Clarke substitute

[St Ick]

Now this isn't a Raph Clarke bagging thread so anyone looking to bag Raph, just join in on one of the 100 others.

The issue I have is that Raph isn't a pinch hit player! He is a slow starter with (seemingly) low confidence. He isn't overly quick, doesn't kick goals, and needs a full game if he plays - it seems that Raph starring at Sandy warranted a call up but RL didn't have confidence in a full game from him. Losing Joey, bringing on Raph last night meant we lost so much in terms of x factor.

Peake played out of his skin last night, so deserved a full game and I'm glad he wasn't sub, but he, or Ledger, or a quick goalkicking mid/fwd should have been the sub. Anyone else think RL got his sub choice wrong last night?

[saintDal]

I agree. I would rather Clarke start the game as he often has to work himself into games.

I think the problem last night is who would you have picked instead? Not a lot of choices but Gamble probably would be the only one or maybe one out of left field Schneider. He could be a very good impact player and could've had stints in the midfield when Joey came off. A fresh Schneider in the last quarter may have snagged a few goals and given us a chance.

[Middo]

I agree. I would rather Clarke start the game as he often has to work himself into games.

I think the problem last night is who would you have picked instead? Not a lot of choices but Gamble probably would be the only one or maybe one out of left field Schneider. He could be a very good impact player and could've had stints in the midfield when Joey came off. A fresh Schneider in the last quarter may have snagged a few goals and given us a chance.

Not bagging Raph but if a professional AFL player needs time to get himself into a game or can't prepare himself to be ready and switched on when the game starts just maybe that guy is a VFL player and should be playing at that level. And yes he's deff not a SUB ..

[mad saint guy]

Pure stupidity from the coaching staff there. He has always needed to work his way into the game gradually and is probably the worst possible option for sub on our list. If he's going to play, give him a role and stick with him for the whole game.

[plugger66]

Pure stupidity from the coaching staff there. He has always needed to work his way into the game gradually and is probably the worst possible option for sub on our list. If he's going to play, give him a role and stick with him for the whole game.

Out of the 22 who should have been the sub? I reckon Clarke was pick 22 and with no young guys he probably needed to be sub.

[St Ick]

Could have done a number of things, even swapped Raph and Joey if Joey wasn't going to play a full game.

I don't think Gilbert should have played, or maybe use him as a sub - he has no opposite foot and his preferred is at times useless. Down on form, he needs a rest. Anyway, back on topic....

I would have played Raph/Lynch instead of Gilbert and given the sub role to Ledger.

I'd also be playing Siposs instead of Gamble as much as I want Gamble to succeed we need a more consident output from our 2nd/3rd fwd.

Schneiderman is out of form, could have warranted a red vest.

Plenty of options, I just don't see many positives out of playing Raph as a sub.

[St Ick]

Pure stupidity from the coaching staff there. He has always needed to work his way into the game gradually and is probably the worst possible option for sub on our list. If he's going to play, give him a role and stick with him for the whole game.

Out of the 22 who should have been the sub? I reckon Clarke was pick 22 and with no young guys he probably needed to be sub.

IMHO, the sub needs to be a tactical move rather than just your 22nd best player who doesn't deserve a full game.

[plugger66]

Pure stupidity from the coaching staff there. He has always needed to work his way into the game gradually and is probably the worst possible option for sub on our list. If he's going to play, give him a role and stick with him for the whole game.

Out of the 22 who should have been the sub? I reckon Clarke was pick 22 and with no young guys he probably needed to be sub.

IMHO, the sub needs to be a tactical move rather than just your 22nd best player who doesn't deserve a full game.

I agree if it is an obvious choice. I couldnt see any obvious choices last night.

[patto]

I agree. I would rather Clarke start the game as he often has to work himself into games.

