Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Batnoe wrote:...as a back up backmen [Carroll] surely would bring something.
I just don't understand the need. It's a position we already have a fair bit of depth at. After Hudghton and Blake we have Maguire, Fisher, Gilbert, Gwilt and Allen.
sean dempster has reportedly pulled-up well from the knee reco. however how are you supposed to rely on goose?
goose will be good for about another one (1) game then he can retire with 100 and count himself very lucky.
allen is a forward and jimmy gwilt in better there aswell.
why we wouldn't need another backman is beyond me.
NC adds starch in my opinion and has good feet.
melbourne were mad to delist him.
The only 2 "hopefulls" that I'd hang my hat on are:
1- He played for a crap team the last 2 years, with a loser mentality. Maybe in a better team, his attitude will be better.
2- This may be his big wake up call. See Guerra and Pike, to name a coule.
I'd like to think that he'd be considered as a purely back up only. If he makes the team, and we'r playing crap, then we're in trouble. If we play well and he makes the team, then good luck to him.
The lid is off after Round 2! Enjoy the journey, coz you just don't know where we'll end up. Live for today and seize the moment.
WayneJudson42 wrote:The only 2 "hopefulls" that I'd hang my hat on are:
1- He played for a crap team the last 2 years, with a loser mentality. Maybe in a better team, his attitude will be better.
2- This may be his big wake up call. See Guerra and Pike, to name a coule.
I'd like to think that he'd be considered as a purely back up only. If he makes the team, and we'r playing crap, then we're in trouble. If we play well and he makes the team, then good luck to him.
Either way, if we do consider to take him, he better get his act together. I only saw him play one game of AFL this year, I think it was against a top eight side. He looked comfortable and his disposals was alright. IF he is cheap, i.e. PSD or really really low ND pick, I think the transition would be ok.
Pilgram wrote:why we wouldn't need another backman is beyond me.
I'd be quite happy to add a good key defender to our list. We need good defenders just as we need good players at every position. Nathan Carroll just isn't a good key defender. I'm amazed anyone would argue that point. He's one of the reasons Melbourne were so bad. They looked better when they replaced him with a relatively unknown kid. He's not a capable substitute for Max at all. He's worse than what we already have, so I ask again, what's the point?
Pilgram wrote:why we wouldn't need another backman is beyond me.
I'd be quite happy to add a good key defender to our list. We need good defenders just as we need good players at every position. Nathan Carroll just isn't a good key defender. I'm amazed anyone would argue that point. He's one of the reasons Melbourne were so bad. They looked better when they replaced him with a relatively unknown kid. He's not a capable substitute for Max at all. He's worse than what we already have, so I ask again, what's the point?
You sure you're not confusing his inabilities with Alastair Nicholson? Nicholson was the full-back we used to pray was fit when we played Melbourne. He was eventually delisted and Carroll took his place.
Unfortuantely for Carroll, he was the only player they seemed to have over 190cms in their backline and so had to play on all the opposition's tall forwards at the same time.
Mr Magic wrote:You sure you're not confusing his inabilities with Alastair Nicholson?
I imagine it would be tough to confuse Carroll with anyone. Particularly given he was under the spotlight for conceding so many goals.
I reckon playing full back in the worst team of this century would be the hardest job in football.
The footy keeps coming in to the forward line and everyone is trying to kick the ball to your opponent.
Mr Magic wrote:I reckon playing full back in the worst team of this century would be the hardest job in football.
Good fullbacks on bad teams usually at least limit their opponents output. Carroll was badly beaten by some of the second tier forwards of the league as well as the top ones. Then there's the aforementioned VFL play. I'd be more inclined to believe that he's a misplaced third tall like Joel Bowden or Bret Thornton than a good fullback struggling because of lack of support.
On the upside, I don't think he could have walked into a better situation short of Hawthorn calling. I still find it a strange move from our end though.
^ Exactly. (2 posts up) You'd think he would concede a few goals seeing as the other team would deliver the ball to his forward so many times...
At first i was completly against Carrol coming to the Saints, but i've changed my mind and i'm thinking it might not be too bad. Its not like he's gonna cost to much and so why not take the risk.
Legendary wrote:In 2006, Carroll also conceeded one of the fewest number of goals of any full-back and was in contention for AA selection. He had a great year.
In 06, Hudghton conceded the fewest goals followed by Scarlett and Rutten. Carroll was nowhere close. He had a good first half, but a woeful second half.
