I dont have anything against Bolts himself, I think he is an ok player. However, if we are re-building, why not give the job of playing on goodes to a younger player?
If Bolts was playing most matches (and deserving it at the time), the I wouldnt have a problem with it. But to play him simply to play on Goodes is pointless.
Its like when we played Matthew Banks to play on Rocca. The guy played 4 games, 3 of them against Collingwood.
If we were 3-6 I'd agree, put a young guy in to have a crack,. BUT we are one game out of the top four and this is going to be a very tight year. In this case the strategic move outweighs the development argument.
Laycock is in simply for back up purposes. As Kev pointed out today his deveolpment so far has been disapointing., however if he can smash into Everit and Jolly a few times that is few times Hille doesn't have to.
I dont have anything against Bolts himself, I think he is an ok player. However, if we are re-building, why not give the job of playing on goodes to a younger player?
If Bolts was playing most matches (and deserving it at the time), the I wouldnt have a problem with it. But to play him simply to play on Goodes is pointless.
Its like when we played Matthew Banks to play on Rocca. The guy played 4 games, 3 of them against Collingwood.
If we were 3-6 I'd agree, put a young guy in to have a crack,. BUT we are one game out of the top four and this is going to be a very tight year. In this case the strategic move outweighs the development argument.
Yep.
That is, of course, assuming that Bolts can actually do the job....
I dont have anything against Bolts himself, I think he is an ok player. However, if we are re-building, why not give the job of playing on goodes to a younger player?
If Bolts was playing most matches (and deserving it at the time), the I wouldnt have a problem with it. But to play him simply to play on Goodes is pointless.
Its like when we played Matthew Banks to play on Rocca. The guy played 4 games, 3 of them against Collingwood.
If we were 3-6 I'd agree, put a young guy in to have a crack,. BUT we are one game out of the top four and this is going to be a very tight year. In this case the strategic move outweighs the development argument.
I disagree with this not for the rebuilding argument as such. I just think you should pick your best 22 (maybe a few extra kids if you're having a shithouse year, which we are not) and THEN work out the match-ups.
Don't decide on match ups and then pick your team.
Therefore Bolton should not be in the team.
And Collingwood are probably closer to the top 4 than us, but they are also giving their youngsters a decent go. I just think that we are nowhere near a premiership team this year, don't play guys that shouldn't be there when we are.
