Tommy Walsh substitutes (Markworth and Wilkes)

sainterinsydney · Fri 25 Nov 2011 12:31am

I think we have done preety well in this regard. Would you rather Walsh or these two blokes?

Scoop · Post: # 1178007Post **Scoop** » Fri 25 Nov 2011 12:33am

sainterinsydney wrote:I think we have done preety well in this regard. Would you rather Walsh or these two blokes?

Good question...time will tell...

sainterinsydney · Fri 25 Nov 2011 12:34am

All you need is one guy to be a gun, and it will even it out.

Spinner · Post: # 1178009Post **Spinner** » Fri 25 Nov 2011 12:36am

That's if Tommy produces....

sainterinsydney · Fri 25 Nov 2011 12:42am

Spinner wrote:That's if Tommy produces....

Very true. I think, in the long run, it might be deemed that Tommy Walsh did us a massive favour.

saintsfreak · Fri 25 Nov 2011 12:42am

Markworth was tipped to be a top 20 pick so I think we won this one but I guess only time will tell.

BigMart · Post: # 1178251Post **BigMart** » Fri 25 Nov 2011 7:49pm

Yes, I would....

Wilkes would be on par.....Markworth may turn out a player

gringo · Post: # 1178254Post **gringo** » Fri 25 Nov 2011 7:58pm

Tommy Walsh can f%$# off back to Ireland after a few years playing for the rooty hill reserves and we will forget he ever existed.

SaintPav · Post: # 1178267Post **SaintPav** » Fri 25 Nov 2011 8:22pm

gringo wrote:Tommy Walsh can f%$# off back to Ireland after a few years playing for the rooty hill reserves and we will forget he ever existed.

lol.

Schillaci · Post: # 1178499Post **Schillaci** » Sat 26 Nov 2011 7:38pm

Interesting. On the face of it us...odds in our favour 2 players to one. Not one of them played a game.

joffaboy · Post: # 1178507Post **joffaboy** » Sat 26 Nov 2011 7:56pm

Schillaci wrote:Interesting. On the face of it us...odds in our favour 2 players to one. Not one of them played a game.

Wilkes has played 23 AFL games and then was delisted.

Sainternist · Sat 26 Nov 2011 7:58pm

Hopefully we'll get an opportunity to thank Sydney for giving us two free draft picks

Middo · Post: # 1178518Post **Middo** » Sat 26 Nov 2011 8:30pm

If Tommy Walsh was up to it I'm sure he would have been given a chance it seems like he's been built up as the next big thing but has he really delivered any thing ...? Was he demanding a game ..? Or should he have been gifted a game to see what he can do ...? I'm hoping that the the two guys mentioned form part of the club for years to come ..!!

Sick Nal Danto · Sat 26 Nov 2011 8:32pm

Wilke's stats say he weigh about the same as Dawson, but he looks much bigger and imposing

The only footage I can find of him is this mark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGnCRVOtaM

ace · Post: # 1178577Post **ace** » Sun 27 Nov 2011 8:11am

In practice the club only got Markworth for Walsh.

If another player had been delisted we would still have been able to get Wilkes and Blake late in the draft, because most clubs were only upgrading rookies at that stage of the draft.

ace · Post: # 1178578Post **ace** » Sun 27 Nov 2011 8:19am

Middo wrote:If Tommy Walsh was up to it I'm sure he would have been given a chance it seems like he's been built up as the next big thing but has he really delivered any thing ...? Was he demanding a game ..? Or should he have been gifted a game to see what he can do ...? I'm hoping that the the two guys mentioned form part of the club for years to come ..!!

I think the club knew mid-season that Walsh was going to walk.
When a player refuses to sign a new contract it means only one thing - he thinks/knows there is another club that will pay more.
He was given a temporary promotion to the senior list but still would not sign.
Once he refused to sign it became a case of no signature, no senior selection.

