Farewell to arms?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • SimonH
    Salt future's rising
    • Aug 2004
    • 1647

    #16
    Originally posted by barry
    ... especially with top 4 decided, and our fate as to who we meet in the first final out of our hands.
    On the contrary, we have absolute power over who we meet in the first week-- win, and we meet a last-start loser; lose (presuming the Saints get up) and we meet a last-start winner!

    Comment

    • robbieando
      The King
      • Jan 2003
      • 2750

      #17
      Originally posted by Schneiderman
      He's only 27 for goodness sake.
      Close, he is 28 at the moment and will be 29 when next season starts but by no means too old for senior footy. But I do agree that its too quick to "retire" him when we lack depth in the key positions already as it is and regardless of whether he has lost a few yards of pace he will still be a good solid option to have on our senior list next year.
      Once was, now elsewhere

      Comment

      • Newbie
        On the Rookie List
        • Mar 2003
        • 720

        #18
        Excuse me, people. I am lost here. What is exactly the point of playing Schauble in place of Vogels?. Is this for the sake of getting Schauble a game or would it improve our team structure? One thing with Vogels is that he is mobile and can cover ground along the half forward. If we play Schauble we would need to get him closer to the square. This inturn demands someone else to cover the current Vogels's role.

        Take today's game as the example. Rocca was clearly a liability for them. I think Schauble's case would be similar, althought not quite to the same extent.

        I would not might if the opposition key forward averages 2 goals a game but offers them nothing else, e.g., too slow to offer genuine defensive pressure, too slow to stop rebounds and not good enough foot skills to generate assists. This is exactly what they got with Rocca and to some extent, Thompson as well.

        Comment

        • cruiser
          What the frack!
          • Jul 2004
          • 6114

          #19
          Anyone who saw Schauble play today in the reserves would not be calling him slow. Schauble deserves to play in the A's not out of charity but because he is playing god footballl and deserves to be there. Furthermore his experience, leadership, steadiness and accuracy with disposal makes him, IMO, a valuable finals player.
          Occupational hazards:
          I don't eat animals since discovering this ability. I used to. But one day the lamb I was eating came through to me and ever since then I haven't been able to eat meat.
          - animal psychic Amanda de Warren

          Comment

          • Jeffers1984
            Veterans List
            • Jan 2003
            • 4564

            #20
            Originally posted by Nico
            Surely Maxfield is not a serious contender after today's effort. You cannot drop an in form player for an unfit experienced player.

            Only have him there in case of real emergency.
            Yep Maxfield is pretty much gone. Pulled up with a leg injury after the game and his disposal was just as bad as Spriggs today which is a fairly hard thing to do!
            Official Driver Of The "Who Gives A @@@@ As The Player Will Get Delisted Anyway" Bandwagon.

            Comment

            • barry
              Veterans List
              • Jan 2003
              • 8499

              #21
              Originally posted by Newbie
              Excuse me, people. I am lost here. What is exactly the point of playing Schauble in place of Vogels?. Is this for the sake of getting Schauble a game or would it improve our team structure? One thing with Vogels is that he is mobile and can cover ground along the half forward. If we play Schauble we would need to get him closer to the square. This inturn demands someone else to cover the current Vogels's role.
              We need Schuable for 2 reasons:
              1) to cover injuries to Craig Bolton, LRT or Leo Barry.
              2) to cover Frasier Gehrig, if we play the saints. Even then we'd be stretched with LRT on Reiwodlt, and Barry on Kositski, Bolton on Hammil.
              3) Because on big grounds like Subiaco or even the MCG our flooding defense is not as effective, therefore a short running backline is also less effective.

              Ok, thats 3. But no. 3 is very difficult to quantify.

              Comment

              • footyhead
                Banned indefinitely by Moderators for posting totally inappropriate material
                • May 2003
                • 1367

                #22
                All the sentimentalists calling for old hacks to be brought back into this team just when it is finding its young feet, need to get their heads read by a good quack.

