Who would you axe?

This unofficial St Kilda Saints fan forum is for people of all ages to chat Saints Footy and all posts must be respectful.

Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators

User avatar
BAM! (shhhh)
SS Hall of Fame
Posts: 2134
Joined: Thu 24 May 2007 5:23pm
Location: The little voice inside your head

Post: # 448865Post BAM! (shhhh) »

mad saint guy wrote:
meher baba wrote:Jones: played another shocker yesterday. I would either leave him on the rookie list or cut him, but he seems to have fans among the coaching staff/selection panel so he'll probably be offered a long-term contract.

The other rookies: give them another year.
Jones is too old to stay on the rookie-list. Promote or delist.

And you can only keep three rookies. Jones can't be on the rookie-list and Geary looks very likely to be elevated, so another player has to be promoted or delisted.
I've heard a couple of times that Jones is too old to be retained on the rookie list. From what I've seen, the rules are ambiguous - i.e. you can only keep 3, and one rookie over 23 per club can be rookie listed if he hasn't been on a rookie list previously, but if he's one of the three retained, I don't see that one season on the Saints rookie list would count against him remaining the Saints overage rookie.

I'm sure the rules on overage rookies must be out there in black and white somewhere, can anyone point me towards them? I'd like to be able to confirm that the Saints need to make a decision on Jones now.


"Everything comes to he who hustles while he waits"
- Henry Ford
User avatar
Spinner
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 8502
Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
Location: Victoria
Has thanked: 185 times
Been thanked: 133 times

Post: # 448866Post Spinner »

fonz_#15 wrote:
The_Dud wrote:
Spinner wrote:
The_Dud wrote:
Spinner wrote:DELIST

Milne


It is so clear that the reason he has kept his spot is because R Lyon made the decision to keep him at the end of last year.....


....But when your wrong Ross, your wrong.....dont keep giving him a senior spot because of stubborness.
stupidity.....

Please explain how he actually contributes to the team?
setting up and scoring goals usually counts for a bit

he setup/caused/kicked 5 goals against the tigers
dud your fighting a losing battle...Milney is the scapegoat for some f-wits and even though he is erratic at times, they will never admit he is a positive contributor.

Yeh he's a scapegoat.....

He's a liability. Cant understand how you could think otherwise....maybe him being on the end of a cheap goal once...maybe twice a game is enough for you.

But for 120 minutes football that isnot nearly enough for me.


User avatar
Dan Warna
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12846
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:56am
Location: melbourne

Post: # 448868Post Dan Warna »

I reckon milne goes ok.

as for clint jones, 70% of odd game time for 11 or so possessions with 30% or so efficiency...

not good enough.

I guess he has talent and maybe worth retaining for development, so willing to believe the talent is there.

but please let him play in the reserves till he is good enough to play seniors.

unless injured I can't imagine why CJ is out there and Andy Thompson wasn't...


Bewaire krime, da krimson bolt is comeing to yure nayborhood to smach krime

SHUT UP KRIME!
User avatar
Spinner
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 8502
Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
Location: Victoria
Has thanked: 185 times
Been thanked: 133 times

Post: # 448870Post Spinner »

Dan Warna wrote:I reckon milne goes ok.

as for clint jones, 70% of odd game time for 11 or so possessions with 30% or so efficiency...

not good enough.

I guess he has talent and maybe worth retaining for development, so willing to believe the talent is there.

but please let him play in the reserves till he is good enough to play seniors.

unless injured I can't imagine why CJ is out there and Andy Thompson wasn't...

Were those really his figures????

WOW if true....70%game time....30% eff....


saint66au
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 17003
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:03pm
Contact:

Post: # 448871Post saint66au »

plugger66 wrote:Out this season will be G, M clarke, Voss and Thommo retired. Delistings will be Raymond, Sweeney, Brooks and Ferg is in trouble. 7-8 out 2 promoted to main list. Not sure who they will be. One preseason pick and 4-5 draft picks.
Your mail on such things is usually pretty accurate..and this looks pretty close too.

Ferg's two games havent been brilliant by any means. WCE game wasnt awful but when played on Pettifer on Sat he got a hiding. No..two games arent a great audition..but his injury proneness might work agin him.

As for Milney..why on earth would you delist a bloke who's played all 22 games FFS????? No his tackles dont alwayas stick but at least hes one of the few who doesnt run alongside their opponent when they hyave the ball, he'll try and put SOME pressure on. Sometimes even 1/2 a tackle is enough to force a turnover.

