Cripps might argue that one as he has trained exactly for that and certainly looks quicker to me.Yeah but speed you cannot really train. Getting bigger and crashing packs are achievable
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Cripps might argue that one as he has trained exactly for that and certainly looks quicker to me.Yeah but speed you cannot really train. Getting bigger and crashing packs are achievable
Not to speak for Soapy but the argument is:
- Don’t break-up a winning team.
- Due to his injury Cuner’s has done limited contact work. So he might be fit, but may not be match fit.
- Cuner’s might or might not be top 22. That’s not been established given all the form we’ve got to go one is JLT and the match against Richmond. In other words, he shouldn’t be viewed as an automatic selection.
I don’t agree with 1. I partly agree with 2 but think that AR would have this covered and as for 3... fair enough, but if we are doing an apples to apples comparison, his output will be greater than Polson who he will likely be replacing.
[Apologies if I’ve missed something].
On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app?
Can't rotate Thomas forward yet without Williamson in the team.
And after last week, we'd want to minimise Samo's time forward as much as possible. Tremendous on-baller.
Gibbons has demonstrated that he is not a good forward.
Fisher and Murphy are the only options, which still leave us shorthanded in terms of personnel and impact.
Enter... David Cuningham.
That all depends on what he has been able to do at training, by the sounds of things he has been able to do skills and fitness work pretty much all the way through and has had 2 weeks of full training. I wouldn't be surprised if he has lost very little touch and would be much cleaner than Polson.
I think these discussions have become circular, I see it differently to most, perhaps I will leave it
you want him to get some confidence in his game back by playing in the 2s before coming into the side.Then you’re not reading what is being discussed
Arr0w Kennedy didn't look particularly good last week and he played in a position he had every opportunity to show plenty.
The NB's haven't been, nor look like being a place for forwards to develop.
Look at the bests from last week; Goddard, Macreadie, Williamson, Stocker.......see the pattern? No Fasolo, no Garlett, no Lang and if Cuningham had have played, I dare to guess, no Cuningham.
We cite players requiring touch and therefor should come back via the NB's and that's fair enough, but if it's touch alone the fumbling portrayed by Polson (over a period of time) and O'Brien last weekend, deserve some time in the league below, also.
How good is Hawthorn's recruiting and development by the way?
Not only did they go out of their way to find a guy called Mitchell Lewis after Sam Mitchell and Jordan Lewis left, but they actually turned him into an AFL player.
The two lowest acts in football i've seen involved Clarkson.That was a low act and I think they realised it in the end and changed it back, but it never should have happened in the first place as they where miles in front on the scoreboard and Buddy had already kicked his hundred.
Good ol RLT, ahh the memories!!!Ahh yes... RLT
Cripps might argue that one as he has trained exactly for that and certainly looks quicker to me.
Setterfield (and Docherty albeit not available)[/
Big Headed---- Mathew Watson. He had about the biggest head to ever play AFL I reckon. Right up there with Bert Newton !!!!Let's not get big headed, we've only won one game.
True that Charlie wasn't at training?
Now we are getting somewhere
While some of the players you mentioned have had some exposed form, Cuners has had none over the last 4 weeks, yet we want to go back slightly further to make an argument for Cuners, but we can't for other players?
Anyway, time to move on, one change here or there at the moment is not what is crucial to our fortunes here and now, nor in the future
Doubt his role is doing nothing.Interesting going back over all the posts.
Most wanted LOB & Polson out. Said they did little. Yet neither have been dropped (yet) and LOB is in the 18 and is playing.
I know LOB was praised for the job he did last week by the coach. Very happy. Team game. I know Polson did a similar role (but not sure how well?).
Team ahead of individuals is so important
Interesting going back over all the posts.
Most wanted LOB & Polson out. Said they did little. Yet neither have been dropped (yet) and LOB is in the 18 and is playing.
I know LOB was praised for the job he did last week by the coach. Very happy. Team game. I know Polson did a similar role (but not sure how well?).
Team ahead of individuals is so important
I'd be happy with that. We don't need to rush Charlie back in.Gut feel after listening to Russell’s report earlier in the week was one change, Cuningham for Polson.
Still think that’s the case.
Our structures were pretty good without Charlie last week, so i'd give him another week off as well.Jack stays. If any doubt on Charlie give him another week off to recover fully
Yeah well that’s interesting, I guess we generally play better at the MCG so it can’t hurt although I think the wind will be a big factor down there, could make it hard for the marking targets if igets blowy and especially the kicking for goal.I am surprised to discover that the Launceston oval dimensions are 175m x 145m.
Almost the same size as the MCG 171m x 146m.
Marvel stadium is a lot smaller at 160m x 129m.
Will the extra size suit our clearance advantage & midfield strength?
You would think it also give the tall forwards more space to work with.
What are your thoughts folks?