Sugarcane wrote:
Flabbergasted at these comments. There was nothing positive about seeing Austin being exposed as being not up to it.
Of course you're flabbergasted. The same reason why you can't see the positives out of that are the same reason you change your username so often to mask people laughing at your regular kneejerk contributions, of which you change your story on two weeks later anyway.
Austin's game, regardless of the specifics or opinions, we've done that experiment in round 14. The last two seasons, that would have been done around rd. 18-22. We picked him over Bower today, and to a lesser extent, rushing back Laidler, White or Waite. It was a fair show of faith. If we're fair dinkum, we give him another go at it next week too.
Lets not forget that there's list management to consider. He's one that would probably be considered in the gun, and we've done/in the process of conducting our due dilligence here, which of course would bring about a "BUT HE WAS NEVER GIVEN A GO. SACK HUGHES" response.
A swallow, a summer does not make, my dear boy.
Quote:
Eagles exposed us for our two main deficiencies ...
1. Lack of quality rucks. None of our rucks would be anywhere near All Aust calculations.As a result, we got smashed in clearances, arguably the most important part of the game.
"Hi, I'm Matthew Kreuzer"?
Quote:
2. Lack of quality, strong talls. Austin not up to it. Thornton terrible one on one. Bower fragile and weak. Warnock weak around the ground, doesn't take marks. Henderson all over the shop, actually better down back.
So if we have a lack of quality talls, and you've just given reasons as to why you think Thornton, Bower, Warnock, Henderson aren't great, why are you debating the merit of Austin being given a game today? Your opinions are contradictory to say the least.
Thornton's role hasn't been based primarily on playing one out on a forward for at least a couple of seasons now. You might as well criticize Betts for his pack marking..