Possible retirements

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Dirtyburt
    Suspended by the MRP
    • Apr 2012
    • 853

    #31
    Originally posted by wolftone57
    Matt Cameron's injury report last week he said Bolts doesn't train until the last training session before the game. Look they are all over thirty two including Shaw and even he is finding it harder to recover from injury. Until recently his performances haven't exactly been riveting. A new broom sweeps clean and let's have a clean out! Let's face it they are all close to done in that they have all had good careers and it is time to go before being pushed! Shaw's delivery is unpredictable at best and he hasn't until his last couple of games exactly been a prime mover for us. His last performances have been good but he sometimes has brain fades and just stuffs up. I am amazed that the stats say he is averaging 70% efficiency. In the games I have seen he is lucky to be 40-50%.
    NFI, pure and simple.

    Comment

    • bandwagon
      Regular in the Side
      • May 2003
      • 531

      #32
      In defence of Wolfie, it is perfectly reasonable to say all of these players are only one injury from retirement. I am astonished that Bolton has got to 300 playing the way he does. And veterans have been known to start a season well but put the cue in the rack by September.
      However the club seems to have the succession planning in hand. Jude= Parker/Mitchell; Shaw= Armstrong; ROK= ?

      Comment

      • DamY
        Senior Player
        • Sep 2011
        • 1479

        #33
        Well ROK, Jude and Shaw aren't spring chickens, and wolftone is right, barring the last two performances Shaw was pretty uninspiring, ROK had a very quiet start and Jude plays a hard-hitting style of footy that is surely taxing on his body. ROK still has a few years to go on his contract, and Jude does need to really look after himself. I agree these guys have definitely lifted but there needs to be a succession plan (and I'm sure there is) and hopefully it'll be phased in over time for consistency. This is no disrespect to their contributions or a baby and the bath water situation, just noting that they are in the twilight of their career and good organisations plan ahead.

        Comment

        • wolftone57
          Veterans List
          • Aug 2008
          • 5857

          #34
          Originally posted by bandwagon
          In defence of Wolfie, it is perfectly reasonable to say all of these players are only one injury from retirement. I am astonished that Bolton has got to 300 playing the way he does. And veterans have been known to start a season well but put the cue in the rack by September.
          However the club seems to have the succession planning in hand. Jude= Parker/Mitchell; Shaw= Armstrong; ROK= ?
          ROK=Morton, Nipper. By the way there is Biggs (in the best of the Two's constantly), Brown (1 game and already impressing), Lockyer (I love his poise) and the list goes on!

          Comment

          • wolftone57
            Veterans List
            • Aug 2008
            • 5857

            #35
            Matt Spangher will also come into the 22 when they believe he is ready.

            I have a little giggle when people start bringing up Fletcher! Fletcher, like Michael Tuck (AFL Games record holder) is an enigma. Thirty is seen as the 65, or retirement age, of AFL footy always has been. Mainly because the pressures of AFL have normally taken their toll on family and body by that time and players hang up the boots. We have a few players over that age who while still playing well do find it harder to front up every week. Bolts, for instance, is one of those players who put heart and soul into everything they do. His body takes a pounding and if you don't agree you are naive at the least. ROK took ages to find the pace after being injured and was swung into defence as a loosie a few times because he was not getting it. Rhyce may have shut down a few players as someone put it but until recently his output the other way was ordinary. He in his heyday would have come back from injury and got plenty of the Sherrin. All I am saying is lets be honest about this, their time is limited. There is a succession plan and it is in the process of being implemented.

            Parker & Mitchell = Bolton
            Armstrong & Brown = Shaw
            Nipper, Morton & TDL = ROK

            There is also a plan for when Teddy gets near too and if you watch the resies you might see it unfolding. LRT is also getting on and will probably play on for only one year too.

            Spangher, White & New Draft Ruck = LRT

            Comment

            • Cardinal
              Regular in the Side
              • Sep 2008
              • 932

              #36
              Shaw is in all Australian form. Unless he chucks a Brian Lake times three by the end of the season he will be playing next year.

              Comment

              • Beerman
                Regular in the Side
                • Oct 2010
                • 823

                #37
                The players mentioned (O'Keefe, Bolton and Shaw) have all shown enough form this year and over their careers that the club should offer them another year if they want it. Particularly Bolton and O'Keefe (O'Keefe was pretty good about re-signing with the Swans when he couldn't get a deal to go to a Melbourne-based club). I'm not saying we should put them on a 5-year contract, but a year-by-year basis is not unreasonable.

                If they do re-sign, they shouldn't be guaranteed a game though. Particularly if they are carrying an injury or are out of form, they should expect that they can be dropped.

                I think it's going to come down to how the players want to end their careers. If they want to go out when they are playing good football then their current contract might be their last. If they are prepared to take the risk of ending their careers on a patchier note (think Leo Barry, or Brad Johnson at the bulldogs), then another year or two could be on the cards.

