Its extremely sad that we need a thread titled R1 Worst on Ground.
If it makes you feel better, i did the 'R1 BEST on ground' first.
...and its not because of how we played...i'm planning on doing that for every round.
At the end of the year, i'll tally up the numbers and post some conclusions. Be interesting to see if either of these threads correlate to the B+F results and the delistings.
We still have Duigans spot to use if/when we see fit for Wood
Hasn't that already been given to Cachia, we have two nominated rookies in Scotland and Cachia?
Because we have two nominated rookies already, do we get to upgrade another?
By my last reading of this issue, it was not clear if the AFL was going to approve another upgrade until we have a further LTI.
There was an article on the AFL site which showed potential rookie upgrades from each team. That stated we had already upgraded 2, and had room for 1 more as the replacement for Duigan retiring.
I see no reason to doubt what was written on the AFL site.
Yes I know that article, but there has been no official word from the club since Dec 13th.
I'd had heard this scenario. I believe for Duigan to play elsewhere and for us to be eligible for a rookie upgrade two things must happen. He has to stay on our LTI list for eight weeks once the season starts, then he must be paid out in full by the club as retired. Pre-season does not count, upgrades do not apply during pre-season and clubs can list and play whoever they like. At that time he will then be eligible to play elsewhere, in any other non-AFL competition, and we can upgrade a rookie as a replacement. Upgrading earlier is up to the AFLs discretion, we do not seem to be favored in this regard!
Even if what you say is true, him being on the LTI list initially is grounds enough for us to elevate a rookie. Regardless on what he gets paid, or where he is allowed to get paid.
Fact is any player put on the LTI list means he can be replaced by a rookie. Any player put on the LTI list is essentially inactive for a minimum of 8 weeks, but can be longer.
Btw, is this how we're doing our best player thing?
+1 for every best vote, -1 for every worst? Or whatever...
Wasn't intended to be a replacement for the traditional voting system, just thought we'd give this a go and i'll come out with some stats along the way.
Its up to Crash to see if he wants to continue the number crunching of the normal system.
Robinson and Bell both got plenty, early in Bell's case, yet they both butchered the ball mercilessly!
If you go to all the trouble of getting it, don't give it back!
I've been playing that tune for a while now. People keep telling me that they are required players who do the hard stuff.
I'd prefer soft players who can hit a target rather than tough players who cannot.
Here is an idea out from left field. How about we recruit players who are hard at it and can kick the football too?
I reckon we tried with our first round pick.
Not sure Cripps is seen as an elite kick, along with his endurance its an area he needs to improve, ditto for Graham and Buckley who also need to improve their kicking.
He is not an elite kick, but he doesn't have to be to be an upgrade on Bell and Robbo.
We still have Duigans spot to use if/when we see fit for Wood
Hasn't that already been given to Cachia, we have two nominated rookies in Scotland and Cachia?
Because we have two nominated rookies already, do we get to upgrade another?
By my last reading of this issue, it was not clear if the AFL was going to approve another upgrade until we have a further LTI.
There was an article on the AFL site which showed potential rookie upgrades from each team. That stated we had already upgraded 2, and had room for 1 more as the replacement for Duigan retiring.
I see no reason to doubt what was written on the AFL site.
Lets try something a little different and have our ruckmen (Wood/Casboult) helping out our defense by filling holes. These boys can actually mark the pill and may provide some benefit from their height.
So is Wood off the rookie list, have we nominated him under a LTI?
We still have Duigans spot to use if/when we see fit for Wood
Lets try something a little different and have our ruckmen (Wood/Casboult) helping out our defense by filling holes. These boys can actually mark the pill and may provide some benefit from their height.
The rest is almost like for like with the exception of McInness. We have Watson, Jamison, Waite, Henderson and Everitt, along with 2 ruckmen to choose from in the big man stakes, so i reckon we will go ok without him.
The Ins will show some heart, and hopefully an improvement in heart/skill over their outgoing teammates.
One of the best 1st quarters that the boys have ever played.
Geez, don't know about that kruddler....it was okay to good, nothing more than that. You're easily pleased.....
What i liked about it was that we dominated.
Not just on the scoreboard, as we could've/should've kicked better, but all around the ground.
Contested possessions and hard ball gets we were dominating. The boys were shepherding. The boys were physical, without giving away free kicks. When the ball went over the boundary line, a team mate would come over and give the guy chasing a pat on the head....and more importantly he would give his opponent a whack while he was there....and he he fought back, someone else would come over and give him one too.
We were physically beating up on them the way Hawks/Cats/Swans beat up on sides.
THAT is why it was the best first quarter these boys have ever played. They played like good teams should.