I think the problem last night is who would you have picked instead? Not a lot of choices but Gamble probably would be the only one or maybe one out of left field Schneider. He could be a very good impact player and could've had stints in the midfield when Joey came off. A fresh Schneider in the last quarter may have snagged a few goals and given us a chance.

Not bagging Raph but if a professional AFL player needs time to get himself into a game or can't prepare himself to be ready and switched on when the game starts just maybe that guy is a VFL player and should be playing at that level. And yes he's deff not a SUB ..

Agreed... Without wanting to bash i dont get these comments of needing to slowely work himself into the game and gain confidence etc. Surely the guy should be ready to go at first bounce. Also agree a poor choice as sub.

[Solar]

anyone who follows top level sport knows that there are players who start slowly and need the feel of the ball in their hands, off their bat etc. Take cricket for instances, there are classy players who you would not throw in to hit 4 sixes off one over but they will score you lovely tons over and over.

We had learnt tha clarke should not be the sub. Why did we forget this?

[mad saint guy]

Pure stupidity from the coaching staff there. He has always needed to work his way into the game gradually and is probably the worst possible option for sub on our list. If he's going to play, give him a role and stick with him for the whole game.

Out of the 22 who should have been the sub? I reckon Clarke was pick 22 and with no young guys he probably needed to be sub.

I think the 22 has to be picked with a sub in mind, which it wasn't. I'd rather see Ledger play full games but he still would have had more impact, or Smith could be a useful burst player late in the game.

If you had to pick one from the 22 that played, then maybe Gram's lack of hardness might not have mattered if he came on against fatigued opponents and his run may have given something.

[plugger66]

Pure stupidity from the coaching staff there. He has always needed to work his way into the game gradually and is probably the worst possible option for sub on our list. If he's going to play, give him a role and stick with him for the whole game.

Out of the 22 who should have been the sub? I reckon Clarke was pick 22 and with no young guys he probably needed to be sub.

I think the 22 has to be picked with a sub in mind, which it wasn't. I'd rather see Ledger play full games but he still would have had more impact, or Smith could be a useful burst player late in the game.

If you had to pick one from the 22 that played, then maybe Gram's lack of hardness might not have mattered if he came on against fatigued opponents and his run may have given something.

Unlike most here I thought Gram did well last week so rewarding him with Sub isnt really fair. I do agree that picking a player to be sub is important. Maybe Ledger should have played as sub instead of Raph.

[BigMart]

Gram or schnieder should have been the sub.....

[noreason41]

Pure stupidity from the coaching staff there. He has always needed to work his way into the game gradually and is probably the worst possible option for sub on our list. If he's going to play, give him a role and stick with him for the whole game.

Out of the 22 who should have been the sub? I reckon Clarke was pick 22 and with no young guys he probably needed to be sub.

I think the 22 has to be picked with a sub in mind, which it wasn't. I'd rather see Ledger play full games but he still would have had more impact, or Smith could be a useful burst player late in the game.

If you had to pick one from the 22 that played, then maybe Gram's lack of hardness might not have mattered if he came on against fatigued opponents and his run may have given something.

Unlike most here I thought Gram did well last week so rewarding him with Sub isnt really fair. I do agree that picking a player to be sub is important. Maybe Ledger should have played as sub instead of Raph.

Out of interest, how do you think he went this week?

[plugger66]

Pure stupidity from the coaching staff there. He has always needed to work his way into the game gradually and is probably the worst possible option for sub on our list. If he's going to play, give him a role and stick with him for the whole game.

Out of the 22 who should have been the sub? I reckon Clarke was pick 22 and with no young guys he probably needed to be sub.

I think the 22 has to be picked with a sub in mind, which it wasn't. I'd rather see Ledger play full games but he still would have had more impact, or Smith could be a useful burst player late in the game.

If you had to pick one from the 22 that played, then maybe Gram's lack of hardness might not have mattered if he came on against fatigued opponents and his run may have given something.

