TalkingCarlton
http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

Why didnt McLaren play?
http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10862		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  keogh [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:08 pm ]
Post subject:  Why didnt McLaren play?
Big mistake by the selection committee to have only one specialist ruckman against the best tandom ruck combo in the business.


McLaren has been servicable and would have been more than handy against Seaby.He has also been used as a spoiling defender deep in defence.Would have been handy on Embers more so than the 181cm McGrath.

Cox won the coasters the game. He monstered us in the last 15 miutes.The Fry may have played the same game time as Cox but may have had more petrol in the tank in the final moments had McLaren played.

In short our selectors [REDACTED] up big time IMO.
Author:  Effes [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
Embley would have been too mobile for him and he isn't good enough in the ruck.
Author:  Synbad [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
The question is if you drop McLaren.. (like Saddington) cos he isnt what we thought he would be... why not give Bryan a go?
Author:  keogh [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well Bryan then.You should play 2 specialist ruckman regardless against the coasters.Anyone for that matter.Bring on Batson and A O'Hailpin
Author:  jimmae [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
We don't have any other specialist ruckman beyond French, Batson and Aisake.

French heading out the door, Batson too supposedly and we're looking a bit bare.

Need Deluca to ply away at the trade he is built to succeed at, and clear out the crap and start investing in genuine rucks.
Author:  dannyboy [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
we lead for all but what 3 mintues against the best side in the comp over there where they haven't been beaten in four years by a vic club - think maybe the selection panel got it right.
Author:  keogh [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:49 pm ]
Post subject: 
Cox Seaby 37 hitouts
French,Prendergast 21 hitouts
Author:  maxyblue [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
is it possible that pagan threw barney the same sort of challenge malthouse laid down for fraser? did pagan want to remove that comfort zone for french to see if he can re-establish himself as 1st ruck at the club?
Author:  molsey [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
I got the feeling we gave up the ruck after last year's game and it was the job of French and Prendergast to minimise the damage. To have an extra player on the bench to get beaten - as McLaren would have - would have diminished our running ability on the day.

Good decision in my books.

Why pick players to fill the bench?
Author:  Lace Out [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:

The question is if you drop McLaren.. (like Saddington) cos he isnt what we thought he would be... why not give Bryan a go?


Cause he lacks intesity....
Author:  Synbad [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:14 pm ]
Post subject: 
Firearm Fevs wrote:
Quote:

The question is if you drop McLaren.. (like Saddington) cos he isnt what we thought he would be... why not give Bryan a go?


Cause he lacks intesity....

Looked ok in the games he played last year.
Look he isnt a real ruckman.. just as DM isnt... but he can stand at CHF and take a mark and kick a goal and put the onus on them to match up on him... in that way were attacking and putting the pressure on them.

see when Australia was one man down against Holland.. Guus (who i rate) took Viduka off and put Thompson on...the reasoning was by putting on someone extra fast... they had to keep a watchful eye on him.. which meant they didnt throw as many men forward.

Nest form of defence is attacking.

We sat back in the last quarter and watched our lead disappear.
Author:  Lace Out [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
I agree that attack is the best defence, no doubt.

Synbad surely you realise that Dennis pulled stabilising pins out on purpose towards the end.

I believe they agree with you that getting as many talented players into the club as quickly as possible is the only way to go.
This means we need the priority pick as a player in the second round can still be a bit of a lottery.
So two chances in the lucky dip instead of one is the way to go.

Maybe they even see Bryan as a danger to that plan??
Author:  barass [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
Have to agree with you FF. I love conspiracy theories. 8)
Author:  Mickstar [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:32 pm ]
Post subject:  Prenda
Thought thei side we took over was near as good as you could get for the vast Subiaco ground.Worked perfectly for three and a half quarters,with Prenda more than playing his part..........but i gotta agree with The Big Sinner re Bryan.This bloke has to be given a go.Proved in his debut game,when he beat both Ball and Jolly that he has plenty of ability.I will remind you that Ball and Jolly went on to be premiership ruckman.
My big concern is that our selectors are accepting of mediocrity.Blokes are playing so so and continue to get a game regardless.And i will name names.....I suggest fast Eddie saved himself on sunday.Teague is blessed.And as wrapped as i am in Bentick,he has dropped off and Blackwell should get his spot.
Author:  malbi [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
We got absolutely SLAUGHTERED in the ruck yesterday and we have been in just about every game for the past 5 or 6 years. We don't even get value around the ground.

In my opinion this has been the biggest problem in our side over this period. We just don't get first use of the ball. Our rucking stock is very ordinary to say the least. Can we recruit a half-decent ruckman because I can't see any at our club?
Author:  Synbad [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
malleefowl wrote:
We got absolutely SLAUGHTERED in the ruck yesterday and we have been in just about every game for the past 5 or 6 years. We don't even get value around the ground.

In my opinion this has been the biggest problem in our side over this period. We just don't get first use of the ball. Our rucking stock is very ordinary to say the least. Can we recruit a half-decent ruckman because I can't see any at our club?


The official answer to this is "Ruckmen take 4 years to develop and we dont have that kind of time... "

3 years after Mott was recruited to fix the problem we dont have a ruckman cos we wont invest a REAL pick for one.
Author:  barass [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
Grant Thomas isn't our coach is he?

Bryan should have been given a run, even if he is slack maybe a couple of games might wake him up.
Author:  molsey [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
I really dont think Bryan is slack, he's slow. Two very different things. People expect him to be faster because he's shorter, but he's not. he's a short ruckman of the old style who has a few tricks up his sleeve.

Watch the boys at their most intense training session and Bryan looks the same - he's working as hard as he can. This is why, to me, he was 4 years in system before getting a go.
Author:  Wangers [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Prenda
Mickstar wrote:
And i will name names.....I suggest fast Eddie saved himself on sunday.Teague is blessed.And as wrapped as i am in Bentick,he has dropped off and Blackwell should get his spot.


Disagree with your assessment on Betts - he should always be in the team, as he does the 1%'s so well as is electrifying. He's too creative to not be in the starting 22.

Agree on your call, re Bentick - has dropped off after a solid start to the season, and the time is nigh that Blackwell, a similar type, gets a go.

As for Bryan, doesn't work hard enough on & off the track - me thinks his spot on the list could be in jeopardy if his form doesn't pick.

I don't subscribe to the theory that you get a game cause you need to be tried in seniors - you need to earn it through at least 2 to 3 good games in the VFL.
Author:  molsey [ Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
Bentick was swapped on to Kerr after Kerr shook Stevens. Agree Bentick has dropped off over the last month or so, with 1 game against the grain, but its a hard matchup for bentick to take Kerr in that last quarter.

Betts needs a full forward line to be effective. When we flood he's relatively useless - as he should be. In the Melbourne game he actually took 2 contested marks but surely these are the exceptions. Betts needs Fev in the goal square and 1 or 2 others about 30 out, that way his ability to weave through packs can make goals. And he can - make goals - its a rare skill. But we dont play to his strengths that often.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/