Mega Thread The Former Player Thread: Part 2

[bedford]

Off to the celebration of life of former South ruck Vic Stretch Aanenson

Was a great celebration of life for the great man , with about 300 in attendance with speeches by former swans Peter Bedford and Gary Brice who himself is having a few health battles and many more former Bloods , a sad but great day

 

[bedford]

he's better than Noggy or Paul Bevan. either way he could be in that group comfortably with the way they played imo

Noggy did some great jobs and was so much better when Rocket got the arse, as he didn't rate him or Buchanan

 

[Voula]

Mumford's manager saying he worked out we were going after Buddy because we weren't engaging in contract talks.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/the-bulls-excuses-behind-buddy-franklins-gsw-giants-betrayal/news-story/55d575f0c8cdaf79fedaf8a5032acb88

 

[McGowan3]

Noggy did some great jobs and was so much better when Rocket got the arse, as he didn't rate him or Buchanan

Eade was a great tactician but alienated some players. A lot of guys improved markedly after he left. Buchanan was sensational in finals in 05 and 06. Luke Ablett was a great role player for us. Hard as nails. Good kick as well.

 

[bedford]

Eade was a great tactician but alienated some players. A lot of guys improved markedly after he left. Buchanan was sensational in finals in 05 and 06. Luke Ablett was a great role player for us. Hard as nails. Good kick as well.

That day i asked Eade what was wrong with Amon and he said he was a midget , i replied i see him every week at Port and he's a star

 

[bedford]

MacGowan 3 its 70 years today that Brian played his 1st game for us

 

[hairy biker]

That day i asked Eade what was wrong with Amon and he said he was a midget , i replied i see him every week at Port and he's a star

OOPS, thought I was in the Rowbottom thread.

 

[McGowan3]

Mumford's manager saying he worked out we were going after Buddy because we weren't engaging in contract talks.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/the-bulls-excuses-behind-buddy-franklins-gsw-giants-betrayal/news-story/55d575f0c8cdaf79fedaf8a5032acb88

Mumford leaving hurt us big time.

 

[bedford]

OOPS, thought I was in the Rowbottom thread.

View attachment 2369599

Good payback
Now im not allowed to do that , so watch your back and F those Simpsons lol

 

[rustycrate]

Mumford leaving hurt us big time.

There were other players we could have let go. Never made sense to me.
Generational ruck that had a profound impact on every game he played in and every player he played with and against.

 

[The King!]

Mumford leaving hurt us big time.

In hindsight you probably don't get Tippett - not having a go at him , loved the deal at the time.

But Mummy hurt, also literally hurt us on the ground at times.

 

[McGowan3]

MacGowan 3 its 70 years today that Brian played his 1st game for us

Great get! Didn't realize he debuted at !7 and then waited a couple of years for his next game. Wonder if he played in the 3rds after that. My dad was friends with Alan Miller who coached Under 19s before coaching the seniors for one year in 1967. I used to go with him to watch them play when I was very young. Brian had a brother Jimmy who played 3rds but never played in the ones. Pint sized as well IIRC.

 

[S120]

I think there’s a little bit of revisionist history happening with Mumford. He was a good ruck with us but he became a much better and consistent player at the Giants. At the time of making the decision to bring Franklin in, it was an understandable decision to let Mumford go to facilitate it because he was a good but oft injured and somewhat inconsistent player at that time. And frankly, them’s the breaks of getting Lance Franklin.

I’d say the more flagrantly bad decision re: rucks was allowing Nankervis to go in favour of Naismith. Even letting Darcy Cameron

14

Darcy Cameron

Age

30

Ht

204cm

Wt

103kg

Pos.

Ruck

Career

Season

Last 5

D

6.0

1star

K

3.3

1star

HB

2.7

2star

CL

0.3

2star

HO

5.3

5star

D

7.5

2star

K

4.5

2star

HB

3.0

2star

CL

0.5

3star

HO

3.5

5star

D

6.0

2star

K

3.3

2star

HB

2.7

3star

CL

0.3

2star

HO

5.3

5star

go was understandable at the time because nobody expected he’d go on to be what he has become, but there were clear signs Nankervis had what it took and was quite foreseeably a superior player to Naismith at the time of making the call.

