Author Topic: So was this a Positive or Negative Year?  (Read 3306 times)

Offline The Big Richo

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 3140
  • Keyboard Hero
Re: So was this a Positive or Negative Year?
« Reply #60 on: September 21, 2014, 04:49:46 PM »
About 50c each I'd hope.
Who isn't a fan of the thinking man's orange Tim Fleming?

Gerks 27/6/11

But you see, it's not me, it's not my family.
In your head, in your head they are fighting,
With their tanks and their bombs,
And their bombs and their guns.
In your head, in your head, they are crying...

the claw

  • Guest
Re: So was this a Positive or Negative Year?
« Reply #61 on: September 21, 2014, 08:14:04 PM »
I'm not trying to offend you claw but I do think you are quick to write a player off and demand for whole-sale changes. We need to ensure we give young players a chance to develop and prove themselves before we off-load them. McBean hasn't played a game in two seasons yet we can all see he has all the potential in the world. There are players that we have given chances too but seem to have stagnated and these are the players I feel we should move on, particularly if they are midfielders/smalls.

I don't mind moving on the likes of Arnot, Helbig, Dea, O'Hanlon and Darrou if they haven't been able to cement a spot in the team as yet but players like McBean, McDonough and co. need more time. A. Edwards should be moved on as should Banfield and The Big O (now that Vickery and Griffiths have shown they can ruck). Jackson and King have retired so that leaves us with 5 senior spots at minimum and four rookie spots. I feel that's a great start.
can you tell me which young players you think i have written off too quickly. how long is long enough stripes. i can categorically state i have rarely called for a young players head inside of 4 yrs. i think in this regard i am patient too patient at times. yes i critice aspects of their game but i have not called for heads.

i got ridiculed for this but i will say it again . as a loose guide  smls by 20, mediums 22 talls 24.  of course there are things that skew this like injury or size or new to the game,  but  it doesnt mean one cant be critical along the way.
have a look at vickery while very critical of him for yrs now,  ive never until this yr said yep lets trade him out. ben griffiths has done so little he should have been in the gun despite being a tall but ive never actually called for his head until this yr and thats because i feel we have his position covered  with mcbean and the contracted vickery and hes the unfortunate one to be out of contract. we have signed griffiths and as such id play him in front of vickery. both are chronic underachievers to date and that is a problem right across the board.

Gigantor

  • Guest
Re: So was this a Positive or Negative Year?
« Reply #62 on: September 21, 2014, 08:37:36 PM »
I think the slow progress of both Ty and ben is probably part of the reason that we remain a mid table team.if either or both of them really stood up consistently then I think top 4 is within grasp

Offline Diocletian

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 19433
  • RWNJ / Leftist Snowflake - depends who you ask....
Re: So was this a Positive or Negative Year?
« Reply #63 on: September 21, 2014, 09:21:00 PM »
I think the slow progress of both Ty and ben is probably part of the reason that we remain a mid table team.if either or both of them really stood up consistently then I think top 4 is within grasp

....well that and a deeper, quicker midfield that ran both ways and a few more players that know how to lay a tackle. That's just a couple of the basics for starters anyway.
"Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good...."

- Thomas Sowell


FJ is the only one that makes sense.