#28 Ben Sinclair
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Lazza
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| King Malta wrote: | | jackcass wrote: | | RudeBoy wrote: | | The kid is a great player. He's just what we need....fast, ferocious, fearless and despite what some might say, a generally good user of the ball. I'm glad to say I was on his band wagon 2 years ago and I haven't jumped off. The kid will be a gun. |
At least we've had room to spread our wings on the bandwagon Rudey. |
I'll get some jackets made up. |
Remember that for Jackcass, you will need a straight jacket.....  |
|
|
|
 |
jackcass 
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| hmmmm... looks like my wings are getting clipped. |
|
|
|
|
MagpieMad 
One in, All in!!
Joined: 15 Jan 2001
Location: -37.798563,144.996641
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| slydog81 wrote: | | MagpieMad wrote: | | E wrote: | | slydog81 wrote: | Not a big fan of Sinkers because of his disposal but I certainly like his intent..its his exection that gives me the shits.
Even that goal he kicked last week was a stinking kick.
I think he will be replaced by Marley if he comes back although I would love to have Sinkers in the team if he could improve his disposal by foot. |
exection gives me the shits too - whatever that means. sinkers makes fewer clangers than Heath Shaw and is capable of being just as good! |
also makes far fewer than Ben Johnson used to too, he became serviceable  |
You're not saying sinkers is a better kick than Benny J are you?? |
same age Sinkers is way better, weren't you here for the NATO years?
_________________
Pain heals, Chicks dig scars, Glory..... lasts forever! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| E wrote: | | Actually, what this really shows is that Sinclair failed to execute the most basic of 1 per centers - the shepherd! |
I agree - and I mentioned this myself earlier, as you may remember. But note also that Harry failed to dispose of the ball to a player in the clear and elected instead to try to be a hero with a bullocking run through traffic.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Collingwood Crackerjack
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Location: Canberra
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| E wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | Overall though, I don't know why we're focusing on one piece of play as it proves nothing either way. |
Actually, this is not so.
In fact it proves beyond doubt that Museman - who brought it up in the first place - is a distinguished senior member of the Completely Clueless Club.
Watch:
1: Sinclair takes possession of a hotly-contested ball during a close, hard-fought match.
2: Off-balance, Sinclair handballs immediately to a player in the clear. (Harry.)
3: The ball changes hands as a Swan bears down.
4: Harry sets off on one of his trademark runs, holding the ball above his head to begin with, as he so often does. (Nobody knows why, it's just what Harry does.) At this point, Sinclair has a choice between blocking the Swan to protect Harry (though it's probably too late for this, if you look carefully you can see that the Swan is a pace behind Sinclair and moving fast) or finding space. He does the latter.
5: Sinclair moves into the clear, making space for Harry's return handball. Harry runs into trouble. (Notice Brown directing traffic. Is he telling Harry to watch out, or telling him to pass it back to Sinclair?)
6: And as predictably as night follows day, Harry gets tackled and loses possession. Brown is still telling him what to do with the ball; Sinclair is in the clear waiting for the pass that never comes.
Now you are free to place your own different interpretation on the play and I doubt I'd argue too much about the details of it. Museman's silly claim, however, is comprehensively debunked, and with it any remaining claim he had to what was left of his credibility. |
Actually, what this really shows is that Sinclair failed to execute the most basic of 1 per centers - the shepherd! If he had of shepherded the Sydney player he would have bought harry time to take 17 bounces and run into an open goal.
you guys are crapping on about this play. what about the one where he had a poor disposal that meant the ball was basically in jeopardy at the 45 meter line straight in front of the opponents goal. He then skillfully regathered the ball only to handball it behind his teammate who was running away from his player at half back, meaning that the opponent got the ball and pushed it straight back inside 50!
That was his only real clanger of the night.
the one above is just a case of miscommunication. I think sinkers wanted the ball back on the run up the guts and Harry probably thought he was going to get a shepherd. this probably doesn't happen in ten weeks once they start to gel better. |
Yep, that's the play I thought was in question.
_________________
"The last thing he expected WAS THE FIRST THING HE GOT!!!!!"
© Collingwood Crackerjack, 1992 |
|
|
|
|
slydog81
Joined: 05 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
dupl post
_________________
We're always up to mischief!
Last edited by slydog81 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
slydog81
Joined: 05 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
.....
_________________
We're always up to mischief!
Last edited by slydog81 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 9:04 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
slydog81
Joined: 05 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| MagpieMad wrote: | | slydog81 wrote: | | MagpieMad wrote: | | E wrote: | | slydog81 wrote: | Not a big fan of Sinkers because of his disposal but I certainly like his intent..its his exection that gives me the shits.
Even that goal he kicked last week was a stinking kick.
