ESS vs ADEA Official game thread!!!

[ant555]

Yes, NLM was hardly inspiring yest, but he has shown in the past he can hold his position and is proven at AFL level. Bradley has never shown he is comfortable at AFL level, despite the continual faith the coaching staff show in him. Different kettle of fish.

Fair enough i only threw up NLM as an example of someone who could be looked at for his position at the moment.

But does Bradley? This is my point - he now looks to be used as a tall wingman/midfielder. How many times does he go to the ruck or CHB and be anything more than very ordinary? For the role, and the way in which Bradley is getting his touches, we have a host of others who can do that role better, faster and with better disposal.

Yes we have faster midfielders altough watching the disposal of a few of them at Frankston i wouldnt say they where better than Bradley. The problem with Bradley isnt his disposal it is his decision making under pressure.

Yes, but does he, or will he get used there? Is there really room for him, when we have potentially Hille, Laycock, Ryder and Johns, all of which can be used as KP forwards or backs ontop of our stable 4, before Bradley. It's about team balance. Im not sure we fits in with guys like Laycock and Johns out, let alone when they are back. As we have so many talls, he is being used now on the bloody wing. We have better wingers.

For a start no where have i suggested he fits in if we have Laycock and Johns in the side. He doesnt but lets look at it closely here. Johns is only a forward. If he is in the side he is there as a forward only so there is no flexability there. Laycock is a ruck/forward. Probably a better ruck option than Hille if he can get going with a few games under his belt. Good option up forward to but he doesnt have what Ryder and Bradley have as far as being able to play defence(yes i know Bradley had a shocker last year as a CHB but i am talking more of him being able to go back as the third tall backman if one of Micheal,Fletcher or Ryder go down)
You say it is about team ballance well unless i was watching something else yesterday i thought our team balance was spot on. Bradley on the bench gives us the option to play three other smalls and still have cover for something unforseen. His form when used as a forward has been good.
Yes we do have better wingers but would they be in the side for Bradley?
My whole point here is the fact that he can be used in different roles improves our bench options as we dont have to have two talls and two smalls as a set bench.

He hasnt even proven he is a capable KPP for Bendigo yet, let alone at senior level.

Neither have Johns or Laycock but that doesnt stop people from demanding they get a game.

My point is Bradley isnt used very well at all in this extra "tall" category or "exploiting wingman" role in which many think is his potential.

Well he hasnt had to be used as a back up tall yet as after only one game we didnt have any injuries or players who went off during the game that needed replacing. You have to base his form in this new role on this season and so far he hasnt done a lot wrong in it. How can you say the new role isnt working and we arnt using him well in it after one game and a few practice matchs?

Why cant HE string consistent games together for Bendigo as well? Is he immune?

No he is not but because of injuries to certain players and the set up we went for in round 1 he is in the side. How much did he do wrong to form him to be dropped this week? If Laycock is ready to come in as the second ruckman then his spot may be questioned as two talls on the bench might not be the way to go.Then you can say that Dyson or Houli might be the better option in the midfield rotation becasue we have Laycock as the tall.

Last year his form was not even close to ordinary, it was crap, and under normal circumstances he would have been dropped to Bendigo.The problem was in his role as a defender last year there was no one to bring into the side to replace him because of the continual injuries we had. If he was being used in a midfield /back up role rather than a defender he would have been dropped.

I think this is why he is become the whipping boy, because of the unlimited faith the coaching staff seem to have in him, ala guys like Henno and Bolton in seasons past, when at senior level he hasnt looked like it. He cant say he hasnt had his chances. Nothing wrong with sending him back down for a stint

.


As i explained above under nromal circumstances last year he would have ended up playing for Bendigo. Before last year he was dropped a few times. Last year his form was poor but it wasnt like we had a string of tall defenders lining up to take his place.It has ntohing to do with the unlimited faith BS. Next in line after him as far as tall defenders went was Reynolds. Yes last year was shocking as far as Kep goes but there wasnt a lot that could be done about it.
People have taken a set against him on last years efforts and now nothing short of him turning into Wayne Carey will satisfy them. No one seems to want to wait and see what unfolds over the first few weeks. After one game where he played ok without being in our best 12 or so and he is being bashed again. There isnt anything wrong with sending back to Bendigo for a stint but how about we do it when a) his form isnt up to scratch over a few weeks or b) when we have some talls (eg Laycock) ready to come back in and decide how it effects the team ballance and how the bench can work and c) not base his selection in the side on last years games when he was used in a different role.

