Remove this Banner Ad

Stevens Dropped!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter crowie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

macca23 said:
Personally I reckon Shirley's been good so far.

He did a great number on Judd 2 weeks ago, and I'm pretty sure that Burns was his man last week- correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I saw it.

Burns normally kills us and he only had about 11 possessions for the game if I recall correctly.

As I've said previously I wouldn't tag Francou either. I'd use Shirley on their best ball-getting mid-fielder Kane Cornes and attack attack attack with our other mid-fielders.

Shirley definitely deserves his spot IMO.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Shirley was good in round 1, but Burns is a shadow of his former self.

If K.Cornes goes to McLeod, like he most probably will, I don't want to have a situation where Shirley is following Kane who is following Macca leaving a free Port player.
 
I'm a bit surprised, but not overly unhappy that Stevo has been omitted, because, let's be honest, he probably wouldn't get a touch against the miserly Power backline.

Now I don't want to offend anyone, but really, both S. Stevens and Bock are mostly useless, at best they are stop gap measures while we wait for our other young talls to develop.

Hopefully VB gets to debut and I'd like to see Torney get a gig, but that's all probably unlikely.

I've pretty much given up on Ladhams but if he gets a game, I hope he gets a rocket beforehand, no soft stuff, get in hard and give it all you can for however long you can. We really need his skill in a side that is so obviously deficient in that area.
 
ant said:
Now I don't want to offend anyone, but really, both S. Stevens and Bock are mostly useless, at best they are stop gap measures while we wait for our other young talls to develop.

Hopefully VB gets to debut and I'd like to see Torney get a gig, but that's all probably unlikely.
Click to expand...

I'm not offended. I agree with you on both points.

What is the story with Clarke? With Turbo out, I would have played Clarke & Biglands in the ruck, with Huddo up forward.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Jerome said:
I'm not offended. I agree with you on both points.

What is the story with Clarke? With Turbo out, I would have played Clarke & Biglands in the ruck, with Huddo up forward.
Click to expand...

Would be the best thing to do you would have thought, I think we are still unsettling the side to much for no reason :mad:
 
From my perspective, Stevens out is great news. Even if he's not getting it, he demands a decent defender.

I would hazard a guess that Craig is wanting 22 fit players out there, maybe you'll try to run us off the park. Maybe playing Begley loose in defence to pick off the ball, then set up play. If this is the idea, I reckon Van Berlo would be a definite inclusion.
 
macca23 said:
Mark Stevens deserved to be dropped IMO. He hasn't even provided much of a contest, let alone actually get the ball.

Presuming Adelaide maintain their policy of the players named in the starting 18 actually starting, then Begley would be one of the ins, theoretically taking Hart's place.

I doubt whether I'll be right but my other two ins would be Bock and Ladhams.

Bock, because he can play both ends of the ground and goes in harder than Scott Stevens, and could release McGregor up forward if we're in dire straits. Ladhams because he could play wing HF or the crumbing pocket role.

Having said that, they'll probably go Scott Stevens and Van Berlo.
Click to expand...
I can understand why you might think he should be dropped, but who has actually done well enough to deserve his spot. I'm all for not playing people on their form on the proviso that someone else is knocking on the door. Hope we didnt throw the baby out with the bath water.
 
Jars458 said:
Begley Bock and Stevens were all named in the SANFL.

Ladhams Torney and Van Berlo in you would think.

Hinge named for Glenelg seniors.
Click to expand...

Begley is in if he's named in the starting lineup.
 
Why not try Biglands up at CHF if Stevens is out?

I know Perrie has been playing there recently, but since he only leads out wide to the flanks hasn't Mark Stevens been the real CHF option (at least in the center of the ground)?

How about mixing things up and putting Perrie at FF and use Biglands at CHF? Biglands WILL provide a target and is pretty mobile and - as has been the excuse for Perrie for 2 years running now - will at least bring the ball to ground.

Hopefully Perrie won't crawl into his shell at FF now that Carey's gone. He took a couple of good marks against Collingwood, so if he could continue that type of play at FF he'd be pretty usefull, IMHO.
 