Wrote for Luck · Sun 27 Nov 2011 10:29am

ace wrote:
Middo wrote:If Tommy Walsh was up to it I'm sure he would have been given a chance it seems like he's been built up as the next big thing but has he really delivered any thing ...? Was he demanding a game ..? Or should he have been gifted a game to see what he can do ...? I'm hoping that the the two guys mentioned form part of the club for years to come ..!!
I think the club knew mid-season that Walsh was going to walk.
When a player refuses to sign a new contract it means only one thing - he thinks/knows there is another club that will pay more.
He was given a temporary promotion to the senior list but still would not sign.
Once he refused to sign it became a case of no signature, no senior selection.

if this is true I would like to know who was involved in brokering the deal mid-season - and if it had anything to do with Berbakov.

i can't help but wish things go badly for Walsh. after seeing him play a few times I have little doubt he will be a handy and useful presence within a footy team, something I thought we could have trialled last year, but I feel resolved now at least.

AnythingsPossibleSaints · Sun 27 Nov 2011 11:18am

Middo wrote:If Tommy Walsh was up to it I'm sure he would have been given a chance it seems like he's been built up as the next big thing but has he really delivered any thing ...? Was he demanding a game ..? Or should he have been gifted a game to see what he can do ...?

Were Siposs and Ledger and Cripps "demanding a game" when they got picked? It certainly didn't seem so, from memory. Blake also didn't seem to be setting the world on fire when they picked him again, after a run in the VFL I imagine all this would have irked Tommy to a fair degree and contributed to him wanting to leave. He came top 7 or whatever in the Sandy B&F both years and performed perfectly adequately for us in the NAB Cup, yet was never deemed to be doing well enough to be given a try at AFL level? Is this what you're suggesting? Sydney, who have an extremely high success rate of spotting talent in other teams (eg. Mumford, who they got in an almost identical way to Tommy, Kennedy and McGlynn, are three very recent examples) apparently beg to differ with you. I'm sure they do even more now after he dominated in the International Rules games, albeit with a round ball (I'm pretty confident he'll be pretty used to the oval one by now, though.) Sometimes it's just worth throwing someone in there, like Australia did with Pat Cummins in the last cricket test (despite him having taken just 9 wickets in 3 first class games, at a poor average of 46, prior to that and not having played a first class game in months). Sometimes you need to be proactive, not just reactive, in sport (or any other aspect of life).
I for one will be surprised if he doesn't do well for Sydney, but I'm also happy with the selection of Wilkes, as he seems almost a like for like replacement for Tommy (maybe without the speed and thumping kick) and Markworth apparently gives us a lot to work with, so we could definitely come out ahead in the long run and I certainly hope we do.

Old Mate · Post: # 1178638Post **Old Mate** » Sun 27 Nov 2011 11:25am

I think Walsh will be pretty good. Wilkes average. Markworth could be anything. We win with the latter.

defacto · Post: # 1178658Post **defacto** » Sun 27 Nov 2011 12:37pm

too early to call. i watched the internal rules games hoping to see big tommy gun dominate. he played well but hardly tore the game to shreds every minute.

one thing i noticed is he was blowing up fairly badly on a smaller ground. i dont think he's going to cope with the bigger grounds. he needs to increase his fitness. he looks like he has shed some weight to do that.

i'd put my money on siposs making it before walsh.

Old Mate · Post: # 1178662Post **Old Mate** » Sun 27 Nov 2011 12:41pm

Tommy was very impressive in the International Rules

clarky449 · Post: # 1178681Post **clarky449** » Sun 27 Nov 2011 1:09pm

Yeah great question! We all know who is better 2 days after draft.

Old Mate · Post: # 1178687Post **Old Mate** » Sun 27 Nov 2011 1:12pm

clarky449 wrote:Yeah great question! We all know who is better 2 days after draft.

We're on a forum sharing opinions and predictions. If you've got something else to talk about make a topic instead of harping on with this same old crap in every topic.

clarky449 · Post: # 1178688Post **clarky449** » Sun 27 Nov 2011 1:13pm

Old Mate wrote:
clarky449 wrote:Yeah great question! We all know who is better 2 days after draft.
We're on a forum sharing opinions and predictions. If you've got something else to talk about make a topic instead of harping on with this same old crap in every topic.

Whats wrong? I said it is a great question, i didnt say it was bad.

Old Mate · Post: # 1178694Post **Old Mate** » Sun 27 Nov 2011 1:19pm

Nice cover up. So you agree you're being a wally?

Tommy Walsh substitutes (Markworth and Wilkes)

Tommy Walsh substitutes (Markworth and Wilkes)

Re: Tommy Walsh substitutes (Markworth and Wilkes)