Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

i look at the big picture. September is a new Competition 

Warner’s form today is irrelevant now as to what it was. it has nothing to do with different sports. it’s pure psychology. he is completely shot batting at Test Level.

Getting back on topic, i reiterate I hope Tomlinson can redeem himself next weekend

”One is only as good as your last performance”

 i believe that statement to be correct, maybe you don’t  

 

No completely agree, I was furious with the club that Gawn got another game after round 1 this year, Oliver got another game after round 10, that we ever rookied Jetta after his first few years. 

I know you see the bigger picture SWYL, but only based on their last performance??

On 9/15/2019 at 11:52 AM, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

My view of Tomlinson hasn't changed after last night's match.  He has been put completely through the wringer in the last few week so it's understandable that he was far from his best last night.  He'll be a good addition to the team; not a saviour, but a good, solid, classy contributor.

If you don't mind me asking, in way 39?

11 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

If you don't mind me asking, in way 39?

I was referring to being dropped for the first final after playing every game, seeing that he was not a re-signing priority of the Giants and making the the decision to leave the club he's been at for 8 seasons.  Tomlinson as a founding player, has played the fifth most games of any GWS player.  It's been a big part of his life and to be leaving would have to have some effect.

I sincerely hope our FD has more foresight than Demonland.

If we're recruiting a player based on observations of performance and not based on a strategy or need.... well I give up.

43 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

I sincerely hope our FD has more foresight than Demonland.

If we're recruiting a player based on observations of performance and not based on a strategy or need.... well I give up.

UH  I think what has confused a lot of people who have never taken any notice of Tomlinson before last weeks game was seeing him used as a ruckman. We have an acknowledged  need for outside run and we target this bloke. I do not see the strategy. He does not look overly quick or play with the precision we are so desperate for..

3 hours ago, ben russell said:

Tomlinson played just 56% of the game on the weekend. Difficult to have an impact with such low time on ground.

I think it was a bit more the other way around. He was giving them nothing from a wing so they didn't want him taking up a spot on the ground.

For a 'fit' player who runs all day, it is telling that they didn't utilise one of his 'strengths'.

 

51 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

I sincerely hope our FD has more foresight than Demonland.

If we're recruiting a player based on observations of performance and not based on a strategy or need.... well I give up.

Well this is where Roosy has it right and our recruitment department seems to have got it very wrong and I disagree with a lot of what he says.

They are recruiting him to fill a need (outside run/wing), the problem is, he is not the player they think he is.

 

2 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

Talk about contradicting yourself! 

In one post you're saying a club is defined by its past and now you're saying "one is only as good as your last performance"! 

Neither are true.  Have a think about it ...

you are not separating player and club

They are different parts. Connected, but also separate 

Not contradicting at all. The Players come and go, whilst the Club gets older with a longer history. Players are part of the history, but transient

46 minutes ago, Watts the matter said:

Well this is where Roosy has it right and our recruitment department seems to have got it very wrong and I disagree with a lot of what he says.

They are recruiting him to fill a need (outside run/wing), the problem is, he is not the player they think he is.

 

How did you think roos went with recruiting when he was coach?

2 hours ago, Unleash Hell said:

I sincerely hope our FD has more foresight than Demonland.

If we're recruiting a player based on observations of performance and not based on a strategy or need.... well I give up.

Not sure you've worded this too well 'Unleash', but if we're not recruiting based on observed performances than we are truly screwed...

1 hour ago, Watts the matter said:

I think it was a bit more the other way around. He was giving them nothing from a wing so they didn't want him taking up a spot on the ground.

For a 'fit' player who runs all day, it is telling that they didn't utilise one of his 'strengths'.

 

Both teams were content to bomb the ball up and down the line, if you look at the heat maps there's almost no switching or corridor play. And with multiple talls at either end it's not like he was going to be an aerial presence. He was really the 22nd player used to fill some ruck time, a little bit at half forward (which isn't his go) and some wing time.

It wasn't a good performance but I thought he did ok in the ruck (at least compared with Mumford) forcing the Brisbane rucks to hit to predictable areas and I noticed a few times that he does keep his space well at stoppages which is another key part to the wing role.

All comes down to the what the contract is. If we're paying him valuable money it might turn in to a waste, if he's on a pretty standard contract then it might prove to be money well spent for a good character/no fuss type player.

7 minutes ago, rjay said:

Not sure you've worded this too well 'Unleash', but if we're not recruiting based on observed performances than we are truly screwed...

True. But there is more to team performance than pure stats and what u see on tv.

You're right it's hard to explain without writing an essay but i believe we have to trust these people to know there is a need and recruit accordingly.

I look at clubs like te cats and hawks who seem to get it right. I know there are a lot of factors involved like restrictions in player movement  (eg players refusing to go to some clubs) but you'd hope there is an actual strategy to recruiting players.

 

I believe that Tomlinson will be a demon next season. I am 97% certain that it is over the line.

1 hour ago, Sorry kids said:

UH  I think what has confused a lot of people who have never taken any notice of Tomlinson before last weeks game was seeing him used as a ruckman. We have an acknowledged  need for outside run and we target this bloke. I do not see the strategy. He does not look overly quick or play with the precision we are so desperate for..

