Well if Lance didnt know he was struggling, being classed as inferior to bloody Schultz certainly seals the deal.
As for the rest, I'd take T/Bird over Bowden but Tuck is a superior player to Waite imo.
I'd also rather keep Murph as well.
| TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| Carlton officially no longer have the worst list http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15728 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | Laserkid [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Carlton officially no longer have the worst list |
Mike Sheeham (he who knows all) has declared that Carlton no longer has the worst list because he put the 12 top Carlton vs. Richmond players head to head. His list is J. Bowden/Thornton Richo/Fev Simmonds/Ackland Pettifer/Simpson Foley/Stevens Deledio/Murphy Johnson/Scotland Tuck/Waite Raines/Walker Newman/Houlihan Tivendale/Fisher Schulz/Whitnal Which Carlton win 7-5 (his better player in bold) http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/ ... 23,00.html How he could rate Delideo over Murphy is beyond me and how he could not have Santy in our top 12 players shows he is generally about 12 months out of date on his calls. |
|
| Author: | BlueDW [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Delidio better than Murph? Pettifer better tahn Simmo?...I like MS but this article is rubbish!!! |
|
| Author: | TheGame [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
They've had a worse list than ours since 04' when they finished last. Difference is their coach is better than ours. |
|
| Author: | bosman [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: They win 7-5, with several line-ball calls: Pettifer/Simpson, Deledio/Murphy, Johnson/Scotland, Raines/Walker, Newman/Houlihan, Schulz/Whitnall.
What a flowering tool MS is... Waite/Tuck both play different possies. I've never seen Tuck play CHF or CHB |
|
| Author: | Blue Vain [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well if Lance didnt know he was struggling, being classed as inferior to bloody Schultz certainly seals the deal.
As for the rest, I'd take T/Bird over Bowden but Tuck is a superior player to Waite imo. I'd also rather keep Murph as well.
|
|
| Author: | ryan2000 [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I mentioned this (Our list being similar, if not better than Richmonds) midway through last year and was Shot-Down for it! And i still maintain that our list is better than alot of fans, media & general AFL supporters belive. It seems now, others are starting to see this aswell. Not saying by any means that we have a list to contend for a premiership - YET. Nor am i saying our list is perfect. God No! But i still stick by what i said last year and that was that this list has more talent than the 10+goal losses is indicating and SHOULD NOT be getting thrashed by that much. |
|
| Author: | dane [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
the only reason i can possibly see for the murphy thing is his lack of games. |
|
| Author: | ScottSaunders [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
pfft, we have a better list than North Melbourne Richmond Essendon* Collingwood at the very least already |
|
| Author: | dannyboy [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
seems like every time you opened your mouth last year, and the year before, and the year before, you get shot down Ryan
2007 the year the shot downs were shot down! |
|
| Author: | ryan2000 [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
dannyboy wrote: seems like every time you opened your mouth last year, and the year before, and the year before, you get shot down Ryan
2007 the year the shot downs were shot down! Yeah but the year before the year that everybody was nice to me 
Ahhhh, 'goooood times'. Either way, i'll defend this list till my last breath. Sure, it need some work, but i will argue till black & blue that our list IS NOT the worst in the leauge. I see us better than Richmond Essendon* Collingwood North Melbourne and maybe a bit in front Brisbane, but only just. You could never have a bad team with Black & Brown coached by Mathews. I see us par with Hawthorn! More impressive is that we haven't had the luxury of the amount of draft picks they've had. I see us maybe being better or at least equal to teams like Adelaide & Port Adelaide sooner rather than later. I believe in this list, especially with the delisting of a few hangers-on last season. |
|
| Author: | bluehotel [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I agree that we are more in the Hawthorn mold |
|
| Author: | slow_mo [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Phew! I'm really glad we've got Mike Sheahan here to tell us these things. Now I can sleep at night. 
|
|
| Author: | ScottSaunders [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
hawthorn is an interesting one. myself, i think they have concentrated to much on getting forwards (they will have an awesome forward line) but its no good have the best forwad line if the comp if you dont have a good midfield. and whilst sam mitchell is a good one but they dont have much around him IMO where as we, as a side, are developing every single area. we have a good forward with Fev, Fisher, Betts, Kennedy we have a good midfield with Murphy, Gibbs, Stevens, Bentick we have a good defence with O'Halphin, Thorton, Waite we have in time what i think will be a very good ruck stock as well with the other A'Halphin, Hampsen etc.. under development. we are developing across the team which is the way it should be, and is not what i think Hawthorn have done. |
|
| Author: | Hoggy33 [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
How can Mike Sheahan be considered an "official" source? |
|
| Author: | Keyser Soze [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Blue Vain wrote: Well if Lance didnt know he was struggling, being classed as inferior to bloody Schultz certainly seals the deal.
As for the rest, I'd take T/Bird over Bowden but Tuck is a superior player to Waite imo. I'd also rather keep Murph as well. BV, It's a good line but you're being a bit harsh on Schultz I reckon. He's a beautiful kick, can take a grab and looks a likely type. I personally don't care about Mike Sheahan's "Opinion" pieces. He doesn't break stories any more he just bludges along and comes up with his Top 50, his rating of a playing list etc. etc. As Andre Agassi once said "That's the thing with opinions. You don't have to know anything to have one." |
|
| Author: | nytdog [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Our list is pretty good. We just don't have that much depth. Or haven't in the past. We are finally improving our depth of talented players. Our ruck division is still too weak to match it with the big boys. And I can't imagine our team without Fev. |
|
| Author: | nytdog [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Oh and was MS the same deek that didn't have B Fevola anywhere in his 2006 Top 50 at the start of the year??? Now this man can recognise talent! |
|
| Author: | samblueboy [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Seemed like a lazy article for me and especially after Gary Lyon yesterday already brought upon what we already knew, that Richmond as always seems to be headed nowhere. I think they don't have a bad list, Schultz doesn't do too bad and is a reliable kick at goal, Polo and Raines are steals, Deledio is an emerging star and Newman was considered in the All Australian. I respect teams that do their best to remain competitive, sadly, however once a team has bottomed up and assembled a squad which have all played together and developed together since they each got drafted, there really is no chance to compete with them. And now Richmond's best chance is to recruit even more if they want to make the best of what they have, and Judd can do that for them. Also, we could have done the Tigers a whole heap of good many times if they would have bitten the bullet. About five years ago, Richo was on the back of the Hun in a doctored image of him in Blues colours at around the trade period. This would have given them draft picks and release them of one of the games most unaccomplished and unreliable "stars". Fevola could have been at Richmond had they not offered so many shit players. I'm sure Carlton would have accepted an offer for Coughlan. |
|
| Author: | Elwood Blues1 [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Kade Simpson>>>>>>>> Pettifer.......Pettifer is a soft lazy frontrunner,who would be lucky to get one hard ball get per season... Murphy> Deledio....good player is the Richmond lad but hasnt kicked on like he should for a No 1 pick....maybe missing Coughlan to take some of the heat off him... Bowden= Thornton....Bowden has more ability in terms of skills but as a true Defender I would take Thornton....Bowden is your poor mans Chad Cornes... Fevs mate Chris Newman would make a nice back pocket for us..... |
|
| Author: | BIBI01 [ Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
on potential or talent there is little difference between the list of teams in the top 6 and little difference between the list of the bottom 10 the diffeence is performances- which list can turn their potential into actual results |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|