Roast Goodbye Ryan Gamble

Remove this Banner Ad

FoxC said:
Yep, give me DJ any day over Gamble in defence.

How sad it is to recollect Gamble's best game against the Dogs at Skilled barely two years ago.

What would we get for him from Adelaide or Port?
Click to expand...
This is why I think he can play. Was a gun that day.

Played well the week after against Hawthorn at the MCG before he hurt himself too.
 
SJ said:
This is why I think he can play. Was a gun that day.

Played well the week after against Hawthorn at the MCG before he hurt himself too.
Click to expand...

We've all seen average players show some flair once or twice. He has massive deficiencies in his game and has underperformed way more than performed at the elite level. With Corey, Chappy and Kelly likely to be available this week, he'll most likely be back in the twos where he'll have the opportunity to work on his weaknesses.
 
Kama6 said:
God you buggers are spoilt.
You have no idea how the other half live.

Gamble might be finished as an AFL footballer at Geelong but he's way ahead of alot of other players getting games at other clubs.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but I think it's just that with the level of talent we have coming through on our list, he's really got to improve to have a future with us.

I am happy to persist with Gamble (as a forward not a defender) but having said that if we could get something decent for him from Port or Adelaide at the end of the year, I would be happy to do that.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I really enjoyed him running about in the foward line, great leap and extremely athletic. Also, loves putting his body on the line and from the past, that often gave our other forwards a chance to at least have a spilled mark to mop up.

I have watched a few old games recently and he has really shone in that sense. Why the coaching staff and match panel think he can play elsewhere, even after a few failed attempts, must take some of the blame here. Perhaps they are trying to get him up for trade bait?

I'm agreeing with most on here though, where the hell is Duncan?
 
Well, how predictable is this. One loss, one scapegoat.

Gamble doesn't play all season, then comes into a game that the team decided to take on half arsed, and you expect him to so somehow perform and lift the team from a garbage display? How about some of the senior players? West, Taylor, Mooney, Podsiadly, Scarlett, Burns and Ling all had very average games.

I don't know who Ling was supposed to be tagging, but he got the slice and dice. Why not have a go at the skipper?? Is it going to be Tom 'untouchable, even though I can't play' Harley all over again? Hmm... I guess in Harley's latter years he never had responsibility for an opponent so perhaps not.
 
Pure_Ownage said:
I know Duncan's a forward, but I would still have rather he came in for Kelly last night.
Click to expand...
Duncan can play as a half back flanker, he has done it as a junior. Menzel can also play off half back (did it in the champs last year). Both are taller than the small forwards they'd be asked to mind but they could play the role.

However, I doubt the match committee wanted to expose either to those roles on that sort of night against the Saints.
 
PatrickBateman said:
Well, how predictable is this. One loss, one scapegoat.

Gamble doesn't play all season, then comes into a game that the team decided to take on half arsed, and you expect him to so somehow perform and lift the team from a garbage display? How about some of the senior players? West, Taylor, Mooney, Podsiadly, Scarlett, Burns and Ling all had very average games.

I don't know who Ling was supposed to be tagging, but he got the slice and dice. Why not have a go at the skipper?? Is it going to be Tom 'untouchable, even though I can't play' Harley all over again? Hmm... I guess in Harley's latter years he never had responsibility for an opponent so perhaps not.
Click to expand...

Fair call. Gamble I don't want to see in our team again but we had other players way down we expect more from. Mooney and perhaps Scarlett should not have come back in given the conditions. We were too big match ups and conditions wise and just like the Carlton game we were exposed. Also had two rucks who were invisible after the ball up (where they only ever seemed to wack it straight to Saints players) plus Byrnes was disgusting and I have no idea what Ling's focus was out there. I thought Taylor was ok though but Hunt was deplorable as usual.
 
The Sim Dog said:
I thought Taylor was ok though but Hunt was deplorable as usual.
Click to expand...
I know we've got two Hunts now, but surely you're not talking about Josh Hunt? He smashed Milne on Friday night, restricting the media's current poster boy for "damaging small forward" to two goals - one of which was a gimme from the worst umpiring decision of the night.
 
The Sim Dog said:
I thought Taylor was ok though but Hunt was deplorable as usual.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is incredibly inaccurate. How one could come to this conclusion from Friday nights game is beyond me. Milne has been very damaging of late, and Hunt kept him totally out of the game until junk time when it was already over... not to mention 1 goal from the worst umpiring decision of 2010.

Hunt has been good all season. If he went down we'd be in all sorts. Our defence is terribly tall and top heavy, to the point where we've come unstuck a few times by small forwards. Don't forget that Hunt not only takes a 'key' defensive post involving the most dangerous opposition small forward, but is involved with a lot of our set up out of defence. Not many players in the league do both.

I'm tipping a demolition of the Roos... imagine playing Geelong off a loss at Skilled?? Ouch!
 
TMS said:
but surely you're not talking about Josh Hunt? He smashed Milne on Friday night
Click to expand...

You gotta realise Hunt never gets credit on this board, only gets panned..

If we had just 1 more of him on Friday to take Schneider it would have been the difference. What the media are saying today is true, teams with multiple small forwards trouble us.

PS Its been nice Gamble, good luck wherever you end up next year..
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Looking at our losses

Against Fremantle
Missing were Ottens, Scarlett, Varcoe, Milburn, Stokes, Rooke.
I think Scarlett could have held Pavalich and Ottens could have negated Sandilands influence some what. We had guys like Gamble, Djerkurra & Simpson who were probably our 3 worst for the game. 7 point loss.

