Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Dr Spaceman wrote:Maybe I’m coming at this from a different angle.
Maybe he doesn’t deserve selection based on any or all of the possible reasons suggested.
However given where the Saints are right at this moment in time in regards to development, injuries and ladder position, perhaps the club could give him a game anyways. Would it dramatically alter our chances of winning a particular game? At worst it would keep a lot of increasingly disenfranchised fans happy.
The club is not playing him and is not publicly stating the reasons why. That’s fair enough.
But just give the kid a game. And if he gets it 20 – 30 times, and he turns it over 20 – 30 times, at least the fans will be wiser and it may stop a lot of the negative chatter on social media (which is not the be all and end all, but it is not helpful to a club trying to build support).
What has the club, and Scott for that matter, got to lose?
This thread is exactly the same as the one for Tommy Walsh 2 years ago. He has sice left and still doesnt look an AFL player. Sure we could give Ledger a game but for that to happen its probably a young guy going out and if Ledger isnt going to be at the club next year and that player who doesnt play is then whats the point.
Like I said; different angle. Not expecting everyone, or even anyone, to agree.
I have no problem at all with that but who doesnt play this week for Ledger?
plugger66 wrote:
I have no problem at all with that but who doesn’t play this week for Ledger?
Dunno plugger, haven’t given it a lot of thought to tell you the truth.
My comment is not necessarily in regards to this week’s game. It’s more in regards to the general consensus that Ledger simply won’t be getting picked for any game. Maybe an opportunity will open up this week however one suspects that if that happens another option will be considered.
Like I said, if they could manage to give him a game it may answer a lot of questions for everyone without really damaging our ladder position.
Those who should know best, have seen fit not to give him a game. That's good enough for me. What supporters think, or what people on social media write, thankfully has no bearing on team selection. Thank goodness that is the case and long may it stay that way.
I started with nothing and I've got most of it left!
In regards to Tommy Walsh that was when we were playing under Ross, but more importantly, were playing in Finals. So there was little if any room for experimentation, let alone error.
Now I’m not suggesting that Ledger should get a game simply because a lot of supporters are saying he should. I am saying it specifically in the context of the 2013 season.
A season where we sit on 3 wins with only 4 games to play.
A season where we have been decimated by injuries.
A season where we have been both compelled to, and driven to, play youth.
A season where just about any player on our list who has been fit has been selected to play senior football at some stage.
A season where, due to the above, 3 Rookies have been elevated and given a chance to play senior football.
Surely in all of that, a bloke who is constantly amongst the best in our “feeder team” should be given a go at some stage regardless of his shortcomings.
To be clear, I am not advocating fan based selections. However there's no doubt that if Ledger was given a chance before the end of the year if may at least be some consulation for some supporters in this very trying year.
Doc, you're still presuming Ledger hasn't done something that's made him not selectable?
I don't know if he has or hasn't
but
I'm willing to guess that the fact that he hasn't means whatever the problem between him and the coaching panel is, last week's game for Sandringham wasn't enough for them to choose him this week.
So he's obviously in the same position he's been in the past few weeks.
Not selected for a reason(s) that we don't know.
Dr Spaceman wrote:Maybe I’m coming at this from a different angle.
Maybe he doesn’t deserve selection based on any or all of the possible reasons suggested.
However given where the Saints are right at this moment in time in regards to development, injuries and ladder position, perhaps the club could give him a game anyways. Would it dramatically alter our chances of winning a particular game? At worst it would keep a lot of increasingly disenfranchised fans happy.
The club is not playing him and is not publicly stating the reasons why. That’s fair enough.
But just give the kid a game. And if he gets it 20 – 30 times, and he turns it over 20 – 30 times, at least the fans will be wiser and it may stop a lot of the negative chatter on social media (which is not the be all and end all, but it is not helpful to a club trying to build support).
What has the club, and Scott for that matter, got to lose?
I see your point - especially given where we are at. But if you are trying to build a culture that ISN'T one of mediocrity then we shouldn't be giving games for the hell of it. YOu have to earn them.
What have we got to lose ? The minimum standard we are trying to set for every young player coming through.
fingers wrote:
I see your point - especially given where we are at. But if you are trying to build a culture that ISN'T one of mediocrity then we shouldn't be giving games for the hell of it. YOu have to earn them.
What have we got to lose ? The minimum standard we are trying to set for every young player coming through.
And I also see your point.
The trouble is we don't know what he's failing to do.
And the other problem is that some kids (and some older kids) have been coming in after average/poor performances at Sandy and that some have been putting in very ordinary performances once given a game.
Anyways, I don't really care one way or the other. Just chucking it out there
The kid gets a bad rap for butchering the footy and we have people on here bagging Rooey ( BM ) , Jack ( BM ) , Jones ( Me ) and others saying the same things ..?
So why not give him a go on the back of good possession counts at Sandy ..?
Reckon Watters is on the right track with our club but it would be crazy not to give him a chance and let him go at seasons end ..?
Jack Newnes happy to be a Saint !!!! PS and to hit a target !!!
fingers wrote:
I see your point - especially given where we are at. But if you are trying to build a culture that ISN'T one of mediocrity then we shouldn't be giving games for the hell of it. YOu have to earn them.
What have we got to lose ? The minimum standard we are trying to set for every young player coming through.
And I also see your point.
The trouble is we don't know what he's failing to do.
And the other problem is that some kids (and some older kids) have been coming in after average/poor performances at Sandy and that some have been putting in very ordinary performances once given a game.
Anyways, I don't really care one way or the other. Just chucking it out there
Agree - but I would also say that WE don't need to know what he is failing to do.
Conspirancy theory. SW doesnt think he is good enough and wants him out. He plays and does ok to pretty well but nothing special but enough for many to argue he should be kept. Easier not to play him and then we have less to argue about. Probably crap but I will go with it for the moment.
plugger66 wrote:Conspirancy theory. SW doesnt think he is good enough and wants him out. He plays and does ok to pretty well but nothing special but enough for many to argue he should be kept. Easier not to play him and then we have less to argue about. Probably crap but I will go with it for the moment.
