Team for Hawks Game

[lenny20]

Come on guys, this whining is pathetic.

Wakelin is too slow for any of the hawk forwards and was creamed last time around. Goldsack, conversely, performed fairly well on Buddy last time he played him - 4 goals at the TD, a few lucky ones too.

Rhyce is injured or would be a walk-up start. Adding Tooves as a tagger makes enough sense for me to have faith that the selection panel know the team better than I do.

Wood is the natural selection to give way for Fraser - Bryan has been better, despite Dave's thoughts.

Johnson is rightfully omitted - few could argue that. Lonie is one from left-field, but isn't that what you've all been asking for?

Yes, Stanners and Iles have been dominating at VFL level. But Iles has shown nothing at AFL standard apart from one quarter against the Saints playing as a loose man in defense. Even then he only poked a couple of 15m passes without blatantly screwing up. Stanners may be a stats machine but he's a bit too much like O'Bree to play them both in the same midfield, and at this stage I'll take O'Bree any day.

Lonie is soft as molasses, but importantly, not as slow as it. And he's still the best kick in the team. And he's played 100 games. And I, for one, hope that he regains some of the form that he's shown himself capable of producing at AFL level.

And, strange though it sounds, I'm all for him being given another chance to do it.

 

[MAKESHIFT]

Well first, as long as you keep posting rubbish, I'll keep responding. Second, don't tell me to "get a grip" because I disagree with you. Third, I don't recall saying Danny was in the "top 10 fastest" - I referred to his AIS stats and some inside info I have which has him in the top third fastest at the club. I don't care what you've "seen" in your 15 matches, the AIS stats are still around if you care to look for them. I don't because you're not going to change your anti-Stanley bias and I'm not going to change my pro-Stanley stance.

I think you, like a decreasing number of others, probably see him loping between contests and think that's his speed. I've said elswhere, he's a big boy and he'll never dart round all day like a Cookie or Toovey BUT he can turn his pace on at need - like he did when he ran down Gibbs.

So let's either agree to disagree, or debate it further if you like but don't bother with the smarmy little "pantellettes" type comments. You've been consistently bagging him as is your right if you want to, but don't try to stop me defending him.

I am with you pipeline. I too am sick of the questions over his speed skills and future. He has worked so hard this year to improve all areas of his game and he has picked up the pace and now can run all day. People are correct he will never be the fastest in the club (I have also read that he was 10th overall in preseason) but that is not his roll. He is the in and under player that will get it out to the outside players.
We can't change everyones view but time will tell and when he gets his chance all the doubt will be gone.
I really admire your passionate stance as I too have a very soft spot for Stanners maybe it is strengthened by all the crap he has coped over the past few years from the "supporters". I see such a different player out there now and he has grown as a footballer and last week I was sitting near some of the senior players that were blown away watching him they were singing his praises so that must count for something also.
Everyone has their favourite players that they defend til the death and good on you. I have noticed the numbers are increasing day by day for Stanners.

 

[MAKESHIFT]

I am with you pipeline. I too am sick of the questions over his speed skills and future. He has worked so hard this year to improve all areas of his game and he has picked up the pace and now can run all day. People are correct he will never be the fastest in the club (I have also read that he was 10th overall in preseason) but that is not his roll. He is the in and under player that will get it out to the outside players.
We can't change everyones view but time will tell and when he gets his chance all the doubt will be gone.
I really admire your passionate stance as I too have a very soft spot for Stanners maybe it is strengthened by all the crap he has coped over the past few years from the "supporters". I see such a different player out there now and he has grown as a footballer and last week I was sitting near some of the senior players that were blown away watching him they were singing his praises so that must count for something also.
Everyone has their favourite players that they defend til the death and good on you. I have noticed the numbers are increasing day by day for Stanners.

I agree 100 percent. I like Stanners too. Been watching VFL every week this year and he is the best I have seen there. Boy he is great in the midfield. That is definitely his spot. Not all players develop at the same pace and he has been doing his time and I agree he is ready!! Knock knock!!!! MM let him in the door it is now off the hinges !!!!!!

 

[Palmer Stoat]

I am with you pipeline. I too am sick of the questions over his speed skills and future.

Righto, I can see the writing on the wall. In future I will ratify all my opinions with you first, cos god forbid that anyone would express an opinion that makes you sick.

In fact, let's just let's ban anyone who disagrees with you, and instead substitute odes to the faultlessness of all our players.