Unlike most here I thought Gram did well last week so rewarding him with Sub isnt really fair. I do agree that picking a player to be sub is important. Maybe Ledger should have played as sub instead of Raph.

Out of interest, how do you think he went this week?

I have no idea. Saw about 15 minutes of footy. Stats looked ok but he hasnt received many pats on the back but he didnt last week either and I thought he was good. He certainly didnt deserve only 30 minutes of footy this week after last week.

[Moods]

Bottom line is that if they were going to play Raph, he had to be in the starting 21. If he couldn't make the starting 21 then he doesn't play AFAIC.

Any one of the kids could have played as a sub last night - Ledger again, Siposs etc. The first time for a long long time I am critical of Lyon to be honest. With Kosi playing was a perfect opportunity to play Siposs as a 3rd tall in the fwd line. Gamble did a couple of nice things, but can't see him being a part of anything special at the saints. Siposs needs some experience around him and can kick the thing beautifully.

For mine Raph should be consigned to the reserves for an extended period. Every time he's played this year he hasn't looked up to it. That, to me, is the sign of a bloke who is no longer good enough. Ledger has done enough to deserve a spot in the starting 21. Gram should have been picked as the sub and he can kick his balloons for the last 40 minutes of the game.

It appears selection at the moment has no plan. Playing with NO 2nd ruck most weeks is madness. Kosi or Blake have to play. Playing with no 2nd genuine tall in the fwd line is madness as well. Kosi solves both problems, and if he's not good enough, time for Stanley, Walsh or Archer to have a go. REgardless of form in the magoos - it was ruining our structure with no-one there. Playing Gamble or Siposs as a 2nd tall target is unfair on the player concerned (particularly Siposs) and the team as a whole.

[Middo]

anyone who follows top level sport knows that there are players who start slowly and need the feel of the ball in their hands, off their bat etc. Take cricket for instances, there are classy players who you would not throw in to hit 4 sixes off one over but they will score you lovely tons over and over.

We had learnt tha clarke should not be the sub. Why did we forget this?

How about touching it in the warm up..? Or maybe we should just put up with his mistakes early in the game as he's getting the feel of it. Silly comment me thinks...

[Middo]

Bottom line is that if they were going to play Raph, he had to be in the starting 21. If he couldn't make the starting 21 then he doesn't play AFAIC.

Any one of the kids could have played as a sub last night - Ledger again, Siposs etc. The first time for a long long time I am critical of Lyon to be honest. With Kosi playing was a perfect opportunity to play Siposs as a 3rd tall in the fwd line. Gamble did a couple of nice things, but can't see him being a part of anything special at the saints. Siposs needs some experience around him and can kick the thing beautifully.

For mine Raph should be consigned to the reserves for an extended period. Every time he's played this year he hasn't looked up to it. That, to me, is the sign of a bloke who is no longer good enough. Ledger has done enough to deserve a spot in the starting 21. Gram should have been picked as the sub and he can kick his balloons for the last 40 minutes of the game.It appears selection at the moment has no plan. Playing with NO 2nd ruck most weeks is madness. Kosi or Blake have to play. Playing with no 2nd genuine tall in the fwd line is madness as well. Kosi solves both problems, and if he's not good enough, time for Stanley, Walsh or Archer to have a go. REgardless of form in the magoos - it was ruining our structure with no-one there. Playing Gamble or Siposs as a 2nd tall target is unfair on the player concerned (particularly Siposs) and the team as a whole.

GOLD !

[seano1]

its the 2nd time hes had him as a subbie..........it doesnt work with dont do it again.....RL you need to pick someone else who is quick for a start

[Dr Spaceman]

its the 2nd time hes had him as a subbie..........it doesnt work with dont do it again.....RL you need to pick someone else who is quick for a start

"Thanks seano1. Duly noted" Ross Lyon (via Dr Spaceman)

[SainterK]

The sub is just the last guy picked, well not picked, if you know what I mean.