Passengers without 2005 credits

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • jenky28
    Our Edge Is Reg
    • Jun 2004
    • 564

    #16
    Originally posted by TheHood
    That would be me.

    I have been on his case since Round 1 and apart from the hit out fuss after the North game, Jols has been ho hum in all areas but particularly coasting outside of the stoppages.

    When you consider the output from:

    Cox (Seaby looks more likely than our boys)
    Biglands (old Clarke has more spark)
    Everitt (even Campbell has time and style going for him)
    White (knows how to sink a team, just ask Sydney)
    Lade (Brogan is their second stringer for heaven's sake!)

    All of those blokes give their team height advantage at vital points of the game (outside of stoppages) and what have we got from Jolly and Chambers in 2006.

    On Saturday night, Nathan Buckley outsmarted both of our ruckmen to directly set up goals from centre clearances.

    Sorry to say, but Everitt for Jolly would have been the better option!
    Give the poor guy a break! Our accuracy cost us alot on saturday nite. Jolly does ok! If we drop Jolly we will go even worse than we already are!
    OUR EDGE IS REG

    Comment

    • dendol
      fat-arsed midfielder
      • Oct 2003
      • 1483

      #17
      Originally posted by jenky28
      Give the poor guy a break! Our accuracy cost us alot on saturday nite. Jolly does ok! If we drop Jolly we will go even worse than we already are!
      Sorry, but he doesn't go ok. He does what is neccessary in the ruck (gives a good contest) but he doesn't provide ANYTHING at all around the ground. When you see other ruckmen constantly taking goal-saving marks deep in the backline or providing matchup headaches up forward, you'll see that Jolly is not the Number 1 ruckman we need.

      Im not asking for him to be dropped because unfortunately we just don't have anyone else.

      His ineffectiveness is also a reason why Everitt is still linked with the Swans next season.

      Comment

      • jenky28
        Our Edge Is Reg
        • Jun 2004
        • 564

        #18
        Originally posted by dendol
        Sorry, but he doesn't go ok. He does what is neccessary in the ruck (gives a good contest) but he doesn't provide ANYTHING at all around the ground. When you see other ruckmen constantly taking goal-saving marks deep in the backline or providing matchup headaches up forward, you'll see that Jolly is not the Number 1 ruckman we need.

        Im not asking for him to be dropped because unfortunately we just don't have anyone else.

        His ineffectiveness is also a reason why Everitt is still linked with the Swans next season.
        Well i dunno i definately cant see doyle or chambers filling the role down back either lol chambers fumbles hes give em the ball constantly!
        Jolly will improve he just need more help thats all!
        OUR EDGE IS REG

        Comment

        • giant
          Veterans List
          • Mar 2005
          • 4731

          #19
          Did anyone else think the Crouch-Didak match-up an unlikely one, even more so as the game went on? Not letting Crouch off the hook for an ordinary game but from almost minute 1 it looked like a poor fit.

          Comment

          • NMWBloods
            Taking Refuge!!
            • Jan 2003
            • 15819

            #20
            Didak was too strong, quick and clever for Crouch on Saturday. It looked that way right from the start.
            Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.

            "[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."

            Comment

            • giant
              Veterans List
              • Mar 2005
              • 4731

              #21
              Originally posted by NMWBloods
              Didak was too strong, quick and clever for Crouch on Saturday. It looked that way right from the start.
              agreed, and if you'd asked me before the game I might have guessed that would be the case. So why did the coaching staff have Crouch still on Didak at minute 100 (as far as I could tell) while taller defenders like Taidhg & B2 were left to stand "lesser" forwards?

              Didak was always going to be a potential game-breaker for them as ROK might have been for us if he'd kicked straight. Strange call I think.

              Comment

              • deadan
                On the Rookie List
                • Dec 2005
                • 33

                #22
                So, after an ordinary game you guys are giving up on a quarter of the team ?
                These are the guys who got us to the halfway stage at 7-5, and admittedly they have been playing below par for most of the year but still managed to win a few. Are you the same fans who gave the team crap after the poor start ? And if we had have replaced the players you've mentioned I doubt we would have then won 6 in a row. Give them a break...

                We should really be working on our discipline. we give away far too many free kicks, some undeserved, but most are there. The Collingwood players were ready for the turnovers and had 2 free players on the opposite wing each time. I could see it from section 628, row 3, so why couldnt the players and coaching staff see it ?

                Comment

                • NMWBloods
                  Taking Refuge!!
                  • Jan 2003
                  • 15819

                  #23
                  No one is giving up on a "quarter of the team" but there is no reason why there should not be some changes made.
                  Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.

                  "[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."

                  Comment

                  • giant
                    Veterans List
                    • Mar 2005
                    • 4731

                    #24
                    [QUOTE]Originally posted by NMWBloods
                    No one is giving up on a "quarter of the team" but there is no reason why there should not be some changes made. [/QUOTE

                    Mathews
                    Crouch
                    Kirk
                    Ted
                    Nog
                    Chambers
                    Jolly

                    Closer to a third.

                    Comment

                    • NMWBloods
                      Taking Refuge!!
                      • Jan 2003
                      • 15819

                      #25
                      Okay, so maybe we are challenging over a quarter of the team, some of which need to go. But the teams needs some refreshing and some changes need to be made.
                      Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.

                      "[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."

                      Comment

                      • swannieserin
                        Lurker
                        • Sep 2005
                        • 323

                        #26
                        I wouldn't agree with all of those listed - while it might equate to a third of the team I doubt anyone here would agree with all of them. For me its Mathews, Willo and Richards for the Freo game.

                        We could maybe try a change in the ruck, but is that such a great idea coming up against Fremantle? I don't think we'll see a change there until the Richmond game at least, barring injury.

                        Comment

                        • Tuesday
                          On the Rookie List
                          • May 2005
                          • 890

                          #27
                          Originally posted by swannieserin
                          We could maybe try a change in the ruck, but is that such a great idea coming up against Fremantle? I don't think we'll see a change there until the Richmond game at least, barring injury.
                          But isn't Sandilands still injured?
                          Perfect opportunity.
                          And you can't find nothing at all,
                          If there was nothing there all along.

                          Comment

                          • swannieserin
                            Lurker
                            • Sep 2005
                            • 323

                            #28
                            Originally posted by Tuesday
                            But isn't Sandilands still injured?
                            Perfect opportunity.
                            If you are right then YES! Give Shaw a game as a 2nd ruckman.

                            Comment

                            • ugg
                              Can you feel it?
                              Site Admin
                              • Jan 2003
                              • 15976

                              #29
                              Originally posted by Tuesday
                              But isn't Sandilands still injured?
                              Perfect opportunity.
                              No, he's been back for a few weeks now. But they only played with one ruckman (Sandilands) against Geelong. They even dropped their pseudo-second ruckman Polak.
                              Reserves live updates (Twitter)
                              Reserves WIKI -
                              Top Goalkickers| Best Votegetters

                              Comment

                              • Jeffers1984
                                Veterans List
                                • Jan 2003
                                • 4564

                                #30
                                Chambers 196cm Vs Sandilands 213 cm....i shudder at the thought.
                                Official Driver Of The "Who Gives A @@@@ As The Player Will Get Delisted Anyway" Bandwagon.

                                Comment

                                Working...