Thought he played a good team game Sat


Image

THE BUBBLE HAS BURST

2011 player sponsor
User avatar
meher baba
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 7069
Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
Location: Tasmania
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 461 times

Post: # 448874Post meher baba »

tezza1 wrote:What a load of rubbish .

Keeping B Voss because his brother is a powerful figure in the AFL and we wouldnt want to get him off side ?

I see better logic written on toilet walls than that drivel !!!!

And thats not me advocating delisting V2 . Its just me reading the logic on why we would keep him .

Go figure !!!!
Well, then, the AFL must be a different - and much more ethical - sort of an environment than the ones in which I have worked.

B Voss has been very mediocre indeed this year, and surely doesn't have much potential to improve at his age, but I predict that he'll be retained anyway.

If I'm wrong, then - I agree - what I have written can be described as drivel.

BTW - Tezza isn't by any chance a short version of a word describing a form of heat-resistant coating, is it?


"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Dan Warna
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12846
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:56am
Location: melbourne

Post: # 448879Post Dan Warna »

11 touches 36% and 71% game time for CJ. just checked according to the hun (different coys do diff stats so probably a few either way on that)

by comparision 'old man thommo' 6 touches, 31% game time, 86% efficiency.

Thommo 2 tackles CJ 3 tackles...

so thommos full game = about 19 possessions 86% efficiency and 7 tackles.

CJ full game = 16 possessions 36% efficiency and 4 tackles...

how CJ kept thommo out of the seniors for any game is laughable :(

i think generally this can be considered a bad game for CJ as his dosposal accross the season has been about 51% :roll:


Bewaire krime, da krimson bolt is comeing to yure nayborhood to smach krime

SHUT UP KRIME!
User avatar
Spinner
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 8502
Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
Location: Victoria
Has thanked: 185 times
Been thanked: 133 times

Post: # 448888Post Spinner »

Dan Warna wrote:11 touches 36% and 71% game time for CJ. just checked according to the hun (different coys do diff stats so probably a few either way on that)

by comparision 'old man thommo' 6 touches, 31% game time, 86% efficiency.

Thommo 2 tackles CJ 3 tackles...

so thommos full game = about 19 possessions 86% efficiency and 7 tackles.

CJ full game = 16 possessions 36% efficiency and 4 tackles...

how CJ kept thommo out of the seniors for any game is laughable :(

i think generally this can be considered a bad game for CJ as his dosposal accross the season has been about 51% :roll:

Exactly....

Which is what baffles me when posters use the line "he played all 22 games" as a defence for a player....

....it dosnt mean they deserved those 22 games...


User avatar
Dan Warna
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12846
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:56am
Location: melbourne

Post: # 448895Post Dan Warna »

i guess every coach has their favourites.

GT playing mcgough was infuriating.

Timmid playing Delany, monkey and francis made my brain bleed out my ears.

Alves playing trianides and daniel healy (although that game where he kicked 6 goals against the WCE i thought here we go!!!!)

sheldon playing davenport, willow and dale kickett in the FP

etc.

i guess even essendung fans who love sheeds have questions some of his selections.


Bewaire krime, da krimson bolt is comeing to yure nayborhood to smach krime

SHUT UP KRIME!
User avatar
meher baba
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 7069
Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
Location: Tasmania
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 461 times

Post: # 448898Post meher baba »

Dan Warna wrote:GT playing mcgough was infuriating.
I was more infuriated by his failure to give McGough a go in 2006 after Lenny did his knee. McGough only ended up playing 12 AFL games for us out of a possible total of 47.
He played pretty well at the Scorps in the second half of 2006 and never got a go in the seniors.

Given the way in which he was treated, it has always been a mystery to me why McGough is described by some posters as being GT's "love child"? Likewise Blake, who GT used to drop sometimes, but who seems to be one of the first picked under Lyon (who seems to me to be much more inclined to play favourites than GT ever did, but it's still early days).

However, the prevailing culture on this forum - as the threads today indicate once again - is one of creaming our jeans at the thought of trading and delisting anyone and everyone who isn't nailed down.

Some posters seem to be obsessed with endlessly finding faults with virtually every player at the club, and writing players off way before their used by dates. I don't see how these people can consider themselves to be "fans".


"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
To the top
SS Life Member
Posts: 3266
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2007 4:05pm
Been thanked: 390 times

Post: # 448900Post To the top »

Again we have Plugger66 coming into a thread with his feit accompli statement that Brooks is going to be delisted "because has has played 6 games in 8 years".

