TRADED: Bruce for 32 and 51

This unofficial St Kilda Saints fan forum is for people of all ages to chat Saints Footy and all posts must be respectful.

Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators

User avatar
lewdogs
Club Player
Posts: 641
Joined: Tue 17 Jun 2008 2:11pm
Has thanked: 107 times
Been thanked: 179 times

Re: TRADED: Bruce for 32 and 51

Post: # 1830891Post lewdogs »

While it's a shame to lose Bruce, I think it's worth remembering some of his deficiencies.
- Not great pressure. Doesn't tackle much.
- Poor kick. Not a good kick for goal or field kick. Also a pretty slow decision maker.

He tries hard but I've felt recently that he's a pretty overrated player for us. Wish him all the best, but the Dogs aren't getting Tony Lockett here. And with King, Battle, Marshall/Ryder, I feel we can cover him.


User avatar
diddley
Club Player
Posts: 610
Joined: Sat 29 Oct 2016 12:53am
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: TRADED: Bruce for 32 and 51

Post: # 1830893Post diddley »

Joffa Burns wrote: Sun 20 Oct 2019 10:44am
diddley wrote: Sun 20 Oct 2019 10:37am
Ghost Like wrote: Sun 20 Oct 2019 9:16am Does no one else find it funny (Luke Ball type stench) that the Dogs came to Bruce mid season (or his management went to them)? This coincided with possibly his best game, the North game in Hobart, & a rich vein of form to the end of the year. I'm really not sure the Club is to blame here, I suspect Bruce or his management as being duplicitous.
This is what is commonly referred to as “clutching at straws”.

When people say “mid season”, it could be referring to the middle part (roughly round 11), the mid section (rounds 8-16), or just plain during the season (any possible round of the year).
It is just pure speculation on when it happened, but to attribute that to a run of form, is just ludicrous.
Didn’t Gallagher reference being in communication with Hills management since quite early in the season?

All clubs, players and managers would undertake this behavior.
Yes. Most of these deals would have an “in principle” agreement in place long before the trade period. Final decisions may be made late on (think dusty or coniglio making there final decision mid finals run) but the conversation starts months before. This is why recruitment is a full time job. Not just 2 weeks a year.


User avatar
Ghost Like
Saintsational Legend
Posts: 6562
Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 10:04pm
Has thanked: 5788 times
Been thanked: 1909 times

Re: TRADED: Bruce for 32 and 51

Post: # 1830895Post Ghost Like »

diddley wrote: Sun 20 Oct 2019 10:37am
Ghost Like wrote: Sun 20 Oct 2019 9:16am Does no one else find it funny (Luke Ball type stench) that the Dogs came to Bruce mid season (or his management went to them)? This coincided with possibly his best game, the North game in Hobart, & a rich vein of form to the end of the year. I'm really not sure the Club is to blame here, I suspect Bruce or his management as being duplicitous.
This is what is commonly referred to as “clutching at straws”.

When people say “mid season”, it could be referring to the middle part (roughly round 11), the mid section (rounds 8-16), or just plain during the season (any possible round of the year).
It is just pure speculation on when it happened, but to attribute that to a run of form, is just ludicrous.
Fair enough Diddley, you don't find it funny but I think you'd be surprised how haggling over a contract, especially on the quiet, with another club, may effect form. Once it's sorted, I'm sure gives that player some clarity and peace of mind to actually play.


Post Reply