One-Eyed Richmond Forum

Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: MintOnLamb on September 17, 2013, 10:26:28 AM

Title: Dusty V Conca
Post by: MintOnLamb on September 17, 2013, 10:26:28 AM
If we have a choice who would you want to keep?
It would not be too good if we lost both of them.
Title: Re: Dusty V Conca
Post by: tigs2011 on September 17, 2013, 10:28:47 AM
Conca. I hope we trade Dusty. Time to shed the baggage IMO
Title: Re: Dusty V Conca
Post by: MintOnLamb on September 17, 2013, 02:06:04 PM
I must say that after reading so many articles about him he could either be very good or very bad.

If he was to be very good (and RFC has done so much for him, he would have to consider where he would be without all the effort RFC had put into him, probably playing with Connors for $500.00 a game in the country) then we keep him.

If very bad then it just does not fit within our philosphy and way forward, so we lose him.

If you look at his history that is not so good, but he has matured well and hopefully has learnt a few things, mind you planning a trip to USA with the St Kilda boys would not seem to be a great career move and probably shows where his heart truly is?

Whatever happens I think if he turned out to embrace RFC and our new culture then he will be a RFC champion. We can only hope the footy gods cards of fate fall our way, whatever the final outcome
Title: Re: Dusty V Conca
Post by: TigerMonk on September 17, 2013, 02:50:39 PM
Dusty because he is strong & stable body. Prepared to take on anyone in the game where Conca is still learning
Title: Re: Dusty V Conca
Post by: WilliamPowell on September 17, 2013, 03:02:45 PM
Dusty

though they are very different types of player

As I posted on another thread on his day he can be a match winner and they don't grow on trees

Dusty has the ability to be an elite player on the comp; one of the top 5 within the next 2-3 years IMHO. He is a natural footballer. The fact he can play as a mid who can rest forward and give you 2-3 goals a game. You could even play as a lead up forward because he such a strong mark. So much upside
Title: Re: Dusty V Conca
Post by: MintOnLamb on September 17, 2013, 03:24:57 PM
Dusty

though they are very different types of player

As I posted on another thread on his day he can be a match winner and they don't grow on trees

Dusty has the ability to be an elite player on the comp; one of the top 5 within the next 2-3 years IMHO. He is a natural footballer. The fact he can play as a mid who can rest forward and give you 2-3 goals a game. You could even play as a lead up forward because he such a strong mark. So much upside
WP I guess the upside for Dusty is enormous and in reality he is a game breaking versatile talent. Conca just does not have his flair and he has the hammy which hopefully is not as serious as grimes. At the moment they both have a downside, Conca is a year older and probably more mature but how much improvement has he got in him? Martin a year younger and if he can get his brain on track....the sky may well be the limit.
Title: Re: Dusty V Conca
Post by: Francois Jackson on September 17, 2013, 03:26:37 PM
lol Conca please

Title: Re: Dusty V Conca
Post by: Chuck17 on September 17, 2013, 05:08:29 PM
I like Conca but Dusty by a mile
Title: Re: Dusty V Conca
Post by: Yeahright on September 17, 2013, 05:42:41 PM

, Conca is a year older and probably more mature

Conca is younger, but still more mature :lol
Title: Re: Dusty V Conca
Post by: Golfprotiger on September 17, 2013, 09:13:24 PM
Dusty,

Everyday, strong takes them ALL on that's what we want!
Title: Re: Dusty V Conca
Post by: Hellenic Tiger on September 17, 2013, 09:27:39 PM
Neither we need to bring back Craig Ednie, Clay Sampson ,Ross Funcke and Ben Moore.
Title: Re: Dusty V Conca
Post by: torch on September 17, 2013, 10:51:07 PM
Both players!
Title: Re: Dusty V Conca
Post by: westerntiger on September 17, 2013, 11:17:54 PM

, Conca is a year older and probably more mature

Conca is younger, but still more mature :lol

Yes, correct  :)
Martin born 91, Conca 92. And I agree on the maturity.