Who Replaces Wiliams ??

[Scraggers]

With the possible sidelining of Tom Williams for up to 16 weeks, the question is which Rookie (if any) do we elevate ??

Make your choice, and justify below.

[strebla]

We should not upgrade a rookie until one bangs the door and demands to be picked.

[boydogs]

We should not upgrade a rookie until one bangs the door and demands to be picked.

Agreed, plenty of backup on the primary list for now, easy to make the wrong call at this stage

[Cyberdoggie]

None for now,

Looking at the replacement types for Williams it would only be Austin or Redpath and Redpath is predominately a forward.

[Mofra]

We should not upgrade a rookie until one bangs the door and demands to be picked.
Yup - Markovic to CHB, and we worry like hell against WCE who have 4 quality talls (although Wood plays taller than his height).

[G-Mo77]

Voted no one for now, no point in paying someone extra because they might be able to replace Williams

[bornadog]

Williams believes he will be ready for round one.

[Scraggers]

For me the obvious selection is Mark Austin ... He was used as Carlton third tall in defence and is touted as playing above his height (kind of like Morris)

From my understanding of the long-term injury rule, is that you can temporarily elevate a rookie for the term of the injury; and once declared fit, the rookie returns to the list. If this is the case, then we are silly not to elevate somone ... its not going to cost us anything, and it gives us more choice.

[Scraggers]

Williams believes he will be ready for round one.

That would be incredible if it eventuated :eek:

[Bulldog4life]

We should not upgrade a rookie until one bangs the door and demands to be picked.

Ditto

[divvydan]

For me the obvious selection is Mark Austin ... He was used as Carlton third tall in defence and is touted as playing above his height (kind of like Morris)

From my understanding of the long-term injury rule, is that you can temporarily elevate a rookie for the term of the injury; and once declared fit, the rookie returns to the list. If this is the case, then we are silly not to elevate somone ... its not going to cost us anything, and it gives us more choice.

Not quite, there's a minimum 8 weeks on the LTI list, so if we move Williams onto it in order to promote a rookie, or even without promoting a rookie, he can't play football at AFL or VFL for the next 8 weeks.

[azabob]

Yup - Markovic to CHB, and we worry like hell against WCE who have 4 quality talls (although Wood plays taller than his height).

W/C have their on injury worries, obviously no LeCras and I don't think Josh Kennedy to date has played any footy in 2012.

[Scraggers]

Not quite, there's a minimum 8 weeks on the LTI list, so if we move Williams onto it in order to promote a rookie, or even without promoting a rookie, he can't play football at AFL or VFL for the next 8 weeks.

So if the Williams injury is 16 weeks as some media outlets are touting, then an elevated rookie is the way to go??

[w3design]

Tom Hill

[divvydan]

So if the Williams injury is 16 weeks as some media outlets are touting, then an elevated rookie is the way to go??

Well if he's going to be out for that long, you may as well put him on the LTI list, then you can decide if/when to elevate a rookie.

[GVGjr]

Tom Hill

Didn't even play for Williamstown seniors last year.

[Bulldog Joe]

You don't elevate a rookie until/unless you need to play him.

Once you elevate one you can't change your mind because a different player has the form to be promoted.

[Happy Days]

The sensible call is to not upgrade a rookie, but sensibility doesn't make for good debate; who would we upgrade if a gun were held to our head?

Personally I would upgrade Austin, he makes the most sense; seems to be most suited to the position we would need filled. Based on what we've seen so far, not a stretch to say Campbell or JJ has shown the most, but Johannisen has an extra year of development in him. If we were to upgrade one, out of the three I've listed - Austin, Johannisen, Campbell in order of preference.

[Desipura]

Tom Hill

He is already on the senior list.

[w3design]

Didn't even play for Williamstown seniors last year.

He looked good in the intra club a couple of weeks ago and i think he was injured most of last year.

[w3design]

He is already on the senior list.

Tom Hill the kid can play .Austin if we elevate a rookie

[LostDoggy]

He looked good in the intra club a couple of weeks ago and i think he was injured most of last year.

I like your suggestion Billy. Have heard he looked good in the intra club match at CHB.

[Dry Rot]

Redpath.

