Players your club can't afford to lose?

[one-eyed]

The players your club can't afford to lose
Emma Quayle | March 22, 2009

EVERY football fan has experienced it: the moment when "that" player, the one who holds the key to the season, to the premiership, goes down clutching ... something, or is reported, and the incident looked bad. The coach's head slumps into his hands, a hush falls over the ground and the moment is replayed at least a dozen times in the next 20 minutes. Season prospects are instantly reassessed as team structure works overtime to cover.

With season 2009 just three days away, Sunday Age football writer Emma Quayle selects the player your club can least afford to lose. It might be the proven best player, the strongest leader, the player with huge potential. More often than not though, it's about the positional depth at each club, and which parts of the ground would be most difficult to cover and protect should an established player, who plays that position well, go missing.

RICHMOND - Matthew Richardson

Richardson spent most of last year playing on a wing and still kicked 48 goals - 15 more than both Nathan Brown and Mitch Morton. The Tigers have lots of talent coming through and this time next year, Brett Deledio might be the one they miss most. But, for the moment, it's impossible to look beyond "Richo". He gives the Tigers so much.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/the-players-your-club-needs/2009/03/21/1237526390416.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

[Mr Magic]

Simmonds is more important IMO.

[Smokey]

Simmonds is more important IMO.

Yep.  We can win games without Richo but we really struggle without Simmonds.  It's all about structure.

[torch]

Nathan Foley

[wayne]

Had to laugh at the Bulldogs player - Tom Williams!!

They made top 4 last year and he only played a couple of games.

[mightytiges]

Simmonds is more important IMO.

Yep.  We can win games without Richo but we really struggle without Simmonds.  It's all about structure.

Yep until we find reliable back-ups in the ruck it has to be Simmo.

[Mr Magic]

Yep until we find reliable back-ups in the ruck it has to be Simmo.

Simmonds injured = 2007 wooden spoon.

On the other hand Richo played all year.

Not much has changed. The Snake is the key to our fortunes.

[Stripes]

Simmonds hands down.

He's not our best player but without him in the ruck we would have another rough year.

Stripes

[wayne]

Simmonds for me as well.

Although he was a spud, I would have kept Cartledge on the rookie list (if this was possible) instead of Sylvestor.

I just don't think Gus could do the job if Simmo went down. Patto might have to, but he's not ready yet (injured).

[mightytiges]

Although he was a spud, I would have kept Cartledge on the rookie list (if this was possible) instead of Sylvestor.

I would've too if we could have but Cartledge couldn't be kept on the rookie list as he was over 23 and as he had played with the Bombers previously he couldn't become a mature rookie unlike Silvester. The decision was either promote Cartledge to the senior list or delist. That rule which prevents ex-AFL listed players, who are delisted and play a lower level, from having a second chance as a rookie listed player is just plain stupid.