I realise that STEVENS has been out of form but he looked in good form against us in the wizza cup (hard attack on the ball and body) and would have probably raised the bar against the power. Maybe he has some injury otherwise it's a big call not even having him in the 25.
 
Jumbo said:
I realise that STEVENS has been out of form but he looked in good form against us in the wizza cup (hard attack on the ball and body) and would have probably raised the bar against the power. Maybe he has some injury otherwise it's a big call not even having him in the 25.
Click to expand...

Nope just badly out of form and probably needs to get his touch back again. I personally think it sends a good message to all, that no one will be carried. Given that we are obviously in a rebuilding period, it is a good time to set the required standard. Big call yes, but a good one IMHO.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

macca23 said:
Mark Stevens deserved to be dropped IMO. He hasn't even provided much of a contest, let alone actually get the ball.
Click to expand...

Gotta agree. On one occasion during the WC game the ball was delivered to him laces out & his opponant ran right past him & took the ball. 2 years out of the game has hurt him badly.
 
I'm a huge fan of Stevo, but I agree with the AFC's decision to relegate him this week. He hasn't competed at all over the last 2 weeks and looks sadly out of touch. Might just need 1 week in the SANFL to regain his form.

He's still, a VERY, VERY important cog in our 2005 wheel. ;)
 
maccas_no1 said:
I think we are definately going in with a weaker line up than last week :(

Bock for Stevens dont add up :confused:
Click to expand...

I would have thought Port would be delighted to see either Bock or S Stevens get a game ahead of Stevo.
 
i reckon the stevens decision is spot on, he's playing at 50% capacity if that.

hopefully it will be the week that hentschel plays a blinder up forward, you'd think he'd have some confidence coming off a 3 goal game.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Torney for Hart

Ladhams for Bode

VB for Stevens

Must be going to change Biglands & Hudson out of the forward pocket. either that or they have had the crystal balls out & know the rain is really gonna come down.

Interesting selections this week.

Once again congrats to the selectors for giving the kid a run. I hope he does well enough to encourage them to give some other wee kiddies a go.
 
mymansyd said:
As mentioned in another thread, Beggs was also named at full back for Sturt. :confused:
Click to expand...

At the same time the 'Tisers website mentions Sturt not being helped by losing Begley to AFL ranks. Most likey the Sturt team listed is wrong.

I'm sure it's more important to name a legitimate lineup in the AFL than it is in the SANFL. If Begley is named in Adelaide's starting 18, and then was left out without being injured, and subsequently played SANFL this weekend, would this attract a financial penalty from the AFL? I'm sure they frown upon clubs playing ducks & drakes like that.
 
Stiffy_18 said:
I am a bit of a Begley fan but his form hasn't warranted selection. His pre-season form was poor. His round 1 form was very ordinary and by all accounts got taken to the cleaners by Clive Waterhouse on the weekend.

Based on that how the ******** did he get picked?????? :confused:
Click to expand...

i am too Stiffy but ill disagree with his re inclusion with you. He was on Paul Evans last week until he was injured, this bloke had ripped south a new hole the week before and kicked 8 and Begley had held him to a point. Also i thought he did reasonably well in Round 1, at the game it was clear what his job was whne he came on the ground and it was to cut out Cousins and he did this for about a quarter with fair success i thought, but then Craigg kept pulling him on and off to allow for midfield rotations as i viewed it and this upset his pattern and then Cousins played well but its hard to tag when your spending half the time on the bench.
 
mymansyd said:
As mentioned in another thread, Beggs was also named at full back for Sturt. :confused:
Click to expand...
We didnt have any emergencies named in the league or an extended bench with begs in our side, BUT our ressies did have an emergency named so that MAY indicate that Begs is taken by the cows.

I hope I am wrong tho, we bloody need him badly!!!!
 
seems to me that Begley being in the 18 has to play for the Crows (unless injury) - S Stevens & Bock named in SANFL - Van Berlo not named for South - hence IMO the remaining player to drop out will be Shirley (if injured) although Torney not named at South)

perhaps both Shirley :( and Torney will play and Ladhams misses out (but i think the team is unbalanced if this happens)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom