The kids won't make any difference, yeah OK.

[Punchy Bassett]

Dowling, Taylor, Rankine finally in the middle, but yeah don't play the kids.

Nicks is a ****ing clown!

 

[1990crow]

Dowling, Taylor, Rankine finally in the middle, but yeah don't play the kids.

Nicks is a ****ing clown!

Our teenagers are better than some of our "seniors".

 

[Checksider]

Soligo recently struggled to get a game also, now our best true mid.

It’s been a club issue for a while though, not specific to Nicks. The senior players have long seemed to become entitled to a role or spot in the team, and don’t budge.

 

[cleanhands]

It’s an embarrassing statement

 

[Soggy2112]

More importantly, tonight showed that the previous idea of running with the same 4 guys as our onballers isn’t necessary.

Dawson didn’t need to be at every CBA to have an impact. We had Taylor in there and the sky didn’t fall in.

Be dynamic and unpredictable

 

[ABAB]

Dowling, Taylor, Rankine finally in the middle, but yeah don't play the kids.

Nicks is a ****ing clown!

Rankine finally in the middle? He started the season in the middle after training in the preseason in the middle and then wasn't seen until round 5 when he was BOG playing as a midfielder.

 

[ABAB]

Soligo recently struggled to get a game also, now our best true mid.

It’s been a club issue for a while though, not specific to Nicks. The senior players have long seemed to become entitled to a role or spot in the team, and don’t budge.

Soligo played the first round in his first season. I even recall some posters questioning why he played given he was very shit in that game but Nicks didn't drop him and continued to play him even in the midfield late in his first season.

 

[Punchy Bassett]

Soligo played the first round in his first season. I even recall some posters questioning why he played given he was very shit in that game but Nicks didn't drop him and continued to play him even in the midfield late in his first season.

So what you're saying is Nicks used to be bold and play kids and now he doesn't, not exactly the greatest argument.

 

[ABAB]

So what you're saying is Nicks used to be bold and play kids and now he doesn't, not exactly the greatest argument.

What argument? I'm not defending Nicks, he has clearly settled on a group of players who he thinks will get him into Finals but there are a handful of players who clearly won't and somehow he can't see this so he continue to select them and will get sacked next year if we don't make Finals.

 

[Jirkago75]

They better play them for the rest of the year but really besides Murphy and Himmelberg who’s holding the spot of thilthorpe until he’s ready. Which other senior player Is playing?
Walker has been serviceable and is actually showing leadership. We have a very young and inexperienced side.
The kids have shown talent and need to play, it’s actually the only way forward for now and in the future


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Punchy Bassett]

They better play them for the rest of the year but really besides Murphy and Himmelberg who’s holding the spot of thilthorpe until he’s ready. Which other senior player Is playing?
Walker has been serviceable and is actually showing leadership. We have a very young and inexperienced side.
The kids have shown talent and need to play, it’s actually the only way forward for now and in the future


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

You know Smith and McSpud will be back

 

[Soggy2112]

They better play them for the rest of the year but really besides Murphy and Himmelberg who’s holding the spot of thilthorpe until he’s ready. Which other senior player Is playing?
Walker has been serviceable and is actually showing leadership. We have a very young and inexperienced side.
The kids have shown talent and need to play, it’s actually the only way forward for now and in the future


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

My concern with Walker playing is if we’re having a bad game most likely we’ll go back to looking for him on every inside 50. That would not help us in our development.

 

[cleanhands]

My concern with Walker playing is if we’re having a bad game most likely we’ll go back to looking for him on every inside 50. That would not help us in our development.

Tex is still best 22

 

[Soggy2112]

Tex is still best 22

Where in my post did I say he wasn’t?

 

[cleanhands]

Where in my post did I say he wasn’t?

He is not going to hinder our development, completely the opposite

 

[Jirkago75]

My concern with Walker playing is if we’re having a bad game most likely we’ll go back to looking for him on every inside 50. That would not help us in our development.

