Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fremantle' started by Yello Mit, May 14, 2017.
I though suban get 26 touches just behind Pearce .
(Log in to remove this ad.)
I admit I didn't see the game, but thought the consensus from the WAFL thread was that he was just Ok? I'll admit to being wrong.
But for someone like Suban to fight their way back in he needs to be stringing together BOGs in my opinion. He can't just go back and be 'pretty good'. That shouldn't be enough to earn a spot while we're rebuilding and with the kids putting together some really promising performances in the WAFL.
Suban can get as many touches as he wants in peel we have all seen what he does in the afl and it's not enough.
I have no issue with people replying to posts... forum wouldn't work too well if that didn't happen....
I am miffed at your often passive aggressive responses, you know you come across as a cry baby at times yeh ?
I agree, on the other hand I don't think is totally wise to cut players off with other players facing personal issue and injuries just because freo are in rebuild mode.
Hill is in for Tucker
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Shocking MC decision. On what planet should Pearce be getting games ahead of our young, developing, high quality mid. Especially when he almost cost us the game last week with his kick being smothered while hot on attack late in Q4.
Not happy with that
Tucker should be in infront of Pearce IMO
Surely he isn't also homesick or something
God I hope the the coaches haven't gotten a sniff for finals and started easing the old regulars back in...
D. Pearce and Sutcliffe already regulars again... Dawson and Suban next in line?
That's what i'm scared of too. Pearce keeps his spot over youth and Suban/Sheridan dangerously close to getting their way back in too. Not a fan of Darcy out.
Pearce had 22 possessions, 4 tackles and a goal. Tucker had 13 and 2 tackles. You need to have some kind of selection integrity.
As a devil's advocate for your post, didn't Tucker have less game time? Unless they're managing his load, perhaps Hill for Sutcliffe would have been better if Pearce was to stay in?
Youth or not, Tucker was pretty anonymous in that game I felt. Pearce will always have his clangers but he does contribute.
He did only play 50% game time, might be why you felt that way
I feel some people on here have the knife out for Pearce....and not to defend him but he was far from the worst player last week.
People need to remove the rose coloured glasses they have and see that at this stage he is a better player than young Tucker.
Regardless if Pearce was better he has nothing to give us in the future, he is only stalling Tuckers growth as a player. We aren't going to be premiers this year, lets stop acting like its 2015.
Chucking darts at the bullseye with a blindfold on is all we can do.
We don't know the facts,Tucker may be carrying a niggle which needs rest,may be a scheduled out in some long term programme....who knows.
Not me, but as usual the thing I remain 100% certain of is that the MC have more info than me.
Pearce was never as bad as people suggested,we've shown very good management of younger players and how the club has developed youngsters is a strength as far as I'm concerned.All of them have been omitted at some stage.
I'd say the plan is as they develop they're omitted less and less.Cap'n Obvious definition of development.
Someone has to be dropped for Silly and it's our outside run which Carlton will have the most trouble with imo so the more of it the better.
It's comical the insane shit that DP gets lumped with. He has a kick smothered so it's his fault we nearly lost (never mind that he was there in the back line making tackles). As for the future, the future for 2017 and 2018 is that Pearce is on our list. A few out there better get used to the fact that a 250 game player will continue to get games, especially when he plays well.
I'm gonna get lynched for this but Tucker is starting to remind me of Suban...
Think the change was fair enough, but would have thought Crozier and Ibbotson would be out over Tucker.
Not the end of the world, I just hope we aren't shifting back to a short term success model. Danyle was actually involved in the second most scores in our team last week (with 8 behind Walters on 10). And his pressure acts were also at the top end as well. He definitely performed far better than he did in Rds 1 & 2, and he came back via a dominant performance at WAFL so I get why they felt they couldn't drop him.
I still think Tucker would be better suited to coming off half back for a while. Like Cox he was a defender pre draft and Cox definitely seems far more comfortable down back than he did in the forward line in his first few games.
Wow, I'm seriously disappointed in the decision to drop Tucker. Considering Balic may be on the out that's just a shocking decision. How the hell is D Pearce in future plans? Tucker wasn't doing anything wrong either.
Except that we're not in a 'win now' phase so that shouldn't really be a factor. The question is, will he be a better player than Tucker a few years down the line?
There is also the possibility that Tucker's development will benefit from a rest.
Blakely played low percentage game time last year as he built into his body,the game and his differing roles.
No biggy for mine because I believe we really know what we're doing with the youngsters.
51% time on ground shows where it is at for Tucker. He is in development.
With managing his time on ground, that will improve with another year or two of development as he builds his tank, but if he is on the bench that long, other people aren't getting a rest - including other "da yoof" (Tucker aint the only yoof) that we are trying to develop.
Tired legs and kicking aren't great combinations, we would prefer to be instilling a sense of winning and trying to go for 4 quarters, irrespective of a scoreboard that might show that it's pointless to keep going - and it's too easy for the team to look like el crapola when the team is tireder because we are gifting 1 individual some game experience and he's hogging the bench.
Developing da yoof includes time in the magoos. They can work on aspects of the game when it's slowed down a little and they are getting more of the ball to make decisions with. So if the match committee think it best for some magoo time, so be it.