Oh come on you know you're just bursting to expand, all the inner secrets, but yeah best to just keep the gang guessing I think.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Oh come on you know you're just bursting to expand, all the inner secrets, but yeah best to just keep the gang guessing I think.
Agreed. I actually think Hanneberry can play (but he's given us so little due to ongoing injuries) and he's 29 in February. We just can't attract quality players, especially younger ones. It's a pressing issue for the AFL. I think we'd all love Billings to become a star, but he still looks like an elite schoolboy player. Regrettably I can't see that changing. He may be the icing on the cake for a Top 4 team but that's not what we need. That draft was extremely costly - missing both Bontempelli and Cripps was shattering.saintkid wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:09amHe sure is. We've watched him closely at games and he is definitely soft and overrated. No physical presence, no inspirational leadership play and regularly fails to nail goals from 35m or more out. Downhill skier when the team is going well.
Against Carlton,to see him and then see Cripps from the same draft, the footy ability difference was massive, regardless of the height/size difference. They sure have struck gold with Cripps. Can do pretty much anything on the ground and is fast becoming one of the top players in the comp and is probably in the top 3-4 already.
Billings still looks like a boy out there 6 years on and plays like one too. The fact that he and Hanneberry are on $800k plus each, as we try to build a team again going forward, is mind boggling.
We all feel the same way too. Either one of Bontempelli or Cripps would certainly have propelled us forward because they are the type of young players we desperately needed. The following year we also did not get a win with McCartin (there were red flags with his Type 1 diabetes). Recruitment has and continues to be poor. Hanneberry has proven he can play but we took him on a large contract when his body was already failing and yes, is turning 29 in February (as I also mentioned in a previous post). A number of very costly decisions.DownAtTheJunction wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:35amAgreed. I actually think Hanneberry can play (but he's given us so little due to ongoing injuries) and he's 29 in February. We just can't attract quality players, especially younger ones. It's a pressing issue for the AFL. I think we'd all love Billings to become a star, but he still looks like an elite schoolboy player. Regrettably I can't see that changing. He may be the icing on the cake for a Top 4 team but that's not what we need. That draft was extremely costly - missing both Bontempelli and Cripps was shattering.saintkid wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:09amHe sure is. We've watched him closely at games and he is definitely soft and overrated. No physical presence, no inspirational leadership play and regularly fails to nail goals from 35m or more out. Downhill skier when the team is going well.
Against Carlton,to see him and then see Cripps from the same draft, the footy ability difference was massive, regardless of the height/size difference. They sure have struck gold with Cripps. Can do pretty much anything on the ground and is fast becoming one of the top players in the comp and is probably in the top 3-4 already.
Billings still looks like a boy out there 6 years on and plays like one too. The fact that he and Hanneberry are on $800k plus each, as we try to build a team again going forward, is mind boggling.
if Tony gives out too much he may have to hide in an embassyterry smith rules wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:25am so now we get a pile on of rubbish comments
"some things best unsaid"
"unsavoury incident"
"not buying into culture"
yes an anonymous forum attracting effluence
Sheesh. I can't understand the looking back and what ifs. Every club would have similar stories. Billings has turned out pretty well. A lot missed Cripps, Fyfe, etc. We had Baldock and Stewart from Tassie, why didn't we push harder for Hudson? Flag in '71 then.saintkid wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:54amWe all feel the same way too. Either one of Bontempelli or Cripps would certainly have propelled us forward because they are the type of young players we desperately needed. The following year we also did not get a win with McCartin (there were red flags with his Type 1 diabetes). Recruitment has and continues to be poor. Hanneberry has proven he can play but we took him on a large contract when his body was already failing and yes, is turning 29 in February (as I also mentioned in a previous post). A number of very costly decisions.DownAtTheJunction wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:35amAgreed. I actually think Hanneberry can play (but he's given us so little due to ongoing injuries) and he's 29 in February. We just can't attract quality players, especially younger ones. It's a pressing issue for the AFL. I think we'd all love Billings to become a star, but he still looks like an elite schoolboy player. Regrettably I can't see that changing. He may be the icing on the cake for a Top 4 team but that's not what we need. That draft was extremely costly - missing both Bontempelli and Cripps was shattering.saintkid wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:09amHe sure is. We've watched him closely at games and he is definitely soft and overrated. No physical presence, no inspirational leadership play and regularly fails to nail goals from 35m or more out. Downhill skier when the team is going well.
Against Carlton,to see him and then see Cripps from the same draft, the footy ability difference was massive, regardless of the height/size difference. They sure have struck gold with Cripps. Can do pretty much anything on the ground and is fast becoming one of the top players in the comp and is probably in the top 3-4 already.
Billings still looks like a boy out there 6 years on and plays like one too. The fact that he and Hanneberry are on $800k plus each, as we try to build a team again going forward, is mind boggling.
You're right - Hudson would have been a good gettakeaway wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 12:08pmSheesh. I can't understand the looking back and what ifs. Every club would have similar stories. Billings has turned out pretty well. A lot missed Cripps, Fyfe, etc. We had Baldock and Stewart from Tassie, why didn't we push harder for Hudson? Flag in '71 then.saintkid wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:54amWe all feel the same way too. Either one of Bontempelli or Cripps would certainly have propelled us forward because they are the type of young players we desperately needed. The following year we also did not get a win with McCartin (there were red flags with his Type 1 diabetes). Recruitment has and continues to be poor. Hanneberry has proven he can play but we took him on a large contract when his body was already failing and yes, is turning 29 in February (as I also mentioned in a previous post). A number of very costly decisions.DownAtTheJunction wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:35amAgreed. I actually think Hanneberry can play (but he's given us so little due to ongoing injuries) and he's 29 in February. We just can't attract quality players, especially younger ones. It's a pressing issue for the AFL. I think we'd all love Billings to become a star, but he still looks like an elite schoolboy player. Regrettably I can't see that changing. He may be the icing on the cake for a Top 4 team but that's not what we need. That draft was extremely costly - missing both Bontempelli and Cripps was shattering.saintkid wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:09amHe sure is. We've watched him closely at games and he is definitely soft and overrated. No physical presence, no inspirational leadership play and regularly fails to nail goals from 35m or more out. Downhill skier when the team is going well.
