| TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| Time ticking away for O'hAilpins http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20768 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | bluey95 [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Time ticking away for O'hAilpins |
very interesting read - gives a very good perspective on the whole Irish experiment Quote: Journalist Jake Niall has an interesting piece on the Real Footy website regarding Carlton's Irish O'hAilpin brothers. Niall discusses the players' futures with Carlton football operations manager, Stephen Icke. Whilst Icke plays down the angle that the Blues' patience is running out, Niall makes a persuasive argument that this author tends to reluctantly agree with...
http://www.worldfootynews.com/article.p ... 1002649999 |
|
| Author: | The Duke [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I agree in regard to the ruck, however, Setanta as a key back in a team that gives midfield pressuer is going to be a completely different player. Nobody can defend against lace out passes with little to no pressuer on the kicker. He's a good thinker and gives 100% every time he ventures out. Don't know about Asaike as I haven't seen him play. |
|
| Author: | Michael Jezz [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
That article is far off the mark. Setanta should be a gimme selection every week. He is the best big bodied backman we have. Ratten should not have dropped him in the first place |
|
| Author: | septembergurl [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 1:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Jake Niall has just been reading some of the negative posts on the Carlton websites and cobbled together an article from them. Its no coincidence that the story has come out now. |
|
| Author: | klakker [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I agree MJ. He should not be out of the side and play him at full back.He is a gorilla and thats what we need down there right now. |
|
| Author: | DownUnderChick [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Michael Jezz wrote: That article is far off the mark. Setanta should be a gimme selection every week. He is the best big bodied backman we have. Ratten should not have dropped him in the first place
No player is or should be a gimme selection. I think that you might find that there is something odd about the whole Setanta situation and there is something not just right. |
|
| Author: | NTBlue [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The form Setanta showed early last year as a key backman was outstanding. yes he got towelled up once or twice, but didn't SOS get a few bags kicked against him early in his career? The big bloke must be suffering from a less than ideal pre-season due to illness or injury otherwise he would have to be in our best 22. Jamieson is a good stopper but will not be able to match it with the real big guys on a regular basis. He will be ideal for the second or third tall and could free up Waite for more attacking roles. ( I think Waite would be an All Australian wingman in the mould of Dipper if we tried him out. Imagine opposition sides trying to match him up. |
|
| Author: | Pafloyul [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 3:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
DownUnderChick wrote: Michael Jezz wrote: That article is far off the mark. Setanta should be a gimme selection every week. He is the best big bodied backman we have. Ratten should not have dropped him in the first place No player is or should be a gimme selection. I think that you might find that there is something odd about the whole Setanta situation and there is something not just right. If there is something "not just right" as you put it then why even pick the guy as a possible interchange? Yes, no player deserves automatic selection but until we start to know exactly what we are doing with certain players then they, and we, will never get anywhere. People say we want him as a key defender and yet he is picked to play as a forward in the reserves. I'm still trying to come to grips with what we are trying to do with some players; we either pick them and develop them in a position or we don't. |
|
| Author: | DownUnderChick [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Pafloyul wrote: DownUnderChick wrote: Michael Jezz wrote: That article is far off the mark. Setanta should be a gimme selection every week. He is the best big bodied backman we have. Ratten should not have dropped him in the first place No player is or should be a gimme selection. I think that you might find that there is something odd about the whole Setanta situation and there is something not just right. If there is something "not just right" as you put it then why even pick the guy as a possible interchange? Yes, no player deserves automatic selection but until we start to know exactly what we are doing with certain players then they, and we, will never get anywhere. People say we want him as a key defender and yet he is picked to play as a forward in the reserves. I'm still trying to come to grips with what we are trying to do with some players; we either pick them and develop them in a position or we don't. Hey Paf, what's with your sig? |
|
| Author: | TruBlueBrad [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
septembergurl wrote: Jake Niall has just been reading some of the negative posts on the Carlton websites and cobbled together an article from them. Its no coincidence that the story has come out now.
We've found before that Jake (or someone assisting him) reads the site so I think you're right here. Say hello Jake, we don't bite 
|
|
| Author: | Pafloyul [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
DownUnderChick wrote: Pafloyul wrote: DownUnderChick wrote: Michael Jezz wrote: That article is far off the mark. Setanta should be a gimme selection every week. He is the best big bodied backman we have. Ratten should not have dropped him in the first place No player is or should be a gimme selection. I think that you might find that there is something odd about the whole Setanta situation and there is something not just right. If there is something "not just right" as you put it then why even pick the guy as a possible interchange? Yes, no player deserves automatic selection but until we start to know exactly what we are doing with certain players then they, and we, will never get anywhere. People say we want him as a key defender and yet he is picked to play as a forward in the reserves. I'm still trying to come to grips with what we are trying to do with some players; we either pick them and develop them in a position or we don't. Hey Paf, what's with your sig? I wonder... 
I haven't had much to do with what your like as a poster so it's not a general dig. I just saw yours and felt sorry for poor old BO. I just happen to agree with roughly 80% of what he writes even if his methods are repetitive and heavy handed. I'll keep it up there as long as I see fit. I hope you don't take it too seriously. |
|
| Author: | DownUnderChick [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Pafloyul wrote: DownUnderChick wrote: Pafloyul wrote: DownUnderChick wrote: Michael Jezz wrote: That article is far off the mark. Setanta should be a gimme selection every week. He is the best big bodied backman we have. Ratten should not have dropped him in the first place No player is or should be a gimme selection. I think that you might find that there is something odd about the whole Setanta situation and there is something not just right. If there is something "not just right" as you put it then why even pick the guy as a possible interchange? Yes, no player deserves automatic selection but until we start to know exactly what we are doing with certain players then they, and we, will never get anywhere. People say we want him as a key defender and yet he is picked to play as a forward in the reserves. I'm still trying to come to grips with what we are trying to do with some players; we either pick them and develop them in a position or we don't. Hey Paf, what's with your sig? I wonder... I haven't had much to do with what your like as a poster so it not a general dig. I just saw yours and felt sorry for poor old BO. I just happen to agree with roughly 80% of what writes even if his methods are repetative and heavy handed. I'll keep it up there as long as I see fit. I hope you don't take it too seriously. So you think that BO's banning is because he is repetitive and heavy handed? 
