Jared Crouch

[monopoly19]

I think he's playing badly enough to deserve his own thread (and this is coming from a fan of his)

All the press on his unbroken run has left us in an awkward position - I think he's playing badly enough to be dropped, but it's very unlikely that he will be. He's in the team as a defensive midfielder. That already (imo, some may disagree) makes him less valuable than an attacking midfielder with defensive capabilities. When you've got a defensive midfielder underperforming, they are a huge liability. Basically one of our 22 is wasted - he's not negating anyone, nor is he providing much attack. He may have great mind-over-matter ability in regards to getting his body right to play, and he may train harder and longer, and he may do more work with the community etc, and he may be a very nice guy, but he DOESNT DO ANYTHING ON THE FIELD.

He won't get dropped, and I'm not sure that playing in the reserves would actually do him any good, but he's doing more harm than good atm.

Am I being too harsh? What do you think of Crouchie atm?

[giant]

He's a hollow empty shell of his former self. Having a horror stretch - it was agonising to see him "try" to chase down Embley in the last qr.

That said, he's always been our best bet on the opposition's small forward with marvelous efforts on the likes of Farmer, AKa & matera in the past. Not dead yet, just a bit sick (we hope).

[Barry Schneider]

He was listed in our best again.He was also listed in our best against Brisbane when he played on Aker and got destroyed.Do journalists actually watch footy?

[RogueSwan]

I used to rate him very highly, now my wife does not understand why the sarcasm flows when the ball is near Crouch:
"oh great, now Crouhy's got the ball. I'm suprised he could get away, that was Crouchy's man... " and so on and so forth.

[Go Swannies]

I was at the pub and may have been distracted by the band setting up and the Lions game on the other tv but every time I saw Crouch with the ball he bombed it long towards our attacking 50. Was that bad?

[skilts stilts]

Very accurate assessment of Crouch. No longer warrants a place in the team nor do Nicks, Spriggs, McVeigh( too timid) or Maxfield( a shocker of a year, must be carrying an injury).
The problem is that a competitive team can't carry more than 6 kids so I expect a pretty similar line up again next week. Would love to see Moore and Malceski get a run this week.

[sharpie]

he's definitely not playing well at the moment, but is still far more valuable than some others in the team that are also not being dropped - Schneider, Bevan & Buchanan in particular.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
I was at the pub and may have been distracted by the band setting up and the Lions game on the other tv but every time I saw Crouch with the ball he bombed it long towards our attacking 50. Was that bad?

Yep - he throws it on his boot, producing un ugly tumble punt which is next to impossible to mark, plus he doesn't look where he is kicking it thus the ball rarely goes to the forwards' advantage. The opposition gets numbers around the ball and it is rebounded just as quickly as it came in.

[jenky28]

LOL

[Bleed Red Blood]

I agree, he's been shocking. But I can't see anyone to bring in. I'd advocate dropping Buchanen and Bevan before Crouch. Thus if that happened, we'd bring in Malkeski and Schmidt. Leaving us noone to bring in for Crouch.

[hammo]

Willoughby also deserves a go if he's fully fit

[Schneiderman]

Well there is the small matter of that great crumbing goal against WC, and the running shot (which he shouldn't have missed but at least he had one) that we should consider.

It may also be that we set the standards a tad too high for him. If the rest of the team was playing excellent and he was the only lowlight, then fair enough. But there are others ahead of him to be dropped, even if only just.

[stellation]

Originally posted by jenky28
LOL

Good point!

[Nico]

Originally posted by skilts stilts
Very accurate assessment of Crouch. No longer warrants a place in the team nor do Nicks, Spriggs, McVeigh( too timid) or Maxfield( a shocker of a year, must be carrying an injury).
The problem is that a competitive team can't carry more than 6 kids so I expect a pretty similar line up again next week. Would love to see Moore and Malceski get a run this week.

Who were the 6 kids?

Bevan perhaps, but had at least 1 year on the rookie list plus 2005 is his 2nd season.
Buchanan is no kid.
Dempster, yes although this is his 3rd year
Schneider, no
LRT - how many years now, how old?

Answer we have 1 - Dempster.

Now for the Old Age brigade.

Kirk 28, Hall, Maxfield, Micky, Schauble, Williams, Ball, Nicks.

Getting on a bit.

Barry, Crouch, Mathews, Saddo

Crocks

Matt Davis, Doyle, Fixter, Fosdike, James, Sunny.

There in lies our problem. Old war torn bodies, slaves to an attrition game plan that does not keep up with the games laws, and an aversion to introducing young legs to add some pep to a flagging group, regardless of the short term consequences, and oblivious to the long term consequences.

[ugg]

Originally posted by Nico
Who were the 6 kids?

Depends what you mean by 'kids'? If its by age then the 6 would probably be:
Schneider 20
Bevan 20
LRT 21
McVeigh 21
Dempster 21
Ablett 22
Buchanan 22

If its by experience then you would probably only count Dempster who is playing his first season.