Moods wrote:I'll admit I love Roo as much as anyone, but his dodgy knees do concern me. Bearing that in mind, not sure RF's OP is all that stupid. I'm confident that roo will get himself right for this year, and probably next year, but I am a llittle concerned that he signed a 5 year contract last year. His ongoing fitness is a concern after seeing the way he courageously battled through last year. The fact his knees are apparently degenerative concerns me.
I've read countless posts on here about ppl ridiculing the Aaron Hamill situation re his inablility to get out and play a few yrs ago. Do ppl see Riewoldt as all that much different? I know he has a completely different injury to what Hamill had. Just posing the question. Was it smart to sign Roo up to a 5 yr contract considering he plays the physically hardest position on the ground. The way he plays it relys on constant running and thrilling marking.
I know plenty will scowl and say we HAD to sign him b/c of GC and that Roo is fine and that I'm trying to suggest the sky is falling in just b/c of roo missing one training run. It's not that at all. Just thought that this is an opportune thread to pose the question.
After Hamill I'm not a big wrap for anyone signing for 5 years. His form has never been better I know, but he plays a position where form can be lost in a hurry, see Brereton/Carey
Is this a legitimate concern? Are ppl confident that Roo will see out his contract and give us great value for money.
The man's given as much to the club in terms of effort/result as anyone since I've been following the saints. I do worry about him though.
I agree with you Moods. I love Nick..he's my fav player...hence my forum name as i've always called him Saintnick for the past few years. I was pleased when he was signed, but I'm not sure he will be able to play for the whole four years he has left. He's just turned 27, so I suppose the end of the contract when he just turns 31 at the end of that season so will play at 30 in the last year of the contract. I too thought it might have been one year too long, but they maybe felt they had to to keep him. He is clearly the franchise player. As much as I love Harvey, I love that Riewoldt is the complete package and believe he is the best I have seen in my time following the saints. He is just amazing. I remember turning to dad a couple of times during the year (collingwood and dogs finals spring to mind) and saying - pay him whatever he wants...he is worth every penny.
They know they need to win a premiership with this group in the next couple of years and he is the key to it, so I guess they deemed the extra year is worth the risk. He has shown a great ability to play with the injury and dominate games. Scary to think what his 2009 season may have been like without it. He also had an interupted preseason and didnt play until round one if I recall correctly, or maybe one game earlier. He was average in the first round, but working himself into the season pretty quickly and had arguably his best year yet. Who knows. Maybe he'll be like Richo and play into his 30's. We can only hope.
On the OP, is it possible that certain older players were not required to do the time trial on that day..thats a common thing at some clubs. He may have done one another day and was not required to do it again. Or maybe he was going to do his later, but was having the massage before hand. Who knows, we are only guessing. But the fitness staff have managed him exceptionally well. In the 2008 preseason there were rumours he had done an ACL, and look at the two great years he has had since.
"At the end of the day, a coach and a fitness adviser doesn't make a good football team, they're not the only ones who got us to two Grand Finals." Lenny Hayes. 27/9/2011.
