molsey wrote:
And Tyrant, we all thought that in 2005 and he still played 10 games, so why should 2006 be any different? He played games after Fisher came back, and we didn't recruit a 2006 star forward did we? Maybe Setanta will compete for the spot but the 2 are very different players.
And we finished last, and had the worst team by a fair way.
I'm not saying Longmuir won't play next year, but he's a long way from being a good footballer. He stays on our list because we were stupid enough a) to trade for him, and b) to give him a 2 year deal (or accept his old deal, or whatever), and too poor to pay out his contract.
If Longmuir plays next year, its because we're in a "transitional phase", and not because he's any good... which he patently isn't.
If Longmuir is our only small forward, then I'd rather play without a small forward, pick someone like Bower to play KP defence, get Lance to play a loose man in defence, and lose with dignity.. than pick Longmuir.
Look, in reality, our list is chock-full of players who just aren't very good. We can sit here in hope and try and pick out their good points, but the fact remains that they're pretty average and will only ever be average. Ironically, a guy like Longmuir might actually be useful for a team with a good list and a premiership shot (because he could sneak on a bag a few goals), but not with us.
There's no tactical reason why we'd retain Longmuir. Davies/Wiggins/Sporn maybe (debatably)... but Longmuir not. His is a "management retention".
I suppose you could say I'm in the "realist" camp, and not the "optimistic" camp.
Login
Register
FAQ