 

[ant555]

After having a night to process my thoughts...
Keps is a good player while running with the ball, his kicking on the run is great.
But when he is standing still after taking a mark he usually disposes of the ball whilst still walking backwards. This is a habit he must get out of.
It resulted in half opportunities for Adelaide.

I may have over exaggerated yesterday, he made a few crucial mistakes and it was lucky that Adelaide couldn't capitalise on those mistakes.
That is just my opinion. Take it or leave it.

When the opinon is set out with constructive reasons behind the thinking then i say fair enough. I dont necessarily agree with all of it but at least you can see where it is coming from

 

[ant555]

Interesting to note the goals kicked from marks taken on the weekend from all games played. We came out on top with Port for this stat and shows we have some real marking power down forward.

Johns can only add to those numbers and make us an even better team. Lloyd,Lucas (13 marks against the Crows) and Johns will be a problem for a lot of sides trying to stop and out mark us.

RD1 Goals from marks...


Essendon-11
Port-11
Tiges-9
Hawfthorn-4
Brisbane-3
Collingwood-4
Roos-7
Cats-4
WB-6
Demons-6
CFC-6
Saints-7
Swans-3
WCE-4
Crows-5
Freo-6

Is Johns in our best 22 , i am a big wrap for him but do we lose that defencive pressure against running sides with him in there as his spot has to go to one of Davey or Jetta. To be honest Johns may well develop better having a good run with Bendigo kciking 3 or 4 a week at CHF rather than being a bit player in the seniors getting 4 or 5 kicks a week and maybe 1 or 2 goals. I think Sunday showed if we clear out our forward line and leave Lloyd or Lucas up their with a couple of smalls works well. There will be times when the three talls will work but as far a selecting Johns this year as much as i am a wrap for him it should come down to horses for courses IMO.

 

[hulld]

all pre-season i was of the belief that cj is in our best 22.

but after yesterday's game i have changed my mind. lloydy and scotty can be the tall targets and mcphee and hirdy can both take a mark in the forward line.

we are better to have an extra running player in the side instead of cj

 

[Smokin]

The problem with Bradley isnt his disposal it is his decision making under pressure.

I think it's both, but anyway, they go hand in hand in todays football. Turnovers are worth more than they have ever been in the history of the game.

You say it is about team ballance well unless i was watching something else yesterday i thought our team balance was spot on. Bradley on the bench gives us the option to play three other smalls and still have cover for something unforseen. His form when used as a forward has been good.
Yes we do have better wingers but would they be in the side for Bradley?
My whole point here is the fact that he can be used in different roles improves our bench options as we dont have to have two talls and two smalls as a set bench.

Because we won perhaps the balance looked good? What if Goodwin didnt go down? How good was our midfield, really? They went inside 50 more than us, and if it wasnt for their kicking, who knows how the game would have gone down.

In short, hard to say - If Dyson played in his spot, on that wing, our balance would have looked just as good - perhaps better as their movement through the midfield wasnt that bad at all. Going into attack was their problem.

Neither have Johns or Laycock but that doesnt stop people from demanding they get a game.

Cmon, yes they have. In various games both have shown they have it, enough to excite the fans. Has Kepler? I can honestly say I have never seen a game where I sat back and said "gee, this kid could have it". With Ryder I have, with Johns I have, with Laycock I have. To be brutally frank, I have actually never even thought Kepler looks remotely comfortable at AFL level - forget about potential.

Having said that, I only think Laycock should be in the team. Johns is a game by game proposition, depending on various factors such as opposotion, location (roof?)/weather and his Bendigo form.

Well he hasnt had to be used as a back up tall yet as after only one game we didnt have any injuries or players who went off during the game that needed replacing. You have to base his form in this new role on this season and so far he hasnt done a lot wrong in it. How can you say the new role isnt working and we arnt using him well in it after one game and a few practice matchs?

But you say he is there as the backup defender and extra tall etc, but now we cant base our thoughts on last season? He has been tried there repeatidly and failed.

I think it is fair enough to base opinions on what we have seen of him - this or last year, and up to him to do something to show otherwise.

If Laycock is ready to come in as the second ruckman then his spot may be questioned as two talls on the bench might not be the way to go.Then you can say that Dyson or Houli might be the better option in the midfield rotation becasue we have Laycock as the tall.

