Warfe & McPherson must go

[Charlie]

That's not what I'm saying at all. I was actually in favour of cutting both of them last year, as those from the old forum would well know. I still have my doubts, and would be surprised if they are around next year.

But last year a decision was made to give them another year. Roos wanted to assess each player properly before he made any decisions. It was a part of his rebuilding plan. Fair enough. I put my faith in Roos, said that I'd stick with him for three years, so that's the way it's got to be.

Now, a lot of people expect him to go back on that. I say that's not acceptable. Apart from the personal perspective, I think it'd be a bad move from the footy department as well. Who's to say they won't, if given a chance to work into form under Roos, come good like Kirk did?

If in 6 to 8 weeks, still no improvement, fine. They aren't going to do if for us. But Roos said there would be one last chance. There better be. Brett Kirk is currently looking no worse a player than the likes of Paul Barnard, unfashionable but capable of doing the job. And a premiership player. It'd be a damn shame if McPherson or Warfe could be the same sort of player under Roos, but aren't given a chance.

Charlie

[bloodhound]

Fair enough,
I suposse It comes down to individual opinion about particular players.
IMO these two need a couple of weeks in the reserves while we have a real good look at the likes of powel and one or two of his young buddies !

[desredandwhite]

In a way I guess you're both arguing for the same thing. The kids will get a go this year, but they won't be unnecessarily tossed into 20+ games of senior footy as the "fringe players - McPherson, Warfe, Seymour et al - are assessed for next year.

[bloodhound]

I must say I am a fan of what Johnny said on another thread about Mick Multhouse bringing in two rookies at a time for a set number of weeks . I like that. It builds the spirit of competative brother hood in the young guys as well as giving them individually the chance to assimilate into the team as a whole.

[Bear]

Re: Re: Warfe & McPherson must go

Originally posted by Cheer Cheer
Schauble is on shaky ground - I think you lost alot of people with that comment.

I totally agree that Schauble is under a cloud atm.

He lacks pace, is not particularly strong, his skills are average and he is injury-prone.

On the positive side he is courageous and has a reasonable football brain (is not prone to the brain explosions of Luff, Warfe and McPherson), and sure, he was B&F in 2000, but have you seen him play particularly well lately?

Remember, Collingwood traded him for a reason.

[robbieando]

Been injured most of the time since and also for mind has been played out of position. He is a Centre Half Back and yet we don't see him there. He might end up like Goodes, in a different position each week and in poor form - but might just need the knowledge of a set position to fire him up. It worked for Goodes

[Cheer Cheer]

Re: Re: Re: Warfe & McPherson must go

Originally posted by Bear
sure, he was B&F in 2000, but have you seen him play particularly well lately?

Bear you are in danger of becoming one of the main culprits who write a good player off after a quite game or two. Your comment says it all really.

[Bear]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Warfe & McPherson must go

Originally posted by Cheer Cheer
Bear you are in danger of becoming one of the main culprits who write a good player off after a quite game or two. Your comment says it all really.

Excuse me Cheer Cheer?

At what point did I "write Schauble off"???

Thankyou for totally misquoting me - I think your comments say more about YOUR analysis somehow.

I simply outlined some of his weaknesses AND strengths, and stated a fact that because he has not performed well over the last couple of years for a variety of reasons means that he is under a cloud. There is no "write off" there. If you would like to argue any of the actual points I made then great, but don't try to mislead.

This year is about finding out who is a long term option for our club, and questions should be asked, as the match committee will do re ALL players.

To correct your misstatement about me "writing players off after a quite (sic) game or two", personally I do not write players off unless they have had a SIGNIFICANT down period. There are a number of players who have not performed well enough over AT LEAST TWO SEASONS. This is the MINIMUM period I use (apart from draftees who should get longer) and in this competitive day and age this is when you have to ask questions if you are serious about winning grand finals. If you want to give established players 3,4,5,6 years to flirt with poor form then good luck in seeing a premiership!

For example, I still believe Nicks has a lot to offer even though he has been up and down for a year or so - but I would still say he is under a cloud and needs to improve over this year and next to keep his spot. I am confident he can do this because he is a class player.

FYI, there are only 3 players that I have written off at the Swans and these 3 players have been well documented here as being not up to scratch for at least 2-3 YEARS, most much longer, so why persist?

Bottom line Cheer Cheer, don't guess, misquote, twist words, etc as it hurts your credibility.

[Cheer Cheer]

Fair enough bear , I didnt mean it how you have taken it, however it stills begs the question on schuable, you say he is on shaky ground and has a couple of quiet years since winning the B/F. I would have thought he was one of our most solid, consistent, if yet unspectacular performers of the last few years, if you can, please prove me wrong, but I thought otherwise, as have others that your comments on schauble were harsh.