If you don't vote for him, I'll send him around to your place to discuss it.

http://mm.afl.com.au/Portals/0/images_bulldogs/Bulldogs%20Articles/IntroJackRedpath_246e.jpg

[LostDoggy]

http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/westernbulldogsnewsfeatures/newsarticle/tabid/4112/newsid/130102/default.aspx

Hopefully no-one.
If it's to round 8 do we get to elevate one anyone? Unless Austin is going to play as his replacement, no point upgrading someone till they earn it

[Greystache]

No one. Reward form if a rookie plays well enough to demand selection. There's no point promoting a rookie to fill a potential hole only then to find we have another Dahlhaus on the list and we can't give them a game because there's no spot on the list for them.

[jeemak]

I chose nobody.

If Lake is ready to go then he can hold down CHB and Marko can hold down FB, or vise versa depending on match ups. It's not perfect, and I know Lake has struggled further up the ground from time to time but unless we're going to use the first eight games of the year as purely development then I don't see the value in promoting someone that is going to be worse than the options we already have plugging holes in defense.

The reason why I say that is because we're most likely to concede the entire year as a means to deveop Grant and Jones as key forwards, supplemented by Minson, Cordy and Roughead, and in order to be competitive in the early rounds of the year our backline needs to be as safe as possible as we're not likely to put a large score on the board week in, week out. We can't have each of the forward line and backline filled with inexperienced players in the majority of key positions.

If we do decide to throw caution to the wind and go with another inexperienced player down back, then I vote we give Cordy a run at CHB. That might allow us to develop both he and Roughead at the same time.

[strebla]

Redpath.

If you don't vote for him, I'll send him around to your place to discuss it.

http://mm.afl.com.au/Portals/0/images_bulldogs/Bulldogs%20Articles/IntroJackRedpath_246e.jpg

Love it good to get a laugh at 2:30 am my co-workers think I am a bit lost though!!:D

[Ghost Dog]

I chose nobody.

If Lake is ready to go then he can hold down CHB and Marko can hold down FB, or vise versa depending on match ups. It's not perfect, and I know Lake has struggled further up the ground from time to time but unless we're going to use the first eight games of the year as purely development then I don't see the value in promoting someone that is going to be worse than the options we already have plugging holes in defense.

The reason why I say that is because we're most likely to concede the entire year as a means to deveop Grant and Jones as key forwards, supplemented by Minson, Cordy and Roughead, and in order to be competitive in the early rounds of the year our backline needs to be as safe as possible as we're not likely to put a large score on the board week in, week out. We can't have each of the forward line and backline filled with inexperienced players in the majority of key positions.

If we do decide to throw caution to the wind and go with another inexperienced player down back, then I vote we give Cordy a run at CHB. That might allow us to develop both he and Roughead at the same time.


Now that's an idea. He did a few good things in the nab. His height is going to cause all sorts of headaches for the opposition.

[SlimPickens]

Confirmed this morning Tom had a reconstruction last night and will be out for upto 16 weeks

[bornadog]

Confirmed this morning Tom had a reconstruction last night and will be out for upto 16 weeks

A rookie should be elevated to give them a chance, but I would wait for a few weeks to see which rookie would deserve the elevation.

[Scraggers]

Confirmed this morning Tom had a reconstruction last night and will be out for upto 16 weeks

16 weeks from today, or 16 weeks of the season?
If its 16 weeks of the season, then shelve him for the year and bring on 2013 :rolleyes:

[Maddog37]

A few rookies will be seeing this as an opportunity so their intensity should be up. Not sure we need to replace him with a similar type though when Talia and Marko are available.

[Desipura]

A few rookies will be seeing this as an opportunity so their intensity should be up. Not sure we need to replace him with a similar type though when Talia and Marko are available.

Dont forget Fletcher Roberts and Tom Hill who could both potentially play down back as well.
If his form warrants it, Johannisen's pace could be handy coming out of defence.

[Mantis]

I'm just glad we still have Mulligan... We still have him don't we. :confused: :eek:

[SlimPickens]

16 weeks from today, or 16 weeks of the season?
If its 16 weeks of the season, then shelve him for the year and bring on 2013 :rolleyes:

16 weeks from now, so best case round 12.

[Remi Moses]

Shocking luck for the guy
He's had every possible body part injured
Markovic for mine. Better one on one than Tom, but not as good mobility wise.
Not sure if they'll elevate anyone

[LostDoggy]

Please don't take this as anything personal, but I'm kinda glad that WOOFers aren't on match committee, else we'd be playing the entire list off half back, either to “develop them” or “play them into form”.

We don't necessarily need to promote a defender. We should, as others have said, wait until a rookie demands selection (at any position) and then upgrade him. They all know a spot is up for grabs, let them fight each other for it. It's a healthy situation no matter which way you go.

[Sedat]

I'm just glad we still have Mulligan... We still have him don't we. :confused: :eek:
I lol'd :D

[BulldogBelle]

Williams would have been handy to play on West Coast's tall timber in their forward line

I think Markovic still has nightmares over his performance against West Coast last year when Kennedy kicked 10 on him - probably the whole team has nightmares of that game

[Greystache]

Williams would have been handy to play on West Coast's tall timber in the forward line

I think Markovic still has nightmares over his performance against West Coast last year when Kennedy kicked 10 on him

It seems supporters have selective memory about that game, Williams played on Kennedy for long periods (including first up) and had at least half of Kennedy's goals kicked on him. Markovic was unlucky to be dropped after that game given he was no poorer than any of the other defenders, especially Williams.

[The Underdog]

I'm just glad we still have Mulligan... We still have him don't we. :confused: :eek:

Can we take a mulligan on Mulligan?

[Mofra]

Williams would have been handy to play on West Coast's tall timber in their forward line

I think Markovic still has nightmares over his performance against West Coast last year when Kennedy kicked 10 on him - probably the whole team has nightmares of that game


It seems supporters have selective memory about that game, Williams played on Kennedy for long periods (including first up) and had at least half of Kennedy's goals kicked on him. Markovic was unlucky to be dropped after that game given he was no poorer than any of the other defenders, especially Williams.
With little pressure on the ball carrier out of the middle, most defenders would have struggled too.

Is Kennedy going to play round 1? Was mentioned here earlier that he hasn't played this pre-season (yet).

[G-Mo77]

It seems supporters have selective memory about that game, Williams played on Kennedy for long periods (including first up) and had at least half of Kennedy's goals kicked on him. Markovic was unlucky to be dropped after that game given he was no poorer than any of the other defenders, especially Williams.

Selective blame as well. :)

The West Coast midfield and backline ran around without an pressure. Defenders should wear some of the blame but it's an almost impossible job when there is 0 help up the ground.

[Greystache]

Selective blame as well. :)

The West Coast midfield and backline ran around without an pressure. Defenders should wear some of the blame but it's an almost impossible job when there is 0 help up the ground.

I'm not blaming the defenders, when you get beaten by 123 points it's a collective effort. The midfield stopped trying in the last quarter, the defence didn't have a chance. It just seems that Williams comes out of that game with his reputation in tact and Markovic has been written off by some on the basis he had 10 goals kicked on him.

Whereas the reality was Williams was every bit as beaten as Markovic, and personally of the two I have more confidence in Markovic playing on a decent forward than I do Williams.

[G-Mo77]

I'm not blaming the defenders, when you get beaten by 123 points it's a collective effort. The midfield stopped trying in the last quarter, the defence didn't have a chance. It just seems that Williams comes out of that game with his reputation in tact and Markovic has been written off by some on the basis he had 10 goals kicked on him.

Whereas the reality was Williams was every bit as beaten as Markovic, and personally of the two I have more confidence in Markovic playing on a decent forward than I do Williams.

I'm not blaming Marko either I actually think he's a very handy backline player. He lacks class but he gets the job done each week. There was a couple of efforts from Williams early on in that game that were quite poor so I do agree with you on that point.

Do I have more confidence in Marko than Williams though is a hard one. Despite playing similar positions they're 2 completely different players. I have more confidence with one over the other depending on the role and who his opponent was.

[ledge]

Williams backs himself for a mark like Lake, Im not sure Markovic does that with so much confidence just yet, but i think it will come.

[LostDoggy]

At this stage no one.

Happy for Markovic to effectively replace Williams (with Lake returning).

Also reckon Cordy can have a good run in defence - took some good contested marks this week.

[LostDoggy]

Selective blame as well. :)

The West Coast midfield and backline ran around without an pressure. Defenders should wear some of the blame but it's an almost impossible job when there is 0 help up the ground.

I'm with you here. If my memory is correct, I recall that Kennedy kicked more goals when Williams was playing on him than Markovic ... one more actually.

I was surprised that Marko copped the chop and Williams stayed the next week.

Anyway, back to the topic and I dont think we can say who is going to replace Tom because he gets injured that often that he hasnt really developed into a regular reliable player and stamped his mark on any position.

[Ozza]

It seems supporters have selective memory about that game, Williams played on Kennedy for long periods (including first up) and had at least half of Kennedy's goals kicked on him. Markovic was unlucky to be dropped after that game given he was no poorer than any of the other defenders, especially Williams.

I dunno Greystache...I may be one with 'selective memory' by your re-count - but although I was happy with Markovic most weeks last year - I thought he was dreadful against West Coast and really lowered his colours. Morris was great that day - but we needed 4 of him. Marko was particularly pathetic in his 1-on-1's against Kennedy.

[DragzLS1]

I dunno Greystache...I may be one with 'selective memory' by your re-count - but although I was happy with Markovic most weeks last year - I thought he was dreadful against West Coast and really lowered his colours. Morris was great that day - but we needed 4 of him. Marko was particularly pathetic in his 1-on-1's against Kennedy.

I do agree it almost seemed like markovic just put his head down and stopped trying. After being soo far behind it is understandable and the amount of times the ball came in + Markovics first year really fatigue ect may be to blame. I liked his other games and definately think he is in our starting line up with lake against the bigger opposition. Gets the job done week in week out imo and should be solid for us this year.

Hope Williams can get back into to it towards the end of the season and get him prepared for 2013.

[bornadog]

I dunno Greystache...I may be one with 'selective memory' by your re-count - but although I was happy with Markovic most weeks last year - I thought he was dreadful against West Coast and really lowered his colours. Morris was great that day - but we needed 4 of him. Marko was particularly pathetic in his 1-on-1's against Kennedy.

That game was probably one of the worse games we played under Rocket. Besides that game, I thought Markovic was pretty good last year and surprised us all. He did a great job on Buddy towards the end of the year and was rarely beaten in other games.

[LostDoggy]

That game was probably one of the worse games we played under Rocket.

No probably about it. It was THE WORST game under Rocket, potentially the worst game the club has ever played in 100+ years. Certainly the worst I've ever witnessed.

[Remi Moses]

No probably about it. It was THE WORST game under Rocket, potentially the worst game the club has ever played in 100+ years. Certainly the worst I've ever witnessed.

Hawthorn 82, Essendon at home in 82 ( we lost by 150, led at 1/4 time!)
Norf 96 wasn't pleasant either

[LostDoggy]

Hawthorn 82, Essendon at home in 82 ( we lost by 150, led at 1/4 time!)
Norf 96 wasn't pleasant either

Shudder. You're dredging my mind in places I would rather not go -- those games have been buried in the same place reserved for public faux pas and embarassing girl related situations.

You know, we were pretty close at 3/4 time in the West Coast game last year -- maybe I'll adjust my original statement to say that the fourth quarter against the Eagles last year was DEFINITELY the worst quarter of football we've ever played in our history.

Statistically, I'm pretty sure it was the worst quarter ever not only for the Dogs but in the entire recorded history of football.

[Maddog37]

Reckon it played a big part in Rocket leaving?

[LostDoggy]

Reckon it played a big part in Rocket leaving?

Oh who knows. The whole year was a schmozzle from the get-go.

[Eastdog]

2011 wasn't a good year for us after the expectations at the start of the year but come to think of it it wasn't surprising that we would fall away after 3 solid seasons vying for the Premiership. All teams that are really strong for a couple of years always will go down as a result of players retiring and getting older and very new players coming in.

