Yeah, we should do what we did with Melksham, play him continually even though he didn’t deserve a game, get games into him, then trade him!
I thought his game last week was terrible, not sure what others thought. He fumbled at critical phases and just did not go in hard enough. No doubt Woosha has expectations of him, expectations I doubt he will ever fulfill as an inside mid.
Don’t see the point in dropping him personally. He did what they asked of him last time he was dropped to the VFL, was much better against the Bears than he was Sydney. Should have gotten at least a block of 4 games.
I thought his first quarter was surprisingly good. After that I didn’t notice him again.
I don’t understand why you would play someone for one game, but I don’t understand many of the selection or coaching decision anymore.
He was in the week before also Scorpio and didn’t do much. Would have thought he’d have taken his chance after the spell in the two’s like Bellchambers and Stewart did. But the last 2 weeks it was that Ryder laconic intensity. Not exactly what you want from an aspiring inside mid.
Saying that a lot are correct in his attack on the pill, fumbles to the boundary are a way of dodging a hit. Grab it and take the tackle or bump. Its footy he needs to be harder
I was disappointed with him on Sunday - he wasn’t terrible but like a few others he lacked intensity. But I’d like to keep him in the ones for at least a few games. Having said that I’m happy for David M …I love to see players get rewarded for good form in the magoos.
He had 7 tackles, his intensity wasn’t terrible. It’s really baffling he was the one player they dropped. Myers has had 90 odd games of mediocrity, lacks both consistency and intensity.
I disagree, I thought he looked very good in the first half. Plus he still hasn’t filled out completely, he could put on another 4-5 kilograms, you will see him going harder at the ball for longer when that happens.
And they’ve named him as “omitted”… just to be harsh?
Bizarre
But they basically did that with Leuney earlier in the year, “omitted” and I think he missed 2.
There’s a very interesting comment in the Team thread that apparently Langfords demotion was due to poor GPS results.
If true then it would support people’s impression of a lack of intensity in his game.
(Pause for amazement that data backs up Blitz gut feel!)
I thought he had a reasonable first half - tackling was strong - but he still seems reactive rather than damaging.
In some ways the most optimistic of the pro Langford supporters could liken him to a late developing baby Jobe.
However even though he stuffed things up frequently, what was noticeable about the young Jobe in the Twos was the quality and vision of what he was attempting to do - who and where he was trying to handball or kick to.
Perhaps the Langford needs to be encouraged in this direction - take more risks, run harder to damaging spots even if unrewarded, etc. He will make errors but maybe learn more.
He has the skills at times, but seems to shrink back to conservative playing mode too often.
Worth trying, or we may just have another tall flanker on our list.