Should we promote a rookie?

Should we promote a rookie?

  • No, see how things go.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Michael West

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jarrod Harbrow

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Gavin Hughes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Marty Pask

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Remove this Banner Ad

May 15, 2006
6,794
12
Werribee
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Dogs' long-term view

From Sportal

Western Bulldogs coach Rodney Eade has revealed Chris Grant could have played on with a bone spur in his groin, but the decision to opt for surgery was made with a view to having the veteran utility fit and available for the finals.

Grant underwent surgery on Monday night to remove a spur from his pubic bone which was discovered last week and which will keep the 34-year-old out of action for at least two months.

The condition is believed to be a by-product of a nasty case of osteitis pubis several years ago.

Speaking at Whitten Oval on Tuesday, Eade said that Grant could have kept playing with painkillers.

"He didn't have to have (surgery), but we felt it would be better for his chances … when it gets to September if we're part of that action, that it will give him the best chance to be fully fit," Eade said.

"The other option of playing under some painkillers and hoping that it will rectify itself will then impact on his footy fitness."

"We've seen that in the past with players that they actually go downhill and the fact that he hasn't had an enormous pre-season … we think it's the best chance to have eight or 10 weeks off, have the operation and he can play the last half of the season."

Eade said the Bulldogs had budgeted to have Grant available for 15 or 16 games in 2007, but that this had now come down to 10-12 plus finals.

He said the club was unlikely to promote one of its four rookies - Michael West, Marty Pask, Jarrod Harbrow or Gavin Hughes - to fill Grant's role, and that any promotions would be on a needs basis.

The Bulldogs, Eade said, had plenty of cover for Grant already available on the senior list.

"Next week we get Brian Harris back (from suspension), Tom Williams has played a couple of games at Werribee. We've got high expectations of Tom, we really rate him highly," he said.

"So I think there's enough height there and (Andrew) McDougall can play down there so I don't think that's an issue."

"It's is best for Chris, certainly for his body, and I think as a by-product it's best for the team that he has the operation."
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Theres no need to elevate a rookie. Pask would be the only suitable one anyway.

Especially if Williams can get back which i am hopeful that he can, can cover for Chrissy in the CHB possie. And theres Wight who is doing a more than serviceable job down there anyway.

IMO it would just be a waste of money. We havnt been revaged by injures to force a rookie to be promoted yet. We dont need to elevate a rookie just for the sake of it, i belive our senior list is more than capable of covering for Chrissy.

Will Chrissy get to the 350 game mark now?
 
You expect Williams to play CHB for the Dogs this season? Bit of an ask, IMO.
Although some coming back from injury, there is LOTS of experience to guide the youngster. If he's going as well at Werribee as people say, I think there's no reason he cant slot into the slide and come up to pace.

After all, Wight has played just 13 games and you would think he'd been there for 50. I'm especially impressed how he has carried his form straight into the new season.
 
For a rookie to get promoted, they have to be on the verge of selection. In effect, they get selected and then get promoted so they can play. It isn't a reward for being the most advanced rookie; it's a way of making space for someone you want to play this week.

Pask is the only rookie with the size and fitness to deputise for Grant. Suppose he is BOG in the 'bees 3 weeks in a row and plays great football. Suppose a tall or two in the AFL side gets injured or dramatically loses form. At something like that point you might have a case for elevating him. But, if Pask just shows good form but shorter players show better form, Eade will play the shorter guys rather than elevate someone who doesn't deserve a game on form. With Harris back next week and no reason to fault any of the talls who played on Sunday, it would take two talls to go down before Pask would have a chance, and then he would have to be ahead of all the talls on the list. Obviously Williams needs a few weeks before he could be pushing for a spot, but he and Baird would be ahead of Pask at this stage if all are fit.
 
You expect Williams to play CHB for the Dogs this season? Bit of an ask, IMO.

I see no reason why not. He's big enough, fit enough and strong enough to hold down a position, if his form warrants it, he'll be selected. I'd be surprised if Williams didn't play a few games at CHB. Whether he's holding down the position is a different story, but certainly he would be looking at getting a run at some stage this year and hopefully putting in some good performances.
 
I see no reason why not. He's big enough, fit enough and strong enough to hold down a position, if his form warrants it, he'll be selected. I'd be surprised if Williams didn't play a few games at CHB. Whether he's holding down the position is a different story, but certainly he would be looking at getting a run at some stage this year and hopefully putting in some good performances.


I'm with DR on this one. The kid may be big enough, fit enough and strong enough to hold down a key position, however I believe that playing CHB requires a few more attributes than these alone. This guy has played a handful of games of Australian Rules football in his career at a junior level with a couple of games playing for Werribee reserves, yet we expect him to hold down a key portfolio this year in our firsts team. Talk about expectation - yep the kid has potential and maybe a gun, but shouldn't we develop him first in the Werribee team where he can gain some experience and then if he shows potential maybe assess this and see what role he can play in our firsts team.

The only time that I would throw him in the deep end would be if we suffered a crippling injury list where we are forced to use him.
 
I'm with DR on this one. The kid may be big enough, fit enough and strong enough to hold down a key position, however I believe that playing CHB requires a few more attributes than these alone. This guy has played a handful of games of Australian Rules football in his career at a junior level with a couple of games playing for Werribee reserves, yet we expect him to hold down a key portfolio this year in our firsts team. Talk about expectation - yep the kid has potential and maybe a gun, but shouldn't we develop him first in the Werribee team where he can gain some experience and then if he shows potential maybe assess this and see what role he can play in our firsts team.

The only time that I would throw him in the deep end would be if we suffered a crippling injury list where we are forced to use him.

you are spot on. CHB is IMO the hardest position to play in. Requires smarts. This guy hasnt played enough games yet to do it
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

you are spot on. CHB is IMO the hardest position to play in. Requires smarts. This guy hasnt played enough games yet to do it

Don't agree at all. CHF is the toughest spot to play.

Roberts-Thompson is a rugby player with a premiership medallion as a CHB.

Williams is also not as big a novice as people think. The "7 games in his life" thing is a myth. This is a story made up by Brisbane and fed to the media along with footage of him shanking a kick to try to get other clubs to pass him up with their first pick. It was never going to happen.

He does have a rugby background but he'd played more footy than was promoted on the news (it was a sexier story to say pick 6 hadn't played any footy as well).

He has also had more time than your typical rookie to build himself up physically - with all the time he's spent on the hand winch he should be built like Tarzan.
 
Even with those rules.
There have been numerous examples of failed forwards have become good backman while failed backman hardly ever become successful forwards.

Matty Robbins used to be a backman, didn't he? Was Murphy the same? I can't really remember, but I think at least one of them used to.

If defending was easy, no forward would ever kick 5+ goals.
 
Matty Robbins used to be a backman, didn't he? Was Murphy the same? I can't really remember, but I think at least one of them used to.

If defending was easy, no forward would ever kick 5+ goals.
If being a forward is easy then ever forward would kick 5. Thats 30 goals.

I'm talking KPs.
Robbins may be one although.
Murphy is not a failed backman.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Should we promote a rookie?

Back
Top