Bombertalk

I have no idea why Sheeds would take Patrick Ryder out of the backline in the 2nd half and put Bradley on Cloke. Suddenly Cloke became dominant, we lost the structure in the backline.

Yes Hille was out injured, but Laycock wasnt doing too bad a job was he? Fraser wasnt a threat at that stage of the match.

Can someone please explain why this move was made?

Because the pox was slow, and the Cloke was patient.

Excuse my ignorance, but who is the POX?

No one, just my way of saying, I or anyone else outside the coaches box would have any f***'n idea whatsoever.

Just in case you missed the answer in the other thread: it's because Laycock isn't capable of rucking an entire match. Obvious answer.

So Laycock cant ruck for a full game and the answer is to play Bradley in the backline, where he has proved beyond a doubt last year that he has NFI.

merc_2 wrote:So Laycock cant ruck for a full game and the answer is to play Bradley in the backline, where he has proved beyond a doubt last year that he has NFI.

Ryder was the obvious choice to go in the ruck....and did a GREAT job. Bradley should not have been in the backline. He should not have been selected. Don't know what is wrong with Andrew Lee as a footballer - wish he could get as many chances as some other hack.

merc_2 wrote:So Laycock cant ruck for a full game and the answer is to play Bradley in the backline, where he has proved beyond a doubt last year that he has NFI.

No, you're not using sequential logic. Laycock can't play a full game in the ruck so Ryder was removed from defence to relief ruck. Bradley was picked in the 22 and must play somewhere, and he's played his best in defence, so he played where Ryder was removed from.

2 different pieces of logic involved in that, not one.

jimmyc1985 wrote:Just in case you missed the answer in the other thread: it's because Laycock isn't capable of rucking an entire match. Obvious answer.

Then stick Bradley in the ruck. That's why they picked him - For. F**ks. Sake.

Taking Ryder out of the backline was ridiculous. He did a good job in the ruck, but they needed him in the backline more than they needed him in the ruck. And the backline needed Bradley like a hole in the head.

Staggy wrote:

jimmyc1985 wrote:Just in case you missed the answer in the other thread: it's because Laycock isn't capable of rucking an entire match. Obvious answer.

Then stick Bradley in the ruck. That's why they picked him - For. F**ks. Sake.

Taking Ryder out of the backline was ridiculous. He did a good job in the ruck, but they needed him in the backline more than they needed him in the ruck. And the backline needed Bradley like a hole in the head.

I don't disagree. In fact i actually thought the only reason why Bradley was picked was to either cover for Fletcher's absence, which never eventuated, or to relief-ruck.

I'm just explaining what i guess would've been Sheedy's logic. Of course as everyone here seems to agree on, that logic proved terribly costly. Sheedy f***** up royally today on a number of fronts.

Ryder has been dominating in the backline. He's also a kid who has played less than ten games. Why on earth would you move him unless you absolutely had to?

Couple that logic with the fact that Bradley is a complete f**ktard in the backline and the decision should be easy....

Staggy wrote:Ryder has been dominating in the backline. He's also a kid who has played less than ten games. Why on earth would you move him unless you absolutely had to?

Couple that logic with the fact that Bradley is a complete f**ktard in the backline and the decision should be easy....

Mate, you're preaching to the converted here. You know my opinion on the question of whether Sheedy should coach beyond 2007, and today was a perfect example of why i hold that opinion.

Sheedy was out coached - again

Not only out coached but out selected himself in that he could have picked Gumby to play or Lee but he chose Bradley and after today, should not play for quite some time.

Bradley...rested on the weekend...ran out of legs today???

I've repeated this ad-nauseam I know but I'm going to say it again because the relevance of it just keeps on being reinforced at the team's great cost...Sheedy, and no one else, ruined this lad last year...for good, it would appear.

I think what we saw today, was Sheedy's guilt coming to the fore...He knows the gun is loaded, but can't bring him himself to pull the trigger (a not uncommon Sheedy trait, I'm afraid) so he gives him yet another chance, with the same net result.

Take a good hard look in the mirror Sheeds, then close your eyes, think of England and pull that trigger...do the only honest thing you can do with him now...I hate saying this, because, I honestly thought that Bradley had something when he first started... Release him from his (and our) nightmare....let him see out the year with Bendigo then bid him good bye and good luck.

When he eventually does give it away, I will be interested to read the inevitable auto-biog and see if he expresses any regrets...cos I reckon his handling of Keplar Bradley should be right up there near the top of the list.

Staggy wrote:Ryder has been dominating in the backline. He's also a kid who has played less than ten games. Why on earth would you move him unless you absolutely had to?

Couple that logic with the fact that Bradley is a complete f**ktard in the backline and the decision should be easy....

It was neccesary. Laycock as dead on his feet. He had never had to ruck a entire game and was out of gas. I think the method was, Kepler has had two years in defence and he should be able to handle himself. Unfortunatly he got posession.

jimmyc1985 wrote:Just in case you missed the answer in the other thread: it's because Laycock isn't capable of rucking an entire match. Obvious answer.

Indeed obvious.

I will pose another question. It was inevitable that Ryder would ruck, so why didn't Lee come in? Would have done a much better job than Bradley on Cloke methinks.