Rhino Richards

Bravo Jaded. Bravo. Could not have said it better myself.

Its very relevant because you stated I had no way of proving my position. I just stated what my basis of information was. Answered your question then you apply a different context. Great stuff. As for the relevance issue, I think it was good sense of you not to follow up the premiership comment explanation.

No factually not arrogantly. You have made assertions as to what my opinion is and I said you have got my opinion wrong. So before you want to have a shot at a poster at least exhibit the fundamental skills of getting their position correct. Its not hard. Try it.

That's the biggest compliment that has been routinely placed at Yze when the truth is the game has passed him by.

Its hardly a vindication of a player to be selected that others were worse than him last night. Who would he have manned up on? Its these sort of games in 2004, 2005 where we were getting flogged that Bizzell gets exposed as unaccountable, too slow and unable to proivde an effective second up foil for other defenders. Bizz would have neither here or there in the mix and he and Ward's omission is a telling insight into where the FD see the list and the rest of the season There be a number of threads and posts by "experts" who could not believe that Newton, Buckley, Petterd, Garland and Frawley would not be selected and played from round 2 onwards. Your slant was not what they (who were numerous and in the generally vocal) were in general arguing. You are right it is not reasonable unless they are ready but that did not stop them..or you (re Newton). Spelling was a slip up and I will get it right for game 2. Not as bad as those who will say "I watched and analysed Neil Daniher closely and he blah blah.." blah"

I guess if one of the talls had put his hand up and made a presence up forward and our midfield given something the discussion would be academic. From what I have seen of the pre season Pettard was better than Buckley and looked more likely to play AFL. I think the FD had Pettard more highly rated than Buckley. FWIW, I think Buckley is mainly a midfielder/wing. Pettard has the goods to be anywhere from HFF through to HBF. I prefer him HBF.

You are wrong. I have clearly spelt out my position. Go and re read it.

Given the scarcity of good ruckman in the AFL, the price which is paid for any half decent ruckman comes at a premium. There have been many 1st and 2nd round picks punted on a ruckman. Sydney have been target this period at their stanza. All they had was a 34yo ruckman Ball who had one year left. There was also no other key ruckman on offer He has improved off his low base and could have done so at MFC but chose not to. FWIW, Jolly's old role is being capably filled by Peter Everitt I did and so had Paul Roos who in Jolly's first two years had spoken often about Jolly's needed development time and inability to run out a game. No. Jolly went to press in late 2004/early 2005. MFC have publicly stated that Jolly wanted out prior to end of 2004 and rather risk him walking to the PSD in 2005 sought market value for him then. Sure. Name a ruckman where there has not been. In 2004 White was an AA ruckman. What would you have done with him and what Clubs could afford him at given a first round pick got you a developmental ruckman? How much would a Club have to give to get him? Jolly was injured in Rd 4 in a contest with Darcy. After coming back in Rd 17, he was ordinary with the game time he had. The reason he got so little game time forward is because he aint one. Holland only filled in for an injured Neitz in the final. He did not block Jolly up forward. I note Roos has hardly used Jolly up there especially when he has a Hall (like Neitz) in the square. Do you understand why the decisions were made at the point of time they were? There was Jolly, Simmonds and Stynes (?). Stynes was in the sunset of his career. When we traded Simmonds we had Jolly. Now we could not have kept both as both sort a No 1 ruck role. How is it relevant when comparing White and Jolly?

It depends on what your timeframe is but generally you're right. However Sydney have traded their early picks for the past three years for "ready" players like Jolly, Richards and Everitt to capitalise on a list spearheaded by Hall, Goodes and O'Loughlin. Their spend on now and their lack of investment for the future will cost them if their depth is tested due to injury and will punish them in the next 3 to 4 years as their current cream retires and the cupboard is bare. Roos wont hang around for that.

Maurie, they are still there. There were also calls for Kingsley as well. Mind you there were quite a few who said we should have gone for the 200cm tatttoo show Everitt. Cost you a Pettard....and hasn't he set Sydney on fire.

Pettard did a thigh in the first MFC intraclub match and limped off the ground after a promising start. He missed a number of weeks of the pre seaon I agree with him finding his feet at Sandy and your comments are valid and consistent with his recovery from injury. However some would have had him playing from round 2 underdone and not match fit. I agree he has perfectly brought given his development. His performance was even better when you consider the game he debuted in.

Pettard was one of those injured during the pre season after a very promising start. Had he not been injured he would have been in the mix for round 1 and would have replaced Bartram soon after.

You're probably right. I put it forward just to balance the illogical case being put on Pettard. Garland was on a hiding to nothing and could not be expected to do well from where he was playing given the game. And Gouga, I dont think ND necessarily got it 100% right or wrong. I think the state of the season and current list of revolving injuries to key players is probably change some perceptions on the season's potential outcomes. Things are different 0-4 as opposed 0-2. At 0-5 with whats coming up, our current form and the crippled state of our list we could conceivably be 0-8. If the other first gamers dont play by then they should be expected to play alot of AFL from then on

With Neitz out we were one KPP tall short and the idea of playing all three was to have one down forward at various times. Swapping Garland for Buckley swaps one underdone first gamer for another. Hardly a big error. After seeing our midfield wiped in the first quarter, I am not sure Buckley would be either he or there. At this point he is not Pettards class so it would not be a reasonble analogy.

