deserves to be rewarded then. Can't begrudge him leaving if other teams will offer the coin and we don't
News Hugh Greenwood joins Crows on 2 year deal
- Thread starter Hank93
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. Hugh is the last that will leave. With respect you clearly know nothing of Hugh's story.
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
Oh rubbish, he's been hungry in every game he's played for us.
The more knowledgeable posters have noted how good Greenwood will be once he gets his tank up. So makes sense that he was a perfect candidate for a rest.
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
He'd played 2 games in a month. It made no sense, and vague appeals to the personal authority of the apparently 'knowledgeable' ones doesnt change that.
- Jun 15, 2005
- 69,233
- 60,483
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- AUFC, Everton, Sturt
It would have been pre planned before the season started, given his lack of pre seasons.
Still didn't make much sense.
- Sep 30, 2014
- 18,956
- 40,126
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
He still doesn't have a senior footballers body, but that didn't stop Dangerfield going down like a sack of spuds when Greenwood gave him a nudge in the middle of the ground.
um, that would be the "hungrier" part as in more hungry than usual?
You don't know how he pulled after up the game prior. You think it's a video game where you have a fatigue status that drops down a certain rate after x amount of games, jesus.
You know more than anyone else including our fitness team? Please send in your resume to the club ☺
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
Of course fatigue has a cumulative effect. It didnt take us long to get to the 'they're the experts' safety blanket, did it?
That authority relies upon the explanation given being the actual reason why we dropped him though. Which is highly questionable given that we picked him as an emergency (i.e. he was apparently plenty fine to play in the event of someone elses injury). That weighs against the idea that he was incapable of playing due to fatigue.
We dropped him because we wanted to play Thompson. It was only Thompson's poor performance that saved us from our own foolishness.
Ugh, I don't have the time for this, enjoy your day!
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
You too.
- Feb 3, 2004
- 17,999
- 24,204
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- panthers, ukraine & broncos
Crap Pete. We have been playing the long game with respect to Hugh. He is only playing 60% game time in the AFL. That is purely because he can't play more than that in order to have the tank to keep being effective in the final quarter when we need it. In some games we have rested him longer in the middle of the game so that he is fresher in the last quarter. Put all that together and that shows that we took the opportunity to rest him in order to make sure that he is going to be effective into the finals series coming up for us.
- May 26, 2013
- 22,327
- 31,749
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Liverpool FC
The only problem with resting Thor when we did was we brought in Thommo as the replacement.
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
Giving someone low game time is not convincing evidence of a strategy of backing them in as opposed to say, dropping them.
Is there any credible reason why we should think that dropping someone in week 16 for a mere one week (and yet still having them as emergency) would have a markable impact upon his freshness for finals, noting that those finals occur after a bye week?
Resting someone is different from resting someone from fatigue. I don't see an issue with him having a rest to let the sore spots heal. Whats with the anti crows selection decisions all of a sudden? Because Greenwood says something probably a bit out of context you use it as an excuse to pot the club? Fair dinkum we are top! Get over it.
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
Now it's sore spots? Can we get a consistent line?
I mean, in the last two pages alone we've had fatigue from the previous game, a master plan to ensure freshness in the finals, and now sore spots.
What's next? He caught the plague during the week?
Edit: I forgot, he needed to be taught 'hunger', which is where this all started.
Think about who we just played and who we have coming up!!! Its not hard to think why we might have given him a break...well for some of us anyway! Rucci????
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
I quite enjoy the particular brand of stream of consciousness that you provide.
I DISAGREE WITH YOU!!!!! PIZZA?
If resting him a few weeks ago was part of setting him up for last nights game then it's great management of a developing player.
The club knows the numbers so I'll leave it to them. What I saw last night was a bloke who was let off the leash and it was just what we needed.
The club knows the numbers so I'll leave it to them. What I saw last night was a bloke who was let off the leash and it was just what we needed.
You're being a twat!
He said something out of context, the club probably gave him the reasons and he neglected to pass them on in his excitement of the win. You are potting the club based on your on assumption. Crows are top, piss off of you have to keep being negative.
Dont justify this stance to the arse clown. He is being a tool based on nothing.
I know we all used to fap over Rendell but I think Hamish was the key all along.
He identified Hugh's talent at the age of 16 and stayed in contact with him.. * he even flew with Noble to the states to track how he's going with basketball/life.
He identified Hugh's talent at the age of 16 and stayed in contact with him.. * he even flew with Noble to the states to track how he's going with basketball/life.
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
I'm sure that the virtuous posters who oppose personal abuse will be in here to defend me any minute now.
Is it really being positive to allow posters to say things like Hugh wasnt hungry before hand? That's a far bigger slight than the idea that we might have made a selection error two weeks ago.
Out of interest, why do you have such a viscerally emotional reaction to the idea that someone might disagree with something the club did?
Southerntakeover
Hall of Famer
If it was. Sure. I'm happy to accept that if this was the design, it's worked well.
I'm just not as sold it was the design as some of you.
What if it wasnt? What if we actually had the intention of replacing him in the team with the player brought in? What sort of management would that have been? Can we reach agreement that if that had been the idea it was a bad one?