Against Carlton
Missing were Varcoe, Stokes, Corey, Scarlett
The big problem with the outs was our forward pressure was non existent. Playing Ottens, Blake, Mooney, Pods is over kill for talls. Adding two unfit players really exacerbated the problem.

Against St Kilda
Missing were Chapman, Corey, Kelly, Ottens, Rooke.
Ordinarily the players missing we can cover but it was a wet soggy day. They are all mature bodies and very good in the wet weather.

It's my veiw that we are coasting at the moment trying to get our players fit for finals. Unfortunately that means we'll get caught out now and again and be forced to wear a loss. I wouldn't mind betting at about round 19-20 we have a near full squad and we go on to dominate the finals.

To me we are miles ahead of all our opposition.
 
DanA said:
Looking at our losses

Against Fremantle
Missing were Ottens, Scarlett, Varcoe, Milburn, Stokes, Rooke.
I think Scarlett could have held Pavalich and Ottens could have negated Sandilands influence some what. We had guys like Gamble, Djerkurra & Simpson who were probably our 3 worst for the game. 7 point loss.

Against Carlton
Missing were Varcoe, Stokes, Corey, Scarlett
The big problem with the outs was our forward pressure was non existent. Playing Ottens, Blake, Mooney, Pods is over kill for talls. Adding two unfit players really exacerbated the problem.

Against St Kilda
Missing were Chapman, Corey, Kelly, Ottens, Rooke.
Ordinarily the players missing we can cover but it was a wet soggy day. They are all mature bodies and very good in the wet weather.

It's my veiw that we are coasting at the moment trying to get our players fit for finals. Unfortunately that means we'll get caught out now and again and be forced to wear a loss. I wouldn't mind betting at about round 19-20 we have a near full squad and we go on to dominate the finals.

To me we are miles ahead of all our opposition.
Click to expand...

Very sensible post. Anyone see Bartel yesterday on the footy show? Very laid back. No one is too bothered at the club I wouldn't have thought. It's all about preparation for September, as it was in '09. Geelong are all but top 4 certainties. Bringing a healthy list into September is likely the clubs primary task as we speak. I wouldn't be surprised if Selwood or Bartel get rested this week.
 
TMS said:
I know we've got two Hunts now, but surely you're not talking about Josh Hunt? He smashed Milne on Friday night, restricting the media's current poster boy for "damaging small forward" to two goals - one of which was a gimme from the worst umpiring decision of the night.
Click to expand...

Correction: year
 
gamble showed promise early on in his career with a couple of strings of goals but since than has been easily our worst performed player and should be cut at the end of the year. no where near our best 22.
 
SJ said:
This is why I think he can play. Was a gun that day.

Played well the week after against Hawthorn at the MCG before he hurt himself too.
Click to expand...

Gamble may be a victim of his own circumstances but since he went off injured against Hawthorn he has not been the same while other fringe players have overtaken him in terms of getting regular games, fitness, speed, skills etc.

Now with Johnson out he may get another gig against North this weekend but I'd rather trade him for a decent pick while he's still got some market value.
 
Gamble has no market value. A team might give a 4th rounder for him if they really want him.
 
Hunt has his good points and his bad points. His strength and prodigious left boot is a welcome contribution to the back line. But he has brain fades every now and then that seem to cost us dearly at times. Overall, though I think he certainly is in out best 22 at present.
 
FoxC said:
Gamble may be a victim of his own circumstances but since he went off injured against Hawthorn he has not been the same while other fringe players have overtaken him in terms of getting regular games, fitness, speed, skills etc.

Now with Johnson out he may get another gig against North this weekend but I'd rather trade him for a decent pick while he's still got some market value.
Click to expand...

I would agree.

I don't think Gamble's a spud (i.e. I don't think he's Tenace reincarnated) but I do think that he's not progressing at the rate that he needs to to get into our 22, particularly in comparison to the rate that some of our younger players coming through are progressing.

And he clearly won't make it as a defender, and as a forward, with what we have had, and now Pods, and down the track Menzel and Brown, I struggle to see him making it there either.

So certainly this year if the Adelaide clubs are in the trade market, or we are looking to get Boak, or some other club is interested, I would be shopping him while he has some value because he would have more of a chance somewhere else so it might be a win-win.
 
Cattery said:
Don't we possess two good small/medium defenders?
Milne and Schneider are their two most dangerous small forwards, so why play a bloke who's a last minute replacement and is at best an average forward on one of them?

Two [ or was it three? ] goals from Schneider, plus an assist, before the move was made, in a low scoring game that's a great way to kick start the opposition I'd say.

Maybe the magnifying glass should be on Bomber more then Gamble.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And not just for the idiotic decision to play Gamble on Schneider.

Why did Ling tag Hayes and not Dal Santo, who he has a pretty good record on? Why didn't they try Bartel on Hayes either?

Why did we take four tall defenders in on a wet night against a side with only two (at the most) tall forwards?

It's not the first time they've stuffed up at the selection table this year. Time will tell if they know what they're doing or not, but we need to get our act together very soon.
 
Partridge said:
Agreed. And not just for the idiotic decision to play Gamble on Schneider.

Why did Ling tag Hayes and not Dal Santo, who he has a pretty good record on? Why didn't they try Bartel on Hayes either?

Why did we take four tall defenders in on a wet night against a side with only two (at the most) tall forwards?

It's not the first time they've stuffed up at the selection table this year. Time will tell if they know what they're doing or not, but we need to get our act together very soon.
Click to expand...

One would think that maybe Bomber didn't want to show all of his cards at once.

Which, IMO, is a bit stupid considering we are not top 4 guarentee.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Roast Goodbye Ryan Gamble

Similar threads

catempire
News Goodbye “medium term”
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
167
Views
5K
BIGANT
BIGANT

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top