- Oct 2, 2016
- 12,517
- 26,117
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Good enough to win 3 premierships. More to being a ruck than tapworkNankervis is actually a rather poor ruckman. Gets beaten a lot.
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 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Good enough to win 3 premierships. More to being a ruck than tapworkNankervis is actually a rather poor ruckman. Gets beaten a lot.
Pyke, MWho was the last ruckman we've been succesful in drafting and developing ourselves?
I wonder what North’s thinking is regarding McDonald vs Hollands. It seems odd them bringing in McDonald after kicking out Brown, like why get rid of him if you need a KPF.
I agree. Club needs to pick the best player for them. And from all the hype, JUH would be the best player for any club in this year's draft.I don't get this thinking, this then must apply to every bid that gets matched not just number 1. Are the draftees so insecure they cannot handle not being the first choice of a club...the whole draft is filled with players who are not the clubs first choice so why is it an issue at the first pick. If the 10k is a reason, then you are picking a player who is not so confident in their own ability to generate plenty more than that in years to come. Make no mistake, between themselves the boys know who the number 1 pick is.
This comes up so often it is simply ridiculous to have as a reason Adelaide would not pick JUH. They should definitely pick him as you never know, there just might be a reason the Dogs cant match the bid, very unlikely of course, however, they will be derelict in their duty to the footy club if they do not select the clear number 1 pick first. Put it on the Dogs to match, then go for Tilthorpe or McDonald or whoever....
They make it sound like it was a mutual decision to part ways, and Taylor wanted it just as much as the Swans. In reality we wanted him gone and basically fired him. Not that I am not pleased we fired him, but the business talk about collective view and the business talk associated with that is weird.
Had a similar experience many years ago. We were prepared to support someone who "dun wrong" if he would commit to counselling and work where there were no women. He would not commit to counselling. Bye bye!I genuinely believe the club was prepared to stick by him if he received a non custodial sentence and he could prove to the club that he wanted to change his ways.
You can read into a press release plenty of ways, but I see it as Elijah just wasn’t prepared to come back and win the respect of his teammates so we mutually agreed to part ways.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
No current season stats available
Nankervis is actually a rather poor ruckman. Gets beaten a lot.
We currently have 33 on the senior list.
If we take 3 in the draft we will have the minimum of 36 seniors. We currently have 5 rookies for a total of 41. We can have three more players, 2 more rookies maximum.
Hope my arithmetic is right!!!
For those 3 places I would take:
Paddy McCartin as a DFA and rookie him.
Take Neale or similar and rookie him.
Or rookie some others.
Leave one senior space unfilled.
More to being a ruck than tapwork
Tom Langdonretiring today as well at 26 due to a debilitating knee injury.PLAYERCARDSTART8Tom Langdon
- Age
- 30
- Ht
- 190cm
- Wt
- 85kg
- Pos.
- Def
CareerSeasonLast 5
- D
- 19.1
- 5star
- K
- 10.0
- 4star
- HB
- 9.1
- 5star
- M
- 5.3
- 5star
- T
- 2.6
- 4star
- MG
- 236.1
- 4star
No current season stats available
- D
- 17.0
- 5star
- K
- 12.2
- 5star
- HB
- 4.8
- 4star
- M
- 6.4
- 5star
- T
- 2.0
- 4star
PLAYERCARDEND
Dodged an absolute bullet there.
Who was the last ruckman we've been succesful in drafting and developing ourselves?
Is the intercept and rebound defender the game’s most important player? (sen.com.au)
" Lions coach Chris Fagan earlier this week rated the intercept defender as the most important position on the ground."
Yeah, what would he know?
Yeah, what would he know?
I didn't realise I said it was.I didn't realise his opinion was gospel.
I didn't realise I said it was.
I don't beleive this for a second. The club simply wiped their hands clean of him. And with a few political play comments about rehab etc in the hopes that no one would notice that they are taking no responsibilty over him what so ever. You can't just assume the club believed he had no remorse or didn't want to put his head down. Would be hard to beleive, especially when his career and life depends on it. Poor form from the club imo.I genuinely believe the club was prepared to stick by him if he received a non custodial sentence and he could prove to the club that he wanted to change his ways.
You can read into a press release plenty of ways, but I see it as Elijah just wasn’t prepared to come back and win the respect of his teammates so we mutually agreed to part ways.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
You are free to do that. I'm free to point out that one of the most respected coaches in the league probably has a reasonable grasp on he current state of the game.Then I'll lol at his opinion if it's alright with you.
Will be interesting to see the factual evidence of Taylor showing no remorse and rejecting any counselling.Had a similar experience many years ago. We were prepared to support someone who "dun wrong" if he would commit to counselling and work where there were no women. He would not commit to counselling. Bye bye!
The AFL is very different to any other work force. Clubs draft these kids with the knowledge they are pulling the kid away from schooling uni etc. On-top of that they are introduced into a work force where the way their personal life reflects on the club, matters, and want them to be a good example for the club inside and outside of work. If a workplace expects the above, then they are also accepting the fact that they need to take responsibility for their development, and persist with it. He's 19ffs, not 29. The club need to put the rubbish talk out the way and say that Taylor had no remorse and was not prepared to develop himself, or they need to just admit they wiped their hands clean.I'd have been pretty unhappy if we kept Taylor, regardless of the sentence. Should have zero tolerance. He's entitled to earn a living, but it's up to employers if they want people like him to represent them publically. Might be pretty poor for the victim and others in similar circumstances to see him continue on and shown on tv etc. As someone else said, there's quite rightly a sponsor factor too.
I just don't think this is the case. There are obviously two sides to every story. ET did not stuff up once. He did it twice or more. He was a recidovist. He has ingrained behviourable issues that affect himself and Sydney. He has issues that the Swans cannot expect to deal with in public over a long period of time. There are lots of implications for Sydney. There are also difficult decisions for ET and things he needs to deal with. Playing this out in public does nothing for either side. I expect Sydney will provide funding for ET to get help. Sydney does not need to be "dragged through the mud".I don't beleive this for a second. The club simply wiped their hands clean of him. And with a few political play comments about rehab etc in the hopes that no one would notice that they are taking no responsibilty over him what so ever. You can't just assume the club believed he had no remorse or didn't want to put his head down. Would be hard to beleive, especially when his career and life depends on it. Poor form from the club imo.
I don't beleive this for a second. The club simply wiped their hands clean of him. And with a few political play comments about rehab etc in the hopes that no one would notice that they are taking no responsibilty over him what so ever. You can't just assume the club believed he had no remorse or didn't want to put his head down. Would be hard to beleive, especially when his career and life depends on it. Poor form from the club imo.