AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
So your solution to our rucks being injury prone is to bring in Kreuzer or Smith? That's like complaining your girlfriend's boobs are too big and then cheating on her with Kate Upton.
Well actually, John Longmire whacked Michael's foot with a baseball bat when he realised that Sydney would be better off if he wasn't capable of kicking.
In a word 'meh'.
2 parts of faark all - Geelong fit him in. And no, I wouldn't, but unfortunately that's a crazy argument. Would you trade him for Declan Hamilton?
I'll be amazed if you're right, but let's hope. He'll never be athletic though, so he'll never be the absolute answer. But he may end up being all we have.
I've never said Roughead is no good but I'm happy to admit that I'll be surprised if Campbell makes it. And, no, it is not "the" answer, but it is "an" answer. And please, Kreuzer is 10 times the player any of our rucks are.
Not a crazy argument when that is a third round pick. You're right, as is Declan Hamilton. So if you wouldn't trade Daniel for Smith, then you shouldn't be prepared to trade 2 potential Daniels for him surely? We've drafted very well in recent years and I wouldn't be prepared to waste the talents of our drafters by bringing in a player that will most likely play <14 games.
Except whether Kreuzer is better or worse than our rucks isn't the argument. It's the fact that he's as injury prone, well actually more injury prone, than all of our rucks combined.
Using Daniel as the standard bearer for all our 3rd Rd picks is opportunistic at best. Would you trade 2 X Declan Hamiltons or 2 X Matthew Fullers to get someone like Smith?
You really aren't getting what I'm saying are you? Kreuzer's ability isn't what I'm questioning here, his durability is. You want to replace easily injured players with more easily injured players. I'm questioning the wisdom of that solution.
Well that first line was nice and patronising, wasn't it? It may not be wise, but that's not my argument here; we are trying to win a flag. If recruiting someone who has ability, who we think can better our chance to win a flag, but who comes with an inherent risk, but a risk that is manageable, I'm all for taking that risk. Smith or Kreuzer may have risks associated with them, but they aren't cultural, and if we can get 14 games and 3/4 finals out of them and they contribute better than what we have already to winning that flag, it's a calculated risk. As was taking Stringer with a leg he couldn't walk on.
No more patronizing than someone going back 700 pages to make sure to let everyone know they were right after one quarter of football against a debutant. Too bad the rest of the game happened. It's also frustrating when you've written several posts saying "hey those guys are more fragile" and you get back "I think they're good players".
Going back 700 pages was pure self serving and self interest, hardly patronising.
I'm a big Grundy fan but I hear he's very left of centre culturally.
Yes he is, but not a bad cat. Just different. Obviously I don't know exactly how he'd fit into the group, but he's not a bad dude or a bad influence in any way.
It's a little patronizing. And I think plenty took it that way.
Care to elaborate? In as polite a way as possible.
Agree
I think his upside is much higher than the other 2.
Just very Gen Y. Not a man's man and can come over a little disinterested at times. Can be very blunt/direct with coaches and team mates as well.
"