You must look at yourself in the mirror and say that often.

Good point Doctor. Sylvia is barely matchfit and is still being treated for residual OP.

No. I was not. But I wont waste my time explaining to someone who has shown he does not read other people's responses before replying and cant offer a scintilla of substance when it comes to the game. Funny how many others have noticed Pedro but you havent.....Hmmm. True to form I guess.

I totally agree. But that not what the masses have been arguing here. If many had there way they would have played Pettard plus Newton, Buckley, Weetra (ignoring he has been injured), Frawley (likewise) from round 2 regardless of their readiness. They will mistakenly argue Pettard vindicates their case but overlook Garland who struggled.

Its no wonder people challenge some of your posts when you are obviously being sarcastic. Because they get lost in so many other posts that just illustrate how little you actually understand about the game. I thought the move was one of the few winners from those "conservative" thinkers in the FD. I note you wont recognise the FD for it. You have often shown you are more than ready to make a klutz of yourself bagging them.

Who has rated Jamar highly before?

Pettard was always a player identified with a lot of talent and CAC was excited to get him so late in the draft. He showed he was a capable and promising player early in the pre season. He then sustained a leg injury and missed 4 to 5 weeks of crucial football. His last game with Sandy was his first full hit out since the injury. He justified his selection. His game was a ripper first up and soundly validated the FD excited in selecting so late. His situation is the perfect example of bring forward a player who is ready. ND has done the right thing selecting him now. In fact ND is on a hiding to nothing. By tonights game ND gets damned for not playing him earlier (despite the facts). If he got smashed, ND brought him on too soon. However, the wingnuts on this site will say he should have played round 2 regardless of his physical or match fitness.

2004 AA ruckman. BTW, your comment missed the context of the thread anyway.

The 20% he did played he was awful. Mind you splinters has seen alot of pine at Sydney as well. Hmm that 2 coaches doing that. He would have if he was prepared to stick around. He was not. He wanted out. White is not the player he was pre 2004 and we clearly needed a good back up ruckman. Not true at all. Jolly form led to him being dropped in late 2004 and Jamar came in. Jamar was not much chop. Holland plays forward and not ruck. I dont believe Jolly can do that and has not been in competition with Holland. What is the relevance of the premiership comment? S. Motlop has one and he was lucky and ordinary. Its a pity the symolism of Jolly's contribution to the flag was not immortalised when the medal should have been presented to Jolly sitting on a pine bench.

No. Jolly wanted to be No 1 ruckman. In 2004 White was the AA ruckman. When White's fitness faltered toward the end of 2004, Jolly had his chance and his efforts were appalling such that he was dropped and finished the 2004 uear where a raw Jamar was chosen ahead of him. Jolly spat it and wanted a chance to be the No 1 ruckman elsewhere and had spat the dummy. So should MFC have held him for a further year and then let him walk for nothing or seek to get value for him. Its not surprising that after giving their first round draft pick to MFC for Jolly, Sydney played him as second fiddle off the bench behind the underrated 34yo Jason Ball. OK Jolly has Flag medal. He watched the last crucial 15 minutes from the sidelines where a 34yo played first ruck and Jolly did a Motlop and got a gratuitous medal. Last year Ball was gone, Jolly and a clone, Doyle shared the ruckwork and Sydney got exposed a dished out another first round draft pick for another 34 yo ruckman. Thats two coaches who have worked out something interesting about Jolly......Hmmm!

Choko, Jaded is on the money. Ruckwork is more than just the centre circle restriction. And height does not always get you there. Ask Peter Senior at 211cm and he is useless there. Its also about having the ability to have an impact around the ground as well. Cox and Sandliands are the two stand outs. Yet aside from Lade and possibly Biglands I cant name a seriously good tall ruckman. White is the last of the 195cm ruckman around. The centre rule has cruelled him at the centre bounce. His effectiveness around the ground has fallen off and that where it is hurting us. Sandilands has created a fixation with height as the panacea to ruck ills. Its helpful but on its own you have Peter Senior or Tristan Cartledge. If you dont have ability or mobility you are stuffed. And that the rub. Its fine to say that the Club needs a good 200cm + ruckman. So does nearly everyone. They are as rare as hens teeth. Tall talent is risky with a long maturation without necessarily a pay out at the end. Many such efforts to recruit such talent was wasted so many early draft picks and left Clubs in tears. The risk with big man success is that most sides go through the rookie system. We have had Jolly, Jamar, Van Sheck and Neaves through the rookie. One is still try to justify the number 1 ruck spot, Jamar has stalled, Van Sheck...well he was 206cm and Neaves an unknown. So rather than being "experts" with hindsight and developing flawed outcomes. What should MFC do? Who would you get rid of out of the three ruckman on your list to bring Neaves and would you recruit an exprienced ruck from another club? You can rookie someone but they will take at least 4 years to produce. Any other solutions?