Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 51

Thread: Cunningham - Kelly Clone

  1. #1
    Veterans List DeadlyAkkuret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    4,453

    Cunningham - Kelly Clone

    Heart like Kelly. Hair like Kelly. Plays like Kelly!

    I'm not saying he'll be anywhere near as good, you'd be a brave person to make that prediction, but the similarities are uncanny. Seeing him run was giving me deja vu and he looks like a footballer's footballer out there.

    This kid could be one of the finds of the summer, and a 1up for us against GWS!

  2. #2
    Regular in the Side
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Croydon, Sydney.
    Posts
    988
    But only if someone is put on the long term injury list (touch wood!) ...

  3. #3
    Regular in the Side
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Croydon, Sydney.
    Posts
    988
    I'm so excited to see more of him!!

  4. #4
    Kelly was 179cm and 83kg by the end of his career

    Harry is 181cm and 71kg - he will be 78kg within a couple of seasons
    Last edited by liz; 25th February 2012 at 08:30 AM. Reason: If you quote an extract from an article you must also provide a link to that article
    "everybody loves somebody..........sometimes"


  5. #5
    I would have preferred to drop meredith or Moore back to rookie list
    "everybody loves somebody..........sometimes"


  6. #6
    Proud Tragic Swan Primmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    On the Move!
    Posts
    5,620
    Nice to know we were not the only ones to make the observation. Quick between the ears, quick reactions. Kell Like. But Harry to the core.
    If you've never jumped from one couch to the other to save yourself from lava then you didn't have a childhood

  7. #7
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    10,935
    Quote Originally Posted by alison.z View Post
    But only if someone is put on the long term injury list (touch wood!) ...
    We have a senior list of just 38 this year. Doesn't that mean we can nominate up to two rookies who are available to play senior footy?

    He's probably not quite ready yet for senior footy - few 18/19 year olds are, especially those taken as a rookie and who come from a footy outpost like Wagga (relatively speaking). But it was interesting how much game time he got yesterday, especially compared to the likes of McNeil (didn't play), Heath and Gordon.

    There are some similarities to Kelly in the way he runs and his kicking style, but he plays a different kind of game. At this stage he looks like he is going to be predominantly an outside runner, whereas Kelly was a supreme, tough-as-nails onballer who could also use his pace outside to great effect.

  8. #8
    Senior Player wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    3,278
    I just had a look at the List Size Rules. The Chart says 38 players and 4 to 6 rookies. It says we can nominate 2 veterans or 1 veteran and 1 rookie but the complete list with rookies does not exceed 44. The 38 includes veterans according to this chart. Very confusing actually. I thought we had an allowance of 2 but not so only GC and GWS have more players on the list 46. You are right that it would mean a long term injury for a player to be elevated from the Rookie List. It looks as though Harry won't be playing unless there is a long term problem unless the list sizes have changed from 2011 to 2012.

  9. #9
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    10,935
    Quote Originally Posted by wolftone57 View Post
    I just had a look at the List Size Rules. The Chart says 38 players and 4 to 6 rookies. It says we can nominate 2 veterans or 1 veteran and 1 rookie but the complete list with rookies does not exceed 44. The 38 includes veterans according to this chart. Very confusing actually. I thought we had an allowance of 2 but not so only GC and GWS have more players on the list 46. You are right that it would mean a long term injury for a player to be elevated from the Rookie List. It looks as though Harry won't be playing unless there is a long term problem unless the list sizes have changed from 2011 to 2012.
    It is not really confusing. If a club has no outside veterans they can nominate up to two rookies who can play senior football.

  10. #10
    Senior Player wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    3,278
    He may qualify under Rule 21.10 of The AFL Player Rules. This is the Nominated Rookie Rule. Each club who has 38 players may nominate either 1 Rookie and 1 Veteran to the list or 2 Rookies who then are eligible to play in the H&A and Finals. It is a bit vague as to whether these players are supplementary to the 38 but I think they are. The papers for this must be submitted before the NAB Cup GF. There is also a mid season Rookie Nomination period too but I think we could do with him now don't you.

  11. #11
    Senior Player wolftone57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lilyfield
    Posts
    3,278
    No that is not confusing Liz it is the charts that are confusing. They don't say that with two nominated Rookies you have forty listed players they still maintain 38. That is the confusion

  12. #12
    Proud Tragic Swan Primmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    On the Move!
    Posts
    5,620
    The kid is still a kid. We are getting a bit blinded by AJ and Sam. Even Sam had a full year in ressies.

    Just lets say the ressie watchers are going to enjoy Lockyer and Harry's growth this year, along with Biggs, et al. It could be a bumper year of new talent to enjoy
    If you've never jumped from one couch to the other to save yourself from lava then you didn't have a childhood

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO