Mark Fine

Mooksy · Post: # 542426Post **Mooksy** » Fri 04 Apr 2008 11:47pm

Just thought I'd use this subject to get on his show tonight.....what on earth ios Raph Clarke doing in the side before Clinton Jones and Chartlie Gardner?

plugger66 · Post: # 542431Post **plugger66** » Fri 04 Apr 2008 11:48pm

Mooksy wrote:Just thought I'd use this subject to get on his show tonight.....what on earth ios Raph Clarke doing in the side before Clinton Jones and Chartlie Gardner?

Correct because both of them play as 3rd tall backmen.

Mooksy · Post: # 542436Post **Mooksy** » Fri 04 Apr 2008 11:49pm

Mate put Blake down there instead of Clarke. In fact....anyone but Clarke!

plugger66 · Post: # 542441Post **plugger66** » Fri 04 Apr 2008 11:51pm

Mooksy wrote:Mate put Blake down there instead of Clarke. In fact....anyone but Clarke!

All I am saying is we need another tall forward like we need the clap. Horses for courses.

savatage · Post: # 542442Post **savatage** » Fri 04 Apr 2008 11:52pm

I would've thought pace was needed tonight - I'd have brought in Clinton Jones. His tackling & desperation would've been much needed.

Enrico_Misso · Fri 04 Apr 2008 11:55pm

I still can't figure why he was left out last week !

Richter · Post: # 542488Post **Richter** » Sat 05 Apr 2008 12:14am

As it turns out James Gwilt would have been a better option as the third Tall down back then Raph tonight IMO.

I think he'll be getting an extended run in the Scorps for a while.

clarky449 · Post: # 542534Post **clarky449** » Sat 05 Apr 2008 1:04am

im not a fan of Raph never have been and i was very dissapointed that he came in i dont know why Clinton Jones was drop for the Carlton game after he showed great courage

Moccha · Post: # 542554Post **Moccha** » Sat 05 Apr 2008 1:52am

Geez Raph Clarke needs a solid 4 weeks for the Scorps. His decision making is terrible. They all looked stuffed. No run after the 2nd quarter. I'd rather lose against the Bulldogs than Geelong, but let me dream

Washedup · Post: # 542556Post **Washedup** » Sat 05 Apr 2008 2:07am

Geez Raph Clarke needs a solid 4 weeks for the Scorps. His decision making is terrible. They all looked stuffed. No run after the 2nd quarter. I'd rather lose against the Bulldogs than Geelong, but let me dream

RL will not only be doing us a favour, but he will save Raph from potentially a career damaging, confidence belting by dropping him for the GEEL game. Who the hell in their forward line could he possibly keep to under 5 goals. If he plays next week, look for the all time clanger record to be obliterated

maverick · Post: # 542567Post **maverick** » Sat 05 Apr 2008 7:11am

Amazing, every thread I open up is about Raph, can't wait to drop him next week so we can start winning again....

plugger66 · Post: # 542620Post **plugger66** » Sat 05 Apr 2008 9:29am

maverick wrote:Amazing, every thread I open up is about Raph, can't wait to drop him next week so we can start winning again....

Have to agree. If he is out of the side Geelong better watch out. Afterall e was responsible for our mids not touching it after quarter time.

Richter · Post: # 542625Post **Richter** » Sat 05 Apr 2008 9:33am

maverick wrote:Amazing, every thread I open up is about Raph, can't wait to drop him next week so we can start winning again....

Then you'd better start actually reading the posts. Nearly all the posters are saying the same thing. We lost because the midfield as a unit was hopeless, but by the same token Raph, by many of our estimations, had a shocker.

Comprendez?

maverick · Post: # 542645Post **maverick** » Sat 05 Apr 2008 9:52am

Richter wrote:
maverick wrote:Amazing, every thread I open up is about Raph, can't wait to drop him next week so we can start winning again....
Then you'd better start actually reading the posts. Nearly all the posters are saying the same thing. We lost because the midfield as a unit was hopeless, but by the same token Raph, by many of our estimations, had a shocker.

Comprendez?

As i say look forward to a win next week without raph because that's all it needs

Comprendez?

Mark Fine

Mark Fine

Re: Mark Fine