Not the player he was at the Pies. The way the game has changed hasn't helped his fortunes either. Need a cool head under the current game plan and H doesn't offer this in my opinion. Gets caught or turns over the pill with poor disposal.

Agree with others that don't think he has the mental fortitude to challenge for a spot in the 22.

 

48 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Not the player he was at the Pies. The way the game has changed hasn't helped his fortunes either. Need a cool head under the current game plan and H doesn't offer this in my opinion. Gets caught or turns over the pill with poor disposal.

Agree with others that don't think he has the mental fortitude to challenge for a spot in the 22.

 

You don't think the play on at all cost (or F.E.A.R) game plan suits (an in-form) Lumumba?

 

7 minutes ago, stuie said:

You don't think the play on at all cost (or F.E.A.R) game plan suits (an in-form) Lumumba?

 

Not anymore, for the reasons I stated.

3 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Not anymore, for the reasons I stated.

Disagree a fair bit on that then McQueen.

An in-form Lumumba absolutely suits our current game plan given it's all about "forget everything and run", especially from the backline. Now that everyone has bought into that style I could see his fortunes totally changing given he will now have players running with him rather than standing around flat footed. I wouldn't say any of Hunt, the Macs, Harmes, Frost and even Bernie (on occasions this year) were miles ahead of Lumumba in terms of being caught while playing on this season, and that's with more collective rebounding run. It's just part of how we play now and should improve next year as it becomes more natural and instinctual. I think it can be a little unfair to go too hard with criticizing the one backline player who bought in to the new game style when he had little to no support. I believe that's why he was selected every week under Roos, as he has always talked about players knowing their role and doing what they're told to.

Now I'm not saying Lumumba will be great next year, but should he re-find some touch and form I would expect him to be in our "best 28", but it's a real line in the sand season for him, he'll either get it together and be in that group or it will be the end of his career.

 

40 minutes ago, stuie said:

Disagree a fair bit on that then McQueen.

An in-form Lumumba absolutely suits our current game plan given it's all about "forget everything and run", especially from the backline. Now that everyone has bought into that style I could see his fortunes totally changing given he will now have players running with him rather than standing around flat footed. I wouldn't say any of Hunt, the Macs, Harmes, Frost and even Bernie (on occasions this year) were miles ahead of Lumumba in terms of being caught while playing on this season, and that's with more collective rebounding run. It's just part of how we play now and should improve next year as it becomes more natural and instinctual. I think it can be a little unfair to go too hard with criticizing the one backline player who bought in to the new game style when he had little to no support. I believe that's why he was selected every week under Roos, as he has always talked about players knowing their role and doing what they're told to.

Now I'm not saying Lumumba will be great next year, but should he re-find some touch and form I would expect him to be in our "best 28", but it's a real line in the sand season for him, he'll either get it together and be in that group or it will be the end of his career.

 

In the giddy new spirit of Demondland congeniality I find myself compelled to agree with your post Stu, particularly the last paragraph. (compliment) 

It is a make or break year for H and I reckon no one knows it more than him. I hope he still has a valuable role to play. 

Goodwin is building his team for the future and will want about 30 players ready to put their hand up each week. If, for whatever reason, any one player cannot get on the park regularly enough, they'll get overtaken by our hungry youth. 

21 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

In the giddy new spirit of Demondland congeniality I find myself compelled to agree with your post Stu, particularly the last paragraph. (compliment) 

It is a make or break year for H and I reckon no one knows it more than him. I hope he still has a valuable role to play. 

Goodwin is building his team for the future and will want about 30 players ready to put their hand up each week. If, for whatever reason, any one player cannot get on the park regularly enough, they'll get overtaken by our hungry youth. 

Onya Moonie

It's probably partly a nod to our improving depth, but I'm not that worried about a "best 22" anymore. We have that key group of 25-30 players and that's what it's about now for me. Increasingly, players like Lumumba, Vince and in the future maybe even our beloved Chunk will begin to find themselves as depth rather than features.

I'm one that has probably got sucked into the mentality in the past of having a "star" and it's dominated my thinking recruiting wise, but this depth we've now built is far more exciting and will prove far more successful.

 

On 11/14/2016 at 3:28 PM, stuie said:

Disagree a fair bit on that then McQueen.

An in-form Lumumba absolutely suits our current game plan given it's all about "forget everything and run", especially from the backline. Now that everyone has bought into that style I could see his fortunes totally changing given he will now have players running with him rather than standing around flat footed. I wouldn't say any of Hunt, the Macs, Harmes, Frost and even Bernie (on occasions this year) were miles ahead of Lumumba in terms of being caught while playing on this season, and that's with more collective rebounding run. It's just part of how we play now and should improve next year as it becomes more natural and instinctual. I think it can be a little unfair to go too hard with criticizing the one backline player who bought in to the new game style when he had little to no support. I believe that's why he was selected every week under Roos, as he has always talked about players knowing their role and doing what they're told to.