I agree with the top but i think you're making assumptions with the end.

Not saying your wrong but theres no point speculating (i cbf anyway) until he's signed and explained why by the FD

Edited September 16, 20195 yr by Unleash Hell

3 minutes ago, CHF said:

I believe that Tomlinson will be a demon next season. I am 97% certain that it is over the line.

Any word on Langdon or anyone else.

Personally I'd like Langdon as first preference 

4 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

Any word on Langdon or anyone else.

Personally I'd like Langdon as first preference 

I think Langdon will be at the club as well. It is dependent upon what is accepted as a trade. 

So just reviewing the last few pages of this thread  based on Semi final 2019 performances only  some would have no interest in Blicavzs, Barass, Mcgovern, Neale, Cripps, Andrews.

FCS

5 hours ago, binman said:

How did you think roos went with recruiting when he was coach?

Average at best, Vince, Garlett and Cross were good pickups for where we were at. 

Frost an adequate trade.

Tyson/Salem deal is a fail.

Howe trade a disaster (compounded by what we gave up for Lever once he left).

Letting Dunn go was poor.

Had a bunch of poor fringe players from other teams come in and not make it (Riley, Michie, Kennedy etc.)

He is stubborn and I often disagree with his opinions on the best players in the comp (constantly putting players like Fyfe and Martin down and pumping up Whitfield and Yeo etc.)

He pumps Salem up at every opportunity. 

But just listening to his commentary on opposition players, I normally don't find myself agreeing with him, do on this occasion with Tomlinson though.

 

The way some posters post on this site  you'd think nobody would be good enough to play for melbournefc. Probably dangerfield or paddy cripps wouldn't be good enough.

8 minutes ago, Ugottobekidding said:

The way some posters post on this site  you'd think nobody would be good enough to play for melbournefc. Probably dangerfield or paddy cripps wouldn't be good enough.

Unless it's an A+ Grader, some on here don't want to have a bar of it. That's despite the fact that a genuine A grader only moves clubs once ever few years, and always to a larger franchise club.

6 hours ago, Watts the matter said:

Average at best, Vince, Garlett and Cross were good pickups for where we were at. 

Frost an adequate trade.

Tyson/Salem deal is a fail.

Howe trade a disaster (compounded by what we gave up for Lever once he left).

Letting Dunn go was poor.

Had a bunch of poor fringe players from other teams come in and not make it (Riley, Michie, Kennedy etc.)

He is stubborn and I often disagree with his opinions on the best players in the comp (constantly putting players like Fyfe and Martin down and pumping up Whitfield and Yeo etc.)

He pumps Salem up at every opportunity. 

But just listening to his commentary on opposition players, I normally don't find myself agreeing with him, do on this occasion with Tomlinson though.

 

Bernie Vince was a sensational pick up for the club.  Jeff Garlett was also a ripping get for the club, considering we gave up practically nothing to get him and he had a few 40 goal seasons for us.

We gave up a second round pick to get Frost, a third rounder and a fourth rounder, so I'd like to think we won that trade, while letting Dunn go was the right move.  He couldn't, and some speculate wouldn't, play in the role we wanted him to down back.

The fringe players failing means nothing - he went for some depth in the hope one or two might work out.  They didn't.  The Ben Kennedy deal was disappointing, true, but you can't get everything right.

I'm 50/50 on the Kelly trade - of course I'd rather have him, but Roos had a decision to make at the time.  We needed as many players who were ready to go on our list in 2014, and moving back a few places in the draft while also adding Tyson made sense at the time.  I can understand why we did it.  Again, I'd rather Kelly, but there were legitimate reasons behind the trade.

10 hours ago, Pennant St Dee said:

So just reviewing the last few pages of this thread  based on Semi final 2019 performances only  some would have no interest in Blicavzs, Barass, Mcgovern, Neale, Cripps, Andrews.

FCS

And that certain posters here would make absolutely elite AFL standard recruitment and list managers.

Certainly much better than anyone we presently (and relatively recently) have had in da haus.

 

Edited September 16, 20195 yr by Ron Burgundy

1 hour ago, AshleyH30 said:

Unless it's an A+ Grader, some on here don't want to have a bar of it. That's despite the fact that a genuine A grader only moves clubs once ever few years, and always to a larger franchise club.

OMG those two! Don't start me! Such spud campaigning accumulator journeymen! No thanks!

Was he playing on Saturday night!!!!!!

Didn’t see him

24 minutes ago, Superunknown said:

OMG those two! Don't start me! Such spud campaigning accumulator journeymen! No thanks!

If you're assuming that I like mediocrity, you're dead wrong. I see what this season is; a complete disaster, but I also see that there are only a few areas we need to fix to return to the finals. We've overhauled our coaching and fitness department; something I've thought we've been due for, for a couple of seasons. Tomlinson, Langdon, etc are what we need. Sure, they're not world beaters, but show me a world beater that has moved clubs in the last few years other than for the go home factor (ala Dangerfield).

Edited September 16, 20195 yr by AshleyH30