 

[bedford]

I think there’s a little bit of revisionist history happening with Mumford. He was a good ruck with us but he became a much better and consistent player at the Giants. At the time of making the decision to bring Franklin in, it was an understandable decision to let Mumford go to facilitate it because he was a good but oft injured and somewhat inconsistent player at that time. And frankly, them’s the breaks of getting Lance Franklin.

I’d say the more flagrantly bad decision re: rucks was allowing Nankervis to go in favour of Naismith. Even letting Darcy Cameron go was understandable at the time because nobody expected he’d go on to be what he has become, but there were clear signs Nankervis had what it took and was quite foreseeably a superior player to Naismith at the time of making the call.

I really don't know how anyone could dislike this , because it is spot on and well done

 

[Bloods86]

I think there’s a little bit of revisionist history happening with Mumford. He was a good ruck with us but he became a much better and consistent player at the Giants. At the time of making the decision to bring Franklin in, it was an understandable decision to let Mumford go to facilitate it because he was a good but oft injured and somewhat inconsistent player at that time. And frankly, them’s the breaks of getting Lance Franklin.

I’d say the more flagrantly bad decision re: rucks was allowing Nankervis to go in favour of Naismith. Even letting Darcy Cameron go was understandable at the time because nobody expected he’d go on to be what he has become, but there were clear signs Nankervis had what it took and was quite foreseeably a superior player to Naismith at the time of making the call.

Nankervis was promising but Naismith was the better pure ruck. Given we had several other ruck/forwards that Nank was still behind and he was out of contract, while Sam was contracted, it's understandable he wanted to leave for more opportunity and it wasn't really a matter of "allowing" him to go.

 

[Bloods86]

I really don't know how anyone could dislike this , because it is spot on and well done

Because it has its own revisionism and paints a different picture of the Naismith vs Nank "choice", than what actually was the case.

 

[SM]

I always rated Nank highly and couldn't believe we let him go at the time. I remember there was a lot of debate about the ramifications of the Buddy deal and I was reasonably strong on being against all the players being pushed out as a result, so don't think it's revisionism to say it was a mistake.

 

[bedford]

Someone will have a crack at me about wrong thread
But if we play Nank in 16 even with the cheats we win the flag , it was a dumb decision to keep Sam who wouldn't get a mark in an exam

 

[Bloods86]

I always rated Nank highly and couldn't believe we let him go at the time. I remember there was a lot of debate about the ramifications of the Buddy deal and I was reasonably strong on being against all the players being pushed out as a result, so don't think it's revisionism to say it was a mistake.

I rated him too.

In hindsight it's certainly unfortunate, but mistake would mean we had him contracted but let him go, or that he was being unfairly treated which led to him wanting out.

 

[Bloods86]

Someone will have a crack at me about wrong thread
But if we play Nank in 16 even with the cheats we win the flag , it was a dumb decision to keep Sam who wouldn't get a mark in an exam

We've had this discussion before. No way the club was unnecessarily changing rucks after dominant finals wins and it wasn't as if Nank was tearing the league apart when he went out of the team earlier in the season (and Naismith returned).

 

[SM]

I rated him too.

In hindsight it's certainly unfortunate, but mistake would mean we had him contracted but let him go, or that he was being unfairly treated which led to him wanting out.

Did he not want out?

 

[Bloods86]

Did he not want out?

Yes he did obviously, I didn't say otherwise.

 

[SM]

I rated him too.

In hindsight it's certainly unfortunate, but mistake would mean we had him contracted but let him go, or that he was being unfairly treated which led to him wanting out.

We treated him in a way that led to him wanting out, is that not a mistake?

 

[Bloods86]

We treated him in a way that led to him wanting out, is that not a mistake?

I'd suggest you read all of the words I wrote rather than just some.

 

[bedford]

Did he not want out?

Sorry to reply , but we seem on the same page
He was wanting us to resign him ,they wanted to hold off and when stupidly not picked for the GF that was it
Dimma couldn't believe his luck and how dumb we were