Now I'm not saying Lumumba will be great next year, but should he re-find some touch and form I would expect him to be in our "best 28", but it's a real line in the sand season for him, he'll either get it together and be in that group or it will be the end of his career.

 

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-21/delayed-preseason-for-lumumba-as-concussion-lingers

Bold is firming.

I suspect, but don't know for sure, that any announcement on his future will be made after 30 Nov. From memory that date is when contracts can be paid out at half rate, rather than having to carry the full amount for the next season or those beyond. I've thought that for a while, he'll wait until after then to retire and a payout can be negotiated that benefits the club.  

5 minutes ago, Red and Blue realist said:

I suspect, but don't know for sure, that any announcement on his future will be made after 30 Nov. From memory that date is when contracts can be paid out at half rate, rather than having to carry the full amount for the next season or those beyond. I've thought that for a while, he'll wait until after then to retire and a payout can be negotiated that benefits the club.  

So why not negotiate a 50% deal now and use the draft spot?

Hard to judge Harry's position given there's little to go on, directly, but indirectly if you cast around as to how the clubs filling the list I cant see they are desperate for HL to get back.

What we know.1) Harry isnt on track nor likely in the near future

What we know 2)  We have a fair few halfway handy players who could fill a half back role.

 

2+2=

 

1 minute ago, beelzebub said:

Hard to judge Harry's position given there's little to go on, directly, but indirectly if you cast around as to how the clubs filling the list I cant see they are desperate for HL to get back.

What we know.1) Harry isnt on track nor likely in the near future

What we know 2)  We have a fair few halfway handy players who could fill a half back role.

 

2+2=

 

DCM!

39 minutes ago, old dee said:

So why not negotiate a 50% deal now and use the draft spot?

Not sure if that's allowed under the cap, from memory (so I could be wrong) if a player retires due to 'injury/illness' then for that season only 50% of the salary is counted. Whereas if he just retired then we'd have to count the full amount under the salary cap, even if we did negotiate a 50% payout. 

2 minutes ago, Red and Blue realist said:

Not sure if that's allowed under the cap, from memory (so I could be wrong) if a player retires due to 'injury/illness' then for that season only 50% of the salary is counted. Whereas if he just retired then we'd have to count the full amount under the salary cap, even if we did negotiate a 50% payout. 

Strange rule if true R and B.

Even if correct then lets pay him out and use the draft spot or are we that close to the cap that we cannot afford it?

54 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

2+2=

 

Damn you  - I didn't know that maths problems were a prerequisite to coming onto Demonland....

10 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Damn you  - I didn't know that maths problems were a prerequisite to coming onto Demonland....

You learn something new everyday nutbean.

However we must be flying close to the "derailing a thread " line!

22 minutes ago, old dee said:

Strange rule if true R and B.

Even if correct then lets pay him out and use the draft spot or are we that close to the cap that we cannot afford it?

Would think they might want the cash going forward? If H is on as much as being reported then that might help retain a younger guy or upgrade a rookie towards the end of the year? 

1 minute ago, old dee said:

You learn something new everyday nutbean.

However we must be flying close to the "derailing a thread " line!

no no - segwaying is acceptable...

derailing  - is when i call you an old codger and you call me a know nothing who can't add 2+2.

Not sure what information he still needs after 6 months of medical checkups and advise. 

I have a feeling he hasn't received a satisfactory answer regarding his future health. 

Unfortunately there might not be a concrete answer relating to concussion.

If he isn't satisfied about his future health then he needs to step aside and retire. 

His health is paramount and if he feels that's in jeopardy then that's all that matters. 

10 minutes ago, bandicoot said:

Not sure what information he still needs after 6 months of medical checkups and advise. 

I have a feeling he hasn't received a satisfactory answer regarding his future health. 

Unfortunately there might not be a concrete answer relating to concussion.

If he isn't satisfied about his future health then he needs to step aside and retire. 

His health is paramount and if he feels that's in jeopardy then that's all that matters. 

Except the money

Talk of rushing some retirement decision to free a list spot is unwarranted.  We'd free up pick 80-something in the ND. we'd likely get the same player in the RD if we want them.

5 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Talk of rushing some retirement decision to free a list spot is unwarranted.  We'd free up pick 80-something in the ND. we'd likely get the same player in the RD if we want them.

Good point fifty-5

11 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Talk of rushing some retirement decision to free a list spot is unwarranted.  We'd free up pick 80-something in the ND. we'd likely get the same player in the RD if we want them.

Not really mate.  They could have signed a free agent like Henderson if the head case had retired a few months back.  Not too much wrong with bringing in another vandenBerg type either.

10 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Talk of rushing some retirement decision to free a list spot is unwarranted.  We'd free up pick 80-something in the ND. we'd likely get the same player in the RD if we want them.

Or get a good young kid like Jake Barrett?

 

Just now, Vogon Poetry said:

Or get a good young kid like Jake Barrett?

 

What's in a name?

15 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

What's in a name?

You don't like Barrett?