[w3design]

Yes, 2011 was a Bulldog nightmare from the get go. Retirements and injuries cruelled us.
But in my opinion, no more than our mistakes in planning. Getting sucked into the idea that we could go into games with only one genuine ruck-man was a disaster begging to happen. Collingwood might be able to get away with it because of other personnel that could fill the gap. We never had that luxury.
Secondly, starting Cross outside of the square was destined from day one to be another disaster. Now don't get me mixed up with those Cross detractors in our midst, Crossy is one of my favourite players. I love his courage, tenacity and ability to find, get, and feed out the ball to our runners. But despite his undoubted endurance, pace clearly is not a strength. Coming off the wing [ yeah I know, many here have problems with that term, so lets just accept that I am referring to those two guys who start on the side of the centre square at starts/restarts] where he had to run toward the action from a distance, giving others a head start rather than being at the coal face, invariably meant the ball had gone by the time he got there.

Let us hope the new coaching regime have a bit of a more 'together' game plan that plays with our teams talents and natural strengths, rather than playing by the numbers.

[jeemak]

Hawthorn 82, Essendon at home in 82 ( we lost by 150, led at 1/4 time!)
Norf 96 wasn't pleasant either

That was the day when blind optimism was alomst completely belted out of me. I remember in the second quarter I was witnessing my Dad going in to meltdown and I kept thinking things were going to turn around. It wasn't that at 16 I had no clues about the game either (some might argue that if I don't now, how could I possibly have had any then :)). That was the first nail in the coffin for me, the prelim in '97 was the one that sealed it shut though.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Yes, 2011 was a Bulldog nightmare from the get go. Retirements and injuries cruelled us.
But in my opinion, no more than our mistakes in planning. Getting sucked into the idea that we could go into games with only one genuine ruck-man was a disaster begging to happen. Collingwood might be able to get away with it because of other personnel that could fill the gap. We never had that luxury.
Secondly, starting Cross outside of the square was destined from day one to be another disaster. Now don't get me mixed up with those Cross detractors in our midst, Crossy is one of my favourite players. I love his courage, tenacity and ability to find, get, and feed out the ball to our runners. But despite his undoubted endurance, pace clearly is not a strength. Coming off the wing [ yeah I know, many here have problems with that term, so lets just accept that I am referring to those two guys who start on the side of the centre square at starts/restarts] where he had to run toward the action from a distance, giving others a head start rather than being at the coal face, invariably meant the ball had gone by the time he got there.

Let us hope the new coaching regime have a bit of a more 'together' game plan that plays with our teams talents and natural strengths, rather than playing by the numbers.

Starting Cross on a wing is totally irrelevant. The coaching staff believed (rightly or wrongly) that his hands weren't as clean as some others so he started outside the square. Why does it matter where he starts running from? He didn't spend the rest of the game out wide trying to burn off the opposition.

Our season was shot as soon as Cooney and Lake went down. While we might have been good enough to steal a premiership if everything went perfectly, we were no chance without our two best players.

The other critical point was playing a clearly unfit Hall v Freo in R5 or 6 (or whenever it was)

[jeemak]

Starting Cross on a wing is totally irrelevant. The coaching staff believed (rightly or wrongly) that his hands weren't as clean as some others so he started outside the square. Why does it matter where he starts running from? He didn't spend the rest of the game out wide trying to burn off the opposition.

Our season was shot as soon as Cooney and Lake went down. While we might have been good enough to steal a premiership if everything went perfectly, we were no chance without our two best players.

The other critical point was playing a clearly unfit Hall v Freo in R5 or 6 (or whenever it was)

Yep. Cross is great at killing a ball, whether it be running with the flight with courage to take a grab to slow the opposition's forward movement, or going in head first to create a stoppage, but he isn't in our top handful of players in close when the ball is initially won and needs to be given out cleanly.

I think 2010 was a prophetic season that needed to be acted upon immediately, but that's easy to say in hindsight. We didn't have enough natural improvement in our listed players, and we either didn't decide to trade heavily enough or have the players available to trade for that stopped us from turning the list over. All good and well to say that of course, particularly once again with the benefit of hindsight.

[Bumper Bulldogs]

Cant see a need to rush in a promote anyone just yet, however as many have stated on WOOF we look a little slow so we may need someone with pace.