Schauble

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by redunderthebed
Truth is the Weagles were vastly superior and we were undermanned and lacking skills.

They are supoer and we are lacking skills, but the 'undermanned' part is a poor excuse.

And the 'ctitics' say get rid of ,who knows this week....loooks like bevan,crouch,buchanan....and replace with moore and malceski!What for?

So we can actually see if we can find some more players who know how to play AFL properly.

Do you wanna crucify them as well?I even noticed someone was still blaming Mathews for this loss!

Who? Didn't see that.

If Mathews ,Ball,Jolly and Willo have played, the result would have been closer.

Yes, but if they had Kerr and hadn't lost Fletcher, Gardiner and Seaby for the game, and it wasn't wet then it probably wouldn't have been closer, more likely a bigger win!

[Plugger46]

Originally posted by redunderthebed
Schauble?Bloody hell , he didn't play too bad IMO considering it was not planned to play him and he was clearly underdone.

That's exactly why Malceski or Moore should have played, because he is 'underdone' and can't get out of his own way.

[stellation]

Originally posted by Plugger46
That's exactly why Malceski or Moore should have played, because he is 'underdone' and can't get out of his own way.

Malceski or Moore may have had a few more problems playing as a tall defender than the underdone Schaubs had.

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by stellation
Malceski or Moore may have had a few more problems playing as a tall defender than the underdone Schaubs had.

Get them fitted with a pair of stilts and start them training using them, those probs will be gone in no time!

[Nico]

Originally posted by stellation
Malceski or Moore may have had a few more problems playing as a tall defender than the underdone Schaubs had.

So the secret is out. Schauble played as a tall defender. Certainly fooled me then.

[stellation]

Originally posted by Nico
So the secret is out. Schauble played as a tall defender. Certainly fooled me then.

It looks like he has, you seem to think he lined up on either Matera, Cousins or Sampi and should have stopped them kicking multiple goals.

[Nico]

No, I meant that he was masquerading as a tall defender, or perhaps better put, any type of defender. If he wasn't fit leave him out.

[Sanecow]

We were always going to lose, so why not run him out for a practice game?!? Makes sense to me.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Re: Schauble

Originally posted by Plugger46
I wouldn't have brought Schauble in this week. I know we're a little short, but he's slow and will be exposed first-up on the bigger ground. Surely it would have been logical to play someone with a bit of pace, as that's one of the eagles greatest strengths.

Schaubs had 2 weeks in the reserves (MOL had none) and frankly I'm getting very sick and tired of seeing opposition key forwards having a field day in out backline.

We actually had Tiger playing on Michael Gardner this week!

Whats next Monty on Aaron Sandilands?

Throughout the last 70 years there has been two constants with the Swans . . .
1) plenty of grass burners, a massive shortage of key position players and our coaches' insane willingness to try to turn the former into the latter!
2) No bloody premierships.