What Plugger66 never addresses is, what do we do next?

He disappears whenever the question of options is put, goes to another thread and peddles his prejudice - and nothing else.

We have but 5 (FIVE) players 196cm or over remaining on our list - Gardiner, Rix, Watts, Koschitzke and Brooks.

This is an area of deficiency, along with a lack of depth in our mid-field.

We have now lost Gehrig.

I note from other posts that Brooks took a dozen grabs in the VFL, and was again in the best for Casey.

There are other references to his abilities with the ball.

He is NOT of sufficient height to lead our rucks - 198cm, but, in the absence of Gehrig there may well be an opportunity for him as the support ruckman.

It may well be that Brooks is delisted - but we would need to replace like with like because, otherwise, we would be down to Gardiner, Watts, Rix and Koschitzke as our only players over 196cm.

So, Plugger66, what are the options?

And where is the ability of Rix?

Plus, what confidence do you place in Gardiner and Watts?

That would leave us with Koschitzke - and Blake.

And how do we then structure with 3 talls forward, which is why we won the game against Richmond - and is when we are at our most dangerous?

Give us the options Plugger66.

Or just move to yet another thread and peddle your anti Brooks prejudice.


User avatar
BAM! (shhhh)
SS Hall of Fame
Posts: 2134
Joined: Thu 24 May 2007 5:23pm
Location: The little voice inside your head

Post: # 448901Post BAM! (shhhh) »

I find the CJ v Thommo debate baffling. Watching on Saturday, they were in different areas of the ground doing different things. CJ was out in the space on the wing, Thommo was in the middle.

Thommo didn't look good pacewise, CJ looked awful with the ball. Not capeable of a lace out pass when he's running unnoposed at the F50, just bombs it high. However, watching Thommo, I don't think he could have hacked it out where CJ was, and to extrapolate to full game time stats based on 31% game time is optomistic at best... if he can't spend 50% game time when the Saints were looking tired late in the 1st half, it says to me he hasn't got the engine he used to, and certainly not the engine to play the Lyon game (not that he's alone in that - in fact, I wonder if that's what has garnered CJ all 3 of his last 3 selections).

I think CJ's selection (and to a degree Birss, whose disposal is also not good enough, though much better than CJ, and with more to his game than CJ) should give a lot of hope to Armo, Howard and Mini that if they work hard and get really fit over the off season, the spot is there to be won, because if you can run out the game, there aren't many worse kicks than CJ around the AFL.

But based on that game, even with brief sighting, I could see why Thommo had struggled to get a game. I could also see why he wouldn't have played if Adelaide had won. It wasn't near the level of Chris Scott, but Thommo is not the player he was.


"Everything comes to he who hustles while he waits"
- Henry Ford
User avatar
Dan Warna
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 12846
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:56am
Location: melbourne

Post: # 448903Post Dan Warna »

concur mehar.

didn't realise that about mcgough.

I guess I never warmed to him, and he probably did deserve a longer shot.

as for the trade/delist debate, I think I've argued consistently.

1. you get what you pay for, a gop for a gop, and a gun for a gun.

2. salary cap will restrict us going for superstars

3. we have to protect what we have from raiders (richmond, carlton and melbourne)

4. most clubs aren't stupid

realistically we might trade at the edges, pick 68 in the draft or whatever will be a smokey at best and will take 3 to 4 seasons to develop so in all likelyhood we will do trade at the margins, draft 3 players one in each round and possibly take something in the PSD if there is a smokey availabe at pick 5, 6 or 7 (given many clubs pass in the PSD).

if we do trade someone of the calibre of kosi or maguire, it will be for a similar player of a similar age (I hope we dont get more hospital cases) or its because we are forced into it and we get something of comparable value early in the draft (which again will take 3 to 4 seasons to develop)

a lot of ppl just dont think when they talk of delisting 1/4 of the list and getting Judd and Cox and 3 smokeys who will walk into the starting 22 and be guns.


Bewaire krime, da krimson bolt is comeing to yure nayborhood to smach krime

SHUT UP KRIME!
User avatar
PLUGGER14
Club Player
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri 16 Jul 2004 1:27pm
Location: Sydney

Post: # 448907Post PLUGGER14 »

To the top wrote:Again we have Plugger66 coming into a thread with his feit accompli statement that Brooks is going to be delisted "because has has played 6 games in 8 years".

What Plugger66 never addresses is, what do we do next?

He disappears whenever the question of options is put, goes to another thread and peddles his prejudice - and nothing else.

