-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
shaun hampson threads [merged]
- Thread starter Ian4
- Start date
bullus_hit said:
Sorry Bully, just because other punters have a contrary view to yours doesn't make them trolls.
In this debate, the Hamspon knockers make valid points ILO.
Ridley said:
Define, "compete around the ground". He often roves his own work and picks the ball up off his bootlaces and dishes a useful handball but people don't seem to see it? Bias maybe? Can't argue with his rep for not clunking marks, it stands alone. "Abject failure"? We were a train wreck thanks to Wallace and Miller. Our list was in ribbons. Our confidence was shot. Every year since has been an improvement both on and off the field.
I never knew you could be so ironical Merv.
Not sure who Adam McNicol is (he wrote up our game for the site that must not be named) and had Hampson among the best for Richmond, right behind Rance. Must have seen something no one else here did. I didn't see a whole lot of him and him being named among the best did surprise me, but he was nowhere near as bad or useless as many here have claimed.KnightersRevenge said:
bullus_hit said:
Hampson was important yesterday and posters that bang on about his marking (which I am concerned about) have ignored his importance to winning the clearances and providing drive. he actually competed well at ground level and used his body well. Also got involved in some neat passages of play. And he was up against a bigger man in Simpson and an excerienced ruckman in McIntosh and beat them - was clearly the best ruckman on the ground. Not too concerned about the number of marks he took yesterday, it was his competing at ground level which impressed me - if he could reproduce that ground level game effort every week there's hope for him yet.
Don't understand posters potting a guy after a good game.
Spot on Hugo. He comprehensively beat the Geelong ruckmen and to my thoughts played his best game for us. The spoil in the last quarter when he ran 50 metres to get there was exceptional. His tap ruckwork was one of the reasons we came back into the game. He deserved to be in our best.
Leysy Days said:
Sorry Leysy, trolling to me is making snide remarks which go beyond the realms of sensible debate. Comments like he must have 'broken fingernails', he's the next McMahon, he's a dinosaur, he's the reason we are down the bottom of the ladder etc, etc. Much like the relentless criticism of Petterd with name calling like Pet *smile* and likening him to herpes, I'm just about at my wits end with the juvenile attacks. My earlier comment wasn't directed at Astute who I enjoy having banter with, it's some of the others who offer nothing in the way of reasonable discussion and are only capable of focusing on the negative. With regards to Hampson, I have remained balanced in my view, I've acknowledged his deficiencies but I also place a premium on giving our mids first use of the ball.
I've also made it clear about the situation the RFC forced itself into by not recruiting Grundy when we had the opportunity, I've canvassed all the probable quick fixes and not one detractor has come up with any sensible alternatives. We had no leverage to recruit McEvoy or Mumford, and it's debatable whether they could have played alongside Maric anyway. The two viable alternatives in Apeness & Lobbe were selected before pick 32. We could have selected Nankervis but he can't even challenge Derickx for a spot in Sydney's starting line-up. Some may argue that Stephenson, Vickery & Griffiths could be used but like I mentioned earlier, their ability to give our mids first use is vastly inferior to Hampson.
Do I think he's a superstar in the making? No I do not, but he was the best thing available to us in a precarious situation. Most are obviously expecting him to come in and dominate but that is completely unreasonable.
Do I think he can improve? Yes I do, he's 6 games into a career as a full time ruckman and has already made some incremental rises in his work around the ground.
Do I think pick 32 was unreasonable? No I do not given our immediate need for a combative ruckman who could step up immediately.
Some may not agree but that shouldn't be an invitation to troll, if people cannot see the distinction then maybe I need to give this forum a rest. Posters such as Ridley, Tygrys & Merveille obviously feel that 'debate' should only be about slagging off players at every turn and diminishing the argument to an 'I'm right & your wrong' bitchfest, irrespective of performance or weighing up the pro's & cons. That is their prerogative but I simply don't have time for these type of exchanges.
bullus_hit said:
Wonderful! First we had a new definition of misogyny to accommodate Gillards attack on Abbot, now we have a new definition of 'Trolling' ie 'disagreeing with bullus_hit'
Boo-hoo *hears violins in playing in the background* So Hampson for instance - he kicks poorly, he cannot mark, he is poor by hand and is injury prone. He offers a contest at ball-ups and throw ins, but is not in our first 22 if the other talls are fit and playing half decently. Been in the system for six years, a known commodity and a very poor one at that. So we used a second rounder on a depth player - another Trent Knobel - pathetic. Yeah I'm sure you've heard it all before blah, blah blah. Well sunshine what you need to deal with is the fact that your 'balanced' views don't mean jack if he doesn't address these issues. If he starts taking marks, if his kicking improves, if all the things that make Hampson the chronically limited player that he is change, well then the *bitchfest* will take care of itself. You are never going to convince his critics that he was worth a second round pick, so deal with it and toughen up, only Hampson can do that.
And for the record I do change my mind, for example I never rated Daniel Jackson, and I said a lot of critical things about him. But guess what he improved and now I do rate him. But again that happened because of what he did on the field, not because someone called me a troll.
