Ex #33 Brayden Ham - sliced

the problem with that line of thinking is, it starts of with the assertion that “they know” his limitations.

If they know them, then they roughly know what he is and what he will produce, and when your mantra is blue collar and you’ve just come off being belted in contested play the week before, bringing in anyone who doesn’t fit the mould of what you’re trying achieve raises some very major red flags.

the simple fact of it all is, brisbane know and will no doubt come out and try and absolutely bully us from the first bounce, and they’ve brought in one player who does absolutely 0 for that issue that’s coming (it’s not a ham thing, he is what he is, it’s a coaches and poor decision thing)

1 Like

Don’t disagree there

I said at time when Shiel first out we botched our emergencies as really this should have been Hobbs chance to come in. And aligning with want for contested players.

That said he wasn’t even brought in as emergency cover, Waterman was.

Hams inclusion really is just example of how thin/not ready our depth is for the smaller fwd options

1 Like

If Ham is the answer I would dearly love to know - what is the question?

2 Likes

ketchup vs catsup

Who will kick the next 1000?

How do we remain irrelevant?

but the coaches did drop Ham so he wasnt going to get 2-3 weeks. He is only in today with Shiel a late out.

So selection group see that last week was not acceptable from Ham. So bringing him in now strikes me as odd. What is most surprising to me is that we were smashed at contests last week, and we have a new guy who apparently is good at this yet we don’t get a look at him. I’m really surprised we didnt give Hobbs a go. I know he is a kid, and not played a game, but Ham is a known commodity at this stage, and frankly I think there is more upside in seeing what Hobbs might deliver vs what Ham will today

3 Likes

True.

I guess im saying the coaches picking Ham -after yet another two injuries in a similar position - doesn’t necessarily mean they think he’s Brownlow material.

Johnny Rayner had a huge tank. Turns out being able to play football is actually more important.

3 Likes

IIRC at the time Melbourne was flush for inside mids winning contested ball (Oliver, Viney, Jones, Harmes, Petracca) but had almost no one on the outside, so Ham would have fulfilled a need there.

1 Like

That sound about right to me.

Last week our inside mids won zero contested ball, yet many people have honed in on Ham and are out for blood.

1 Like

Brayden Ham

1 Like

Brayden Ham

2 Likes

Brayden Ham

1 Like

Russia v Ukraine?

I hear your logic here, but I believe the coaches think he has earnt his spot.

Round 1 new year all the hype you wouldn’t be flirting with " let’s see if he has it in him " after that performance with the club going 0-3.

I hope he kicks 2-3 today I really do.

1 Like

It’s game day you nerds, LFG!! Where’s the game day thread?

1 Like

We all hope he brings a performance which rebuts the negative perspective he enjoys. But if you are going to occupy a spot on the list and play regularly then there’s an implied obligation to turn up every time you run out. It’s not suit jacket buttons.

Unfortunately I just don’t see him working on our team, as his weaknesses of contested ball and panic kicking at times are weaknesses of the squad as a whole, so his issues only get magnified.

However, I always thought Ham had some AFL attributes and could actually suit a halfback role in a team already with strong contested players. Like Bowey at Melbourne and Baker in previous years at Richmond.

1 Like

He’s not even close to being in the same conversation as Baker. He’s just showed no composure at AFL level unless he’s in 50 metres of space.

Still can’t believe he’s been selected ahead of Hobbs, Wanganeen and Waterman…again.

1 Like