Well put. I'd find it hard to argue with any of that. We've done some things extremely well in the past few years, obviously, but the development of the younger ones on the list has pretty much been the opposite and has probably cost us at least one premiership (2010, when we persisted with the likes of out of form McQualter and not up to it Eddy, for instance).BigMart wrote:It is embarrassing we are even in this position
I mean, what clubs have problems keeping their rookies....most just upgrade them....
Even other clubs realise he could be a player and are making a play for him.....yet we wouldnt give the boy a shot.....with a dysfunctional fwd line...
belies belief.....the management and development of;
Walsh, Lynch, Armitage, Stanley, Heyne, Johnson, Smith and Geary has been disgraceful in the 2008-2011 period....they have almost gone backwards as players....and they really have been starved of opportunity and little belief in them has been appharant....great for confidence
Collingwoods use of their 18-22 yo players is in complete contrast...
whilst scott showed confidence in 0-40 gamers
Hawthorn trusted kids
we went with tried and true GOP's
Swans pushing for walsh hard
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3152
- Joined: Tue 02 Jun 2009 2:44am
- Location: Next to what's next to me.
- Has thanked: 71 times
- Been thanked: 35 times
Last edited by AnythingsPossibleSaints on Sat 15 Oct 2011 4:04pm, edited 1 time in total.
YOU GET WHAT YOU SETTLE FOR.
If you're on twitter...
@tommywalshkor
Send him a message to stay!
Maybe we can start a Chris Grant kind of campaign, like the kid who sent him his pocket money to stay![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
@tommywalshkor
Send him a message to stay!
Maybe we can start a Chris Grant kind of campaign, like the kid who sent him his pocket money to stay
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Last edited by SainterK on Sat 15 Oct 2011 4:04pm, edited 1 time in total.
- dragit
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13047
- Joined: Tue 29 Jun 2010 11:56am
- Has thanked: 605 times
- Been thanked: 315 times
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/s ... 1lpc0.htmlSainterK wrote:Who said that?dragit wrote:This isn't looking good, going up for a medical is pretty serious…
I would like to see us make room for him salary-wise somehow - Blake?
"Walsh has undergone medical tests with the Swans' doctors as a final step before the club sought to open talks with St Kilda."
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3152
- Joined: Tue 02 Jun 2009 2:44am
- Location: Next to what's next to me.
- Has thanked: 71 times
- Been thanked: 35 times
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
Perhaps.AnythingsPossibleSaints wrote:This!westy wrote:Didn't the club just say that they are not prepared to let Tommy go? Hopefully the next piece of news is that of an upgrade to the senior list with a watertight contract.
OR is it a smokescreen to get an above the odds pick for him?
Give me pick 30 for Walsh and I'd take it in a heartbeat.
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
- samuraisaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5869
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2011 3:23pm
- Location: M32
- Has thanked: 836 times
- Been thanked: 785 times
I wouldn't accept pick 30. I would do my best to keep a player who we brought over to this country, set up, then developed for two years. I would ask the coach to speak to him reasonably about his plans for him, and then if his heart is really set on living in Sydney, I would deal, but like for like. In other words a player with enormous potential who Sydney have spent years developing.
- sainterinsydney
- Club Player
- Posts: 781
- Joined: Mon 30 Nov 2009 11:03am
- Been thanked: 22 times
- Dr Spaceman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14102
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 11:07pm
- Location: Newtown Institute of Saintology
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
And what is a stand? Surely we dont want to lose Ray and another player to keep a complete unknown.Dr Spaceman wrote:Exactly!sainterinsydney wrote:Its a matter of principle to hang on to this guy. We spent all this time developing Tommy, just for the Swines to poach him right when he will start playing. Saints have to make a stand!
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3152
- Joined: Tue 02 Jun 2009 2:44am
- Location: Next to what's next to me.
