I don't see why Garland would be named if he's not fit. Doesn't make sense to me. If he needs another run at Casey he shouldn't have been picked.

If Dunn plays we may as well give up.

I want to see Bennell, Bartram, Garland and Gysberts.

I don't see why Garland would be named if he's not fit. Doesn't make sense to me. If he needs another run at Casey he shouldn't have been picked.

If Dunn plays we may as well give up.

I want to see Bennell, Bartram, Garland and Gysberts.

what is this thing with Bennell the guy has produced so little and yet you cling to him like he was the next Judd.

Week in week out he shows how ordinary he is, what is his claim to fame.

i am buggered if i can see it.

I don't see why Garland would be named if he's not fit. Doesn't make sense to me. If he needs another run at Casey he shouldn't have been picked.

If Dunn plays we may as well give up.

I want to see Bennell, Bartram, Garland and Gysberts.

Good point.

No use playing ducks & drakes and it's not like he's waiting on a fitness test, because he played last week obviously.

I'd be happy with your bench.

I agree that I don't want to see Dunn.

Edited June 16, 201114 yr by Artie Bucco

what is this thing with Bennell the guy has produced so little and yet you cling to him like he was the next Judd.

Week in week out he shows how ordinary he is, what is his claim to fame.

i am buggered if i can see it.

Clearly the problem is yours, old dee.

Not everyone sees it, but enough do.

And so do those in control.

Clearly the problem is yours, old dee.

Not everyone sees it, but enough do.

And so do those in control.

AB I am serious when was the last game you would put him in your top 6 players?

I really don't think Garland is ready to come in.

He seemed pretty rusty last week.

I find it offensive that you're connecting a player not quite right with my name. In future i would ask you to consider this before using it so loosely!

B)

I find it offensive that you're connecting a player not quite right with my name. In future i would ask you to consider this before using it so loosely!

B)

Oh RN good to see someone still has their sense of humour still working

I can't remember ever having rated Bennell in my top 6 players.

It doesn't mean he can't still perform a role, and gain experience.

JB possesses exceptional speed and agility, "x-factor" and good skills (sometimes).

He's learning the game still, and learning the roles he has been earmarked for.

Don't forget that he was drafted the same year as Blease (hasn't played), Strauss (4 games) and Watts (showing great improvement, but he was pick 1, not pick 35).

Who else in the team possesses the same qualities?

Personally, I see him as being a lot like Harbrow, except we should be able to also throw him forward or on a wing.

I can't remember ever having rated Bennell in my top 6 players.

It doesn't mean he can't still perform a role, and gain experience.

JB possesses exceptional speed and agility, "x-factor" and good skills (sometimes).

He's learning the game still, and learning the roles he has been earmarked for.

Don't forget that he was drafted the same year as Blease (hasn't played), Strauss (4 games) and Watts (showing great improvement, but he was pick 1, not pick 35).

Who else in the team possesses the same qualities?

Personally, I see him as being a lot like Harbrow, except we should be able to also throw him forward or on a wing.

I am pleased you have faith but I don't.

Not sure you can use Blease and Strauss to justify Bennell's selection.

Both have had very serious injuries and have really only started their push this year.

However Everyone is entitled to their opinion just list me among the doubters

I am pleased you have faith but I don't.

Not sure you can use Blease and Strauss to justify Bennell's selection.

Both have had very serious injuries and have really only started their push this year.

However Everyone is entitled to their opinion just list me among the doubters

Artie hasn't used Blease and Strauss to justify Bennell's selection.

However Everyone is entitled to their opinion just list me among the doubters

Which you mention every week he is selected...

Which you mention every week he is selected...

And so far I am seldom proved wrong.

Dee-luded I agree with your comments on Bennell however not sure why you want him in at all.

The guy was the sub vs north came on when everyone else had played half a game.

Nett result no impact!

Well, I think the sub: would be either Bennell, Dunn, or garland as they need to be very versatile with run... I think we need both contested footy around the stoppages and also we need defensive forward pressure and Garland is still a litle underdunn, so i think we need the forward pressure more than we need an underdunn Garland just yet.

So I have bennell out but available to give late runs. He played well against the bombres but crap last week.

Well, I think the sub: would be either Bennell, Dunn, or garland as they need to be very versatile with run... I think we need both contested footy around the stoppages and also we need defensive forward pressure and Garland is still a litle underdunn, so i think we need the forward pressure more than we need an underdunn Garland just yet.

So I have bennell out but available to give late runs. He played well against the bombres but crap last week.

Well we will see I guess.