We have but 5 (FIVE) players 196cm or over remaining on our list - Gardiner, Rix, Watts, Koschitzke and Brooks.

This is an area of deficiency, along with a lack of depth in our mid-field.

We have now lost Gehrig.

I note from other posts that Brooks took a dozen grabs in the VFL, and was again in the best for Casey.

There are other references to his abilities with the ball.

He is NOT of sufficient height to lead our rucks - 198cm, but, in the absence of Gehrig there may well be an opportunity for him as the support ruckman.

It may well be that Brooks is delisted - but we would need to replace like with like because, otherwise, we would be down to Gardiner, Watts, Rix and Koschitzke as our only players over 196cm.

So, Plugger66, what are the options?

And where is the ability of Rix?

Plus, what confidence do you place in Gardiner and Watts?

That would leave us with Koschitzke - and Blake.

And how do we then structure with 3 talls forward, which is why we won the game against Richmond - and is when we are at our most dangerous?

Give us the options Plugger66.

Or just move to yet another thread and peddle your anti Brooks prejudice.
To the top the mail from plugger66 has been pretty spot on throughout the year. Any snippet we get should be taken with glee.

They is a post in the middle of the thread which may give you the option you are seeking.


User avatar
BAM! (shhhh)
SS Hall of Fame
Posts: 2134
Joined: Thu 24 May 2007 5:23pm
Location: The little voice inside your head

Post: # 448918Post BAM! (shhhh) »

PLUGGER14 wrote: To the top the mail from plugger66 has been pretty spot on throughout the year. Any snippet we get should be taken with glee.

They is a post in the middle of the thread which may give you the option you are seeking.
Are plugger66 and plugger66au the same poster? If not, very confusing...


"Everything comes to he who hustles while he waits"
- Henry Ford
User avatar
PLUGGER14
Club Player
Posts: 1092
Joined: Fri 16 Jul 2004 1:27pm
Location: Sydney

Post: # 448919Post PLUGGER14 »

BAM! (shhhh) wrote:
PLUGGER14 wrote: To the top the mail from plugger66 has been pretty spot on throughout the year. Any snippet we get should be taken with glee.

They is a post in the middle of the thread which may give you the option you are seeking.
Are plugger66 and plugger66au the same poster? If not, very confusing...
I have no idea. All I know is I'm not either of them :!:


User avatar
ausfatcat
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 6516
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 4:36pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 95 times

Post: # 448920Post ausfatcat »

very good point who is who?


spert
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 8936
Joined: Wed 29 Jun 2005 10:39pm
Location: A distant beach
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 398 times

Post: # 448938Post spert »

Simple, you want to build a team to win a flag then rather than talk axe, talk rebuilding, and some will come and some will go. A big issue is recurring injury-prone players who won't generally contribute the full season and lead to team unbalance, so RL will need to look at some on the list.
Strengths: A few star key position players (Roo, Kozi, Lenny) talented midfielders who can improve in some areas (NDS, Montagna) up and coming good backmen (SF, JG, SG)

Weakness: Ruck, Half forward flankers/ crumbing forwards, light-on in backline -need another strong key back. Midfield inconsistant and lack good defensive side to game. Too many injury-prone players. Lack of good second-tier players due to poor player development over last few seasons.

Its not easy to fix all that, but we can make a start over summer.


User avatar
st_Trav_ofWA
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 8886
Joined: Wed 13 Sep 2006 7:10pm
Location: Perth
Contact:

Post: # 448942Post st_Trav_ofWA »

seriously if brooks is still on the list then im at a loss to whats going on there
the bloke has only got one game this year with all our injurys he hasnt been injured all year and he still cant get a game! ppl go on and on about his cassy form but still he doesnt get a game
i think brooks is a VFL player and is just taking up space on our list he should be delisted and attard given his spot even with a LTI hes more chance of making an impact next year then brooks is

they say CJ isnt upto being an afl player and yeah i gotta agree he aint great his kicking has let him down and as a result it may cost him an AFL carreer but still he has more upside to be premoted then keeping brooks on the list

for me its gunna be

retired: G, Thommo , Doc (maybe voss and bangers but i think both may get another year)

delist : Brooks , Raymond Sweeney

premote : attard , Jones (i cant see us delisting him when he if fit will get a game each week)

retain : VR Geery


"The team that wins in the most positions and makes the least amount of mistakes, usually wins the game." -- Allan Jeans

http://westernsaints.wordpress.com/
saintly
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 5410
Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 10:29am
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Post: # 448947Post saintly »

st_Trav_ofWA wrote:seriously if brooks is still on the list then im at a loss to whats going on there
the bloke has only got one game this year with all our injurys he hasnt been injured all year and he still cant get a game! ppl go on and on about his cassy form but still he doesnt get a game
i think brooks is a VFL player and is just taking up space on our list he should be delisted and attard given his spot even with a LTI hes more chance of making an impact next year then brooks is

they say CJ isnt upto being an afl player and yeah i gotta agree he aint great his kicking has let him down and as a result it may cost him an AFL carreer but still he has more upside to be premoted then keeping brooks on the list

for me its gunna be

retired: G, Thommo , Doc (maybe voss and bangers but i think both may get another year)

delist : Brooks , Raymond Sweeney

premote : attard , Jones (i cant see us delisting him when he if fit will get a game each week)

retain : VR Geery
whats the point of promoting attard when he will be out for all of next year?

i agree delist sweeney and raymond, unsure about brooks
delist voss (if he does to want to retire)


User avatar
meher baba
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 7069
Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
Location: Tasmania
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 461 times

Post: # 448948Post meher baba »

plugger66 wrote:Out this season will be G, M clarke, Voss and Thommo retired. Delistings will be Raymond, Sweeney, Brooks and Ferg is in trouble. 7-8 out 2 promoted to main list. Not sure who they will be. One preseason pick and 4-5 draft picks.
Fascinating info, if correct (and it usually is from this source).

I can't really argue with the delistings other than Brooks. Raymond is a no brainer, Sweeney might have been worth giving another year, but he really isn't the type of player we need more of at the club. Ferguson didn't show anything in the two games he played: although I can be accused of bias, I think Gwilt offers a lot more in the long term.

It will be good if Voss chooses to retire with honour: but, if so, why wasn't he given a run against the Tiges as well?

In terms of the ruck, it looks as if we will be going into 2008 with Gardi or Kosi as #1 (perhaps swapping back and forth between the ruck and FF), with Rix available to be called up in emergencies. I reckon there is a strong chance that Blake will be our permanent #2 ruck: I don't know how B4E is going to cope, but there you go. Presumably efforts will be made to bring van Rheenan on with an eye to playing seniors in 2009. In my mind, this would be a better total strategy than attempting to trade for another ruckman (because capable ruckmen are a limited commodity, very few seem to come on the market who haven't got problems on or off the field or both). But I can't personally see much downside in hanging onto Brooks for another season or two: if he does come good, he will be worth all the waiting. But perhaps RL isn't as patient as me.

Presumably CJ will be one of the two promoted rookies: groan, and I guess RL will be looking for more athletes in the draft. Given his love for CJ, he presumably is more interested in their athletic ability than in whether or not their skills are in the upper category. If you are only looking for athletes who can sort of play football, then you can probably use 5-6 draft picks even in a weak draft.

Lyon strikes me as being a guy with a strong preference for players whom he can train to do exactly what he wants out on the field. Players like Attard, Blake, Fiora, Fish, Chips, CJ, Joey, maybe Birss and Baker seem to fit clearly into this category. And, of course, the likes of Riewoldt, Lenny and Harves (and Hamill, if he ever returns) are good enough to adapt to any style of play you want. I think RL began the season thinking that Thommo and McQualter could fit into the style he wanted, but became disappointed in them and discarded them. He has clearly never rated Voss or Ferguson and is pretty sceptical about Armitage. I also assume that BJ and Max will command permanent spots once they regain fitness.

Lyon doesn't mind a few more unpredictable players dotted through the squad - Kosi, Milne, X, Raph - but the emphasis will always be on disciplined team play rather than creativity and improvisation.

Not my preferred style to watch, but - if it works properly - it could be pretty damn effective.
Last edited by meher baba on Mon 03 Sep 2007 2:40pm, edited 1 time in total.


"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
borderbarry
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 6676
Joined: Mon 19 Apr 2004 11:22pm
Location: Wodonga

Post: # 448950Post borderbarry »

st_Trav_ofWA, I agree with most of what you have written, but disagree with the rookies. As Attard is going to miss most of the season anyway, I would leave him as a rookie. Jones I would delist, he is a disappointment. Also Wall. I would retain Van Rhyss, and promote one or both of Geary and Eddy.