Why would I take it seriously when you have chosen to take what I have written about BO to heart and felt an epathy to stand up for the dear boy. 
|
|
| Author: | Pafloyul [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
DownUnderChick wrote: Pafloyul wrote: DownUnderChick wrote: Pafloyul wrote: DownUnderChick wrote: Michael Jezz wrote: That article is far off the mark. Setanta should be a gimme selection every week. He is the best big bodied backman we have. Ratten should not have dropped him in the first place No player is or should be a gimme selection. I think that you might find that there is something odd about the whole Setanta situation and there is something not just right. If there is something "not just right" as you put it then why even pick the guy as a possible interchange? Yes, no player deserves automatic selection but until we start to know exactly what we are doing with certain players then they, and we, will never get anywhere. People say we want him as a key defender and yet he is picked to play as a forward in the reserves. I'm still trying to come to grips with what we are trying to do with some players; we either pick them and develop them in a position or we don't. Hey Paf, what's with your sig? I wonder... I haven't had much to do with what your like as a poster so it not a general dig. I just saw yours and felt sorry for poor old BO. I just happen to agree with roughly 80% of what writes even if his methods are repetative and heavy handed. I'll keep it up there as long as I see fit. I hope you don't take it too seriously. So you think that BO's banning is because he is repetitive and heavy handed? Going from all that I have read, yes, it must be. |
|
| Author: | DownUnderChick [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Pafloyul wrote: DownUnderChick wrote: Pafloyul wrote: DownUnderChick wrote: Pafloyul wrote: DownUnderChick wrote: Michael Jezz wrote: That article is far off the mark. Setanta should be a gimme selection every week. He is the best big bodied backman we have. Ratten should not have dropped him in the first place No player is or should be a gimme selection. I think that you might find that there is something odd about the whole Setanta situation and there is something not just right. If there is something "not just right" as you put it then why even pick the guy as a possible interchange? Yes, no player deserves automatic selection but until we start to know exactly what we are doing with certain players then they, and we, will never get anywhere. People say we want him as a key defender and yet he is picked to play as a forward in the reserves. I'm still trying to come to grips with what we are trying to do with some players; we either pick them and develop them in a position or we don't. Hey Paf, what's with your sig? I wonder... I haven't had much to do with what your like as a poster so it not a general dig. I just saw yours and felt sorry for poor old BO. I just happen to agree with roughly 80% of what writes even if his methods are repetative and heavy handed. I'll keep it up there as long as I see fit. I hope you don't take it too seriously. So you think that BO's banning is because he is repetitive and heavy handed? Going from all that I have read, yes, it must be. Enough said. |
|
| Author: | imitation_of_life [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
anyone else noticed that pafloyal has been piping up A LOT more now BO has been banned? just putting it out there.......................... 
|
|
| Author: | Pafloyul [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
DownUnderChick wrote: Pafloyul wrote: DownUnderChick wrote: Pafloyul wrote: DownUnderChick wrote: Pafloyul wrote: DownUnderChick wrote: Michael Jezz wrote: That article is far off the mark. Setanta should be a gimme selection every week. He is the best big bodied backman we have. Ratten should not have dropped him in the first place No player is or should be a gimme selection. I think that you might find that there is something odd about the whole Setanta situation and there is something not just right. If there is something "not just right" as you put it then why even pick the guy as a possible interchange? Yes, no player deserves automatic selection but until we start to know exactly what we are doing with certain players then they, and we, will never get anywhere. People say we want him as a key defender and yet he is picked to play as a forward in the reserves. I'm still trying to come to grips with what we are trying to do with some players; we either pick them and develop them in a position or we don't. Hey Paf, what's with your sig? I wonder... I haven't had much to do with what your like as a poster so it not a general dig. I just saw yours and felt sorry for poor old BO. I just happen to agree with roughly 80% of what writes even if his methods are repetative and heavy handed. I'll keep it up there as long as I see fit. I hope you don't take it too seriously. So you think that BO's banning is because he is repetitive and heavy handed? Going from all that I have read, yes, it must be. Enough said. If you think so. I haven't read all his posts but going from what I've read he wants us to tank and he thinks WH is a poor recruiter. BO barely needs an excuse to mention it. Like I said, I don't agree with his tactics but I do believe we have recruited poorly. There is nothing in your signature that hints at something that someone deserves to be banned for. |
|
| Author: | kingkerna [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 4:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
having a crack at someone in your signature is pretty spineless if you ask me |
|
| Author: | imitation_of_life [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Pafloyul wrote: I haven't read all his posts.
 u wrote em!
|
|
| Author: | Big Kahuna Boot [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
..neither defending nor havin' a crack, but B.O ain't the only person here that's repetitive and prejudgiced in regards to certain carlton elements.. |
|
| Author: | DownUnderChick [ Fri Apr 11, 2008 5:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
kingkerna wrote: having a crack at someone in your signature is pretty spineless if you ask me
agreed kk - i had written the sig at the height of the GAV and BO thread and had forgotten about until Mr Pavola's comment. a new sig for this chick. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|