                I would find it a tough call, I think. Pride says go out on top, but if you love the game, then sticking around in the hope of playing even a game or two here or there might be worth it.

                Comment

                • Doctor J.
                  Senior Player
                  • Feb 2003
                  • 1310

                  #38
                  Originally posted by wolftone57
                  Matt Cameron's injury report last week he said Bolts doesn't train until the last training session before the game. Look they are all over thirty two including Shaw and even he is finding it harder to recover from injury. Until recently his performances haven't exactly been riveting. A new broom sweeps clean and let's have a clean out! Let's face it they are all close to done in that they have all had good careers and it is time to go before being pushed! Shaw's delivery is unpredictable at best and he hasn't until his last couple of games exactly been a prime mover for us. His last performances have been good but he sometimes has brain fades and just stuffs up. I am amazed that the stats say he is averaging 70% efficiency. In the games I have seen he is lucky to be 40-50%.
                  Care to give the rest on RWO a look at those stat sheets you've been keeping, or is this just a case of plucking a number from anywhere and making it sound like fact?

                  Comment

                  • 4 the Bloods
                    On the Rookie List
                    • May 2011
                    • 26

                    #39
                    [QUOTE=wolftone57;576436]Well there has been a lot of talk about who will go around again but I think you have to bite the bullet. Even though a few of our veterans are playing like youngsters they are finding it very hard to get up every week. Bolts is always in doubt unless he is able to train in the last training session before the match. QUOTE]

                    Bolts got a career high 42 touches two weeks ago and is averaging >21 for the year plus a goal a game and 5 tackles. I say whatever he is doing let him keep doing it!

                    Comment

                    • wolftone57
                      Veterans List
                      • Aug 2008
                      • 5857

                      #40
                      Originally posted by Doctor J.
                      Care to give the rest on RWO a look at those stat sheets you've been keeping, or is this just a case of plucking a number from anywhere and making it sound like fact?
                      Just observation. I was trying to make a point that I didn't agree with the official stats that have Parker's Disposal Efficiency as far lower than Shaw's. I don't see that when I watch a game. Parker's delivery is far better than Rhyce's! Rhyce will bomb the ball a lot and obviously that is called an efficient disposal even if we don't get the ball as it hits a pack with our players in it. That to me is not efficiency. Those disposals should be given a mark on whether the ball is set to our advantage or not.

                      Comment

                      • aardvark
                        Veterans List
                        • Mar 2010
                        • 5685

                        #41
                        Originally posted by wolftone57
                        Just observation. I was trying to make a point that I didn't agree with the official stats that have Parker's Disposal Efficiency as far lower than Shaw's. I don't see that when I watch a game. Parker's delivery is far better than Rhyce's! Rhyce will bomb the ball a lot and obviously that is called an efficient disposal even if we don't get the ball as it hits a pack with our players in it. That to me is not efficiency. Those disposals should be given a mark on whether the ball is set to our advantage or not.
                        Lets just tell the truth Wolfie, you really don't like Shaw very much do you? Now was that so hard?

                        Comment

                        • GongSwan
                          Senior Player
                          • Jan 2009
                          • 1362

                          #42
                          Originally posted by wolftone57
                          Just observation. I was trying to make a point that I didn't agree with the official stats that have Parker's Disposal Efficiency as far lower than Shaw's. I don't see that when I watch a game. Parker's delivery is far better than Rhyce's! Rhyce will bomb the ball a lot and obviously that is called an efficient disposal even if we don't get the ball as it hits a pack with our players in it. That to me is not efficiency. Those disposals should be given a mark on whether the ball is set to our advantage or not.
                          A lot of Parkers stats would be those quick kicks out of a pack of players that can go anywhere, whereas Rhyce is used off hb and is often kicking in space to a shorter target,why wouldn't his efficiency be better?
                          You can't argue with a sick mind - Joe Walsh

                          Comment

                          • jono2707
                            Goes up to 11
                            • Oct 2007
                            • 3326

                            #43
                            Jude and ROK are hugely important and will continue to be so for the next season and a half at a minimum. These are the sorts of players needed to help bring the next generation of stars through. Whilst they are fit enough, they stay.

                            Oh, Rhyce stays too - simple.

                            Comment

                            • goswannies
                              Senior Player
                              • Sep 2007
                              • 3051

                              #44
                              Originally posted by Nico
                              Bolton was quoted recently that his body was good and expected to play next year.
                              Tadhg said the same thing and was retired within 6 months

                              Comment

                              • stellation
                                scott names the planets
                                • Sep 2003
                                • 9720

                                #45
                                Originally posted by goswannies
                                Tadhg said the same thing and was retired within 6 months

                                http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/n...8/default.aspx
                                Tadhg's body had clearly given up the ghost, though. I don't see the same thing with Jude (somehow, god only knows how!).
                                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 time

                                Comment

                                Working...