So the following will go into 2015 without a hit-out:Pears Hooker Fletcher
Dempsey Steinberg Hibberd
Stanton Myers Heppell
Melksham Hurley Browne
Colyer Carlisle * Kommer
Bellchambers Hocking Watson
- not on 2012 list
There is quite a few of those lads that have proven they need some time to get their “touch” back after a few weeks off. We’ll be pretty poor the first few weeks I reckon.
Won’t even bother watching it
Can’t wait, this’ll be only NAB game I get to see. Stuff the result, I wanna see how the new guys are coming along.
i feel that defense is very undermanned.
Not sure why you’re worried; Mitch Clark is at Geelong, and Mitch Brown is not.
So the following will go into 2015 without a hit-out:This team needs to remain anonymous!Pears Hooker Fletcher
Dempsey Steinberg Hibberd
Stanton Myers Heppell
Melksham Hurley Browne
Colyer Carlisle * Kommer
Bellchambers Hocking Watson
- not on 2012 list
Quoted PostBaguley getting a run I see....Would’ve been a first year (rookie listed) player in 2012 - like Dalgleish (and NOB/Kav! on the main list)
In a non ■■■■■■■■ way, what’s your point? I’d imagine he would have still participated and been infracted?
I would back our 2012 infracted squad to win versus our NAB Challenge Squad
How TF can you not be pumped? Hams and Laverde?? LIKE.
I was actually keen to go to this game.
What farkin moron scheduled it at 5.50 on a friggin Friday??
Quoted PostQuoted PostBaguley getting a run I see....Would’ve been a first year (rookie listed) player in 2012 - like Dalgleish (and NOB/Kav! on the main list)
In a non ■■■■■■■■ way, what’s your point? I’d imagine he would have still participated and been infracted?
It seems pretty obvious that any player playing in the NAB challenge is not facing an infraction notice. There is way too much at stake to risk it just for one practice match. I think the point HAP is making is that Baggers was a first year rookie which might be a reason why he didn’t participate (perhaps the program was only for main listed players or players who had been on the list for more than 12 months or perhaps he figured he didn’t need to participate given he was just a rookie at the time). Seems pretty logical to me.
How TF can you not be pumped? Hams and Laverde?? LIKE.
Im warning you, you stay away from all new recruits
with Baguley named, doesn't that mean we are down to 18 2012 listed players who have not played in the NAB Challenge.Thus meaning, we are either so confident of the players being cleared we don’t care that they can now be identified, or we decided it is more important to get game time into everyone who isn’t facing an infraction notice.
We were told there were 25 2012 listed players and 18 had been issued infraction notices.
First NAB challenge, Kav, O’Brien, Dagleish and Jerrett all named, taking the figure down to 21.
We are already aware Zaka and Winders weren’t facing Infraction notices which in Zaka’s case was further confirmed when he played last week.
That takes the total down to 19 and now with Baguley being named we are down to the magic number of 18.
In my opinion definitely the latter. Imagine worst case players do get suspended… there is no way they will keep running with the anonymity thing in the real season. Players not facing infractions would surely be all running out round 1 (pending fitness). Therefore get the games into them now.
A lot of blitzers seem to be taking the naming of 2012 players as a sign the club is confident that all players will be cleared. I don’t really see how you can draw that conclusion unless a player who is facing an infraction notice plays a NAB challenge game. As far as we know that hasn’t happened. The naming of O’Brien, Kav, Merrett and Dalgleish made sense given where they are at in their careers, but the naming of Zaka & Baggers has made me more uneasy about the tribunal outcome, not less.
Quoted PostHow TF can you not be pumped? Hams and Laverde?? LIKE.Who?
When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie that’s Laverde
Don’t care if we have top up players or not, look at that Melbourne team. Pure and utter ■■■■■.
We should win (not that it matters).
Quoted PostB Mark Baguley Mitch Brown Lachlan Dalgleish
HB Jason Ashby Josh Freezer Marty Gleeson
C Zach Merrett Brendon Goodard Jackson Merrett,
HF Kyle Langford Patrick Ambrose Jayden Laverde
F Paul Chapman, Joe Daniher Jared Petrenko
R Jon Giles David Zaharakis Adam Cooney
Int Nick O’Brien, Shaun Edwards Elliott Kavanagh, Will Hams, James Gwilt, Shaun McKernan, Orazio Fantasia, Marcus MariglianiClinton Jones.I will be disappointed if this team doesn’t get within 30 points of Melbourne to be honest. Now has 16-17 guys that are either best 22 or pushing for best 22.
Yeah nah, all the below are clear best 22.
Watson
Stanton
Heppell
Hooker
Fletcher
Dempsey
Hibberd
Myers
Hurley
Colyer
Carlisle
Bellchambers
Hocking
Winderlich
Of those playing only Goddard, Cooney, Baugley, Z Merrett, Chapman, Zaha, Daniher and Giles are best 22.
Melbourne will thump us.So you’re expecting a high scoring shootout then?MELB 6.5.41
ESS 2.4.16
Well maybe by 2015 NAB Challenge standards?
Even free entry can’t lure me in to watch this ■■■■■.
Even free entry can't lure me in to watch this ■■■■■.
I enjoy pain and want to see Clinton so i’m going
Even free entry can't lure me in to watch this ■■■■■.
OK, look away on Friday Doza, if you want to watch us win on “live pass” later
Quoted PostQuoted PostBaguley getting a run I see....Would’ve been a first year (rookie listed) player in 2012 - like Dalgleish (and NOB/Kav! on the main list)
In a non ■■■■■■■■ way, what’s your point? I’d imagine he would have still participated and been infracted?
Nah the first years weren’t part of it.
Hence only 34 rather than 40-42 or however many were on the total list.
Remember when Kav/ o’Brien put their hands up last week and said “we want to play, we think our careers are more important than the anonymity at this point”?
Came out then that 2012’s first years weren’t part of it and hence not facing an infraction.