rockhole wrote:It is amazing to me how this site and others cannot exist without a scapegoat. We squanderd goals in the first quarter, gave away dumb fee kicks throughout the entire game, kicked 2 goals 7 in the final quarter, (with help from Bowden) and had 1 guy on the bench after losing Fletcher before the game, but the loss is still down to Laycock.
I'm not blaming him for the loss at all. Other players missed shots at goal and it's down to all of them.
What I'm saying is Laycock simply doesn't have the heart for it. He shirks contests too often, at critical times. He doesn't chase back when beaten by the opposing ruckman (and it happens a lot). He doesn't tackle, he doesn't make good decisions and despite having a lot of talent, he doesn't have the bollocks to do something with it.
My comments are completely independent of the richmond game.
You couldn't fool your own mother on the foolingest day of your life with an electrified fooling machine.
I can't be F-ed writing all of what I think, but I agree that he should be persisted with. I think he has improved a lot recently. And at least he was getting shots at goal, rather than not (Neagle) or falling over all the time (Lucas). And indeed, Stanton also missed and Jetta f***** up a couple. I reckon they probably hurt the most, because they were very early in the game, so instead of having to make a come back, we could have been in front in the first half.
Those who attempt to debunk the Hille-Laycock comparisons by saying Hille played the odd good game back before he was good must also take into account that Hille has been our number 1 ruckman for years now. Laycock only gets limited time in the ruck, so he doesn't get the chance to get right into the game. I reckon this would hamper his effectiveness.
And perhaps/probably he is down on confidence. But to suggest it is because of people on Bombertalk is crap. Why would he come here to read what we have to say?