I agree. But I also dont think he is needed with our 4 main KPP, Ryder and Hille in the team. Im not as convinced as you are in this area. But with the other two, Bradley should be nowhere to be seen.

As i explained above under nromal circumstances last year he would have ended up playing for Bendigo. Before last year he was dropped a few times. Last year his form was poor but it wasnt like we had a string of tall defenders lining up to take his place.It has ntohing to do with the unlimited faith BS. Next in line after him as far as tall defenders went was Reynolds. Yes last year was shocking as far as Kep goes but there wasnt a lot that could be done about it.

I will give you last season, but Cmon, even in 05 he was persisted with the whole season. Outside of his Rookie year, he has been like furniture in the side all while showing extremely little. Thats why many fans are getting frustrated and turning him into the whipping boy.

He has hardly missed a game since 04.

Let's assume Laycock is ready to play this week. Who would be your one to omit?

 

[Merv]

Why omit anyone?

I would much prefer to see Laycock play a game in the ressies first.
He hasn't played a competitive game for at least 3 weeks, possibly 4.

This does not just relate to Laycock but for every player coming back from injury.

For too long out of form players or players returning from inuries have been handed games.
We have depth now, time to use it and play players when they deserve a game.

 

[mcphee_is_a_gun]

Bradley was horrible, just fumbled way too much and disposal was ordinary. He'd be the only one i'd drop for maybe Dyson.

 

[Smokin]

Why omit anyone?

I would much prefer to see Laycock play a game in the ressies first.
He hasn't played a competitive game for at least 3 weeks, possibly 4.

This does not just relate to Laycock but for every player coming back from injury.

For too long out of form players or players returning from inuries have been handed games.
We have depth now, time to use it and play players when they deserve a game.

as a general rule I agree, but if ever we need a genuine ruckman to rotate with Hille it is this week...

 

[hulld]

Why omit anyone?

I would much prefer to see Laycock play a game in the ressies first.
He hasn't played a competitive game for at least 3 weeks, possibly 4.

This does not just relate to Laycock but for every player coming back from injury.

For too long out of form players or players returning from inuries have been handed games.
We have depth now, time to use it and play players when they deserve a game.

because this week the opposition has a guy called sandilands. adelaide had a kid and a average ruckman.

hille won't be able to go up against the big fellow and kepler and paddy would be murdered. the best way to combat sandilands is to run him off his feet. if hille and laycock can hurt him when we have the ball his impact on the game won't be too strong

 

[Merv]

as a general rule I agree, but if ever we need a genuine ruckman to rotate with Hille it is this week...

I understand what you mean, but is that worth taking the risk of injuring him again?

Not in my books

 

[Merv]

because this week the opposition has a guy called sandilands. adelaide had a kid and a average ruckman.

hille won't be able to go up against the big fellow and kepler and paddy would be murdered. the best way to combat sandilands is to run him off his feet. if hille and laycock can hurt him when we have the ball his impact on the game won't be too strong

Why not?
He may not be as tall and won't be as suited in the centre square but should be able to use his bulk in the contests around the ground.

Neither of our ruckman are the best exponents of giving us first use of the ball even when they are winning the taps.

 

[hulld]

he won't be able to ruck for as long as he did against the crows as his body will take a belting.

he may be able to hold his own for 15 minutes a quarter. but it is alot to ask for him to ruck for pretty much the whole game

 

[Merv]

he won't be able to ruck for as long as he did against the crows as his body will take a belting.

he may be able to hold his own for 15 minutes a quarter. but it is alot to ask for him to ruck for pretty much the whole game

I don't think he will take any more of belting from Sandilands and he may even take less.

Sandilands is a genuine tap ruckman, not a crash and bash ruckman.

How would you feel if Laycock did his hammy again?

Still could happen in the ressies of course, but a lot less likely.

 

[Smokin]

I understand what you mean, but is that worth taking the risk of injuring him again?

Not in my books

I dont subscribe to the theory that he would be more likely to be injured playing 1's or 2's - with the same risk of re-injury.

He has a minor soft tissue injury (from reports), if it is healed, he can come straight back in - his form was fine prior to that.

My gut feel is that he has been given extra time to get it right for this game specifically - they knew Adelaide were stretched in the ruck department, and didnt need Laycock back yest.

