Player Watch Flynn Appleby (Delisted 2020)

Remove this Banner Ad

Darkyprotector said:
Have you always been this way
Click to expand...

What way is that? Eager to actually understand what someone is trying to say? Then yes
Darkyprotector said:
Go to uni did you?
Click to expand...

Yes, though I'm not sure what relevance that has to your posting.
Darkyprotector said:
Or are you a teacher
Click to expand...

Heaven forbid. But I'm happy to take you under my wing.
Darkyprotector said:
You seem to Get your jollys out of personal critiscm
Click to expand...

No, but if somebody doesn't critique your writing style it will never improve. Expecting something cohesive isn't a big ask. And it isn't personal. It's purely observations about your writing. Unless I'm mistaken, you're the only one who has resorted to name calling.
Darkyprotector said:
ReWatch the game you might learn something
Click to expand...

I did. Hasn't made your ramblings any more intelligible.
Darkyprotector said:
Maynard cost us one goal right
Langdon spilling the intercept there's another one
Crisp 6 turn overs at least under pressure and guess what a couple there too
Click to expand...

Yep. So?

Crisp - 29 possessions (69 DE%), 4 marks, 5 tackles, 5 I50's, 7 R50's, 1 clearance, 7 intercepts, 4 clangers, 4 turnovers
Langdon - 26 possessions (69.2 DE%), 8 marks, 1 tackles, 3 I50's, 4 R50's, 1 clearance, 19 intercepts, 5 clangers, 4 turnovers
Maynard - 20 possessions (70 DE%), 4 marks, 3 tackles, 3 I50's, 4 R50's, 0 clearance, 3 intercepts, 4 clangers, 3 turnovers
Murray - 18 possessions (61.1 DE%), 2 marks, 0 tackles, 2 I50's, 7 R50's, 2 clearance, 3 intercepts, 2 clangers, 8 turnovers

Those are metrics. Especially when you consider 15 of Murray's possessions were classified as uncontested.
Darkyprotector said:
At least Sam adapted his game to the conditions and pressure that Sydney provided, didn't try to do too much
Beat his man and provided support and at least took what the opposition allowed
Click to expand...

I've already said elsewhere I think he had his best game since his return. You are just pushing a bridge too far.
Darkyprotector said:
Oh and jackass if you can't understand what I typed in point form , pity
You want drawn out crap to validate your opinion ,stiff

How's those metrics einstein
Click to expand...

The only pity is the point you're trying to make becomes irrelevant.

Wanting legible sentences isn't asking fro drawn out crap. Especially when you consider the truncated crap you currently post.

And there's the name calling... and just who made it personal?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

nahnah said:
I think they will keep him there too, Mihocek already is a must upgrade and there won’t be a heap of delistings
Click to expand...
With the new rules, why upgrade either? Extending their contracts doesn't require them to be upgraded. There isn't a positive consequence for anyone in upgrading them anymore, all it means is that we get pushed backwards in the draft.
 
sr36 said:
With the new rules, why upgrade either? Extending their contracts doesn't require them to be upgraded. There isn't a positive consequence for anyone in upgrading them anymore, all it means is that we get pushed backwards in the draft.
Click to expand...
Rookies are on cheaper and on shorter contracts, so we save money + risk by upgrading and taking a rookie instead of a player in the national draft
 
nahnah said:
Rookies are on cheaper and on shorter contracts, so we save money + risk by upgrading and taking a rookie instead of a player in the national draft
Click to expand...
The money saving is really small these days between the end of the draft and the rookie draft - not like it used to be thank god. There were a lot of blokes who used to turn down clubs when they asked if they wanted to be rookied. On salary length, I personally think that if you're not willing to commit to a kid for 2 years - then don't draft him, only significant in the very rare Ben Hudson cases.
 
sr36 said:
The money saving is really small these days between the end of the draft and the rookie draft - not like it used to be thank god. There were a lot of blokes who used to turn down clubs when they asked if they wanted to be rookied. On salary length, I personally think that if you're not willing to commit to a kid for 2 years - then don't draft him, only significant in the very rare Ben Hudson cases.
Click to expand...
I do agree with you that there isn’t much point but clubs seem to like flexibility.
Should we delist and rookie Wells given he’s unlikely to play much again and it gives us a better draft position like we did with Oxley? I’ve been thinking of that past few days
 
nahnah said:
I do agree with you that there isn’t much point but clubs seem to like flexibility.
Should we delist and rookie Wells given he’s unlikely to play much again and it gives us a better draft position like we did with Oxley? I’ve been thinking of that past few days
Click to expand...

