#28 Ben Sinclair

Player President threads here thanks.

Moderator: bbmods

Post Reply
User avatar
Lazza
Posts: 12836
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 7:01 pm
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia

Post by Lazza »

King Malta wrote:
jackcass wrote:
RudeBoy wrote:The kid is a great player. He's just what we need....fast, ferocious, fearless and despite what some might say, a generally good user of the ball. I'm glad to say I was on his band wagon 2 years ago and I haven't jumped off. The kid will be a gun.
At least we've had room to spread our wings on the bandwagon Rudey.
I'll get some jackets made up.
Remember that for Jackcass, you will need a straight jacket..... :roll:
User avatar
jackcass
Posts: 12529
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:17 pm
Location: Bendigo

Post by jackcass »

hmmmm... looks like my wings are getting clipped.
User avatar
MagpieMad
Posts: 4429
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2001 7:01 pm
Location: -37.798563,144.996641

Post by MagpieMad »

slydog81 wrote:
MagpieMad wrote:
E wrote: exection gives me the shits too - whatever that means. sinkers makes fewer clangers than Heath Shaw and is capable of being just as good!
also makes far fewer than Ben Johnson used to too, he became serviceable :)
You're not saying sinkers is a better kick than Benny J are you??
same age Sinkers is way better, weren't you here for the NATO years?
Pain heals, Chicks dig scars, Glory..... lasts forever!
User avatar
Tannin
Posts: 18748
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania

Post by Tannin »

E wrote:Actually, what this really shows is that Sinclair failed to execute the most basic of 1 per centers - the shepherd!
I agree - and I mentioned this myself earlier, as you may remember. But note also that Harry failed to dispose of the ball to a player in the clear and elected instead to try to be a hero with a bullocking run through traffic.
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives!
User avatar
Collingwood Crackerjack
Posts: 3567
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:11 am
Location: Canberra

Post by Collingwood Crackerjack »

E wrote:
Tannin wrote:
stui magpie wrote:Overall though, I don't know why we're focusing on one piece of play as it proves nothing either way.
Actually, this is not so.

In fact it proves beyond doubt that Museman - who brought it up in the first place - is a distinguished senior member of the Completely Clueless Club.

Watch:


1: Sinclair takes possession of a hotly-contested ball during a close, hard-fought match.

Image



2: Off-balance, Sinclair handballs immediately to a player in the clear. (Harry.)

Image



3: The ball changes hands as a Swan bears down.

Image



4: Harry sets off on one of his trademark runs, holding the ball above his head to begin with, as he so often does. (Nobody knows why, it's just what Harry does.) At this point, Sinclair has a choice between blocking the Swan to protect Harry (though it's probably too late for this, if you look carefully you can see that the Swan is a pace behind Sinclair and moving fast) or finding space. He does the latter.

Image



5: Sinclair moves into the clear, making space for Harry's return handball. Harry runs into trouble. (Notice Brown directing traffic. Is he telling Harry to watch out, or telling him to pass it back to Sinclair?)

Image



6: And as predictably as night follows day, Harry gets tackled and loses possession. Brown is still telling him what to do with the ball; Sinclair is in the clear waiting for the pass that never comes.

Image


Now you are free to place your own different interpretation on the play and I doubt I'd argue too much about the details of it. Museman's silly claim, however, is comprehensively debunked, and with it any remaining claim he had to what was left of his credibility.
Actually, what this really shows is that Sinclair failed to execute the most basic of 1 per centers - the shepherd! If he had of shepherded the Sydney player he would have bought harry time to take 17 bounces and run into an open goal.

you guys are crapping on about this play. what about the one where he had a poor disposal that meant the ball was basically in jeopardy at the 45 meter line straight in front of the opponents goal. He then skillfully regathered the ball only to handball it behind his teammate who was running away from his player at half back, meaning that the opponent got the ball and pushed it straight back inside 50!

That was his only real clanger of the night.

the one above is just a case of miscommunication. I think sinkers wanted the ball back on the run up the guts and Harry probably thought he was going to get a shepherd. this probably doesn't happen in ten weeks once they start to gel better.
Yep, that's the play I thought was in question.
User avatar
slydog81
Posts: 601
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:16 am

Post by slydog81 »

dupl post
Last edited by slydog81 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
We're always up to mischief!
User avatar
slydog81
Posts: 601
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:16 am

Post by slydog81 »

.....
Last edited by slydog81 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
We're always up to mischief!
User avatar
slydog81
Posts: 601
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 11:16 am

Post by slydog81 »

MagpieMad wrote:
slydog81 wrote:
MagpieMad wrote:also makes far fewer than Ben Johnson used to too, he became serviceable :)
You're not saying sinkers is a better kick than Benny J are you??
same age Sinkers is way better, weren't you here for the NATO years?
Dear lord!

Benny J was top 6 best and fairest in 2002 and 2003

Please stop trying to compare the two.
We're always up to mischief!
User avatar
jackcass
Posts: 12529
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:17 pm
Location: Bendigo

Post by jackcass »

slydog81 wrote:Dear lord!

