Opinion Changes v Freo

Remove this Banner Ad

i accepted on face value that Rocky was so close that he went to China and was only ruled out late because he wasn't quite right but i presumed he was close enough that he would definitely be okay in a fortnights time. Now it just seems ridiculous he was sent to China.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

1 change - broady for hammer i would suspect. I wouldnt mind Drew in though - could be a good matchup for Fyfe.
Should be Garner.

We are once again repeating our mistakes. We should have made Jonas prove he was ready, we should have made Wines prove he was ready.

Hartlett should stay in the SANFL til he outperforms Garner.

Yes he is more experienced. Yes he is our VC. Performing in the SANFL shouldn't be hard then should it.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Should be Garner.

We are once again repeating our mistakes. We should have made Jonas prove he was ready, we should have made Wines prove he was ready.

Hartlett should stay in the SANFL til he outperforms Garner.

Yes he is more experienced. Yes he is our VC. Performing in the SANFL shouldn't be hard then should it.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app

I rather Hartlett than Garner, but appreciate other views. Hammer has been v good defensively in SANFL. Maybe not a lot of stats etc.

I agree on Garner being in good form too though.
 
i accepted on face value that Rocky was so close that he went to China and was only ruled out late because he wasn't quite right but i presumed he was close enough that he would definitely be okay in a fortnights time. Now it just seems ridiculous he was sent to China.
I don't necessarily agree regarding the trip to China.
When going on trips like that, as in the NT in past years, it is a good thing to have some high profile non playing players as there usually are a number of off field events that they can assist with and value add.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I don't necessarily agree regarding the trip to China.
When going on trips like that, as in the NT in past years, it is a good thing to have some high profile non playing players as there usually are a number of off field events that they can assist with and value add.
Cool, then why not say thats why we flew Rockliff over instead of lying to the fans. They said that for Hartlett easy enough.
 
I rather Hartlett than Garner, but appreciate other views. Hammer has been v good defensively in SANFL. Maybe not a lot of stats etc.

I agree on Garner being in good form too though.
Which one would you say is in better form?

I'm not saying he is playing badly. In fact I think he is playing well given the layoff. But that shouldn't be the criteria for selection.

On SM-G960F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Oh apologies, I forgot there is only ever one news article on each game. Forgive me that it wasn’t mentioned in there.
Find one then?

Your ‘it was mentioned’ I havent seen anywhere, so tbh you mentioning it now looks more like retconned hindsight than anything actual at the time?

Any article that says Rockliff was sent over for fan and corporate stuff and not as someone due to play will do
 
You can't help but think that the decision on Rockliff was made easier from the hard surface of Optus Stadium.. If it is having such a significant impact on player's bodies (legs) and forcing clubs to be conservative when playing leg injury-prone players then surely something has to be done! The AFL can't be taken seriously if the surface of the 'top of the range' stadium is causing so many injuries and influencing selections.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top