Edited June 16, 201114 yr by old dee

Well we will see I guess.

The other one was Gys, I think they were disappointed with Gys, so I could see how the Outs with either Gys or Jurrah or both, could work with our Ins... I'd prefer to keep Gys in, and drop Jurrah with his calf for a week or 2, till Darwin.

And so far I am seldom proved wrong.

Depends.

The football dept could easily be asking very different things of him, and expecting very different output from him compared to what you would like to see from him.

(Here's a hint: they are.)

AB I am serious when was the last game you would put him in your top 6 players?

And here I was thinking there were 22 players in a side.

The other one was Gys, I think they were disappointed with Gys, so I could see how the Outs with either Gys or Jurrah or both, could work with our Ins... I'd prefer to keep Gys in, and drop Jurrah with his calf for a week or 2, till Darwin.

Who wasn't disappointed with the Gys? He hardly got near it against Collingwood - but this boils down to the fact that the kid's played 12 matches and I reckon still has another 5 kilos to be added to his skinny frame. IMO there's nothing to be gained by dropping him from the side, I think we should be using this opportunity ("development year") to play our future Big 4 midfielders (you all know who I mean) in the same side together and rack up the games count as fast as physically possible.

I think that for each match we leave Gysberts out, we're putting him one game further away from really hitting his straps.

I think the 22 will line up

Bartram Frawley Garland

Strauss Rivers MacDonald

Scully Moloney Trengove

Petterd Watts Howe

Bennell Jurrah Green

Martin McKenzie Sylvia

Gawn Morton Jones

Sub Gysberts

Toss up between Garland and Nicholson, I think we will go with Garland. Bennell is very lucky but we need that small forwrad pressure, last week we went in wit Watts, Gawn and the rest are more mid size forwards that offered little forward pressure. I like the back line it looks a strong defensive group, we need to hope Frawley can hit targets this week. Put our hard players in the middle to start, Moloney, Sylvia and McKenzie need to work hard to win early clearances.

Depends.

The football dept could easily be asking very different things of him, and expecting very different output from him compared to what you would like to see from him.

(Here's a hint: they are.)

Then their plan of having him run around packs waiting for the ball, getting modest disposals

and having little impact on the game is working a treat.

I must congratulate them.

Bennel or Petterd will be the sub I think. Both i think are suited to the role. I ike the idea of Garlan in the side and wouldn't mind him up forward for a bit. Glad Ballantyne is out could have seen him be a nightmare for us!

Who wasn't disappointed with the Gys? He hardly got near it against Collingwood - but this boils down to the fact that the kid's played 12 matches and I reckon still has another 5 kilos to be added to his skinny frame. IMO there's nothing to be gained by dropping him from the side, I think we should be using this opportunity ("development year") to play our future Big 4 midfielders (you all know who I mean) in the same side together and rack up the games count as fast as physically possible.

I think that for each match we leave Gysberts out, we're putting him one game further away from really hitting his straps.

Agree.

Gysberts has shown he is far too good to be playing at Casey.

He'll only improve by playing against the best, and by putting on more weight (about 8kg imo).

Who wasn't disappointed with the Gys? He hardly got near it against Collingwood - but this boils down to the fact that the kid's played 12 matches and I reckon still has another 5 kilos to be added to his skinny frame. IMO there's nothing to be gained by dropping him from the side, I think we should be using this opportunity ("development year") to play our future Big 4 midfielders (you all know who I mean) in the same side together and rack up the games count as fast as physically possible.

I think that for each match we leave Gysberts out, we're putting him one game further away from really hitting his straps.

Oh, don't mosunderstand a simple comment re selection.. I have hopes that gys will be a super star. But he's not yet, and I think selection works best when players lose the places occaisionally if they haven't done whats required. Then they have to earn their spot back. The selectors have started to do this recently with Both Bennell & Morton to varying degrees of success, but it does seem o be working.

Gys may or mightnot get dropped, neither here notr there really in the bigger picture.

But in trying to analyze what the selectors are planning, it's just interesting... I'm a big fan of dropping players who don't put the body into contested situations.

Gys has been beaten, but I don't think it's an attitudinal problem.

Dropping him to Casey wouldn't achieve anything.

Gys has been beaten, but I don't think it's an attitudinal problem.

Dropping him to Casey wouldn't achieve anything.

My post re his position in the selected side was not a judgement from my part to suggest that he should or shouldn't be dropped...

I was trying to analyze what the selectors may do, by looking art the Ins and working backwards to see what may happen. So don't take it as a put down of Gysberts, because If you are, then your wrong.