                Comment

                • undy
                  Fatal error: Allowed memo
                  • Mar 2003
                  • 1231

                  #23
                  Originally posted by footyhead
                  All the sentimentalists calling for old hacks to be brought back into this team just when it is finding its young feet, need to get their heads read by a good quack.
                  I didn't see anyone ask you to be brought back, I think you just logged back on of your own accord.
                  Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way you'll be a mile away and he'll be shoeless.

                  Comment

                  • EMJ
                    Go Swans Always
                    • Jan 2003
                    • 1076

                    #24
                    Roos told us at the after match Maxfield pulled up real sore and was a day to day prospect. I thought he looked buggered in the reserves.
                    Spriggs played better today and his disposals and goals were good too. He is doing better than the beginning of the year.
                    Love those Swans

                    Comment

                    • cruiser
                      What the frack!
                      • Jul 2004
                      • 6114

                      #25
                      I just cant see any justification for considering Stewie for a spot in the A's at the moment. But if you ask me about Schauble .....
                      Occupational hazards:
                      I don't eat animals since discovering this ability. I used to. But one day the lamb I was eating came through to me and ever since then I haven't been able to eat meat.
                      - animal psychic Amanda de Warren

                      Comment

                      • Captain
                        Captain of the Side
                        • Feb 2004
                        • 3602

                        #26
                        Why change a winning team??

                        There is no way Vogels deserves to be dropped, the guy has talent.

                        Schauble will have to wait his turn. An injury to a KPP will see him and/or Saddo get their chances.

                        We are a lost cause if Maxfield gets a game.

                        If it ain't broke, don't fix it.......

                        Comment

                        • i'm-uninformed2
                          Reefer Madness
                          • Oct 2003
                          • 4653

                          #27
                          Originally posted by Charlie
                          In: Schauble
                          Out: Vogels

                          Tough on Voges - but Schaubes deserves this one last chance.
                          Wrong wrong wrong Charlie.

                          No one doubts what Schaubs has contributed but why does he deserve 'this one last chance'.

                          Are you saying Maxfield should be brought back early in case we fall out first? Are you saying Bevan should get another game this year as a reward for last year's efforts? Are you saying Saddo should come back because he 'might' refind form? Or Heath James for that one game he was good in?

                          Logic Charlie, logic
                          'Delicious' is a fun word to say

                          Comment

                          • barry
                            Veterans List
                            • Jan 2003
                            • 8499

                            #28
                            Out: Ball
                            In: Schuable.

                            Goodes and Jolly ruck. Vogels takes Goodes role. Schuable takes Vogels role. Unusual. but in the end just tall for tall change.

                            Ball has to be nursed a bit I think. Every time he gets heavily tackled I shudder.

                            Schuable's time in the 2's has enabled him to play forward or back.

                            Comment

                            • Go Swannies
                              Veterans List
                              • Sep 2003
                              • 5697

                              #29
                              Well kiddies, I wanted to ask Roos about Schaubs today but my raised hand wasn't selected. So I followed him outside and asked him. His reply was "Schaubs is just one of about half a dozen players who could come in from the reserves because they are playing really good footy. But why would you meddle with a structure that's working as well as it is right now?" So I replied "that sounds like he's unlikely to play?" and he responded "I don't like closed statements."

                              Injuries - we've got a lot of players waiting in the wings. No injuries - you saw our team today. Very good structure and skills, so why not?

                              Comment

                              • barry
                                Veterans List
                                • Jan 2003
                                • 8499

                                #30
                                Originally posted by Go Swannies
                                Well kiddies, I wanted to ask Roos about Schaubs today but my raised hand wasn't selected. So I followed him outside and asked him. His reply was "Schaubs is just one of about half a dozen players who could come in from the reserves because they are playing really good footy. But why would you meddle with a structure that's working as well as it is right now?" So I replied "that sounds like he's unlikely to play?" and he responded "I don't like closed statements."
                                Its a fair point. But what if we get an injury and Schuabs has to sudden step up from the very pedestrian ACT league to a preliminary final in Perth (say?).

                                Because of our very low level reserves comp, we need to be rotating one or two of these standby players through the seniors, to get up to AFL speed.

                                Comment

                                Working...