Jake Milkshake

hop · Post by **hop** » Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:53 pm

rockhole wrote:
Gimps wrote:
rockhole wrote:
BenDoolan wrote:
Gimps wrote:Sophie Lee was pretty good in her prime
She used to do that Sex show IIRC. Also played a role in The Castle. Yep, she played a few good games

Bruce Lee and Brandon Lee weren't bad. Very injury prone though.
Didn't she compare a cartoon show also. They reckon you could not find a sales rep in Melbourne on the afternoon that she was on the box, as they were all glued to the screen, drooling!!
Yeah, she did a cartoon show. She was in Muriel's Wedding. And she was in a band that did a cover of that song "Spill the wine, chase that girl" (think that's how it went. I remember seeing the video, she was "allegedly" playing the keyboard. I'm tipping she was just hanging off the sccchlong of the lead singer, and they used her for a bit of exposure.
She was actually a bloody good saxaphone player.

Re the cartoon angle, check this out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2VvAdkyzNU

Does your family know what you are 'researching' on your computer?

j-mac31 · Post by **j-mac31** » Mon May 14, 2012 3:41 pm

Very good game by my man this week. Likes to have a ping at the goals it would seem.

He's never been quick, but I wonder if he was slower earlier in the season due to Weaponisation (good first half last week too).

s'dreams · Post by **s'dreams** » Tue May 15, 2012 11:40 am

rockhole wrote:
Gimps wrote:
rockhole wrote:
BenDoolan wrote:
Gimps wrote:Sophie Lee was pretty good in her prime
She used to do that Sex show IIRC. Also played a role in The Castle. Yep, she played a few good games

Bruce Lee and Brandon Lee weren't bad. Very injury prone though.
Didn't she compare a cartoon show also. They reckon you could not find a sales rep in Melbourne on the afternoon that she was on the box, as they were all glued to the screen, drooling!!
Yeah, she did a cartoon show. She was in Muriel's Wedding. And she was in a band that did a cover of that song "Spill the wine, chase that girl" (think that's how it went. I remember seeing the video, she was "allegedly" playing the keyboard. I'm tipping she was just hanging off the sccchlong of the lead singer, and they used her for a bit of exposure.
She was actually a bloody good saxaphone player.

Re the cartoon angle, check this out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2VvAdkyzNU

Ahhh the Freaked out Flower Children ... ahem ... Sophie as a sax player ??? Get Thee to a Nunnery!!!

Gimps · Post by **Gimps** » Wed May 16, 2012 7:28 pm

A horse called Lady Melksham won at Sandown today..

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Wed May 16, 2012 10:26 pm

Still needs to work on his disposal - averaging 62% efficiency for a guy who plays on a forward flank and whose job it is to deliver accurately into the forward line is less than ideal. Getting better, though, and has plenty of good attributes - strong overhead, puts his head over the ball, pretty strong for his age/size.

Was sitting in front of his family for the Brisbane game, they all look the same

.

Western Red · Post by **Western Red** » Wed May 16, 2012 10:34 pm

He is developing nicely. I think we have all worked out he is not going to be the same class as Zaha - but he can get the pill and is another one of those players that has a passion for the contest! I like him a lot more than McViegh in the forward line.

Kid loves a goal too and will back himself to go back and take the shot - something we have been critical of with our forwards in the past...

little_ripper · Post by **little_ripper** » Sun May 20, 2012 7:18 am

was horse shit last night Melksham. I don't think he is the player we need.

I want to be proven wrong.

Post by **Jazz_84** » Sun May 20, 2012 11:13 am

he is a bit up and down this year but c'mon give the kid a go, we would never get a settled team if we keep knocking on players in their 3rd year

robbie67 · Post by **robbie67** » Sun May 20, 2012 11:22 am

little_ripper wrote:was horse shit last night Melksham. I don't think he is the player we need.

I want to be proven wrong.

I'm now more confident than ever that he will end up pretty good.

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Sun May 20, 2012 3:33 pm

little_ripper wrote:was horse shit last night Melksham. I don't think he is the player we need.

I want to be proven wrong.

And I suppose he was the reason we almost lost as well?????

ZeroEffect · Post by **ZeroEffect** » Sun May 20, 2012 4:28 pm

Melksham hasn't come on as most people expected he would this year. I still think he could be a gun but it's probably going to take a bit of time. Maybe another huge pre-season is just what he needs to get his body up to AFL level. At the moment he's showing he's a little bit out of his depth skill wise and strength wise. The thing I dislike about him the most though is his body language. I'm sick of him showing the opposition and his team mates how stuffed he is. Everyone does it tough out on a footy field, someone should tell him to suck it up.

