Correction. We pick new potatoes, and trade out spudsAnd we keep picking them
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Correction. We pick new potatoes, and trade out spudsAnd we keep picking them
Haha yeah. It was because Horse just randomly disliked him.Not HIS attitude
Think what you like mate .Haha yeah. It was because Horse just randomly disliked him.
Please.
Haha yeah. It was because Horse just randomly disliked him.
Please.
he hasHave you ever played in a football club?
Yes as well as coaching and umpiring.Have you ever played in a football club?
Don't think he earnt a shot but strongly agree with your second para. In his early days Wicks split his time forward and midfield and I think this is worthwhile in VFL (70:30?) because it's often so chaotic.I felt he should have been given a few senior games even as a sub.
It would be a different experience being a small forward in our senior team compared to the reserves. It could have been a different dynamic having 2-3 small forward linking up with each rather than just Papley at times.
I will be interested to see how he goes at North Melbourne if he does get to play AFL.
That's a difficult comparison. Do you give the bloke who gives it 100% the opportunity or the bloke who gives it less? Making assumptions here of course.On output alone I don't have an issue with us trading Konstanty.
The reason I am very against this trade is because we simply don't have many genuine small forwards on the list, and it's arguably our biggest need, and one of the most important areas of footy in the 2020s.
If nothing else, Konstanty showed he had very good pressure, as he was a strong tackler and had speed to chase and harass (I concur with others that he didn't overly inspire me with ball in hand.) These are also things we are lacking.
Meanwhile we go and give Mitchell another contract when he is a type of player that already occupies about a quarter of our list and we will never ever fit them all in the team.
So frustrating.
I don't believe that there was any difference in what Konstanty and Mitchell were giving. So I suppose that is the first place we deviate in opinion on the topic.That's a difficult comparison. Do you give the bloke who gives it 100% the opportunity or the bloke who gives it less? Making assumptions here of course.
It looks to me as if Mitchell is being given a year to reinvent himself as a running halfback (assumption again). If he succeeds we have a handy asset to potentially replace Fox etc. If he fails we have lost SFA and he gets delisted.
If, as has been postulated, Konstanty was giving a fair bit less than 100% why would you reward that? Sends a terrible message, especially after that GF.
I know, the Konstanty stuff is assuming, but I don't think the Mitchell stuff is. Rewarding the right behaviour is rarely the wrong thing to do.
That's a difficult comparison. Do you give the bloke who gives it 100% the opportunity or the bloke who gives it less? Making assumptions here of course.
It looks to me as if Mitchell is being given a year to reinvent himself as a running halfback (assumption again). If he succeeds we have a handy asset to potentially replace Fox etc. If he fails we have lost SFA and he gets delisted.
If, as has been postulated, Konstanty was giving a fair bit less than 100% why would you reward that? Sends a terrible message, especially after that GF.
I know, the Konstanty stuff is assuming, but I don't think the Mitchell stuff is. Rewarding the right behaviour is rarely the wrong thing to do.