Oh so we have been s**t for 18 months due to Polson, play on
Preview Rnd 6 - Carlton v Hawthorn Sunday April 28th 3.20PM @ UTAS - Team Post #1331
- Thread starter Mr_Plow
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Oh so we have been s**t for 18 months due to Polson, play on
Cuners is more a forward? Since when?
You do realise, Kennedy playing in the middle will release other, more "talented" players, to the forward line?
Robertio
Spotswood Guinness Bar manager
The last game last year and how he played.
100% agree. At the moment we are trying to strike a balance between development and performance. As for DC he is definitely ahead of Polson at this stage IMO BUT both have played less than 20 games. Just that Cuningham has missed a month of football. The club will decide if he's ready and if it's the best thing or not. None of know what's happening internally and Kidney injuries are tough.
I look at it as more than this week. The sooner Polson, DC and others get to 30 plus games the better for all.
As I have said numerous times I just don't see his selection as a certainty. So many variables and so much we don't know. Seems as though some of us are discussing possibilities and some seem to be so called certainties
PS It is nice to be discussing genuine selection options though. Imagine how the next few weeks will be
Macca43
Premiership Player
- Mar 10, 2011
- 4,214
- 11,106
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Thanks!In this situation IMO there is no right or wrong
But you have queried anyone who suggested Cuningham should come in.
Macca43
Premiership Player
- Mar 10, 2011
- 4,214
- 11,106
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Wouldn't the fall under 1%ers of which he has had 4 in 3 games
Pressure acts Macca?
Only the point that it's a "certainty" that Cuningham replace Polson. Never had an issue with the selection or said it shouldn't happen
I'm trying to have a discussion about options and variables and you want to make it about right and wrong
cfc4life
Cancelled
- Sep 16, 2007
- 3,409
- 4,641
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Averaging the exact same pressure acts, and I'd rate tackles pretty highly in stopping the opposition.
I'm fine with Kennedy coming in, but I think we lose speed if we don't bring a runner in as well.
cfc4life
Cancelled
- Sep 16, 2007
- 3,409
- 4,641
- AFL Club
- Carlton
No I'm saying that Cuningham over Polson is strengthened by Polson's poor showing in those 18 months. Don't twist my words.
Macca43
Premiership Player
- Mar 10, 2011
- 4,214
- 11,106
- AFL Club
- Carlton
have you been paying attention this year?
"You do realise, Kennedy playing in the middle will release other, more "talented" players, to the forward line?" So ignoring the fact that Kennedy has been in pretty ordinary form and the distinct difference in speed, why wouldn't we just let the more talented players play in the middle and select the more talented forward to play in the forward line?
By sheer virtue of the fact SPS dominated last week means they are going to put more attention him meaning it is going to release other players to perform. The more players that can pop up like that means we are becoming a problem for teams to contain us. Got a feeling SPS will be a bit quieter this week as a result but expect it will release perhaps Murphy to be more influencial. Or SPS tears it apart again and then happy days!
Has he? Looked very solid to me the last 2 games
I have already stated countless times that Polson should be sent back to the VFL and Kennedy should come in over Cuners
Debate Kennedy v Cuners, nothing else
Debate Kennedy v Cuners, nothing else
cfc4life
Cancelled
- Sep 16, 2007
- 3,409
- 4,641
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Thought so, was probably his best game of his career but again was one of just four games since the start of last year where he's had 10 disposals or more.
Cuners has been injured for most of that period
This should not be about Cuners v Polson, they are 2 different players at different stages
Macca43
Premiership Player
- Mar 10, 2011
- 4,214
- 11,106
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Raising "variables" doesn't make it a discussion on variables. I and others have asked numerous times how these "variables" make the case for Polson over Cuningham and you have either said they don't or "when did I say they did?" - so the discussion seems moot really.
And I haven't made it about right or wrong, I have just taken a position and am happy to support it. You seem to just want the argument.
I think, if Cuningham is fit enough to play for the NB's then he's fit enough to play ones.
He looks a far better player than Polson at this stage and should take his place. FFS Polson played 61% of game time last week, surely Cuningham can do that.
Just as much chance to be injured in the twos as there is in the firsts.
cfc4life
Cancelled
- Sep 16, 2007
- 3,409
- 4,641
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I agree that it shouldn't be an overall debate between the two, but in terms of inclusions, Cunners is the clear option.
Macca43
Premiership Player
- Mar 10, 2011
- 4,214
- 11,106
- AFL Club
- Carlton
But it seems they are competing for the one spot so surely it is a little bit about them.
Macca43
Premiership Player
- Mar 10, 2011
- 4,214
- 11,106
- AFL Club
- Carlton
According to CFC for Life "Averaging the exact same pressure acts" as Cuners
I think that overlooks the fact Cuningham has also done very little besides have potential for 18 months. Unlucky with injuries yes but the why is hardly the point. In fact there is an argument to say an always fit player is better than one thats always injured no matter what the upside.
Pretty hard to when he's not playing.
- Status
