Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Prevention better than cure i reckon Q.

And no better week to pull out the conservative card than this week against Norf eh

For sure! Hopefully everything with the fitness program is all good and we don’t have any mass disasters!

Posted
1 hour ago, DubDee said:

Anyone have any idea if Viney is a proper hammy or just tight/precaution?

Hamstring awareness usually means tightness 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Clint Bizkit said:

At quarter time?

Half time last year they were up by 20 so who knows!

Posted
On 5/19/2022 at 6:47 PM, dazzledavey36 said:

You've genuinely got to be [censored] kidding me right?

We pick a bloke off the back of not playing last week being an emergency, over guys like Bedford who had the perfect opportunity to play consisten game time at AFL level. Even if it was Bailey Laurie to get a taste of AFL action.

But no, we select a guy that's going to be 31 this year and we'll past his best at AFL level.

Genuine [censored] selection and it's been obvious that Goody has been trying desperately hard to get his Essendon mate a game this past few weeks.

Opportunity missed.

Take it easy. You do know Melks plays for us, right? Maybe redirect that disdain to players of opposition sides. 

Posted
1 hour ago, binman said:

But why then would he replace harmes?

Because he's the obvious replacement & in good form.  Harmes is predominantly a tagging on baller who can kick handy goals.

Posted
On 5/19/2022 at 6:37 PM, sisso said:

Don’t really understand why we’d go with the Melk unless it’s to nurse him to 200

Me neither

Mellks isn't anywhere near Harmes output enduance nor defense

A very poor bewildering selection

At least if he has a poor day that will be the end for him

Posted
14 minutes ago, Kent said:

Me neither

Mellks isn't anywhere near Harmes output enduance nor defense

A very poor bewildering selection

At least if he has a poor day that will be the end for him

That's pretty unfair.  And its hardly bewildering as his form at Casey has been excellent playing on ball & fwd and he was solid when he filled in against Hawthorn.

And I doubt they will drop him on 199 games.

 

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Cranky Franky said:

That's pretty unfair.  And its hardly bewildering as his form at Casey has been excellent playing on ball & fwd and he was solid when he filled in against Hawthorn.

And I doubt they will drop him on 199 games.

The Melksham inclusion can be justified and equally,  the MC might want to see if Jake can recapture his best form ... so he gets his chance because of injury

And against North, he'll get every chance to stand out and excel

If he strikes form, we've got another nice problem 

For all our speculation, we generally haven't had to leave out a player who is performing well in the seniors.  It nearly always seems to work out well, Franky (mystery ailments, covid, suspensions, long term injuries etc)

Apart from the GF when Jordon was the sub, Hunt missed out and Jones & Jetta just couldn't break back into the team.  Or Melksham for that matter

I wish Jake well today and I really hope he stands out

 

Edited by Macca
  • Like 2
Posted

We’d all like Jake to play a great game it’s just on recent evidence it’s not likely…guess he was OK against the Hawks even though that easy set shot he missed in the last qtr annoyed me

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...