Wiseblood

I agree. Some might argue that he played in a different era, but Robbie's abilities would still translate to the modern game as well. You play the hand you are given and Robbie turned that deck into a royal flush. Someone like Gysberts barely turned it into a two pair. If Parish has the drive coupled with the ability then he'll make it.

Oliver at 24? Olisik will scream conspiracy. Interesting read though. As others have stated he doesn't rate Weideman or Curnow highly and makes a decent case as to why he doesn't. Interested to see how it plays out on draft night.

As someone mentioned before, and numerous times before that, he was injured with OP (oestitis pubis) for the first half of the season and took time to get going.

I'm astonished that he thinks it's the norm for people to decide to drink and then drive above the limit. Staggering.

When are you going to ask Parish to marry you, mate? I like how flippant you are with your comparisons for Oliver though to try and talk him down. He has been likened to players such as Wines and Cripps. Not bad really. And Parish is closest to an Andrew Gaff type of player. If he was all of the above, which you mentioned, then he would going at Pick 1.

They are distant cousins. I don't think it's a good thing that I prefer reading what H_H has to say though...

Firstly, this thread is about Charlie Curnow. The bloke made a big mistake overnight and Roosy's Bruisers made the claim that it's some sort of conspiracy and got his knickers in a twist when we disagreed. I asked him for proof of this conspiracy and he ignored it. I'm just asking him to answer the question. Secondly, he doesn't need any help from me to embarrass himself. And thirdly, it's little surprise that your only contribution to this thread is to take a thinly veiled swipe at me, which is ironic because you cry about it when others do it to you.

Stop deflecting. Where's your proof?

I'm sure they don't as they are my sentiments, not everyone else's. There is no need to act like a belligerent child who will take away a few training reports because we don't agree with your theories. You're acting like a 6 year old. But I'll also point out that you completely ignored my question about the info or proof you have that this is a conspiracy. I take it you don't have any.... ?

I don't need them. Cheers though. I'd love to know what info you have that confirms what happened with Curnow is a conspiracy though. We're all ears.

It will be Pick 10 after the academy bids. Pay attention mate.

Good grief Roosy. You've lost the plot mate.

Even if it was some sort of conspiracy, which it isn't, wouldn't you think a club could come up with something better than forcing the kid to lose his license for 2 years and have a criminal record?

Exactly, so to you those ones have no hidden agenda, but anyone who rates him outside it does.

Unless Oliver is included in a phantom draft Top 10, in which case there is no agenda to influence and it's spot on.

He wasn't knocking the comparison mate, just making a comment about him being able to duck into frees like Selwood at his height. The way you jump to defend Parish is admirable, but if I was you I'd have a stiff drink on hand just in case we take someone else. It could be a long night for you.

If he said Parish was a lock at 3, which is clearly what you want, then you wouldn't question it.

Various people in the know. I can't confirm it, but there was enough word going around to suggest that's what clubs were looking for. It could be wrong, it could be right. Either way he tested poorly. We can all confirm that.

I don't. Still plenty to play out. Weideman testing poorly today probably puts him out of the picture, but to suggest we are totally set on Parish right now is wrong. Lots of water to go under the bridge from here.

The word around the traps was that clubs wanted to see Weideman run at least a 13 in the beep test to prove that, not only was he over his injury, but that he has the capacity to run out games. To suggest that it doesn't matter for a stay at home forward is wrong in the modern game. How often do we get upset at our forward players when they don't chase? Every time the ball hits the deck we need repeat efforts, and what Weideman has shown today is that he is a long way from achieving that. I'm not saying he can't achieve it, but he has certainly put clubs off side today. I can't see us taking him at 3 after today. Pick 7, if Essendon pass, is a possibility but I still think the club may look elsewhere.

True, although you can't deny that spelling the blokes name as 'Bradshaw' is not doing you any favours. Even you must have shook your head when you realised it.

He'll dominate for years alongside Christopher Petracca and Justin Hogan. Exciting times ahead.

Plus I don't think it's a lock that we take Parish. I think there is a little bit of water to go under the bridge yet, and we may see someone like Oliver, who is much more likely to be available at #7, as someone who can contribute in the same way Parish can. That means we may take someone like Curnow at #3 instead with the view to possibly pairing him with Hogan in a few years time.

I'm a bit over people clearly not getting sarcasm on here. Machsy had his tongue firmly planted in his cheek with his response.

Great job tasman. The reports have never been better. Cheers.