As a club, we in particular seem to like it. I don't get it. Take Appleby for example, you read his profiles and you knew that he was going to be a bloke who would get a second year, so if you wanted him, why not take him in the ND like we could have, rather than him being drafted beforehand?
 
sr36 said:
As a club, we in particular seem to like it. I don't get it. Take Appleby for example, you read his profiles and you knew that he was going to be a bloke who would get a second year, so if you wanted him, why not take him in the ND like we could have, rather than him being drafted beforehand?
Click to expand...
To take Appleby in the national draft last year we would have had to delist another player, you could argue in hindsight that player should have been Smith
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

sr36 said:
With the new rules, why upgrade either? Extending their contracts doesn't require them to be upgraded. There isn't a positive consequence for anyone in upgrading them anymore, all it means is that we get pushed backwards in the draft.
Click to expand...

Salary cap and the prospect of losing a player if you dont promote him and instead keep him on the rookie list on slave wages.
 
He was very unlucky to get injured when did because he would probably still be in the team now.His disposal at times has looked has looked a bit ordinary but what can you expect from a 19 yr old in his early games.
The one thing that does not look ordinary though is his defending which is 1st class,he hardly ever gets beaten 1 on 1 has good closing speed and no one has kicked more than 1 or 2 on him.
Appleby,s kicking and disposal looks alright from what I have seen at the lower levels,just 19 and inexperienced but he is a keeper of that I have no doubt,in fact with his defensive qualities he will be in the ones.
 
Timmy from Thomastown said:
Salary cap and the prospect of losing a player if you dont promote him and instead keep him on the rookie list on slave wages.
Click to expand...

It's only a minimum salary set, clubs can negotiate whatever salary they like for rookie contracts. Cox and Frost 2 recent examples where players would have been getting well above the nominated minimums.
 
nahnah said:
To take Appleby in the national draft last year we would have had to delist another player, you could argue in hindsight that player should have been Smith
Click to expand...
Are you sure? I was under the impression that we still had at least 1 spot available, but there's a bit of uncertainty about whether Thomas is on the rookie list or not.
 
sr36 said:
Are you sure? I was under the impression that we still had at least 1 spot available, but there's a bit of uncertainty about whether Thomas is on the rookie list or not.
Click to expand...
Thomas is not allowed to be on the rookie list, he spent 2 years there while suspended then last year where he played. You’re only allowed to keep a player there for 3 years before either upgrading or delisting
 
jackcass said:
It's only a minimum salary set, clubs can negotiate whatever salary they like for rookie contracts. Cox and Frost 2 recent examples where players would have been getting well above the nominated minimums.
Click to expand...

True but if all your rookies are on senior list wages that adds a lot more salary cap pressure.

I was just suggesting a reason why the club might prefer to promote him.
 
nahnah said:
Thomas is not allowed to be on the rookie list, he spent 2 years there while suspended then last year where he played. You’re only allowed to keep a player there for 3 years before either upgrading or delisting
Click to expand...

Wasn't Frost on our rookie list for 4 years?
 
sr36 said:
Are you sure? I was under the impression that we still had at least 1 spot available, but there's a bit of uncertainty about whether Thomas is on the rookie list or not.
Click to expand...

Yep, had a list of 39, promoted Thomas preseason from memory. I think they were uncertain about whether to take Appleby or Wellings so they had both train with the club the weekend prior to the rookie draft. It's why we got hit with the fines from memory.
 
nahnah said:
Thomas is not allowed to be on the rookie list, he spent 2 years there while suspended then last year where he played. You’re only allowed to keep a player there for 3 years before either upgrading or delisting
Click to expand...
I thought he was delisted and then rookied at the beginning of 2016, thus this year would be Year 3. To my knowledge, his upgrade was never announced, so I thought he was still a rookie. It used to have to happen through the draft, but nowadays I think it's usually just an announcement and paperwork, perhaps we did the paperwork but didn't announce his upgrade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Maggie5
List Mgmt. Teams Delistings and Retirements
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
pablo disco bar
pablo disco bar

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top