The Claytons upgrade - alias Smith and Parker

[bigman]

Dear Thrillseekers,

I am perplexed as to why we uprgraded Parker and Smith and yet we have not used them so far this year.

Surely the last 5 weeks would have been a good opportunity to play these boys and see if they could cut it at the next level, when we were not going to play finals football at the end of the season.

Smith is now injured so he may not play again this year. Parker continues to perform well for the bays, but still languishes in this competition.

Are they just good SANFL players? The truth is we will not know until next year now (if they do not get delisted) because they have not been given enough time to show their wares.

Shades of the Ayres era when a number of younger players found it difficult to get much of a run.

 

[Stiffy_18]

And just who would you drop?????? Rutten????? McGregor?????? Bassett???? Bock?????

 

[Nige_Bix]

I think that he could have squeezed out one the three ruckmen - perfect game to give him a try.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I think that he could have squeezed out one the three ruckmen - perfect game to give him a try.

True but as I stated in the other thread I think its more important to get some games into Hudson because Clarke will most likely hang them up at the end of the year. We need Huddo up and running next year

And plus this game is a must win. Thats why we went with experience (Biglands) instead of Parker. Imagine how much more backlash would the club cop for appointing Craig if we lost this weekend.

 

[Nige_Bix]

I think it would be a bit harsh to drop Hudson, maybe Biglands could have been left out - either way - I still would have liked to have seen Parker get a go in this game rather than the next two if the opportunity is there.

 

[DaveW]

And plus this game is a must win.

Huh?

 

[Stiffy_18]

Huh?

You obviously haven't been in Adelaide for the last few days

If we lost the city would burn down the AFC and want Craig's blood and of those who appointed him. In the eyes of AFC this is a MUST win game or the rage continutes.

 

[DaveW]

Well I'm sticking to my Get-the-Tigers-out-of-priority-pick-zone attitude.

 

[Mego Red]

Well I'm sticking to my Get-the-Tigers-out-of-priority-pick-zone attitude.

EXCELLENT point, Dave.

 

[Nige_Bix]

You obviously haven't been in Adelaide for the last few days

If we lost the city would burn down the AFC and want Craig's blood and of those who appointed him. In the eyes of AFC this is a MUST win game or the rage continutes.

True - but as you said in another thread, Craig's real worth wont be known until next year after a preseason - the problem being that this is a game we should not lose and it wont do his credibility much good if we drop the game.

 

[macca23]

Personally I think it's really odd to upgrade players that need to be tested, and then not play them. Very odd.

Talking about odd, I was told by a relative of Robert Shirley's that he signed a new 2 year contract this week. Why I found this odd was

- there's been nothing at all about in the papers or on TV, has there?

- it could be interpreted that he will be needed as a tagger next year because Stinga is leaving.

- the AFC obviously have a higher opinion of Shirley than a lot of posters on this board.

- if I understand correctly, he was signed up before Craig was announced as coach. Isn't that the prerogative of the new coach to decide who comes and goes??

Overall - rather odd.

 

[Nige_Bix]

Yeh - you'd think they would have waited for that.

 

[Stiffy_18]

That is odd. I can see the merit in keeping him if Stinger goes but still its a bit early for that and even more odd is 2 year deal. I thought we always signed fringe players to 1 year contracts

 

[Stiffy_18]

True - but as you said in another thread, Craig's real worth wont be known until next year after a preseason - the problem being that this is a game we should not lose and it wont do his credibility much good if we drop the game.

It wouldn't stop the die hard anti-craig group from kicking up a stink if we lost. The club wants for this to quieten down a bit but if we lose it will just drag on. Last thing the club needs

 

[Nige_Bix]

The last thing a lot of us need!

 

[JuniorBurger]

You obviously haven't been in Adelaide for the last few days

If we lost the city would burn down the AFC and want Craig's blood and of those who appointed him. In the eyes of AFC this is a MUST win game or the rage continutes.

Now there's something to look forward too.

 

[The Iron Sock]

I Don't mind Shirley.He will probably never be in the First squad but as a fringe player i would keep him(just for Judd )

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Personally I think it's really odd to upgrade players that need to be tested, and then not play them. Very odd.

Talking about odd, I was told by a relative of Robert Shirley's that he signed a new 2 year contract this week. Why I found this odd was

- there's been nothing at all about in the papers or on TV, has there?

I would wait for confirmation, as he would be in my top 3 for de-listing, and as you say the new coach would have "demanded" some input given the proposed timing of the coaching announcement.

You'll excuse my scepticism of the relatives comments

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I Don't mind Shirley.He will probably never be in the First squad but as a fringe player i would keep him(just for Judd )

Do a McGough, just dust him off for a couple of specific games, that suit him each season.

Don't think we can afford that type of player on the list IMO

 

[Bockchoy67]

Personally I think it is terrible coaching.

It's the perfect opportunity. Your CHB becomes injured, you have another CHB on the rise yet you don't play him, even though you recently upgraded him from the Rookie list.

It makes no sense, and it's a complete waste. It's not really that ideal to win this game. For Craig it is, but not for the AFC. Solid draft picks are essential. Richmond winning tomorrow would help the cause.

That's what annoys me. It's all about 2005, yet we don't play a promising CHB when another is injured, therefore not seeing his ability at AFL level.

 

[conVINCEd]

If Shirley has been given a two-year contract (and we'll wait and sure if its true) I'd be astounded. I've been thinking about our tagging situation considering Stinger is basically gone. I know Shirley looks like our only other tagging option, but the truth is, IMO, that his skills are simply too poor to keep him on. Have a look at the Kangaroos match; ******** poor attempts at goal, disgraceful disposal by both hand and foot around the ground. I've gotten nothing against him personally, I just think we need skilful players at the club, and he is not one of them.

As for who would do the tagging job, I'd be looking at Hazell if, and only if, he does enough to force his way into the First XXII (I think he should be promoted obviously). In the meantime, give Stiffy, Schuback or Reilly run with roles, and we can use Goodwin and Edwards in a similar vein. Mattner and Doughty are other options as well.

I don't think we should keep a player whose skills are not up to AFL standard, simply because we don't have another player of his type.

 

[Blue Red and Gold]

Shirley is of no use to the AFC he is hopeless, he never has an impact on the game, he is just a space filler.
I think the crows are better off delisting him, getting in a younger promising mid fielder throw them on the oppositions best player and say run with him and learn.
Lets face it Robert Shirley is never going to amount to anything so I think we would be better off with persisting with a promising midfielder.
It worked for Stinger.

 

[Macca19]

It is wierd. Smith has been on the list for half a decade. THe Crows supporters, especially here, have a lot of hype over Parker. Considering Adelaides position, why not try them out. Nothing to lose. Perfect time to see what they are made of.

Stiffy - why not drop Rutten and Bock and see what Smith and Parker are made of?

What was the point of raising two rookies in your current position if you arent going to play them? I know their was the injury crisis but still...you'd think giving them a game would be the thing to do.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I think it would be a bit harsh to drop Hudson, maybe Biglands could have been left out - either way - I still would have liked to have seen Parker get a go in this game rather than the next two if the opportunity is there.

I agree dezzmo, Parker should be playing as a better-credentialed key defender ahead of Biglands, who should be fighting to get his ruck spot back with the Eagles.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Talking about odd, I was told by a relative of Robert Shirley's that he signed a new 2 year contract this week.

Surely not. What next to top the week off - Gallagher & Ladhams are given 5 year deals