Peter Faulks

Remove this Banner Ad

I was actually being serious. To be a high quality AFL fullback I think you need to run 10x100m per spell.

So:

~10 x 100 in 10 minutes which is = 1 minute per 100m

My reasoning for this was this; the player runs from the goal square to the 50m arc and back for every forward entry. Also 10 mins per spell.

After 10 minutes play; interchange, 5 minutes rest, then back on for 10 minutes. That equates to 2 spells.

With 4 quarters in the game it would equate to (10 x100m) x 8 spells.

I should have explained my post better but IMO that's a pretty reasonable expectation for a good AFL full back.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I think he is going to be one of those blokes who saves it for the game. I reckon he will grow a leg when he crosses the line. He was known to have good covering speed in the VFL, I know it is a step up to AFL but he is a tough competitor. This is also his last chance at this level so he wont leave anything behind.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I was very impressed with him around the ground yesterday, actually exceeded what I thought we would get from him this early in the year.
 
McPharlin put him under a lot of pressure, but he did well in attempting to recover. He had a couple of good spoils too. With a few games under his belt I think he'll look the goods.
 
I thought he looked ok. The knock on his was that he was a bit too skinny to be a KPP but looked a good size.

I think he'll play a fair few games this year.



Bigger issue was his endurance/VO2 max which was very poor at DC (one of worst at camp despite being somewhat season VFL player). Skiny and poor endurance base is not a good starting point from AFL recruiting POV. That said, definitely worth the spot on the list, especially for a side like Freo who need KPP depth.
 
Seems that there is a wide range of opinions on Faulks.Some say
he played well,some say he did ok,some say he was bad.Some say never noticed him.Apparently,he took a few good marks,had a few good kicks!!!(What is that supposed to mean),did some good things.
I think the most important thing I want to ask all the knowledgable posters here.
"Did he play as a back man?"
"Did he keep his opponents out of the game?"
"Did his opponents have any influence on the game?"
If he kept his opponents out of the game,and they had no influence on the game,then he played well.
Keeping you opponet out as a back man is more important than getting a lot of the ball.
 
Ummm no comment back on my question!
One of the first rules of being a back man,don't let your man get the pill.
Come on some one must know who Faulks played on over the two games.
I'm guessing the man Faulks played on did nothing.
 
Ummm no comment back on my question!
One of the first rules of being a back man,don't let your man get the pill.
Come on some one must know who Faulks played on over the two games.
I'm guessing the man Faulks played on did nothing.

It wasn't Buddy, Roughhead, Kennedy or LeCras, so not a front liner.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Peter Faulks

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top