..............a second ruckman. Josh was outstanding tonight but could not do it on his own. Why the farnacle did Jason Cloke play? Surely in order, Richards, CAm Cloke, or T Cloke should have been selected as backup to Fraser.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
We lost because we stubbornly did not select....
- Thread starter hotpie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
The Majestic
Embracing the chaos.
We really did need Richards, Fraser looked exhursted, I am not sure why Jason for Trav, Jason did alright though...but I agree we needed another ruckman.
- Thread starter
- #3
Yep Jason did well. But we needed two rucks.
But if they wanted to select Jason, then Maxwell should have made way. We got smashed in the centre clearances in the last quarter when Fraser was spent
But if they wanted to select Jason, then Maxwell should have made way. We got smashed in the centre clearances in the last quarter when Fraser was spent
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Hadders said:
From what I saw on TV he did seem to struggle with his left shoulder after landing awkwardly on it. It seemed to affect his marking especially. Don't know how serious it is though, but he saw out the game OK so I'm hoping he'll be right for next week.
Jason may as well have painted himself orange and got malthouse to position him on the ground somewhere
no offence guys because it was a great game, but to suggest that you lost purely because you didnt select someone is ridiculous.
What if West Coast was accurate, or Staker didnt go down early, or we didnt play an intense derby last week...
as I said, no offence, but ifs and buts really are quite pointless and disrespecting
What if West Coast was accurate, or Staker didnt go down early, or we didnt play an intense derby last week...
as I said, no offence, but ifs and buts really are quite pointless and disrespecting
j.clo was good tonight, im not sure whether guy richards would have rucked any better then cloke! which is sad but true. we should have probably given richards the nod ahead of cloke just to get some practice for next year!hotpie said:
Jabso
Brownlow Medallist
There are alot of if's, and this game could of easily gone anyway. No use complaining.
I think this decison was wrong also. It also f'd up our forward line. T.Cloke is very important and the Subi ground would of suited him.
I'm not a J.Cloke knocker but he has no place in the team with Clement, O'Brien and Maxwell as our mid defenders. Unless we have injuries to both Presti and Wakelin.
Good signs that we had alot of players that could of played better. Then again they SHOULD of played better then we would of won.
I think this decison was wrong also. It also f'd up our forward line. T.Cloke is very important and the Subi ground would of suited him.
I'm not a J.Cloke knocker but he has no place in the team with Clement, O'Brien and Maxwell as our mid defenders. Unless we have injuries to both Presti and Wakelin.
Good signs that we had alot of players that could of played better. Then again they SHOULD of played better then we would of won.
Jabso
Brownlow Medallist
I'm sorry but that is absoloute crap. Richards would of rucked a hell of a lot better than Jason. Jason is ok, but he can't be left in for long periods. Put Richards in and he would of taken more of the responsibility, would of went ok and Fraser could of ran out the game.magpies42 said:
I have seen richards ruck one ok game this year! He needs to find form, granted he should have played but i dont think he would have gone to well against cox and seaby! Mick took a gamble, we were smashed in the ruck when cloke and rocca were in but id say it probably would have been the same with richards in. no doubting that cloke would have given alot more around the ground then richards could. so i dont think it is that bad a decision. At the end of the day i would say that fraser beat an unfit Cox!jabso said:
Jabso
Brownlow Medallist
I don't necessarily think Richards should of played either but he was the only ruckman listed as an emg. If it was not Subi, CC should of definately played. If not Travis should of played.
I dont know man, if you said this before the game I would have agreed with you. But... I have to admit........ I was suprised at how well that Fraser stood up against the best ruckman in the league and Seaby by himself. He did a fantastic job, and was rat**** by the end of the game but he kept himself throughout the match. Changing ruck would not have done a thing.
The biggest influence on this game was a four letter word.........................................................................................................JUDD!.
The biggest influence on this game was a four letter word.........................................................................................................JUDD!.
Underdog said:
Agree with that.
Still, not taking a second ruckman in against Cox and Seaby on the biggest ground in the competition is a mystifying decision.
I thought Josh was manful the way he shouldered the workload, but Cox and Seaby dominated the hitouts, and Cox was, at times, very good around the ground.
If only we could pair Josh up with a good tap ruckman... Not having a tap ruckman hurt us in our two GFs, and it's still hurting us.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Banned
- #20
jabso said:
Like he did against Adelaide , Essendon and Carlton?
Round Date vs. K H P M HO T FF FA G B
Round 1 03/04/2006 Adelaide 4 3 7 3 9 0 0 0 0 1
Round 4 25/04/2006 Essendon 4 3 7 4 9 1 0 0 0 0
Round 5 30/04/2006 Port Adel 3 4 7 2 8 0 1 1 0 0
Hmm Richards has been crap , I don't agrre J.Cloke should of played either but come on Richards?
He has all you guys bluffed C.CLOKE has from all reports been playing well both in the Ruck and up forward he will provide something our team lacks and that is a crash and Bash ruckmen.