**** me.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

I agree 100 percent. I like Stanners too. Been watching VFL every week this year and he is the best I have seen there. Boy he is great in the midfield. That is definitely his spot. Not all players develop at the same pace and he has been doing his time and I agree he is ready!! Knock knock!!!! MM let him in the door it is now off the hinges !!!!!!

You quoted your own post and agreed with yourself? Bloody hell, maybe my previous response was closer to the truth than I imagined.

 

[MAKESHIFT]

You quoted your own post and agreed with yourself? Bloody hell, maybe my previous response was closer to the truth than I imagined.

Yeah sorry mate that was an ooopps. Wrote the first one and didn't think it was sent. Still getting used to this computer age.
Doesn't matter I do agree with myself and pipeline and the others and I will keep saying it too.....

 

[Spagger83]

Well first, as long as you keep posting rubbish, I'll keep responding. Second, don't tell me to "get a grip" because I disagree with you. Third, I don't recall saying Danny was in the "top 10 fastest" - I referred to his AIS stats and some inside info I have which has him in the top third fastest at the club. I don't care what you've "seen" in your 15 matches, the AIS stats are still around if you care to look for them. I don't because you're not going to change your anti-Stanley bias and I'm not going to change my pro-Stanley stance.

I think you, like a decreasing number of others, probably see him loping between contests and think that's his speed. I've said elswhere, he's a big boy and he'll never dart round all day like a Cookie or Toovey BUT he can turn his pace on at need - like he did when he ran down Gibbs.

So let's either agree to disagree, or debate it further if you like but don't bother with the smarmy little "pantellettes" type comments. You've been consistently bagging him as is your right if you want to, but don't try to stop me defending him.

you can have all the stats and facts that you like....it has nothing to do with palmer or pipeline, the fact is that MM doesnt think stanley is good enough at the moment. so you (pipeline) and you (palmer) can keep throwing barbs at eachother but MM has the final say.... so it's 2 (MM and Palmer) versus 1 (pipeline) on the danny stanley issue at the moment. i reckon MM has seen the AIS stats and obviously they dont mean shti!!

 

[Paddywhackers]

Maybe we could bring in Stanley if it is wet... Maybe Lonie should make way, thoughts?

 

[Jabso]

I remember something about Stanley's sprint times being very good. However that doesn't translate to out and out pace at AFL level.

O'Bree when he gets going is quite quick but just doesn't have the absolute explosiveness and the agility/evasiveness to make him a "quick" player.

Stanley is much like that. If someone asked you who are the quick players of Collingwood we can put into the side, you wouldn't be putting Stanley up there, sprint times or not.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Yeah sorry mate that was an ooopps. Wrote the first one and didn't think it was sent. Still getting used to this computer age.
Doesn't matter I do agree with myself and pipeline and the others and I will keep saying it too.....

I agree with myself too. And I too will keep testifyin.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

you can have all the stats and facts that you like....it has nothing to do with palmer or pipeline, the fact is that MM doesnt think stanley is good enough at the moment. so you (pipeline) and you (palmer) can keep throwing barbs at eachother but MM has the final say.... so it's 2 (MM and Palmer) versus 1 (pipeline) on the danny stanley issue at the moment. i reckon MM has seen the AIS stats and obviously they dont mean shti!!

That's the strange thing about this argument: I would support giving Stanley a game (and playing him in the centre square) if we omitted one of the other one-paced mids to accommodate this. Drop O'Bree or rest Pendles (who looks sore and injured to me), perhaps.

[Despite rumours to contrary, I'm not a Stanley slagger.]

As for sprint times, IIRC Luke Livingston recorded v good times at the draft camp for a player of his size, yet always looked slow as a motorised wardrobe.

 

[MAKESHIFT]

Righto, I can see the writing on the wall. In future I will ratify all my opinions with you first, cos god forbid that anyone would express an opinion that makes you sick.

In fact, let's just let's ban anyone who disagrees with you, and instead substitute odes to the faultlessness of all our players.

**** me.

Sorry also didn't realise you take every so literally!!!!
No one is expecting you to ratify anything. This is a discussion board and everyone can express their opinions. No I do not share the same opinion as you regarding a few players but there are others I agree one hundred percent.
If we all agreed with one another it would be quite boring.
I like the fact that we have a banter and question each others opinions. Everyone on this board comes from different backgrounds and therefore have many different views.
Lets keep it fun and not get too serious about everything.
You do not share the same opinion so what do not get so defensive. I happen to know Stanners as he has grown up in the same community as my kids and I want to support him and am proud to do so.