Benny J was top 6 best and fairest in 2002 and 2003

Please stop trying to compare the two.
Finished 2nd in 2004 and 2006. But even then his kicking was maligned by some supporters which is why people are using him as a comparison. If he turns out to be half as good I'll be very happy.
E

Post by E »

Collingwood Crackerjack wrote:
E wrote:
Tannin wrote: Actually, this is not so.

In fact it proves beyond doubt that Museman - who brought it up in the first place - is a distinguished senior member of the Completely Clueless Club.

Watch:


1: Sinclair takes possession of a hotly-contested ball during a close, hard-fought match.

Image



2: Off-balance, Sinclair handballs immediately to a player in the clear. (Harry.)

Image



3: The ball changes hands as a Swan bears down.

Image



4: Harry sets off on one of his trademark runs, holding the ball above his head to begin with, as he so often does. (Nobody knows why, it's just what Harry does.) At this point, Sinclair has a choice between blocking the Swan to protect Harry (though it's probably too late for this, if you look carefully you can see that the Swan is a pace behind Sinclair and moving fast) or finding space. He does the latter.

Image



5: Sinclair moves into the clear, making space for Harry's return handball. Harry runs into trouble. (Notice Brown directing traffic. Is he telling Harry to watch out, or telling him to pass it back to Sinclair?)

Image



6: And as predictably as night follows day, Harry gets tackled and loses possession. Brown is still telling him what to do with the ball; Sinclair is in the clear waiting for the pass that never comes.

Image


Now you are free to place your own different interpretation on the play and I doubt I'd argue too much about the details of it. Museman's silly claim, however, is comprehensively debunked, and with it any remaining claim he had to what was left of his credibility.
Actually, what this really shows is that Sinclair failed to execute the most basic of 1 per centers - the shepherd! If he had of shepherded the Sydney player he would have bought harry time to take 17 bounces and run into an open goal.

you guys are crapping on about this play. what about the one where he had a poor disposal that meant the ball was basically in jeopardy at the 45 meter line straight in front of the opponents goal. He then skillfully regathered the ball only to handball it behind his teammate who was running away from his player at half back, meaning that the opponent got the ball and pushed it straight back inside 50!

That was his only real clanger of the night.

the one above is just a case of miscommunication. I think sinkers wanted the ball back on the run up the guts and Harry probably thought he was going to get a shepherd. this probably doesn't happen in ten weeks once they start to gel better.
Yep, that's the play I thought was in question.
-

Can someone explain the difference between this free kick and the Simpson no call in the last 3 minutes that prevented us from getting a clearance when we were coming back.

someone talked about momentum. It really is amazing how often I am left scratching my head about consistency......
User avatar
Piesnchess
Posts: 26159
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 4:24 pm
Has liked: 178 times
Been liked: 72 times

Post by Piesnchess »

I reckon we missed Sinclair against the cats, him and seedsman, plus the others of course.
Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.

Chess and Vodka are born brothers. - Russian proverb.
User avatar
King Malta
Posts: 1641
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:05 am
Location: Gettin' Wiggy

Post by King Malta »

At this point you'd have to think Sinkers, Seeds and Marley all slot straight into this backline.

We'd look a lot better with those 3.
User avatar
Jezza
Posts: 29224
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:28 pm
Location: Ponsford End
Has liked: 136 times
Been liked: 195 times

Post by Jezza »

King Malta wrote:At this point you'd have to think Sinkers, Seeds and Marley all slot straight into this backline.

We'd look a lot better with those 3.
Totally agree. We're a better side with all three players in the senior side.
🏆 | 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | 🏆
E

Post by E »

Jezza wrote:
King Malta wrote:At this point you'd have to think Sinkers, Seeds and Marley all slot straight into this backline.

We'd look a lot better with those 3.
Totally agree. We're a better side with all three players in the senior side.

I think 2 for sure as they are better options than Faz and Young. Not sure who else the third one forces out. Not toovey. not Frost, not keefe, not Maxy. Brown might force keefe out, but not the three little guys. Kind of a moot point, since its unlikely all three will ever be available for selection at the same time in the foreseeable future.
User avatar
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Posts: 4655
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:24 am
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right

Post by The Boy Who Cried Wolf »

E wrote:
Jezza wrote:
King Malta wrote:At this point you'd have to think Sinkers, Seeds and Marley all slot straight into this backline.

We'd look a lot better with those 3.
Totally agree. We're a better side with all three players in the senior side.

I think 2 for sure as they are better options than Faz and Young. Not sure who else the third one forces out. Not toovey. not Frost, not keefe, not Maxy. Brown might force keefe out, but not the three little guys. Kind of a moot point, since its unlikely all three will ever be available for selection at the same time in the foreseeable future.
^^

Emmmm, I think at this point, we might as well forget about the name Marley...
All Aboard!! Choo Choo!!!
Post Reply