I think he will be replaced by Marley if he comes back although I would love to have Sinkers in the team if he could improve his disposal by foot. |
exection gives me the shits too - whatever that means. sinkers makes fewer clangers than Heath Shaw and is capable of being just as good! |
also makes far fewer than Ben Johnson used to too, he became serviceable |
You're not saying sinkers is a better kick than Benny J are you?? |
same age Sinkers is way better, weren't you here for the NATO years? |
Dear lord!
Benny J was top 6 best and fairest in 2002 and 2003
Please stop trying to compare the two.
_________________
We're always up to mischief! |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| slydog81 wrote: | Dear lord!
Benny J was top 6 best and fairest in 2002 and 2003
Please stop trying to compare the two. |
Finished 2nd in 2004 and 2006. But even then his kicking was maligned by some supporters which is why people are using him as a comparison. If he turns out to be half as good I'll be very happy. |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Collingwood Crackerjack wrote: | | E wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | Overall though, I don't know why we're focusing on one piece of play as it proves nothing either way. |
Actually, this is not so.
In fact it proves beyond doubt that Museman - who brought it up in the first place - is a distinguished senior member of the Completely Clueless Club.
Watch:
1: Sinclair takes possession of a hotly-contested ball during a close, hard-fought match.
2: Off-balance, Sinclair handballs immediately to a player in the clear. (Harry.)
3: The ball changes hands as a Swan bears down.
4: Harry sets off on one of his trademark runs, holding the ball above his head to begin with, as he so often does. (Nobody knows why, it's just what Harry does.) At this point, Sinclair has a choice between blocking the Swan to protect Harry (though it's probably too late for this, if you look carefully you can see that the Swan is a pace behind Sinclair and moving fast) or finding space. He does the latter.
5: Sinclair moves into the clear, making space for Harry's return handball. Harry runs into trouble. (Notice Brown directing traffic. Is he telling Harry to watch out, or telling him to pass it back to Sinclair?)
6: And as predictably as night follows day, Harry gets tackled and loses possession. Brown is still telling him what to do with the ball; Sinclair is in the clear waiting for the pass that never comes.
Now you are free to place your own different interpretation on the play and I doubt I'd argue too much about the details of it. Museman's silly claim, however, is comprehensively debunked, and with it any remaining claim he had to what was left of his credibility. |
Actually, what this really shows is that Sinclair failed to execute the most basic of 1 per centers - the shepherd! If he had of shepherded the Sydney player he would have bought harry time to take 17 bounces and run into an open goal.
you guys are crapping on about this play. what about the one where he had a poor disposal that meant the ball was basically in jeopardy at the 45 meter line straight in front of the opponents goal. He then skillfully regathered the ball only to handball it behind his teammate who was running away from his player at half back, meaning that the opponent got the ball and pushed it straight back inside 50!
That was his only real clanger of the night.
the one above is just a case of miscommunication. I think sinkers wanted the ball back on the run up the guts and Harry probably thought he was going to get a shepherd. this probably doesn't happen in ten weeks once they start to gel better. |
Yep, that's the play I thought was in question. |
-
Can someone explain the difference between this free kick and the Simpson no call in the last 3 minutes that prevented us from getting a clearance when we were coming back.
someone talked about momentum. It really is amazing how often I am left scratching my head about consistency......
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
Piesnchess
piesnchess
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I reckon we missed Sinclair against the cats, him and seedsman, plus the others of course.
_________________
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.
Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb. |
|
|
|
|
King Malta
RIP Flip
Joined: 24 Mar 2008
Location: Gettin' Wiggy
|
| Post subject: | |
|
At this point you'd have to think Sinkers, Seeds and Marley all slot straight into this backline.
We'd look a lot better with those 3. |
|
|
|
|
Jezza 
2023 PREMIERS!
Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| King Malta wrote: | At this point you'd have to think Sinkers, Seeds and Marley all slot straight into this backline.
We'd look a lot better with those 3. |
Totally agree. We're a better side with all three players in the senior side.
_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Jezza wrote: | | King Malta wrote: | At this point you'd have to think Sinkers, Seeds and Marley all slot straight into this backline.
We'd look a lot better with those 3. |
Totally agree. We're a better side with all three players in the senior side. |
I think 2 for sure as they are better options than Faz and Young. Not sure who else the third one forces out. Not toovey. not Frost, not keefe, not Maxy. Brown might force keefe out, but not the three little guys. Kind of a moot point, since its unlikely all three will ever be available for selection at the same time in the foreseeable future.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| E wrote: | | Jezza wrote: | | King Malta wrote: | At this point you'd have to think Sinkers, Seeds and Marley all slot straight into this backline.
We'd look a lot better with those 3. |
Totally agree. We're a better side with all three players in the senior side. |
I think 2 for sure as they are better options than Faz and Young. Not sure who else the third one forces out. Not toovey. not Frost, not keefe, not Maxy. Brown might force keefe out, but not the three little guys. Kind of a moot point, since its unlikely all three will ever be available for selection at the same time in the foreseeable future. |
^^
Emmmm, I think at this point, we might as well forget about the name Marley...
_________________
All Aboard!! Choo Choo!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