- Has thanked: 71 times
- Been thanked: 35 times
A "complete unknown"? Are you not aware that we've been watching and developing him for two years? I would say this is far less of an "unknown" than trading someone like a Ray for draft pick, or draft picks and that happens all the time. I know you said you "don't have guts" but come on, this would not require that much courage.plugger66 wrote:And what is a stand? Surely we dont want to lose Ray and another player to keep a complete unknown.Dr Spaceman wrote:Exactly!sainterinsydney wrote:Its a matter of principle to hang on to this guy. We spent all this time developing Tommy, just for the Swines to poach him right when he will start playing. Saints have to make a stand!
YOU GET WHAT YOU SETTLE FOR.
- Dr Spaceman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14102
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 11:07pm
- Location: Newtown Institute of Saintology
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
Do you know that's what we need to do to keep him?plugger66 wrote:And what is a stand? Surely we dont want to lose Ray and another player to keep a complete unknown.Dr Spaceman wrote:Exactly!sainterinsydney wrote:Its a matter of principle to hang on to this guy. We spent all this time developing Tommy, just for the Swines to poach him right when he will start playing. Saints have to make a stand!
There may already be room to offer him more but we're trying to get him on the cheap, or simply don't rate him high enough.
Anyway, on another note, it has been suggested that Tadhg Kennelly is a driving force behind the Swans attempt to lure Tommy north. Why don't we poach Tadhg from the Swans to be an assistant coach and totally stuff em?
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
Plugger, there's no need for you to respond to that last bit. That's just there for those of us who sometimes like to think beyond the logical and rational.
![Cool 8-)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
Tommy is not a complete unknown. The club will have a fair indication of what he is capable of at the top level, and it is clear that we are desperate to hang on to him.plugger66 wrote:And what is a stand? Surely we dont want to lose Ray and another player to keep a complete unknown.Dr Spaceman wrote:Exactly!sainterinsydney wrote:Its a matter of principle to hang on to this guy. We spent all this time developing Tommy, just for the Swines to poach him right when he will start playing. Saints have to make a stand!
I liken this situation to Geelong losing Mumford to Sydney (yes I know Mumford had been given games at AFL level but the principle is the same).
Geelong knew that Mumford had what it takes and in no way did they want him to leave, infact, they were very keen to hang on to him. But Sydney offered Mummy a contract he couldn't turn down as well as the role of first ruck. He took it and he has shone. They poached him right when he was ready to perform and he has done exactly that.
I can see the same thing happening to Tommy if Sydney do manage to get him from us. I will be devastated if we lose this bloke.
The problem with that is it didnt effect Geelong at all. If they went all out to keep Mumford they may have lost a guy who played well in the last GF. It is a team sport and not for individuals especially ones who we have no idea about at the top level.#1GILL wrote:Tommy is not a complete unknown. The club will have a fair indication of what he is capable of at the top level, and it is clear that we are desperate to hang on to him.plugger66 wrote:And what is a stand? Surely we dont want to lose Ray and another player to keep a complete unknown.Dr Spaceman wrote:Exactly!sainterinsydney wrote:Its a matter of principle to hang on to this guy. We spent all this time developing Tommy, just for the Swines to poach him right when he will start playing. Saints have to make a stand!
I liken this situation to Geelong losing Mumford to Sydney (yes I know Mumford had been given games at AFL level but the principle is the same).
Geelong knew that Mumford had what it takes and in no way did they want him to leave, infact, they were very keen to hang on to him. But Sydney offered Mummy a contract he couldn't turn down as well as the role of first ruck. He took it and he has shone. They poached him right when he was ready to perform and he has done exactly that.
I can see the same thing happening to Tommy if Sydney do manage to get him from us. I will be devastated if we lose this bloke.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 535
- Joined: Sun 12 Jun 2011 1:31pm
Absolutely, f**k the Swans sick of them poaching our players, tell them to f**k off and make it absolutely clear to Walsh that if he nominates for the draft, we'll take him at pick 42 if he's still there, but those parasites the Swans will not get him. I hope the introduction of GWS sees the eventual death of AFL in Sydney.defacto wrote:we need to play hard ball with walsh. we need to tell him he isnt going anywhere.
worst case scenerio he doesnt re-sign and nominates for the draft. the chances of him going to sydney are f*** all given our draft picks:
21. Sydney Swans (committed to Tom Mitchell as a father-son selection)
25. St Kilda
37. St Kilda
42. St Kilda
43. Sydney Swans
we can use pick 42 on him and stop him going to the swans. if he doesnt want to play for us then he doesnt play at all. we need a bit of mongrel
here and send a clear message to sydney we will not tolerate them trying
to poach our players.
