell is but he's 34 years old and his best is well behind him. I was under the impression we brought Mitchell in to mentor our young guys this year, most of whom hardly got to play with him at all. And I haven't said anything about a fall next year, I'm sure we'll be perfectly mediocre like this year with no chance of competing for a flag unless we manage to pull off an amazing coup in the off-season.
Not sure I see the relevance
No i didn't think so.
I think letting the older players have one last game together, a farewell of sorts.Agree with this. Maybe we are tanking for a better pick in the draft?
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Yeh next year everyone will be saying that in hindsight perhaps we should have played some of our young guys the last couple of yearsHindsight game is strong in this thread.
And by the way, in the 06 Grand Final we had 10 players under 25 years old playing so we were in fact playing the kids, last week we had 5.By your logic, after 2005 we should have retired everyone and played all the kids.
Jobs for the boys.I just think we've got some very unintelligent people involved in many facets of our club. There's a mountain of evidence piling up that these people have no idea what they're doing.
CM9000 - this may illustrate my point:
View attachment 407904
Apart from the obvious (last in every category) the thing that sticks out for me are that whilst we have a low amount of players on the list in total it's not that much lower than everyone else, the big problem is that we debut so few of our young players and give them such little experience.
Yes, Beau Waters should have won the NS; you're right.Yeah but only one made any difference.
Bitch please, Buttman layed 400% more tackles than Waters, same inside and rebound 50's, one more clearance, 300% less clangers, only 2 less CP from 12 less touches. Face it the bloke dominated.Yes, Beau Waters should have won the NS; you're right.
Is this a new plan/tactic? Thought he was trying to expose the opposition for height all season. A players height is irrelevant - they select the team based on credits.