Blooding young players and managing sore ones is intended as an investment in the future. How is that in anyway similar to picking a (struggling) 30 year old in round 18 for no other reason than he has 6 games to get to 100?

_________________
It's never as good as it looks and it's never as bad as it seems.

Two reasons

One being the obvious with father/son eligibility, the second just being a glaring example of how we failed to learn our lessons with how Fisher missing out one game shy impacted the playing group.

Given the discontent amongst the players at the time about him not getting an opportunity to play his 100th, you could make an argument that it was the beginning of the end for Ratten. Do I suspect that it would have a similar impact on this playing group? Without suggesting any unpopularity on Rowe's behalf, probably not, but it could have had a similar impact on morale in a year we've struggled for it at times.

He's played in one of the shittest Carlton sides of all time, and had more than his fair share of bags kicked on him in that time. Not the greatest player, but a slight tip of the hat would have been warranted in matches we had nothing to play for.

If our playing group is that impacted by a player not being gifted enough games to get him to a 100, then we are going nowhere.

_________________
It's never as good as it looks and it's never as bad as it seems.

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous.
He had a good journey and as it turns out was a game short.
You don't gift games.
Team comes first.

What exactly came first?

We were shit. The whole season. Was there really that big a case to be made for not giving Liam Jones a rest with a mysterious calf injury? Or another one on top of the numerous weeks on the side of precaution for Weitering?

A side that got pumped by 80 odd points, and we're quibbling over the team first mantra that it clearly had no bearing on, nor solidified in anyway?

We gifted games to about half a dozen players this year who won't be considered for a microsecond by other recruiters this year for a second chance. We gifted O'Shea, Mullett, Shaw etc games because we didn't want to throw kids in the deep end. Ridiculous picking and choosing when a game is deserved and when it isn't, and I hope it doesn't come back to bite us.

I know where you are coming from.

I can't believe the situation for Rowe is anything like Fisher's was with his coach.
Rowe might be happy to take a role at Doncaster East. He's planned it imo.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

I don't believe it is either. But would have preferred the club learned from the experience, and erred on the side of caution as a result.

Doesn't make us any more ruthless, or calculating, or cold, or games earned any more or less, because we played some absolute duds, we played blokes in the 4 weeks after as we only had about 24 to choose from. Some of them were probably given games in hindsight with SOS having already put a red pen through their name on the list.

You know the reasons the club did what they did, do you?
You know better than the club, do you?

Seriously, get your hand off it.

take out simmo, muphy, kruezer and ed and that average would drop even more.

its going to be another tough year, but i am convinced we are building something special.

I think if the club would have their time again, they'd have given Fish his 100th game.

I don't care what you say about the other three, but you shouldn't roast Lamb.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

_________________
Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!!!

After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says W T F .........
Visit http://fromthemoshpit.com/

Fisher I agree with. It would have been 100 games for Carlton. Imagine if he'd had a kid that was an absolute gun. Isn't Rowe's 100 across 2 club Said? In that case I don't really care that we didn't get him to 100.

Pickett
Polson
Garlett
Lang

Would all want to show improvement in 2019 if they want to be around in 2020.

Ill guess at least 2 will be gone from those.

In order of most likely to least likely to be gone:

Polson
Garlett
Pickett
Lang

All games with carlton, he didn’t get a game with Sydney
So he is one short of father son eligibility

I think this is becoming a “circular” argument.

_________________
"Hence you will not say that Greeks fight like heroes but that heroes fight like Greeks"?

Winston Churchill

I think delisting the 4 gives SOS flexibility if he does get a godfather offer for pick 1.

Great points RSG. Couldn’t agree more.

hindsight is 20/20.

Its always cruel and unfortunate to see a player stranded on 99 games, but both Fish and Rowe were robbed of getting their name's on the locker when the knees gave way and the lost a full season of games.

If he was stuck in the twos on 99 games - maybe I can see your argument - a farewell match and 100th might have been nice, but arguing about him being dropped with a month of the season to spare is a long bow if you ask me.

I doubt its going to be the catalyst for Bolton's demise either.

So with six weeks to go in the season you'd like someone to inform the match committee that Rowe is currently on 94 games and if he plays the rest he'll get to 100, meaning that in the off chance he has a son, we can draft him in 20-odd years? What about Graham being stranded on 48? Surely we could have planned ahead for him to get a nice banner too.

It's unfortunate for Sam but that's just the way it worked out.

_________________
Audere est Facere