 

[Smokin]

Still could happen in the ressies of course, but a lot less likely.

Why?

In the 1's, he will start on the bench and rotate with Hille, with hille playing the majority of the quarters.

In the 2's, he will more than likely be used for most of the match, and push himself just as hard to get back into the 1's.

If the legs right, it's right.

 

[Merv]

I dont subscribe to the theory that he would be more likely to be injured playing 1's or 2's - with the same risk of re-injury.

He has a minor soft tissue injury (from reports), if it is healed, he can come straight back in - his form was fine prior to that.

My gut feel is that he has been given extra time to get it right for this game specifically - they knew Adelaide were stretched in the ruck department, and didnt need Laycock back yest.

The pace of the game in the firsts is far quicker.

You face the risk with soft tissue injuries, especially hammys of either doing them in 2 ways.

Early in the game as the pace is so quick and no fitness test can test you for the speed and unpredicatable happenings at speed.

Fatigue as you have played so much harder than you would have cruising around the game in the ressies

 

[hulld]

I don't think he will take any more of belting from Sandilands and he may even take less.

Sandilands is a genuine tap ruckman, not a crash and bash ruckman.

How would you feel if Laycock did his hammy again?

Still could happen in the ressies of course, but a lot less likely.

i wouldn't even think about playing laycock if he wasn't 100% fit. if he can't do all the training sessions this week we shouldn't play him.

he had a great pre-season and he should be picked if he is right to play

 

[ant555]

I think it's both, but anyway, they go hand in hand in todays football. Turnovers are worth more than they have ever been in the history of the game.

True but Bradleys one turnover on the weekend ended up in an out of bounds

Because we won perhaps the balance looked good? What if Goodwin didnt go down? How good was our midfield, really? They went inside 50 more than us, and if it wasnt for their kicking, who knows how the game would have gone down.

So now you are saying our whole midfield didnt look as good as it seemed?
So you would say our team would look more balanced if we played 4 smaller midfielders on the bench? Yes they went isnside their 50 more than us and some of their goal kicking was very ordinary but then Lucas missed 4 times including two he would have normally kicked and davey missed an easy one as well. You could play a lot of iffs and buts but at the end of the day we won because we controlled the game and having Bradley in the side didnt stop us from doing that.

In short, hard to say - If Dyson played in his spot, on that wing, our balance would have looked just as good - perhaps better as their movement through the midfield wasnt that bad at all. Going into attack was their problem

.

So what you are saying is that our bench would have looked good to you with Jetta,Watson,NLM and Dyson and no one above 190cm to use in a key role if needed? Good luck with that theory.

Cmon, yes they have. In various games both have shown they have it, enough to excite the fans. Has Kepler? I can honestly say I have never seen a game where I sat back and said "gee, this kid could have it". With Ryder I have, with Johns I have, with Laycock I have. To be brutally frank, I have actually never even thought Kepler looks remotely comfortable at AFL level - forget about potential.

Seriously how many Bendigo games have you seen in the last 3 years ? Johns has not dominated Bendigo games. He has only played around 12 games for Bendigo total. Laycock hasnt dominated either. Having seen 95% of the Bendigo games in the last four years i can tell you neither have dominated many games if any.

Having said that, I only think Laycock should be in the team. Johns is a game by game proposition, depending on various factors such as opposotion, location (roof?)/weather and his Bendigo form.

Looks like we agree here.

But you say he is there as the backup defender and extra tall etc, but now we cant base our thoughts on last season? He has been tried there repeatidly and failed.

For a start i didnt say only as a back up defender. He has shown he can play forward and kick goals and he can play ruck to give Hille a rest even though his tap skills are nothing he can handle the around the ground stuff.
He was tried as a CHB last year and failed big time yes but i am not talking about using him solely as a CHB. With Fletcher , Micheal and Ryder in the side his back up role if needed wont be taking Hall or Richo or Pavlich. His role as the back up would be taking the third tall if needed which in 2005 he proved he could do. Last season there was no help, no backup. This year with the development of Ryder and Micheal in the side there is more stability in the back half so he doesnt have to take on the gun players on his own.

I think it is fair enough to base opinions on what we have seen of him - this or last year, and up to him to do something to show otherwise.

So what you are saying is that although he did nothing outlandishly wrong yesterday playing in a new role we should drop him anyway based on his form at CHB last season and the fact that he failed in his efforts to play on the better forwards. We cant consider that he could step into the backline and help out in any sort of role because his form last year was so bad.