Gimps · Post by **Gimps** » Sun May 20, 2012 7:38 pm

robbie67 wrote:
little_ripper wrote:was horse shit last night Melksham. I don't think he is the player we need.

I want to be proven wrong.
I'm now more confident than ever that he will end up pretty good.

Im a fan. He will come good. But, he was ****** putrid last night. Anyone that thinks he wasn't - time to get to Specsavers..

Mrs Mercuri · Post by **Mrs Mercuri** » Sun May 20, 2012 8:02 pm

Jazz_84 wrote:he is a bit up and down this year but c'mon give the kid a go, we would never get a settled team if we keep knocking on players in their 3rd year

Agreed... people are being way to harsh on Melksham.... yeah he wasn't good last night but he has had a very good season thus far.

ZeroEffect · Post by **ZeroEffect** » Sun May 20, 2012 9:00 pm

Mrs Mercuri wrote:
Jazz_84 wrote:he is a bit up and down this year but c'mon give the kid a go, we would never get a settled team if we keep knocking on players in their 3rd year
Agreed... people are being way to harsh on Melksham.... yeah he wasn't good last night but he has had a very good season thus far.

Don't know how you can rate his season as "very good". Last year as a second year player he was very good, this year he has gone backwards. The only significant thing he has done is kick that long goal against Carlton and I don't even know if he meant it.

Post by **Jazz_84** » Mon May 21, 2012 1:30 pm

ZeroEffect wrote:
Mrs Mercuri wrote:
Jazz_84 wrote:he is a bit up and down this year but c'mon give the kid a go, we would never get a settled team if we keep knocking on players in their 3rd year
Agreed... people are being way to harsh on Melksham.... yeah he wasn't good last night but he has had a very good season thus far.
Don't know how you can rate his season as "very good". Last year as a second year player he was very good, this year he has gone backwards. The only significant thing he has done is kick that long goal against Carlton and I don't even know if he meant it.

well he certainly kicked it more then hard enough to reach the goal line and i doubt he was aiming for a behind

F111 · Post by **F111** » Mon May 21, 2012 8:58 pm

He's very young and coping with thighs designed for Stanton. Give 'im a break. He was great v WC. He'll still take a while to hit his straps and sort the deficiencies, but he's got grunt and ticker I reckon.

Western Red · Post by **Western Red** » Tue May 22, 2012 10:55 pm

Knows how to find the pill - but yes he butchered it against Ninthmond...

I think he knew it too and his confidence went down.

Not too worried and I think some on here expect everybody to be 95% perfect every f****** week. Just doesn't happen. He can be off a little when Stanton and Watson are flying - as long as he steps up when they have an off day...

Windy_Hill · Post by **Windy_Hill** » Wed May 23, 2012 2:32 am

I would have thought that player bashing was no longer such a smart thing after what Brent Stanton has shown.

Questioning Melksham's value right now is just a futile exercise in specualtion

Let the guy develop into the player the coaches want him to be - he is currently learning this.

Yep, he has some bad moments but then again, I refer to Exhibit A, Brent Stanton

ZeroEffect · Post by **ZeroEffect** » Wed May 23, 2012 8:07 am

Windy_Hill wrote:I would have thought that player bashing was no longer such a smart thing after what Brent Stanton has shown.

Questioning Melksham's value right now is just a futile exercise in specualtion

Let the guy develop into the player the coaches want him to be - he is currently learning this.

Yep, he has some bad moments but then again, I refer to Exhibit A, Brent Stanton

Wow, if you call this thread player bashing your overly sensitive. Since when is it a problem to voice an opinion about a players form be it good or bad? This is an open forum after all.

I personally think Melksham has the ability to be a gun, especially after showing some very good signs last year. However on current form he is our weakest midfielder and has been woefully out of form all year. This is a fact. While he is out of form people will talk about it. It's what we do.

As far as Stanton goes, try looking it at things from a different point of view. Stanton deserved some of the criticism he had last season and now has finally become an elite player at 26. Maybe it was the kick in the ass he needed...

little_ripper · Post by **little_ripper** » Wed May 23, 2012 9:15 am

I normally back our players. And look Melksham might end up being a player.(of course he might! Nearly all good mids started quiet slowly before they developed in the comp).

But in my opinion I just don't think he will be, he'll be a bit player at best. I'd never cattle call him or do anything but cheer the guy on.

But this is a thread about where he is at isn't it?

Here is hoping he is an A grade mid in a year or two as Watson and Stanton start fading.

Bombertalk

Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake

Re: Jake Milkshake