Fog needs to be the target, he has improved a lot this year. Think we can play without Walker next year if Thilthorpe plays. Walker has been good for a long time but looks like it should be his last year. Don’t think his body can go another year


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Jirkago75]

You know Smith and McSpud will be back

Think Smith knows he’s done, McHenrys card is stamped and he knows he’s out.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[119others]

Soligo played the first round in his first season. I even recall some posters questioning why he played given he was very shit in that game but Nicks didn't drop him and continued to play him even in the midfield late in his first season.

Don’t put facts in the story. Instead let’s have the 50th Sack Nicks derivative thread which is quite sad really.

 

[119others]

Dowling, Taylor, Rankine finally in the middle, but yeah don't play the kids.

Nicks is a ****ing clown!

With half of last nights team less than 60 games played - Berry, Cook, Dowling, Hamill, Keane, Max, Murray, Nank, Rachele, Soligo and Taylor (and Himmelberg who doesn’t fit in previous category) and multiple more 50-100 gamers and then auto selections when fit / matured like TT, Worrell, Pedlar and Curtin (all under 50 games) and you hopefully get the picture ie we are exceptionally inexperienced and young already.

The question is how many more youngsters do you actually want playing? We only have around a handful of players over 100 games which must be some sort of record for our team with Sloane, Smith, Crouch and Milera injured (and ROB dropped in recent weeks)

Do you really think aiming to get younger when all objective stats shows the optimum games played (experience) and age is so much higher than our profile is the way to go to be successful.

One of us in living in fairy land. Perhaps it’s me.

PS is there really a need to create another sack Nicks derivative thread? Can’t you just add it to one of the multiple already floating around to stop people wasting time? Otherwise the normal crew rejoice and just happily replicate their default diatribe on a whole new thread.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

With half of last nights team less than 60 games played - Berry, Cook, Dowling, Hamill, Keane, Max, Murray, Nank, Rachele, Soligo and Taylor (and Himmelberg who doesn’t fit in previous category) and multiple more 50-100 gamers and then auto selections when fit / matured like TT, Worrell, Pedlar and Curtin (all under 50 games) and you hopefully get the picture ie we are exceptionally inexperienced and young already.

The question is how many more youngsters do you actually want playing? We only have around a handful of players over 100 games which must be some sort of record for our team with Sloane, Smith, Crouch and Milera injured (and ROB dropped in recent weeks)

Do you really think aiming to get younger when all objective stats shows the optimum games played (experience) and age is so much higher than our profile is the way to go to be successful.

One of us in living in fairy land. Perhaps it’s me.

PS is there really a need to create another sack Nicks derivative thread? Can’t you just add it to one of the multiple already floating around to stop people wasting time? Otherwise the normal crew rejoice and just happily replicate their default diatribe on a whole new thread.

How do you get a player like Dowling or Taylor to the “optimum games played” level if you play a guy like Murphy before them because he is closer to the optimum games played number?

That whole concept is false logic if your side has a number of spuds that happen to have a heap of games under their belt.

It is a net gain to play a potentially more talented youngster than a spud with lots of games played.

 

[Faaarrk]

Don’t put facts in the story. Instead let’s have the 50th Sack Nicks derivative thread which is quite sad really.

You have a go at others for not being factual then your second sentence is fictional. Hypocrite much?
Nowhere has the op mentioned sacking Nicks in this thread, only he’s a clown for not trusting the kids.

 

[ABAB]

With half of last nights team less than 60 games played - Berry, Cook, Dowling, Hamill, Keane, Max, Murray, Nank, Rachele, Soligo and Taylor (and Himmelberg who doesn’t fit in previous category) and multiple more 50-100 gamers and then auto selections when fit / matured like TT, Worrell, Pedlar and Curtin (all under 50 games) and you hopefully get the picture ie we are exceptionally inexperienced and young already.

The question is how many more youngsters do you actually want playing? We only have around a handful of players over 100 games which must be some sort of record for our team with Sloane, Smith, Crouch and Milera injured (and ROB dropped in recent weeks)

Do you really think aiming to get younger when all objective stats shows the optimum games played (experience) and age is so much higher than our profile is the way to go to be successful.

One of us in living in fairy land. Perhaps it’s me.

PS is there really a need to create another sack Nicks derivative thread? Can’t you just add it to one of the multiple already floating around to stop people wasting time? Otherwise the normal crew rejoice and just happily replicate their default diatribe on a whole new thread.

