-
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.
Tom Roach threads [Merged]
- Thread starter Ready
- Start date
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
I like Tom Roach but he has slipped behind quite a few, White, Howat, Hartigan, Foley, Jackson, even Raines, Polo, Tambling, Meyer, etc so I think he's gone, but thats unfortunate.
Greg did say at the preseason draft meeting that he'd slipped behind a few and it hasn't improved, partially because of injury and a bit based on talent.
So I cannot see him staying on the list and thats a shame, but its a really competitive business and there are a lot of others that deserve a chance too, especially a lot of the Coburg guys, Young, Carnell, Ronaldson etc.
Good luck to Terry on Tuesday in making the right decision's for the Clubs future.
I like Tom Roach but he has slipped behind quite a few, White, Howat, Hartigan, Foley, Jackson, even Raines, Polo, Tambling, Meyer, etc so I think he's gone, but thats unfortunate.
Greg did say at the preseason draft meeting that he'd slipped behind a few and it hasn't improved, partially because of injury and a bit based on talent.
So I cannot see him staying on the list and thats a shame, but its a really competitive business and there are a lot of others that deserve a chance too, especially a lot of the Coburg guys, Young, Carnell, Ronaldson etc.
Good luck to Terry on Tuesday in making the right decision's for the Clubs future.
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
Bring in some new blood.
Why rookie him he has had 3 years it time to move on.Skills said:
Bring in some new blood.
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
He is just not up too it.
So is Tom is great and TOM young line.skybeau said:
He is just not up too it.
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
At the risk of being howled down in flames of acrid vitriol, it seems to me that Tommy is a late developer. Heck, look at the kid - he may have muscles, but otherwise he looks about 13. Not all kids develop at the same rate.
He has a great pedigree - but naturally that doesn't always mean much (refer David Bourke). However, if at worst we can pop him on the rookie list (which I believe is being extended next year via AFL dictate???) I won't be unhappy. I know Shane Tuck hasn't had the uber-year he did in 2005, but he's the perfect example of a late bloomer. And he's still a very valuable part of our team.
Cheers!
Ms Tantie.
xox
At the risk of being howled down in flames of acrid vitriol, it seems to me that Tommy is a late developer. Heck, look at the kid - he may have muscles, but otherwise he looks about 13. Not all kids develop at the same rate.
He has a great pedigree - but naturally that doesn't always mean much (refer David Bourke). However, if at worst we can pop him on the rookie list (which I believe is being extended next year via AFL dictate???) I won't be unhappy. I know Shane Tuck hasn't had the uber-year he did in 2005, but he's the perfect example of a late bloomer. And he's still a very valuable part of our team.
Cheers!
Ms Tantie.
xox
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
Rookie list may suit Tommy. an extra guidance under Collins, extra year to build up strength, etc. But how do we get him to the rookie list? do we delist first and pick him up later?
mb64 said:
Rookie list may suit Tommy. an extra guidance under Collins, extra year to build up strength, etc. But how do we get him to the rookie list? do we delist first and pick him up later?
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
Chaf should have retired earlier and, Roach should have played in at least the last 4 games.
Tough game to come back on, one game and vs the Eagles. He may have gained in confidence if he could have palyed in the previous 3 games, against less formidable opposition.
Don't like his chances, will more than likely be shown the door.
Chaf should have retired earlier and, Roach should have played in at least the last 4 games.
Tough game to come back on, one game and vs the Eagles. He may have gained in confidence if he could have palyed in the previous 3 games, against less formidable opposition.
Don't like his chances, will more than likely be shown the door.
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
Tom kept Braun very quiet but only got a few touches himself. I'm a bit concerned seeing Terry said he was playing for his career, but admittedly we don't know what his instructions were. If they were to render Braun uneffective Tom passed, but how many negative players do we need?
I agree it's harsh to be given 1 game to seal your future on. Heavy baggage for Tom to carry into the game.
Good luck things turn out your way Tommy. :hearton
Jake said:
Tom kept Braun very quiet but only got a few touches himself. I'm a bit concerned seeing Terry said he was playing for his career, but admittedly we don't know what his instructions were. If they were to render Braun uneffective Tom passed, but how many negative players do we need?
I agree it's harsh to be given 1 game to seal your future on. Heavy baggage for Tom to carry into the game.
Good luck things turn out your way Tommy. :hearton
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
Wallace may have said that Tom was playing for his future on the weekend, but if Wallace didn't know what to do before Round-22 with him, then something is amiss.
You don't base a long-term plan for a player based on one Round-22 performance.
I think Wallace knows Tom is gone, and knew he was gone well before Round-22,, and wanted to give him one last game in the seniors before he moved him on.
Wallace may have said that Tom was playing for his future on the weekend, but if Wallace didn't know what to do before Round-22 with him, then something is amiss.
You don't base a long-term plan for a player based on one Round-22 performance.
I think Wallace knows Tom is gone, and knew he was gone well before Round-22,, and wanted to give him one last game in the seniors before he moved him on.
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
He was also named in the best on the AFL site. Just don't understand this. While he may have performed adequately in keeping Braun (who is their 5th or 6th best midfielder) reasonably quiet, he just didn't do enough damage to be considered in our "best".
Jake said:
He was also named in the best on the AFL site. Just don't understand this. While he may have performed adequately in keeping Braun (who is their 5th or 6th best midfielder) reasonably quiet, he just didn't do enough damage to be considered in our "best".
Re: Back with a bang: Tom Roach
And who actually did any damage? Raines, perhaps, Joel did ok on Lynch, Deledio wasn't too bad either and Simmonds battled well against Cox. Who else was there that could actually say they broke even with their opponent? Roachy. Kept a much higher profile, more experienced player quiet for three quarters. THAT'S why he's in the best.
And who actually did any damage? Raines, perhaps, Joel did ok on Lynch, Deledio wasn't too bad either and Simmonds battled well against Cox. Who else was there that could actually say they broke even with their opponent? Roachy. Kept a much higher profile, more experienced player quiet for three quarters. THAT'S why he's in the best.
<
Show me the money!!!!
|
Richmond v Western Bulldogs, round 17, 2001 on Foxsports tonight (4/05/10) [Merged]
>
