Opinion Don Pyke general discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

It would be 100% understandable if he did play. 1 week, throw the weight around, hit some blokes and general intimidation. Show the rest how to do it.

Then lead the blokes off and wave goodbye for the last time. Get in the rooms, eyeball everyone and say ' it took a 50yo in a zimmerframe to show some balls on the field, if you lot don't follow then **** off'

Thommo got walked past for the better part of an entire season last year. The only toughness he's capable of delivering is a few jump on the backs.
 
Now after the weekends soft showing, if Thommo does get a gig, why exactly was he re-contracted? I don't want him back but if he is not picked thats confirmation it was a poor decision.

The decision to low ball Lyons and instead give money to Thompson to run around the SANFL is one of the most ridiculous examples of poor list management I've seen at this club. It was made even worse when CEY wen't down with a knee. I can't believe there are people around here who defended that decision.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Thommo got walked past for the better part of an entire season last year. The only toughness he's capable of delivering is a few jump on the backs.
He does appear to be covering the ground better, albeit at SANFL level.

It was a somewhat tongue in cheek post, but given the total lack of physicality in the Reserve side, bar Beech, it will no doubt be thought about.
 
He does appear to be covering the ground better, albeit at SANFL level.

It was a somewhat tongue in cheek post, but given the total lack of physicality in the Reserve side, bar Beech, it will no doubt be thought about.

I'll be surprised if he's not selected. Lever out with ankle and Thommo in.
 
I'll be surprised if he's not selected. Lever out with ankle and Thommo in.

Which would probably mean Greenwood gets sent forward again instead of playing midfield, which doesn't seem to be the best way to develop him.

Oh well, I'll be interested to see how much Thommo has improved since last year. Organic growth, b*tches! YEAH!
 
Since 2016 perhaps?

Remember Crouch, Lyons, Thommo, CEY?

Those weren't security guards still out on the field at the start of the Port v Hawks game last week. It was Thommo and Lyons still making their way off the field from the round 19 game against Essendon last year. They never should have ventured way out to the outer wing.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

No it shouldn't be.

Don is one more bad loss away from losing me.

He's failed to counter the breakdown of our gameplan and sticks to his guns just like his mate Neil did.

Special mention also goes to our recruiters for failing to address a need, big bodied aggressive mids. You can't have organic growth if these players aren't actually in your squad.

Last year on the market were Neale, Rockliff and Gibbs. Between them they had traits we needed and we didn't land one of them. Neale should have been a must.

Your only flaw in this comment is Neale isn't a big bodied mid.
 
Don't disagree with all that, but it's kind of my point. We should already have tested Wigg, and I can't blame the kid for having a gutful of it by now.

What's the point?

You can see Wigg offers us nothing we don't have just from watching him.

He's an undersized midfielder, who whilst can accumulate, doesn't have any real weapons that says "he's going to be an AFL player".


(Mind you, I'd be equally ok with putting him in if it's Mackay who is out due to being less depressing)
 
There are some questions that I'd love to have answered (but of course never will).

There were obvious strategic steps that could, and should, have been taken. Let's just pick one for starters, leaving forwards in the forward line to match up their loose men.

Why werent such steps taken until far too late on the weekend? Was it:

1) The coaches werent able to think of it? That's pretty concerning, the advice was available for free all over the media / commentary in the lead in to the game.

2) The coaches didnt think it necessary? Again, very concerning. We've had two games last year to act as a sighter and our earlier two games this year. I suppose they could have taken the view of see if our team improvement matched up this year before adopting negative approaches. Still, it would raise the follow up questions, do we now understand that such moves are necessary and will we undertake such moves next time?

3) We will not, in any circumstance, make such changes because we believe that we should always play with our preferred structure, and if we do so well enough we'll win.

1 and 2 would be very very concerning, however perhaps not fatal. They could perhaps be fixed in future. IMO if the answer is 3 then Pyke should be immediately moved on from. We've already seen how this movie ends, and it's a stinker.

I don't know that I've seen such anger at a coach amongst the fan base since the death knell days of Craig. That's a massive shift in sentiment in a rather short time, but I think that's a result of just how obvious the changes were and how egregious it was to not make them.

If they trot that exact same game style out against Geelong at the oval later in the year, I'll hate to hear the half time reaction.
 
I don't know that I've seen such anger at a coach amongst the fan base since the death knell days of Craig.

I think people were much angrier at Sando's complete lack of a gameplan and inability to teach disposal skills than they are right now about Pyke
 
I think people were much angrier at Sando's complete lack of a gameplan and inability to teach disposal skills than they are right now about Pyke

It might just be time fading memories, but I don't recall it being this strong. Anger at the administration a much larger factor. It always took a particular something to deprive a coach of top level talent through draft pick sanctions and then sack him.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion Don Pyke general discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top