Changes for the St Kilda game next week?

[WilliamPowell]

IMHO '65 simply because he had 26 possessions (BTW of which 21 were uncontested).

Isn't the potential there?

Imagine how good he could become.

We were rewarded when we took a chance on Cuz.

 

You are not comparing apples with apples

You are comparing an apple (in this case Cuz) with a walnut (Connors)

The ability is not the issue it is continued unwillingness to put the team first.

[big tone]

Another one for me is Astbury.
Has done very little to show me he is our future. Does ok sometimes but on a whole just has not got that "something" you see in a young player that says, yes this kid MIGHT be ok.
I know he is a first year tall but sometimes you see that "something" in a kid very early on in there career.
Not me yet.....

when he kicked 3 - wasnt that a decent showing?

Got to be honest, i don't remember, it was a while ago!
Do you see something in him i don't? And forget about how old he is for a minute, and just think about your answer on football merrit only.
Don't get me wrong, i don't want him delisted, but just have not seen anything to be happy with yet.

[tiger till i die]

we wanna play kids who we want to be in our team for the years to come so that the ycan learn from saint kilda eg connors, dusty, lids, cotch,taylor, hicks ect ect.

Tho it was funny to see lids wip the face of teh blues player .. should he be alowed to play if he behaves like that? and if he wants to be our captain in later year that is no example !! funny tho :p

[tony_montana]

pee moore off and play rance, astbury and the goo as our tall defenders. Moore was simply terrible today. Connors out cotchin in.

assberry was poo too

so what, play the kids and eff off has beens or never will be's like moore, mcguane and co who've had their chances over years

no,we need to play the kids obviously.

I'm drawing attention to the fact he was outclassed by carlton hacks,wasn't accountable and looked johnsonesque at times in the way he got out of hard ball contests.

Moore is frustrating as when he's bad,he's horrid.
McGuane is expendable.
Thursfield -well,i would have rather kept Schulz.

yeah fair enough, he didn't look good yesterday that's for sure, but would rather get games into these young guys asap to see if they have what it takes. IMO he's shown some good signs this season. Bit slow but good footy brain and reads the game well

[Judge Roughneck]

polak was rubbish for coburg

I know who WP will want out  .

After today's "effort" you feel like replacing 18 players  

Well at least you've answered one of my questions regarding Cotch

Seroulsy I reckon there is probably only 6-8 who deserve a game next week the rest should be sent North Sunshine 

INS: Cotchin, Rance, Taylor, Polak (struth if we are gifting games to Post why not  ), Polo 

OUTS: Connors (continues to play selfish selfish footy  and the club continues to condone it and the media get seduced by the number of kicks he gets  ),
          Nason (he needs a rest),
          Graham (needs a rest looked disinterested)
          Hicks
          White (inj)

REALLY LUCKY BLOKES:

Post: gotta get that trade value up somehow so he stays
O'Reilly: struggled with the pace of the game but I like Jimmy
Moore: flaps his arms a lot telling people what to do pit he doesn't follow his own advice
Collins: first game back after injury so he's sort of excused
Jackson: the stats say 81% effieciency, thats because kicks to the wide open spaces of the MCG (read kicking to NO ONE) don't get picked up as being inefficient

   

[MADTIGER2010]

Another one for me is Astbury.
Has done very little to show me he is our future. Does ok sometimes but on a whole just has not got that "something" you see in a young player that says, yes this kid MIGHT be ok.
I know he is a first year tall but sometimes you see that "something" in a kid very early on in there career.
Not me yet.....

if you don't even think this kid could be ok, then you really should give up now 

[Francois Jackson]

Another one for me is Astbury.
Has done very little to show me he is our future. Does ok sometimes but on a whole just has not got that "something" you see in a young player that says, yes this kid MIGHT be ok.
I know he is a first year tall but sometimes you see that "something" in a kid very early on in there career.
Not me yet.....

sorry BT dont agree with you there. Astbury goes allright and will be fine. Need to hold him.

we have plenty more that need to go before him.

