Gram thing is weird...

Thinline · Post: # 745277Post **Thinline** » Mon 25 May 2009 3:28pm

Surely there is something more to this...

I can't remember anything remotely similar happening before.

I mean if he was dropped, he was dropped. If he was injured, he was injured. But injured, then apparently NOT injured, NOR dropped?

I know it's already been raised, but I thought I'd give it another chance to breathe...

Anyone?

bigcarl · Post: # 745287Post **bigcarl** » Mon 25 May 2009 3:35pm

he was not injured as he played (apparently quite well) for sandringham.

so he was dropped.

hope to see him back soon as i thought we missed his run through the middle and his willingness to take risks.

savatage · Post: # 745289Post **savatage** » Mon 25 May 2009 3:36pm

Not named in side due to injury...pulled up better than expected on game day - unable to play in senior side as not named! Last minute inclusion for Sandringham. Better to have a run than not to have a run!

SainterK · Post: # 745290Post **SainterK** » Mon 25 May 2009 3:37pm

The article said he just didn't have time coming up from the injury, to have the proper preperation....

Thinline · Post: # 745291Post **Thinline** » Mon 25 May 2009 3:38pm

Why then the weirdness?

Or is an extension of the 'two weeks on the injured list' mentality or something?

Maybe leave it up to Craig Hutchison to make something up...

SainterK · Post: # 745296Post **SainterK** » Mon 25 May 2009 3:41pm

I think it's only weird for those on here who have thought he may have been worthy of being dropped. Personally I don't think that this was warranted, we certainly missed him heaps yesterday. Everyone has their good and bad as far as footy goes, and I realise Gram is no exception.

However inside 50's are not something that can be taken lightly, and he is a gun as far as they go....

Spinner · Post: # 745313Post **Spinner** » Mon 25 May 2009 4:07pm

Why not give him an extra rest and really train hard this week....

Im on the same wavelength as the OP.

joffaboy · Post: # 745334Post **joffaboy** » Mon 25 May 2009 4:35pm

He was suspect for the game against Brisbane - the club selected Raph - Gram improved significantly - and in hindsight the club decided that he was fit enough to play for Sandy?

He probably deserved to be dropped anyway.

perfectionist · Mon 25 May 2009 5:09pm

savatage wrote:Not named in side due to injury...pulled up better than expected on game day - unable to play in senior side as not named! Last minute inclusion for Sandringham. Better to have a run than not to have a run!

Agree, sounds like erring on the side of caution rather than risk taking. Nice to be in that position for once. Raphael played OK and Jason Gram is needed in the side because he's a midfield who kicks goals. Nice selection worry to have.

roxanne · Post: # 745353Post **roxanne** » Mon 25 May 2009 5:25pm

I dunno. If he didn't pull up in time from his injury (and he was seen strapped up at training) why not rest him? I'm sure his body could use a break. Why make him run around in the twos? I think there was a message in there somewhere - just don't know what it was.

saintly · Post: # 745356Post **saintly** » Mon 25 May 2009 5:28pm

why make mountains out of molehills.

why does everything have to to sound like a conspiracy.

savatage · Post: # 745358Post **savatage** » Mon 25 May 2009 5:30pm

saintly wrote:why make mountains out of molehills.

why does everything have to to sound like a conspiracy.

+1

Mr Magic · Post: # 745362Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 25 May 2009 5:37pm

According to Greg Huthinson (Doran on SEN), the CLub were forced to make a decision on Friday afternoon under League Rules and erred on the side of caution by relacing him with Raph, and naming 3 others as emergencies.

He apparently improved significantly on Saturday and the Club made the decision on Sunday to play him at Sandy since he couldn't be selected at that late stage for the Seniors.

Sounds plausible to me.

rexy · Post: # 745372Post **rexy** » Mon 25 May 2009 5:57pm

I thought he was close to being dropped, but thought the reason for this was that his body was not up to the expectations of playing league footy, looks like it wasnt and he did need a week off and then as others have said he came up a lot better by Sunday and they let him play 2s?

I would have thought a complete rest would have done him better? Assuming he was able to tackle hard etc in the VFL I think he will come straight back in.

