I'm sure the initial poster who mentioned Soligo was injured for "a few weeks" was implying he couldn't have been made the sub due to lack of preseason fitness because he was out injured for only "a few weeks". If Soligo was fit then he wouldn't have been made the sub FULL STOP and then you got others arguing they would prefer we waste the development of one of our exciting young player who is in our best 18 in a meaningless preseason SANFL game instead of a proper AFL game, now that's even a worst argument. Sure, everyone wants to be right but if it fail the logical argument then you are incorrect.This.
And all the other stuff about 2-is-a-few, a couple-is-three and three-is-nearly-four-but-not-2.
(a couple of those, quite a few in fact)
Review Good/Bad vs Gold Coast, Round 1 2024
- Thread starter Stephen2
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- May 14, 2017
- 11,447
- 12,844
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- West Adelaide
Do you have any idea that the above is unintelligible language-mangling?
I apologise for rattling your chain. An 'explanation' from you is the last thing I wanted.
What other teams had access to Rowell and Anderson?
Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 81,477
- 82,035
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
We did for a while have access to one.... then the AFL said no.
How is that relevant?
Those players have been recruited. It’s not up for debate, they are GCS players recruited to GCS
They could have chosen different players, for right or for wrong, and they recruited the ones they have
You wouldn’t say their job was made easier by the capital they have possessed? Not just compared to us, but most other teams
But they could have traded down and gone for a defender if they wanted.
That might be relevant to a different discussion; but not one regarding the players they have recruited to their club
Or whether they were recruited
Quite obviously they were, judging by the very definition of recruiting I.e. the fact that they joined the club
They have recruited better players to their club, hence they have more talent
- Sep 3, 2018
- 4,200
- 5,480
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
As usual when the AFL are going to change the rules late in the piece the VFL media start writing the narrative. The priority pick was always about keeping good mates - and the two best players in the draft - together at GC to help with retention. There were articles everywhere well before the AFL decision. It was made specifically for those two players. I doubt they would have been given pick 2 if it wasn’t for that specific set of circumstances
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,529
- 118,305
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
Why are we complaining about Gold Coast's priority picks when we picked McCasey over Serong?
- Aug 30, 2021
- 15,179
- 27,724
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Deflection
Yeah but freo only did so well because they didn’t have access to Mcasey
- Aug 21, 2008
- 5,704
- 10,785
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Watching the game live, the Suns were a very organised team across the board and their pressure was very, very impressive.
They've always had the cattle, now they have the coach, and the buy-in from the playing group.
I hate to say it, and it's an easy statement to make, but they looked very "Richmond when they were good".
Based off what I saw, they're a top 6 team.
They've always had the cattle, now they have the coach, and the buy-in from the playing group.
I hate to say it, and it's an easy statement to make, but they looked very "Richmond when they were good".
Based off what I saw, they're a top 6 team.
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,529
- 118,305
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
No just the flat idea of high draft picks = success.
Development and opportunity are more important than talent
Plenty of clubs have proven that as well.
Carlton*, St Kilda and Fremantle are examples of clubs with access to good picks who just haven't transferred it to success. You could argue Essendon are the same at this stage.
*they have finally come good but its taken them decades.
It's not like we've had access to crap draft picks. We just haven't managed to get any high-performing midfielders out of them.
We can whinge that we couldn't get the best midfielders in the draft we have high picks (e.g. Anderson, Daicos), or we can deal with it.
We could've picked Chad Warner instead of Harry Schoenberg, for example.
We can whinge that we couldn't get the best midfielders in the draft we have high picks (e.g. Anderson, Daicos), or we can deal with it.
We could've picked Chad Warner instead of Harry Schoenberg, for example.
Someone must have a list of all the midfielders we have picked in the last decade or so.
weve had plenty of top 20 picks that have been mids from memory. Surely it can't all be bad picks by Hamish (that isnt letting Hamish off the hook)
Would we be playing Chad Warner though? We spent time sending Schoenberg out of the midfield when we did play him to put Sloane in the middle. Think that changes?
Based my career on this
Wouldn't even worry about a shower after the gameBased my career on this