[MADTIGER2010]

Another one for me is Astbury.
Has done very little to show me he is our future. Does ok sometimes but on a whole just has not got that "something" you see in a young player that says, yes this kid MIGHT be ok.
I know he is a first year tall but sometimes you see that "something" in a kid very early on in there career.
Not me yet.....

sorry BT dont agree with you there. Astbury goes allright and will be fine. Need to hold him.

we have plenty more that need to go before him.

why would anyone need to even bring up this? Only a richmond supporter could complain about astbury

[the claw]

i think bt is right in one sense.

astbury has done little  but for a first yr tall we should not expect to much.

if we were not such a rabble kids like astbury would spend his first two yrs at coburg learning the caper with just the odd  game to give him an idea of whats expected.

i have to say our younger blokes are not the problem and that includes weather or not they prove to be good enough in the long term.

its the plethora of glass half fulls and lack of well rounded footballers who are mature that will see us mired in mediocrity for yrs to come if we do not weed  them out.

cuz deledio foley and perhaps newman are the only players over 22 who you would keep for certain and cuz is 32.

we are littered with mature glass half fulls who are supposed to be the leaders at the club. graham  jackson king mcguane mcmahon moore  morton polak polo simmonds tambling thomson thursfield  tuck white bloody hell most of them are regulars and most of them are duds.

and this is just a list of the so called seniors. there is a  percentage of players 22 and under who at this stage you could easily place in the same category.

[Judge Roughneck]

claw -

next season our oldest players will be;

Tuck
Newman
Moore
King

Foley [2003]
Thursfield [2004 draft]
Jackson

i think bt is right in one sense.

astbury has done little  but for a first yr tall we should not expect to much.

if we were not such a rabble kids like astbury would spend his first two yrs at coburg learning the caper with just the odd  game to give him an idea of whats expected.

i have to say our younger blokes are not the problem and that includes weather or not they prove to be good enough in the long term.

its the plethora of glass half fulls and lack of well rounded footballers who are mature that will see us mired in mediocrity for yrs to come if we do not weed  them out.

cuz deledio foley and perhaps newman are the only players over 22 who you would keep for certain and cuz is 32.

we are littered with mature glass half fulls who are supposed to be the leaders at the club. graham  jackson king mcguane mcmahon moore  morton polak polo simmonds tambling thomson thursfield  tuck white bloody hell most of them are regulars and most of them are duds.

and this is just a list of the so called seniors. there is a  percentage of players 22 and under who at this stage you could easily place in the same category.

b

[eliminator]

We had a very inexperienced defence on Saturday with exception of Newman and Moore and it showed. Moore and Newman can't do it alone. THey need good support. Good draft picks and patience is required. Hopefully I am totally wrong but I think it is going to take seasons rather than a season to see drastic improvement in the club.

[Beren]

REALLY LUCKY BLOKES:


Jackson: the stats say 81% effieciency, thats because kicks to the wide open spaces of the MCG (read kicking to NO ONE) don't get picked up as being inefficient

   

Gee that's a bit harsh. Not easy to kick to a teammate when there's no one where they should be.... to receive.
Also it was pretty obvious from about midway through the second quarter that Jacko wasn't able to run at his peak due to some form of injury.

[WilliamPowell]

REALLY LUCKY BLOKES:

Jackson: the stats say 81% effieciency, thats because kicks to the wide open spaces of the MCG (read kicking to NO ONE) don't get picked up as being inefficient
  

Gee that's a bit harsh. Not easy to kick to a teammate when there's no one where they should be.... to receive.
Also it was pretty obvious from about midway through the second quarter that Jacko wasn't able to run at his peak due to some form of injury.

Not harsh just calling it the way I saw it and for mine he was very disappointing on the weekend.

As for no-one being where they should be to receive his errant kicks? Why did he kick to no-one when blokes had spread to the opposite side for him?  

Regarding possibly being injured, running wasn't the problem   And I think there was a bloke in number 32 who had a pretty good excuse to drop off in the quality of his disposal but he compensated  

[pmac21]

In: Rance, Cotchin, McGuane, Webberley
Out: White, Nason, King, Hicks
All of a sudden side looks a lot better without King & White in it !!

[Chuck17]

In: Rance, Cotchin, McGuane, Webberley
Out: White, Nason, King, Hicks
All of a sudden side looks a lot better without King & White in it !!

Or in otherwords

In; Toughness
Out; Midgets