I will give you last season, but Cmon, even in 05 he was persisted with the whole season. Outside of his Rookie year, he has been like furniture in the side all while showing extremely little. Thats why many fans are getting frustrated and turning him into the whipping boy

.

Come on yourself , in 2005 he was pretty good. He played 19 games, missed one with injury and was dropped to Bendigo for two weeks mid year. The second game back with Bendigo he took 17 marks and had around 30 possessions hence he ended up back in the seniors. Overall in 2005 he average 14 possessions a game with an 82% efficency on his disposal and an average 5 marks a game. there was nothing wrong with his 05 form for a second year player. He is our whipping boy on his last years form and that i can cop but now it seems he has to do something super human every week or it will continue. Seems that most are not going to wait and see what happens in the next 4 or 5 weeks. Round one , Bradley didnt get 35 possesions take mark of the year and kick 5 goals while single handly hodling down the crows forwards so he is out. Not good enough to simply play your role without stuffing it up too much. Drop him now because last year he was no good at CHB and in round 1 he wasnt superman.

Let's assume Laycock is ready to play this week. Who would be your one to omit?[/

Well we dont need to asume , Laycock did an agility test thismorning and looked to get through it no worries so i suspect he will be right to play this week, the question is how is his fitness going to be. Persoanlly i think he should play with Bendigo this week as he hasnt had a run in a game for a number of weeks but back to the question.
If Laycock was fit and ready to go and had a few games under his belt then this week i would consider playing him and Hille against Sandilands and yes that would put Bradleys spot in the side under pressure.With Laycock in the bench would need to have a couple of mids and someone like NLM.The set up probably wont work with two talls on the bench.

 

[ant555]

Forget about the gut feels and all of that BS with Laycock. I can tell you the facts.
Has been in the modified group for two weeks with his hammy strain.
Only started running again last Wednesday.
Did some more running last friday but still no full sessions.Did a lengthy strength building excersize on friday as well.
Kicked the footy today for the first time since his injury today .
Did an agility test today as well and looked to do it easily.
How he trains on Wednesday will determine selection but you have to remember that his last hitout was in the Dogs praccy match in Geelong. He is not going have much match fitness going into this weeks game so it may be a bit of a gamble playing him this week fitness wise. To be honest i am not worried about him injury wise but i would prefer to see him have some game time before playing seniors.

 

[Darealrath]

Fully agree RE: Laycock. At the moment we have no need to be playing anyone underdone. Hille seems to play better when he knows he'll be rucking nearly all game so a Ryder/Bradley chop out for a few minutes every now and again is enough until Laycock has shown he can run out a Bendigo game.

 

[Smokin]

You could play a lot of iffs and buts but at the end of the day we won because we controlled the game and having Bradley in the side didnt stop us from doing that.

And what I incinuated was that if someone like Dyson or JJ (for example) was in his place, it wouldnt have stopped us from doing this either.

So what you are saying is that our bench would have looked good to you with Jetta,Watson,NLM and Dyson and no one above 190cm to use in a key role if needed? Good luck with that theory.

Bench or no bench, todays football is played with a team of 22. In that, having 6 KPP is fine, because our backup Ruckman started on the ground, instead of the bench is irrelevant. We had two KP forwards, 2KP defenders, a Ruckman, and a backup Ruckman who started in the backline.

this is the key point in where we disagree. I dont see the need for another tall - thats not to say we cant play with more, but form/ability has to warrant that, as 6 talls is adequate in any given game.

My point is the team has the bases covered KPP wise - now, does having a very ordinary (this far in his career) backup KP player outweigh another genuine fast midfielder or whatever? All the adequate stuff Kepler did on Sunday could have been done by a Dyson, or Johnson, or Campo or even Houli.

I guess it depends on where you think our KP area sits as opposed to our midfield.

Seriously how many Bendigo games have you seen in the last 3 years ? Johns has not dominated Bendigo games. He has only played around 12 games for Bendigo total. Laycock hasnt dominated either. Having seen 95% of the Bendigo games in the last four years i can tell you neither have dominated many games if any.

I was talking senior games. If we, the fans, see potential, improvement and future for the player, of course fans will be happy with persistance.

But, when a player, if anything, seems to be going backwards after numerous opportunities, then you cant complain when the natives get restless.

