Leigh Fisher

SainterK · Post: # 884184Post **SainterK** » Sat 20 Feb 2010 11:32am

So what's the go?

I was told in a thread last week that we had just picked him up again for contract purposes. Is this true, or was the move to delist and rookie perhaps a kick up the bum?

It's all a bit wierd IMO

PJ · Post: # 884187Post PJ » Sat 20 Feb 2010 11:35am

Wasn't a required player by the end of 2009 so the club gave him the opportunity to move on - at present he's better backup/insurance than what was on offer late in the rookie draft.

perfectionist · Sat 20 Feb 2010 11:49am

He was turned inside out by Dane Swan (who missed from two metres) but other than that, he played OK, certainly sticking to the game plan.

Bernard Shakey · Sat 20 Feb 2010 1:53pm

He was contracted for this year so we had to pay him anyway, that's all there is to it.
I wouldn't expect to see him play any senior matches this year, unless we have massive injury problems, which hopefully won't happen.

doppler effect · Sat 20 Feb 2010 2:01pm

He's still good insurance to have.

Is it just me or has he toned down a fair bit? He looks to have lost a lot of muscle, kinda skinny now.

gringo · Post: # 884300Post **gringo** » Sat 20 Feb 2010 2:20pm

Leigh looked really composed when he actually got on the ground and looks a good chance to play if anything goes wrong injury wise. Last year he was mentioned in the players that where tearing up the track in the preseason. Hope he is'nt needed but he is handy back up. Shame he isn't an in and under type we could use another to back Lenny and Armo.

perfectionist · Mon 22 Feb 2010 9:11pm

perfectionist wrote:He was turned inside out by Dane Swan (who missed from two metres) but other than that, he played OK, certainly sticking to the game plan.

No, it was Brett Peake. Sorry Leigh.

Solar · Post: # 885092Post **Solar** » Mon 22 Feb 2010 9:42pm

suprised he played since a certain person on here was sure he would not even train with the club

danners · Post: # 885433Post **danners** » Wed 24 Feb 2010 7:34am

reckon if lovett was still around fisher wouldnt have played? i know they are different players/positions but its kinda like they said 'ok we lost a player so we will see wat we have'

Hurricane · Post: # 885435Post **Hurricane** » Wed 24 Feb 2010 7:37am

danners wrote:reckon if lovett was still around fisher wouldnt have played? i know they are different players/positions but its kinda like they said 'ok we lost a player so we will see wat we have'

Moot point IMHO.

Different position, different part in the game plan and different player all togther.

The NAB Cup is about experimentation, trial and error, lets see if so and so can play position X ect.

BANG BANG