Playing them instead of Smith, ROB, McHenry, Murphy and Jones (been poor this year) wouldn't have made us a shitter side since these players hasn't done anything. On the contrary, they more than likely would have even made us a better side given the quality of the youngsters coming through.

 

[Southerntakeover]

With half of last nights team less than 60 games played - Berry, Cook, Dowling, Hamill, Keane, Max, Murray, Nank, Rachele, Soligo and Taylor (and Himmelberg who doesn’t fit in previous category) and multiple more 50-100 gamers and then auto selections when fit / matured like TT, Worrell, Pedlar and Curtin (all under 50 games) and you hopefully get the picture ie we are exceptionally inexperienced and young already.

The question is how many more youngsters do you actually want playing? We only have around a handful of players over 100 games which must be some sort of record for our team with Sloane, Smith, Crouch and Milera injured (and ROB dropped in recent weeks)

Do you really think aiming to get younger when all objective stats shows the optimum games played (experience) and age is so much higher than our profile is the way to go to be successful.

One of us in living in fairy land. Perhaps it’s me.

PS is there really a need to create another sack Nicks derivative thread? Can’t you just add it to one of the multiple already floating around to stop people wasting time? Otherwise the normal crew rejoice and just happily replicate their default diatribe on a whole new thread.

How do you think players acquire more games played?

 

[Faaarrk]

With half of last nights team less than 60 games played - Berry, Cook, Dowling, Hamill, Keane, Max, Murray, Nank, Rachele, Soligo and Taylor (and Himmelberg who doesn’t fit in previous category) and multiple more 50-100 gamers and then auto selections when fit / matured like TT, Worrell, Pedlar and Curtin (all under 50 games) and you hopefully get the picture ie we are exceptionally inexperienced and young already.

The question is how many more youngsters do you actually want playing? We only have around a handful of players over 100 games which must be some sort of record for our team with Sloane, Smith, Crouch and Milera injured (and ROB dropped in recent weeks)

Do you really think aiming to get younger when all objective stats shows the optimum games played (experience) and age is so much higher than our profile is the way to go to be successful.

One of us in living in fairy land. Perhaps it’s me.

PS is there really a need to create another sack Nicks derivative thread? Can’t you just add it to one of the multiple already floating around to stop people wasting time? Otherwise the normal crew rejoice and just happily replicate their default diatribe on a whole new thread.

It’s not so much playing every available kid we can, it’s about giving them a chance when the older ones in the side aren’t performing. Recent players like Dowling and last night Taylor have shown enough to get a block of games while players like Smith, Murphy and McHenry keep ****ing up.
We are annoyed at his policy of selecting experience over youth without even giving youth a try.
Even subbing Cook off instead of Murphy was pathetic.

 

[Scorpus]

With half of last nights team less than 60 games played - Berry, Cook, Dowling, Hamill, Keane, Max, Murray, Nank, Rachele, Soligo and Taylor (and Himmelberg who doesn’t fit in previous category) and multiple more 50-100 gamers and then auto selections when fit / matured like TT, Worrell, Pedlar and Curtin (all under 50 games) and you hopefully get the picture ie we are exceptionally inexperienced and young already.

The question is how many more youngsters do you actually want playing? We only have around a handful of players over 100 games which must be some sort of record for our team with Sloane, Smith, Crouch and Milera injured (and ROB dropped in recent weeks)

Do you really think aiming to get younger when all objective stats shows the optimum games played (experience) and age is so much higher than our profile is the way to go to be successful.

One of us in living in fairy land. Perhaps it’s me.

PS is there really a need to create another sack Nicks derivative thread? Can’t you just add it to one of the multiple already floating around to stop people wasting time? Otherwise the normal crew rejoice and just happily replicate their default diatribe on a whole new thread.

We need to get experience into the younger players so they actually do have experience when we are contending. If that means getting younger in the short term, so be it.

There's a balance to this, you wouldn't drop Dawson, who has a chance to be part of a contending team, to play Taylor. And you do need some quality leadership on the field, like Walker.

But what benefit is there to bumping our experience count by playing players who are not going to be part of a premiership team, who are out for form and provide little to no on field leadership?