Is Roos for real this time?

[Triple B]

Forget Smith and MOD they won't survive the cut at the end of the year.

Hmmm...

Precisely Liz

TBCat, how much of Smith have you seen ???

[Hartijon]

"we've got him (CHF)- Johnston.
We've got a gun on baller - Hannebury.
And we've got a gun CHB Murphy. "

Wow! Wish it was that easy! I think you confuse the future potential of players with reality. At this stage a million things could go wrong with these 3 predictions..one doesn't need to know much about football to find lots of examples of kids with similar potential who haven't made it.Sure,i really hope you are right but in the meantime lets look at our list realistically and see what we can make out of it. We may need to have a few makeshift positions to cover some weaknesses but the key word is flexibility. Don't let old fashioned football dogma prevent us trying something new.Having played with a soccer player who became a great CHF I know anything is possible.

[giant]

Aw, for a while I thought your were referring to my groomed thatch.

Being a balanced thinker Roos was probably thinking "Wow we'd be over 100 points down if Aker was allowed to play as he has the past few weeks!" And "if a few of our other defenders like Bevan and Ablett and LRT were playing as well as Crouchy we'd still have a chance of winning this game."

All very well, but not losing by 100 pts wasn't part of Connolly's "game plan". I think. Sometimes he's a little hard to follow...

[Robbo]

He's down back because we have nobody else when the opponent stretches our defence. We used to have Leo, LRT, B2 and Teddy all in the defensive 50 at once. Now we only have the latter 3. As such, Grundy is moving down back at times to help out. This is not ideal, and I reckon a better option would be to chuck White down back and bring in Currie/Pyke, at the expense of a smaller player like Ablett.

Teddy was actually up forward when Grundy was down back at one point. This means they think Teddy is best up forward and Grundy is better down back. Not sure which one of those is more ridiculous.

[Bear]

Ablett & Grundy must go for a start.

Ablett provides no postive input to the team. He can play a negating role at times, but we have quiet a few of those players that can do it better.

We need height in the backline, but you could play a short bloke and he would do a better job than Grundy. At least someone with a bit ot pace, could put some sort of defensive pressure on his opponent. Grundy has shown glimpses, but he is simply not up to AFL standard.

Totally.

Grundy is part of the "Really Slow Brigade" at the Swans. Puts absolutaly no pressure on a key forward lead. Just runs after him and stands the mark, and/or acts the witches hat as his opponent plays on and heads towards goal.

[BSA5]

Teddy was actually up forward when Grundy was down back at one point. This means they think Teddy is best up forward and Grundy is better down back. Not sure which one of those is more ridiculous.

That's rarely the case though. I think they like rotating Teddy up forward occasionally just to change things up a bit. In recent times, Grundy has certainly played forward a lot more than Teddy.

[Hartijon]

"But Heath's form has been solid and I'm expecting him to play on Sunday, definitely," Roos said.

The coach obviously sees something none of us are able to see including myself.I see a slow player who has poor skills and whose play so often leads to a turnover .One sensational mark sure..no argument that but what about the follow up kick? That kick is far more representative of the way Grundy plays.

[liz]

"But Heath's form has been solid and I'm expecting him to play on Sunday, definitely," Roos said.

The coach obviously sees something none of us are able to see including myself.I see a slow player who has poor skills and whose play so often leads to a turnover.

Fair enough for you to form your own opinion on Heath but don't think you should be attributing it to the universe.

I see in Heath a mid-paced player (no slower than ROK, for instance) who has shown genuine improvement this year (if you have only half an hour to spare, check out the 2nd quarter against the Blues - he was probably our best player), but who is still inconsistent and appears to lack the confidence to impose himself fully on matches. Also needs to do a lot of work on his game when the ball hits the deck.

He didn't have a good game last weekend but few of his team mates did. There are three or four I'd be dropping before even giving thought to Grundy's place.

[Mr Magoo]

I doubt Roos will be basing any selection changes solely on who performed badly against the dogs. More likely that those senior players with longer term form problems are the ones in the gun - read for that Buchanan, Ablett, Malceski, maybe even Moore.

I would have thought it unlikely that Bevan , Grundy , LRT, Richards and others who have performed pretty well all year bar a few bad periods would be up for discussion. Anyway who do you replace these guys with. Other than maybe Currie (who really is a ruckman) , we have very few players ready to come into the firsts and play the respective positions.

[UglyDuckling]

Well Bird and Thornton will come straight in no doubt about that. Leaving 1 of the above mentioned safe for another week or two until Vezpa is fit enough to play.

[Plugger46]

Fair enough for you to form your own opinion on Heath but don't think you should be attributing it to the universe.

I see in Heath a mid-paced player (no slower than ROK, for instance) who has shown genuine improvement this year (if you have only half an hour to spare, check out the 2nd quarter against the Blues - he was probably our best player), but who is still inconsistent and appears to lack the confidence to impose himself fully on matches. Also needs to do a lot of work on his game when the ball hits the deck.

He didn't have a good game last weekend but few of his team mates did. There are three or four I'd be dropping before even giving thought to Grundy's place.

I see the same thing. Think people are way too hard on this bloke.

[goswannie14]

Fair enough for you to form your own opinion on Heath but don't think you should be attributing it to the universe.

I see in Heath a mid-paced player (no slower than ROK, for instance) who has shown genuine improvement this year (if you have only half an hour to spare, check out the 2nd quarter against the Blues - he was probably our best player), but who is still inconsistent and appears to lack the confidence to impose himself fully on matches. Also needs to do a lot of work on his game when the ball hits the deck.

He didn't have a good game last weekend but few of his team mates did. There are three or four I'd be dropping before even giving thought to Grundy's place.

Hear hear Liz, if there's one thing that really annoys me, it is when people make "God almighty" statements as was the case in the post you were challenging. Just because one person thinks it, doesn't mean everyone sees it the same way. Grundy is just another player in the LRT/Bevan/Davis mold that polarises people. But some people can't accept that we all see it differently.

[AnnieH]

Reg won mark of the year for Round 9.

[Hartijon]

"if there's one thing that really annoys me, it is when people make "God almighty" statements as was the case in the post you were challenging. "

Humblest apologies to you, the Universe and God as well as any other deity I may have upset. I should have said "Roos obviously sees something that a few of us are unable to see in him" or words to that effect.I will be seriously careful in the future now I have been reminded of the sensitivity of making blanket sweeping statements.

[goswannie14]

"if there's one thing that really annoys me, it is when people make "God almighty" statements as was the case in the post you were challenging. "

Humblest apologies to you, the Universe and God as well as any other deity I may have upset. I should have said "Roos obviously sees something that a few of us are unable to see in him" or words to that effect.I will be seriously careful in the future now I have been reminded of the sensitivity of making blanket sweeping statements.

It's not sensitivity, it's common sense, how can you say "everyone" without canvassing everyone to see if that is their opinion too?

I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion, just that you can't say that everyone agrees with you when they clearly don't even from just reading this thread.