User avatar
Spinner
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 8502
Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
Location: Victoria
Has thanked: 185 times
Been thanked: 133 times

Post: # 448958Post Spinner »

st_Trav_ofWA wrote:seriously if brooks is still on the list then im at a loss to whats going on there
the bloke has only got one game this year with all our injurys he hasnt been injured all year and he still cant get a game! ppl go on and on about his cassy form but still he doesnt get a game
i think brooks is a VFL player and is just taking up space on our list he should be delisted and attard given his spot even with a LTI hes more chance of making an impact next year then brooks is

they say CJ isnt upto being an afl player and yeah i gotta agree he aint great his kicking has let him down and as a result it may cost him an AFL carreer but still he has more upside to be premoted then keeping brooks on the list

for me its gunna be

retired: G, Thommo , Doc (maybe voss and bangers but i think both may get another year)

delist : Brooks , Raymond Sweeney

premote : attard , Jones (i cant see us delisting him when he if fit will get a game each week)

retain : VR Geery

You get down to casey much this year to watch Brooks?


plugger66
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 50626
Joined: Mon 26 Feb 2007 8:15pm
Location: oakleigh

Post: # 448993Post plugger66 »

To the top wrote:Again we have Plugger66 coming into a thread with his feit accompli statement that Brooks is going to be delisted "because has has played 6 games in 8 years".

What Plugger66 never addresses is, what do we do next?

He disappears whenever the question of options is put, goes to another thread and peddles his prejudice - and nothing else.

We have but 5 (FIVE) players 196cm or over remaining on our list - Gardiner, Rix, Watts, Koschitzke and Brooks.

This is an area of deficiency, along with a lack of depth in our mid-field.

We have now lost Gehrig.

I note from other posts that Brooks took a dozen grabs in the VFL, and was again in the best for Casey.

There are other references to his abilities with the ball.

He is NOT of sufficient height to lead our rucks - 198cm, but, in the absence of Gehrig there may well be an opportunity for him as the support ruckman.

It may well be that Brooks is delisted - but we would need to replace like with like because, otherwise, we would be down to Gardiner, Watts, Rix and Koschitzke as our only players over 196cm.

So, Plugger66, what are the options?

And where is the ability of Rix?

Plus, what confidence do you place in Gardiner and Watts?

That would leave us with Koschitzke - and Blake.

And how do we then structure with 3 talls forward, which is why we won the game against Richmond - and is when we are at our most dangerous?

Give us the options Plugger66.

Or just move to yet another thread and peddle your anti Brooks prejudice.
The answer why Brooks will go is simple. He is not a ruckman so the only spot he can play is forward who can do a bit of rucking. So he could replace G but the catch is he kicked 20 goals this year inthe VFL so he isnt a big goalkicker either. We will play Gardiner in the ruck next year with Blake his backup. Kosi will play CHF or FF which leaves no position for Brooks. What if Gardiner doesnt play you ask. Well RL has made it clear this year that Rix is next in line as a ruckman so he would replace Gardiner.

If Brooks is kept he plays seconds which means they are very tall if Rix, VR, Watts nad Brooks all play. They will recruit another tall which means if Brooks is there the player has to be in the seconds for Scorps all year but the bottom line in all of this is did he get many games with injuries to big men this year. NO. He is not rated good enough by RL as a ruckman or a forward and you cannot keep a guy for back up if he has played 6 games in 8 years.


To the top
SS Life Member
Posts: 3266
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2007 4:05pm
Been thanked: 390 times

Post: # 449026Post To the top »

20 goals this year for Casey only - but you omit to mention "playing as a ruckman", which he should have done last year instead of playing as a forward and kicking 40 odd goals in a side which could not win a game.

And you want to ruck Blake!

Then, on top of that you promote Rix!!

And we are going to draft players.

Plus, Casey, where you denigrate form (or is that just Brooks' form?), will be too top heavy. Too top heavy for what? There is a problem with the 12/10 rule, and a reason why SA & WA clubs better prepare their list players for an AFL career. But that is what having an VFL affiliate is all about, and it is not to St Kilda's benefit, acknowledged.

So can I turn your agenda around to what it is - to promote Blake and Rix so they are not de-listed?

Rix does not have soft enough hands to take a mark - he puts his hands out and the ball bounces off. Plus, if he gets a free kick, he can not kick and can not hand-ball. He moves like a mechanical doll.

Your reasoning has done your credibility in in my view.

So, what do others think of continuing with Rix and Blake as our ruck combination in 2008 (because Gardiner has to actually stand up and we are not going to know that until the trial games commence - then there is a season to go!) - and delisting Brooks?

I know. We could ruck Maguire because we have rucked him before.

Or perhaps Milne standing on Blake's shoulders!!


Post Reply