Against Carlton,to see him and then see Cripps from the same draft, the footy ability difference was massive, regardless of the height/size difference. They sure have struck gold with Cripps. Can do pretty much anything on the ground and is fast becoming one of the top players in the comp and is probably in the top 3-4 already.
Billings still looks like a boy out there 6 years on and plays like one too. The fact that he and Hanneberry are on $800k plus each, as we try to build a team again going forward, is mind boggling.
Please no.mad saint guy wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 12:34pm Or Bruce for Toby McLean and one of the Dogs' third rounders.
Exactly!BarryGrogan wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 10:00amThat's exactly my point.SaintPav wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 9:08amLol.BarryGrogan wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 8:37amI don't think a single person that is making these decisions has been at St Kilda for more than a year or two have they?
If anything, it's very 'un-St Kilda'. These are not St Kilda decisions. These are decisions made by non-St Kilda people.
Maybe that's not a bad thing.
What ”St Kilda people”? They're not run like community clubs anymore; they are a commercial enterprises. I think you're about 15 years behind.
I'm loving your tough talk LL.
They must have read my trade idea.
I so agree.evertonfc wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:28am Bruce's kicking got me down a bit at times, but hell - what a warrior, and what a heart-and-soul player.
You couldn't accuse him of giving any less than 110% every time he played.
I am extremely disappointed to lose him. His physical presence was enormous, and seldom did he let a pack go without being crashed and getting it to ground level. Milne would have LOVED playing next to him.
I can't really see the value we are getting here. He's worth a top 10-15 pick to us, but the Dogs will probably get him for much less. It's a fantastic deal for them, no matter which way you cut it.
I really can't figure out what we're gaining from the deal. They're going to get a guy who will kick 150 goals for them - he can definitely get to 40 goals per year with the service their midfield provides.
I think for the club, it’s not just about his value as a player. It seems that the club wants to ship him out based on his attitude as much as needing to give to get re draft picks. I reckon there’s more to it than just a valuation based on his on field contributions. If Ratts and football management don’t want him on the list because of his attitude or behaviour, then they may be willing to let him go for less than it would appear on the surface, that he’s worth. Reckon pick 12 is well over par and if that kind of deal was on offer would snap it up.avid wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 2:35pmI so agree.evertonfc wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 11:28am Bruce's kicking got me down a bit at times, but hell - what a warrior, and what a heart-and-soul player.
You couldn't accuse him of giving any less than 110% every time he played.
I am extremely disappointed to lose him. His physical presence was enormous, and seldom did he let a pack go without being crashed and getting it to ground level. Milne would have LOVED playing next to him.
I can't really see the value we are getting here. He's worth a top 10-15 pick to us, but the Dogs will probably get him for much less. It's a fantastic deal for them, no matter which way you cut it.
I really can't figure out what we're gaining from the deal. They're going to get a guy who will kick 150 goals for them - he can definitely get to 40 goals per year with the service their midfield provides.
Unless we get a 10-15 pick I'll be gutted.
Even if we do I'll still be gutted at losing the Brooster.
Our forward half will be gutted too.
That's utterly pointless given we've got Ryder. I imagine we made enquiries before we knew we had Ryder.
So in 5 pages of posts this topic has swung from a debate about whether Bruce should stay or go based on opinions about his abilty and value to the teamst.byron wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 3:00pm
I think for the club, it’s not just about his value as a player. It seems that the club wants to ship him out based on his attitude as much as needing to give to get re draft picks. I reckon there’s more to it than just a valuation based on his on field contributions. If Ratts and football management don’t want him on the list because of his attitude or behaviour, then they may be willing to let him go for less than it would appear on the surface, that he’s worth. Reckon pick 12 is well over par and if that kind of deal was on offer would snap it up.
It's not the first time I've heard that Josh is not the greatest influence in and around the playing group. It's speculation indeed suggesting that the club may be willing to accept less for him because they want him out. But it does seem that maybe he's not well regarded within the club and if that's the case there must be a reason for that. Tony74 wouldn't post that without reason. I also heard similar info from a fella I know who worked with the playing group for a couple of years.terry smith rules wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 3:37pmSo in 5 pages of posts this topic has swung from a debate about whether Bruce should stay or go based on opinions about his abilty and value to the teamst.byron wrote: ↑Fri 27 Sep 2019 3:00pm
I think for the club, it’s not just about his value as a player. It seems that the club wants to ship him out based on his attitude as much as needing to give to get re draft picks. I reckon there’s more to it than just a valuation based on his on field contributions. If Ratts and football management don’t want him on the list because of his attitude or behaviour, then they may be willing to let him go for less than it would appear on the surface, that he’s worth. Reckon pick 12 is well over par and if that kind of deal was on offer would snap it up.
to he has an attitude problem and is not liked and therefore needs to go
Based on one poster starting this ball rolling (back on page 3)
This is exactly how social media is used to deflect and create "truth"
Probably by tomorrow there will be a mainstream story on how Bruce created a toxic culture at St Kilda