Finally, he's gone!

F111 · Post by **F111** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:49 am

I have always felt sorry for Henneman.
He did well in 2001 and looked like he may develop into a reasonable CHB. He was young and athletic and did a reasonable job for a youngster. He showed promise. If he had continued on that route for another two to three seasons well, we could be talking about someone else instead.

However the injury curse took hold of him and he was unable the shake it. His other problem was that he was selected to play in positions that were truly a big ask, eg the ruck. He did it though because it meant getting a game and having a go. The cost was the crap he ended up getting from supporters. The poor bastard was on a hiding to nothing.

So good luck to you Henno. You had a chance, you gave it your best, but I'm afraid circumstances just didn't work in your favour. Unfortunately for you, the decision to delist is correct.

billyduckworth · Post by **billyduckworth** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:39 am

I agree with Hennemann and Reynolds. Bolton should probably go too. Pity about Cartledge and Jolley, though. Both still very young. Perhaps worth re-drafting?

ealesy · Post by **ealesy** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:45 am

Cartledge won't be re-drafted, not with the the ruckmen we have at the club.

Hille and Laycock in the senior, Ryder covering injuries and getting the odd senior game here while mainly playing VFL to develop his game for another couple of years.

I've heard that the ruckman we have on the rookie list was/is considered a better ruck propect than Cartledge by the coaches too.

j-mac31 · Post by **j-mac31** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:22 pm

Cartledge was brought to the club with the expectation it would take him a while to mature however the development of Patrick Ryder made it difficult for him to cement senior selection.

"Tristan is still very young, but what has happened in football is that the ruckmen are now up to 206cm and maybe that is where the game is going."

I see these arguments (and Ealsy's) as seriously flawed. If Cartledge hasn't matured, Ryder is a baby. He won't be ready for a few years. And reading Sheedy's comments, I think he is trying to say that Carts was too short to be a ruckman. Despite him being 2cm taller than Ryder and comfortably tall enough to be a god ruckman. I disagree with Ealsy, becuase Laycock is never in the team and Hille is vastly overrated - no rucking talent and really isn't that good around the ground. Maybe McKinnon (rookie) is considered better, but who knows - he missed almost the whole year.

Bullshit about Jolley too:
"We are dropping him off the list because we think there are a lot of players ahead of him who could be better. He has got some deficiencies in his game but his attitude has never been his deficiency," Sheedy explained.
"There are experienced players down to players like Courtenay Dempsey that played five games this year who we need to give opportunities and it would be very difficult to put him in ahead of them."

There may be a lot of players ahead of him who will be better. But he is a good in and under player, better disposal than guys like Peverill, JJ and Watson and a ferocious tackler. He should have been kept ahead of Peverill and Bolton for sure and maybe even Winderlich.

What really gets to me about these young players getting cut is that Henneman, Reynolds and Bolton were given more years (not to mention games and game time) to prove themselves, despite it being apparent that they were rubbish. Why do they get more chances?

Post by **danstar84** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:35 pm

Ryder may not be taller than Carts, but could guarantee that he can outjump him.

ealesy · Post by **ealesy** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:36 pm

Carledge is 21...and has shown little sign of significant improvement over his 3-4 years on the list. Any remember last year in the 2nd game against Collingwood, when Cartledge was spanked but that utter hack David Fanning in the ruck (who has just been cut by Collingwood after being on their list for roughly the same amount of time).

As far as I'm concerned he has played one servicable AFL game and that was round 22 this year. Wasn't enough to save himself.

Ryder might currently be 2cm shorter than him but he's also 3-4 years his junior and still has some growing to do. And the are different type of ruckman. Cartledge MIGHT have developed into a good tap ruckman but he would never do too much around the ground. Ryder has already shown that he will be a good tap ruckman but has also shown that he has agility to be very handy around the ground and can even fill key positions.

Your notion that David Hille is very good around the ground is laugable. if his tap work was half as good as he play around the ground he would be be one of the best ruckmen in the game.

it is also ridiculous to suggest that Jolley should've been considered for the senior list before Winderlich. They are completely different players, who would fill completely different roles in a team, those two would never have been competing for the same spot on the list.

Laycock is never in the team??!! Sure he's had injury problems, but he's been picked for every game he's been fit for the past two years. Not that uncommon for young ruckman to have a number of injuries early in their career either.

Basically the club felt that Cartledge wasn't going to make it as an AFL ruckmen so why would we keep him on the list just in case Laycock continues to struggle, or that Ryder takes a few years to develop, when he isn't good enough.

j-mac31 · Post by **j-mac31** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 2:37 pm

I know that, but Sheedy was going on height alone. ANyway, Cartledge is not too short to ruck in the AFL.