 

[Charliebrow 16]

If Laycock doesn't end up playing i have full confidence in Ryder to be our second ruckman.
His form has improved in leaps and bounds over last year's.
He was promising last year but from the games i have seen this year (nearly all of them) he has just about cemented his spot.
He shows flashes of absolute brilliance.
While we may not be able to win in the ruck against Sandilands, he should beat him around the ground.

 

[mercs]

If Laycock doesn't end up playing i have full confidence in Ryder to be our second ruckman.
His form has improved in leaps and bounds over last year's.
He was promising last year but from the games i have seen this year (nearly all of them) he has just about cemented his spot.
He shows flashes of absolute brilliance.
While we may not be able to win in the ruck against Sandilands, he should beat him around the ground.

Hirdy was saying at the end of the game that Ryder will end up been a ruckman but for now he will find his feet in the backline

 

[ant555]

And what I incinuated was that if someone like Dyson or JJ (for example) was in his place, it wouldnt have stopped us from doing this either.

Sorry guess i dint understand what you where trying to say. Looked to me like you where saying if Goodwin didnt go down having Bradley in the side may have cost us the game.

Bench or no bench, todays football is played with a team of 22. In that, having 6 KPP is fine, because our backup Ruckman started on the ground, instead of the bench is irrelevant. We had two KP forwards, 2KP defenders, a Ruckman, and a backup Ruckman who started in the backline.
this is the key point in where we disagree. I dont see the need for another tall - thats not to say we cant play with more, but form/ability has to warrant that, as 6 talls is adequate in any given game

.

Well obviously we disagree here. I dont think it is a given that 6 talls is all you need. Obviously you dont either as you earlier suggested that Laycock or Johns could play in his place as well. Yesterdays game worked well for us with 7 talls , 1 ruckman and another tall in the midfield. Yes we could have won with Dyson on the bench rather than Bradley but on yesterdays game did it matter that Bradley was in the side either.My whole point to start with was finding someone to tell me what Bradley did wrong and why he shouldnt be in the side.

My point is the team has the bases covered KPP wise - now, does having a very ordinary (this far in his career) backup KP player outweigh another genuine fast midfielder or whatever? All the adequate stuff Kepler did on Sunday could have been done by a Dyson, or Johnson, or Campo or even Houli.

Yes it could have and it may well do in the future but i think you will find most coachs like the luxury of having some sort of cover on the bench when it comes to all positions.
You will never be convinced that Bradley is an option because you have already wiped him. Your comments indicate you have had a set against him for two seasons now so you wont concede that he may still be of value or is capeable of showing anything in a new role.

I was talking senior games. If we, the fans, see potential, improvement and future for the player, of course fans will be happy with persistance

.

Oh come on , you are now clutching at straws. I am a huge wrap for Johns but he hasnt dominated games. He has basicly carved it up for a half a game for Bendigo 4 years ago and had a vey good game against Freo last year. Apart from that he hasnt come close to dominating. As for Laycock he has played a few good quarters here and there and thats it. No domination involved at all. You suggested that Bradley hadnt dominated like Johns and Laycock , i would say that Bradley has had a few games at both levels that where the equal of or better than any games Johns and Laycock have played. If you go much further on this part of the issue you will need a shovel. I will give you a little test , please do find me any matchs where Laycock or Johns can match Bradleys games for round 1 2005, round 3, 2005,round 15,2005,round 12 2006 and round 17 2006.

But, when a player, if anything, seems to be going backwards after numerous opportunities, then you cant complain when the natives get restless

.

After we win away in Adelaide why do we have to become restless , particulary when the player involved didnt do much wrong? The problem here is that because you are already set against him if he doesnt do something outstanding then you start looking at other players who could do the same job despite the fact that this week the player didnt do much wrong.

I simply look at it and say, well he wasnt much chop last year, that is a fact.There where a number of factor at work last year but overall he needed to do more. The circumstances have worked in his favour at the start of this year so he is in the side lets see how he goes in a new role for a bit. If his form says he shouldnt be in the side after 2 or 3 weeks and we are going badly then you do something about it.

 

[Dr Moose]

Ant - what an effort.
I'll freely admit I'm still not convinced about Kepler BUT his best performances in the past couple of years have come when we're up. He is very much a confidence player - really needs everybody else around him already doing well to get him through. So I'm going to wait until we strike a tough match before I make any further comment on his 2007 form!