Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: R2 Richmond V Carlton - Prematch (Read 88545 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: R2 Richmond V Carlton - Prematch

Reply #15 –
Best for the NBs were Graham, Buckley, Cachia while Cripps, Holman and Lucas were the emergencies.

That would be great if Ellard, Curnow, Murphy or Gibbs played cr@p games and needed replacing. And none of those have the grunt and attack of Robbo or Bell.

Where are the key position players busting for a place??  The cupboard it bare!!!

Re: R2 Richmond V Carlton - Prematch

Reply #16 –
Probably need another tall defender for the Tigers...no doubt they will copy the Port model and have the three talls down forward...Reiwoldt, Vickery and Griffiths....the latter two are ruckman height so I reckon Rowe will get a game.

Re: R2 Richmond V Carlton - Prematch

Reply #17 –
Walker offered 1 week.

Re: R2 Richmond V Carlton - Prematch

Reply #18 –
I'd take it and have him back for Essendon...
 

Re: R2 Richmond V Carlton - Prematch

Reply #19 –
My changes...
IN: Buckley, Graham, Carrazzo, Armfield, Wood, Casboult
OUT: Walker (susp), Robinson, Bell, McInness, Kreuzer, Warnock

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.

Re: R2 Richmond V Carlton - Prematch

Reply #20 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
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?
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: R2 Richmond V Carlton - Prematch

Reply #21 –
Quote from: LP – on
Quote from: kruddler – on
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

Re: R2 Richmond V Carlton - Prematch

Reply #22 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
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.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: R2 Richmond V Carlton - Prematch

Reply #23 –
Quote from: LP – on
Quote from: kruddler – on
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.

Re: R2 Richmond V Carlton - Prematch

Reply #24 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: LP – on
Quote from: kruddler – on
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!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: R2 Richmond V Carlton - Prematch

Reply #25 –
I'd prefer to have Bell stay in team. Physicality &  Intimidation must be employed at some point...otherwise Cotchin and his cohorts will run riot. Bell has lead with his shoulder at the Richmond midfield in the past to good effect.

Watson pinch hitting across CHF would also be worth a go. Drag Chaplin outside 50, and send a few booming left footers through the goals & into the dejected cretins in the Richmond cheersquad!

Shuffle the pack Mick!

Re: R2 Richmond V Carlton - Prematch

Reply #26 –
B : TBA, Jamison, TBA
HB : Yarran, Henderson, Tuohy 
C : Murphy, TBA, Simpson
HF : Menzel, TBA, Walker
F :  TBA, TBA, Everitt   
R : Kreuzer, TBA, TBA
I/C : Curnow, TBA, TBA, TBA

Here is an outline of what we have at our disposal that is capable of matching it with the others. Quite clearly it shows why we are going to struggle for another couple of years too - way too many gaping holes.

Yes, we have a couple of up & coming players but they are not there yet plus we have a lot of guys who are solid NB players but only back-up fodder in the seniors.
"The Other Teams Can Rot In Hell"

Re: R2 Richmond V Carlton - Prematch

Reply #27 –
Quote from: LP – on
Quote from: kruddler – on
Quote from: LP – on
Quote from: kruddler – on
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.

Re: R2 Richmond V Carlton - Prematch

Reply #28 –
Quote from: kruddler – on
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.

I can only describe what I was told back in January when I investigated why there was no replacement yet. I believe the scenario I describe was settled on between a number of parties probably including Carlton, the AFLPA, Duigan and the AFL.

But I have since heard rumors Duigan may be playing in WA somewhere.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: R2 Richmond V Carlton - Prematch

Reply #29 –
Quote from: TheSheik – on
B : TBA, Jamison, TBA
HB : Yarran, Henderson, Tuohy 
C : Murphy, TBA, Simpson
HF : Menzel, TBA, Walker
F :  TBA, TBA, Everitt   
R : Kreuzer, TBA, TBA
I/C : Curnow, TBA, TBA, TBA

Here is an outline of what we have at our disposal that is capable of matching it with the others. Quite clearly it shows why we are going to struggle for another couple of years too - way too many gaping holes.

Yes, we have a couple of up & coming players but they are not there yet plus we have a lot of guys who are solid NB players but only back-up fodder in the seniors.

You left out Jarrad Waite who although is no fev, is a decent key forward in his own right and is at worst a forward target. 
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson