Quote of the Week or Year

[Frosty_13]

Originally posted by Plugger46
That's what the Melbourne media will tell you. Everyone down here in the media wants him to succeed, if only it was the same with Lockett when he made his.

The night he hurt his knee, it was painful to listen to Gary Lyon and Dermie go on about him, when let's face it, he wasn't setting the world on fire.

Lockett and Carey comebacks were not too diffrent. Just that Carey is a lot fitter and more agile than plugger. