Frawley's luck

[Hungry]

At risk of being howled down by the considerable anti-Danny club, I think it needs to be pointed out that he's been absolutely shafted when it comes to injured players.

I'd love to know how many games he has had Richo, Ottens etc. out on the park at once. It must be running about 50% of the time, maybe less for Richo. Does anybody know?

For all his flaws, and the main one is the first half of 2002, Danny has had to do it tougher than a lot of other coaches.

By comparison Mark Thomson, who has been let off ligher than Danny, hasn't had it as bad. And for those in the Wallace camp, during 2001, 2002, the doggies were almost full strength both years yet couldn't even make the eight!

Considering he's always having to fill holes, perhaps Danny isn't as bad as we think.

 

[Harry]

As long as he plays peticoat, hand grenade and budscum in the side i will continue to bag him.

 

[Rampaging_Richo]

100% spot on.

He has copped a raw deal 2002/2003 but he never complains much about it, just states it in interviews when explaining match ups etc...

Unlike our friends at bummers, pies who let it known at every opportunity that they have a few injuries.

If we can make it to the turn with a positive win loss ratio and start getting some players back, we will trouble a few teams.

 

[Hungry]

Also copped a raw deal in 2000, RR.

Foot injury kept Richo out for the season, and there were plenty of others too, eventually the team got found out.

The only good run we've had for years was 2001 and we made a preliminary final with a pretty average list.

 

[Parker]

Since 2000 we haven't been too bad with injuries , no worse than a lot of clubs.

You can't whinge about injuries when you go into seasons with 9 or 10 talls like we have the last few years. You also can't whinge when you go into seasons with 9 or 10 talls knowing that the talls you have are an injury prone lot.


I am not a Danny basher but hearing him use the excuse of only having 4 talls is disappointing.

 

[Hungry]

Cannot agree that we haven't been too bad with injuries, Parker. What really hurts is WHO is injured - the ongoing problems with our best forward, Richo, in particular.

Take the Bombers, when they lose Lloyd and Fletcher they are a different side. I'm not saying Richo, Ottens or Holland are as good as those two, they're not, but it screws up the structure.

Let's not forget that Otto was playing under duress most of last year, as was Stafford, with Hall being injured too at times, along with Gaspar. I don't think any team could cover that, oh, with the exception of Brissie or Port.

To think that we come up against our bogie team this week missing key personnel really hurts - it'll take a might effort to stop Lloyd & Co.

 

[TigerFurious]

Well said Parker, couldn't agree more.

On Essendon, I remember reading last year that they had the second most amount of time lost through injuries behind Carlton but still managed to finish 6th.

It would be nice if we could get Ottens, Richo etc on the park and firing at once but thats just not going to happen. Injuries are a part of football and if you base your spine around a group of injury prone players you deserve what you get.

Injuries have mearly exposed some rather large holes in our list and in selection especially within our group of small to midsized players. I think most would agree that the main reason we lost on Saturday was not because we were missing Richo or Otten but instead the 60 less possessions we had.