 

[shawthing09]

That's the strange thing about this argument: I would support giving Stanley a game (and playing him in the centre square) if we omitted one of the other one-paced mids to accommodate this. Drop O'Bree or rest Pendles (who looks sore and injured to me), perhaps.

[Despite rumours to contrary, I'm not a Stanley slagger.]

As for sprint times, IIRC Luke Livingston recorded v good times at the draft camp for a player of his size, yet always looked slow as a motorised wardrobe.

I am a huge advocate for Stanley getting a game, but I do agree with this. More so with Burns/ O'Bree then Pendles, as I think without being dynamic off the mark, Pendles has enough athletism to get himself out of trouble to dish it off to a player, where as the other to often have no other option then to hold it up, but I digress.

Stanley should get a game the stats, and his preformances at VFL level demand it. The problem is it would give us a midfield with 3 players who are fairly one paced. Stanners would however cover the ground a lot better then O'Bree and Burns simply because he has youth on his side and apparentally his top speed is pretty good too. Where Burns and O'Bree are becoming less and less useful anywhere other then the stoppages. Stanley should be better around the ground, hopefully without taking to much away from the stoppages.

The fact is Burns and O'Bree aren't going to go on forever and we are no closer to figuring out what the players below are like in that role.

 

[Art Corvelay]

Yeah ummm, I dunno. I wasn't confident before hand and I'm even less confident now for a win. Let's hope a couple of these boys realise the opportunity they have now and fight for it, cause there wasn't much fight last week :/

The only thing that baffles me is that Hawthorn's strength is their tall forwards so we rest our most experienced defender.

Miss last weeks game? Miss what Roughhead did to Wakelin last time? Wakelin doesn't have a 'real' match up this week, and he can probably do with a week's rest. Hopefully he'll be back next week

 

[Palmer Stoat]

I am a huge advocate for Stanley getting a game, but I do agree with this. More so with Burns/ O'Bree then Pendles, as I think without being dynamic off the mark, Pendles has enough athletism to get himself out of trouble to dish it off to a player, where as the other to often have no other option then to hold it up, but I digress.

Stanley should get a game the stats, and his preformances at VFL level demand it. The problem is it would give us a midfield with 3 players who are fairly one paced. Stanners would however cover the ground a lot better then O'Bree and Burns simply because he has youth on his side and apparentally his top speed is pretty good too. Where Burns and O'Bree are becoming less and less useful anywhere other then the stoppages. Stanley should be better around the ground, hopefully without taking to much away from the stoppages.

The fact is Burns and O'Bree aren't going to go on forever and we are no closer to figuring out what the players below are like in that role.

Yeah, we're on the same page. Howver, a wet, windy night where it becomes a ground-level armwrestle might allow us to play all of them. I'd expect the coaching staff will be weighing it up right until team sheets have to be lodged. Stanley may yet get a go.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Sorry also didn't realise you take every so literally!!!!
No one is expecting you to ratify anything. This is a discussion board and everyone can express their opinions. No I do not share the same opinion as you regarding a few players but there are others I agree one hundred percent.
If we all agreed with one another it would be quite boring.
I like the fact that we have a banter and question each others opinions. Everyone on this board comes from different backgrounds and therefore have many different views.
Lets keep it fun and not get too serious about everything.
You do not share the same opinion so what do not get so defensive. I happen to know Stanners as he has grown up in the same community as my kids and I want to support him and am proud to do so.

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek, Makeshift. It's all sweet. (I still intend to ratify all my opinions with you first, however. You can expect an avalanche of PMs starting NOW!)

 

[jefffff34]

The only thing that baffles me is that Hawthorn's strength is their tall forwards so we rest our most experienced defender. God we should be praying for rain tonight.

We're good there.

Now I am praying that Hawthorn rest Franklin on a horses for courses thought because of the wet.

 

[goalpie]

Hate to say I told you so.

Resting your most experienced defender, some people must be on the moon at the moment.

 

[Art Corvelay]

Hate to say I told you so.

Resting your most experienced defender, some people must be on the moon at the moment.

You most likely. I re-iterate my earlier post.

Miss last weeks game? Miss what Roughhead did to Wakelin last time? Wakelin doesn't have a 'real' match up this week, and he can probably do with a week's rest. Hopefully he'll be back next week

Wakelin wouldn't have been the difference, unless Wakelin suddenly developed awesome leg speed and was a midfield specialst who could retrieve the ball and hit a target in the forward line.