Filthy wrote:I want to ask the Laycock supporters several questions:
- Would you want the ball in Laycocks hands, after yesterday, 5 points down in a GF, 1 minute to go, 30m out?
His set shot from 50 went straight through the middle and he normally is a very good shot from a set shot. Have seen him kick a number of goals from almost impossible angles. Funny thing confidence, isnt it.
Filthy wrote:
- How often are you prepared to put up with his insipid efforts, particularly in defense and rucking, before you say enough is enough, that costs us goals? His "efforts" cost us 3 he missed and 3 he gave away yesterday.
How long did we put up with Hille's soft efforts? Now he is AA (or at least should be) Stanton was also very soft, now look at him. And I reckon Jetta cost us three goals too yesterday, where's a thread on him?
Filthy wrote:
- It is now common knowledge around the AFL he is as soft as a gay guy on a all girl clothes optional beach. Voss intimated it last week commentating, and yesterday, Healy and T. Shaw, all hard at it players half his size verbally confirmed obliquely but in words that footballers would know. How good is that for the team?
A commentator with an opinion, what is the world coming to? Yes he is soft at this point in time, but so are many people who are down on confidence. Some go harder, some go into their shell fearing that by going in, they'll be spoiliing their own teammate. He has little confidence crashing a pack at the moment.
Filthy wrote:
In previous posts, I supported a contract extension on condition he through himself into the gym and turned himself into the incredible hulk which would give him confidence in pack situations (wonder what his pinch and BMI tests are?). After yesterday, forget it. I'd rather have Froggy in the ruck. At least he gives a contest.
Ruckwork was ok yesterday, but I was still disappointed when he rocked up to PS training looking in poor shape.
Filthy wrote:
Those who hang shit on
Stants, Hille and Lloyd for missing goals and having brain farts, have a look at their stats = Laypenis. They missed because of tiredness...something Laycock most certainly wasn't. And Meggles....well he plays like one.
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Maybe he is unfit, perhaps you should start another thread about Quinn? I have come to realise that we are coming from a very poor fitness base under Sheedy. We are playing a different style under knights and while Sheedy wanted to have big strong guys like the 84-85 teams, Knights wants a fast nimble team. The players have to almost re-start and re-train their bodies, this is probably why we have had so many soft-tissue injuries early on and possibly why at the moment, they are starting to subside.
Let it be known I am a massive Quinn critic, but I'd like to see how many soft-tissue injuries we get after say round 10 next year, playing a new game plan with bodies that are used to it.
Back to Laycock, he is unfit and until he turns up in October (yes, earlier than normal) looking supremely fit, then eh will always be #2. If you want to be #1, earn it. Hille has done that, the guy is now a f****** mountain and using his body to great use. But, two years ago, people wanted him traded and Laycock put as #1.
Give him one more contract, if nothing, then see ya later. he is only 23.