Changes for Rnd 3 v Port Power
Collapse
X
-
"Fortunately, this is the internet, so knowing nothing is no obstacle to having an opinion!." Beerman 18-07-2017Comment
-
But after seeing the game tonight he was no where near as bad as I expected, but obviously not sensational. Dropping him would be ludicrous.Comment
-
I'm also very confused by those who thought he had a bad game. Thought his first half in particular was terrific. Maybe it's one of those "on TV versus at the ground" problems. What you don't see on TV is the marshalling, directing, instructions and encouragement he delivers through the entire game, often just at the edge of play. Just as a captain should.Comment
-
This is a very confusing thread - the only logical change seems Mumford for Seaby barring injuries. Assume Hanners was only sub to control his game time after being rusty last week ... Seemed to shake off some cobwebs and looked back to normal! Can't see anyone other dramatic changes - A few people were quiet but in that kind of win, everyone played their part.up the gutsComment
-
Please John NOOOOOOOOOOOO.....
So glad you said this, I thought I must have gotten sun stroke because I thought he was pretty good.Comment
-
Npthing wrong with McVeigh's game. 23 disposals, fifth highest in DT points, one great goal on the run.
Didn't have a problem with the Fox commentary team either - Huddo, Dunstall and Roos called it pretty well.
Next week I'll be on the alert for points of dissatisfaction.The man who laughs has not yet heard the terrible newsComment
-
Agreed McVeigh was nowhere near our worst. While it is true he appears to have the hitting power of a soggy meringue, that's what's to be expected of an outside mid.Comment
-
Jesse was a senior emergency and didn't play in the magoos, Hanners was the sub. It's not abnormal for guys in those roles to clock a heap of laps at the end of the game.I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his timeComment
-
I agree I don't think he was that bad but I thought he misjudged a couple of contests that made it look as though he was pulling out. It wasn't pulling out as if you watch the sun he just gets lost looking for the ball. What he should have done was connect with the body of the Freo player in each case and that would have been fine, it would have made a contest of it. He was ok as far as I could see did a couple of really good things and delivery a lot better than some of his mates.Comment
-
Driver of the Dan Hannebery bandwagon....all aboard. 4th April 09Comment
-
Unlike most of the recruits we get who only have junior experience Jordan Lockyer has had a year of WAFL experience. That is the equivalent of VFL standard. He is not a green recruit like many of the others he has been blooded with the big guys. He would have played against most of the guys playing for Freo Saturday and the guys playing for the Eagles at some stage or another. So don't treat him as a junior who has only played at junior level. He may need a few more games but I like the way he moves and think in time he will fit nicely. But if fit I don't see a problem throwing him into the mix against Port after all it is Port not exactly the Cats!Comment
Comment