Buckley has one !% and five tackles in two games. He's only got 35 possessions and 9 of those are errors. It's got nothing to do with giving kids a go, he's got stuff he needs to work on and the selection committee want him to work on them at Sandy. I don't have a problem with that. He's ostensibly been replaced by CJ (very similar players IMO).

Then why is Garland still playing?

Saw Kelly McDonnell,

Does he know Kelly O'Donnell?

Does he know Kelly O'Donnell?

This thread is keeping me very amused at work.

Frawley played, but did not star. Still needs more improvement.

Red Sox, what position did he play?

Graz, you must've missed the memo that said this thread was for mindless hysteria only when discussing the Buckley omission.

Good post. Agree 100%.

Buckley is one of about three guys on the list that DB's Port gameplan actually suits. Yes he's turning it over a bit, but he's actually getting the ball. Moloney was dropped seemingly because he deviates from the gameplan (assuming there was no injury issue for him), so in part I can at least understand that. But Buckley is a young guy in a now (supposedly) developing team, imo dropping him does more harm than good. It's the same with Morton, he's so young and has a natural talent that should be cultivated at AFL level at least for now, maybe when he hits the rookie wall drop him back, but for now let him go at AFL level.

To call it mindless hysteria is just that.

Red Sox, what position did he play?

Frawley played mainly back. When Meesen was injured Martin moved from full back to ruck and Frawley played a KPP instead of flank/back pocket. I thought he was a bit disappointing early buy his second half was really excellent. Many forget that he missed the start of last season with a stress fracture in his foot, played a half for Sandy and was then promoted to the seniors. He's effectively played half a season of footy since leaving TAC cup level.

Also of the talls taken in last years draft Gumbleton, Hansen, Leuenberger, Thorp, Reid, Frawley, Riewoldt and Sellar have yet to make any real impact. Nathan Brown has played two good games this year and his brother Mitch played some reasonable footy for WC last year. Frawley, like the others listed, is on a steep learning curve and those that are disappointed with his progress should keep this in mind.

Frawley played mainly back. When Meesen was injured Martin moved from full back to ruck and Frawley played a KPP instead of flank/back pocket. I thought he was a bit disappointing early buy his second half was really excellent. Many forget that he missed the start of last season with a stress fracture in his foot, played a half for Sandy and was then promoted to the seniors. He's effectively played half a season of footy since leaving TAC cup level.

Also of the talls taken in last years draft Gumbleton, Hansen, Leuenberger, Thorp, Reid, Frawley, Riewoldt and Sellar have yet to make any real impact. Nathan Brown has played two good games this year and his brother Mitch played some reasonable footy for WC last year. Frawley, like the others listed, is on a steep learning curve and those that are disappointed with his progress should keep this in mind.

Leunenberger looked very good last night Fan.

Leunenberger looked very good last night Fan.

Yes, and others mentioned have looked good from time to time.

Does that defeat the argument? I think not. And Leuenberger was never availabe to us.

The point I'm making is that few if any of the talls taken last year have established themselves and Frawley is no different.

I quite like the look of this Buckley kid. However, ifhe is turning the ball over every time he gets it then we may as well recruit Godders again

Buckley is one of about three guys on the list that DB's Port gameplan actually suits. Yes he's turning it over a bit, but he's actually getting the ball. [...] But Buckley is a young guy in a now (supposedly) developing team, imo dropping him does more harm than good.

I know I posted before on this, but as I said before on this, Buckley's not working anywhere near hard enough when he doesn't have the ball - and in particular, when our opposition has the footy.

I know I posted before on this, but as I said before on this, Buckley's not working anywhere near hard enough when he doesn't have the ball - and in particular, when our opposition has the footy.

Quote for the motherf*ckin win.

He has earnt the names "Turnover King" and "Mr defense" from me and my mates. He can run fast and break through packs, but he usually turns it over at the end of it. It's probably a good thing he was sent back to Sandy, as he can work on his decision making and gain confidence in doing so. Daniel Bell had the exact same problem earlier in hsi career, and now he has fixed it and is a good disposer of the ball. If Buckley can do what Bell did, he will wind up a good player.

The other thing is the defensive side of his game; there is none. I've seen him lay 1 tackle in the 5-6 games I've seen him. Most of the time he concedes defeat and just jogs back to where he knows the ball will come to him eventually. Often jogs alongside the opponent with the ball, but doesnt actually apply pressure to them. The best example of this was in the NAb cup match against Geelong, where he actually had a decent few quarters. There was a passage of play along the boundary line where he broke a tackle and then gave the ball up by hand. Wojinski wound up with it, a known speedster, burst alongside the boundary line next to Buckley and Mcdonald. Buckley casually jogged on watching, where as Junior chased, got a hand to Wojinski, but wound up losing him because he didnt have the pace to go with him. Wojinskis pass led to a mark inside 50 and goal. Junior turned around and sprayed Buckley for not chasing. And that piece of play sums it up perfectly for me. Not sure if others remember it, but it's stuck in my mind, and it's the main thing Buckley needs to work on. He has the pace to chase and really cause the oppositions some headaches like Davey, but he only ever uses it going one direction when it should go both.