BE RUTHLESS SAINTS!!
It didn't affect Geelong because they were well stocked with rucks at the time.plugger66 wrote:The problem with that is it didnt effect Geelong at all. If they went all out to keep Mumford they may have lost a guy who played well in the last GF. It is a team sport and not for individuals especially ones who we have no idea about at the top level.#1GILL wrote:Tommy is not a complete unknown. The club will have a fair indication of what he is capable of at the top level, and it is clear that we are desperate to hang on to him.plugger66 wrote:And what is a stand? Surely we dont want to lose Ray and another player to keep a complete unknown.Dr Spaceman wrote:Exactly!sainterinsydney wrote:Its a matter of principle to hang on to this guy. We spent all this time developing Tommy, just for the Swines to poach him right when he will start playing. Saints have to make a stand!
I liken this situation to Geelong losing Mumford to Sydney (yes I know Mumford had been given games at AFL level but the principle is the same).
Geelong knew that Mumford had what it takes and in no way did they want him to leave, infact, they were very keen to hang on to him. But Sydney offered Mummy a contract he couldn't turn down as well as the role of first ruck. He took it and he has shone. They poached him right when he was ready to perform and he has done exactly that.
I can see the same thing happening to Tommy if Sydney do manage to get him from us. I will be devastated if we lose this bloke.
Question- Do you believe we are well stocked with full forwards who can make an influence in 2012?
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 535
- Joined: Sun 12 Jun 2011 1:31pm
Absolutely, f**k the Swans sick of them poaching our players, tell them to f**k off and make it absolutely clear to Walsh that if he nominates for the draft, we'll take him at pick 42 if he's still there, but those parasites the Swans will not get him. I hope the introduction of GWS sees the eventual death of AFL in Sydney.defacto wrote:we need to play hard ball with walsh. we need to tell him he isnt going anywhere.
worst case scenerio he doesnt re-sign and nominates for the draft. the chances of him going to sydney are f*** all given our draft picks:
21. Sydney Swans (committed to Tom Mitchell as a father-son selection)
25. St Kilda
37. St Kilda
42. St Kilda
43. Sydney Swans
we can use pick 42 on him and stop him going to the swans. if he doesnt want to play for us then he doesnt play at all. we need a bit of mongrel
here and send a clear message to sydney we will not tolerate them trying
to poach our players.
BE RUTHLESS SAINTS!!
- borderbarry
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6676
- Joined: Mon 19 Apr 2004 11:22pm
- Location: Wodonga
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 535
- Joined: Sun 12 Jun 2011 1:31pm
Absolutely, f**k the Swans sick of them poaching our players, tell them to f**k off and make it absolutely clear to Walsh that if he nominates for the draft, we'll take him at pick 42 if he's still there, but those parasites the Swans will not get him. I hope the introduction of GWS sees the eventual death of AFL in Sydney.defacto wrote:we need to play hard ball with walsh. we need to tell him he isnt going anywhere.
worst case scenerio he doesnt re-sign and nominates for the draft. the chances of him going to sydney are f*** all given our draft picks:
21. Sydney Swans (committed to Tom Mitchell as a father-son selection)
25. St Kilda
37. St Kilda
42. St Kilda
43. Sydney Swans
we can use pick 42 on him and stop him going to the swans. if he doesnt want to play for us then he doesnt play at all. we need a bit of mongrel
here and send a clear message to sydney we will not tolerate them trying
to poach our players.
BE RUTHLESS SAINTS!!
- borderbarry
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6676
- Joined: Mon 19 Apr 2004 11:22pm
- Location: Wodonga