MC Gusto · Post: # 745380Post **MC Gusto** » Mon 25 May 2009 6:06pm

he wasn't 100%. but he was ok to have a run.

no conspiracy. got to field the best 22 and it has been shown under our injury management this year they will only be selected from those who are 100%

saintbrat · Post: # 745390Post **saintbrat** » Mon 25 May 2009 6:15pm

http://www.saints.com.au/season2009/new ... fault.aspx

Thigh strain behind Gram's VFL run
By Luke Holmesby
10:44 AM Mon 25 May, 2009
Jason Gram is a chance to return for St Kilda's match against Melbourne on Saturday night
KILDA defender Jason Gram is in line for a recall to the senior side this week after impressing for Sandringham in the VFL.

Gram was originally named in the squad of 25 to take on the Brisbane Lions but was replaced by Luke Miles on Friday night. Miles was named an emergency, while Raphael Clarke took Gramâ€™s spot in the 22. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Devilhead · Post: # 745402Post **Devilhead** » Mon 25 May 2009 6:33pm

ohwhenthesaints! wrote:
However inside 50's are not something that can be taken lightly, and he is a gun as far as they go....

He might be leading our inside 50 stats but given he is one of the worst kicks in the side it is a bit of a worry

Don't get me wrong his run and carry is top notch but I would love to know how many of his inside 50's are actually to advantage

plugger66 · Post: # 745409Post **plugger66** » Mon 25 May 2009 6:44pm

Devilhead wrote:
ohwhenthesaints! wrote:
However inside 50's are not something that can be taken lightly, and he is a gun as far as they go....
He might be leading our inside 50 stats but given he is one of the worst kicks in the side it is a bit of a worry

Don't get me wrong his run and carry is top notch but I would love to know how many of his inside 50's are actually to advantage

There are more to advantage when he plays than when he doesnt play.

stinger · Post: # 745411Post **stinger** » Mon 25 May 2009 6:49pm

not weird at all.......he was only a last minute inclusion for the vfl side because of his late recovery......

Devilhead · Post: # 745423Post **Devilhead** » Mon 25 May 2009 7:04pm

plugger66 wrote:
Devilhead wrote:
ohwhenthesaints! wrote:
However inside 50's are not something that can be taken lightly, and he is a gun as far as they go....
He might be leading our inside 50 stats but given he is one of the worst kicks in the side it is a bit of a worry

Don't get me wrong his run and carry is top notch but I would love to know how many of his inside 50's are actually to advantage
There are more to advantage when he plays than when he doesnt play.

Saint Bev · Post: # 745428Post **Saint Bev** » Mon 25 May 2009 7:09pm

No, I agree, weird. If there was a question mark over whether he could play or not, why not make him an emergency. Personally I think we missed his run off the back line. And though he got off to a slow start this year, I believe he has played well enough not to get dropped.

Me thinks he may have been a naughty boy.

St DAC · Post: # 745451Post **St DAC** » Mon 25 May 2009 7:31pm

Greg Hutchinson on 3AW just now intimated that Grammy's "preperation wasn't up to standard early in the week to allow him to play AFL footy on Sunday".

Whatever that means ... sounds like a minor discipline problem to me. Perhaps Grammy's just had a boot to the bum issued.

3rd generation saint · Mon 25 May 2009 7:31pm

I would actually say that it was great management, as has been discussed, on Friday when final teams are announced, he may not have been fit, but come Sunday, was fit to play.
What would be even more impressive is if Grammy initiated this telling RL he ws right to play, could he play for Sandy.
If there is to be a change this week, it would be Gram for Gwilt, which is unlucky for Gwilt, because he has been good this year, but had a bad one yesterday.

saintsRrising · Mon 25 May 2009 7:40pm

Thinline wrote:Surely there is something more to this...

?

Why.

AFL games are a lot more important than VFL ones.

If you have a player that you are not confident will be be right to give 100% effort for 100% of the game why would you want to risk the 4 points by playing him.

We would have looked very stupid if he had played and then found he could nor run out the game in the secon half.

Personally I think it is great we are not playing players who may not be quite right.

Ditto for making Max come back via the reserves and ensuring he is match fit first.

SainterK · Post: # 745477Post **SainterK** » Mon 25 May 2009 8:09pm

Devilhead wrote:
ohwhenthesaints! wrote:
However inside 50's are not something that can be taken lightly, and he is a gun as far as they go....
He might be leading our inside 50 stats but given he is one of the worst kicks in the side it is a bit of a worry

Don't get me wrong his run and carry is top notch but I would love to know how many of his inside 50's are actually to advantage

Hey selective editing, I said he has he's good and bad like anyone else....however IMO his good outweighs his bad.

Gram thing is weird...

Gram thing is weird...

Re: Gram thing is weird...

Re: Gram thing is weird...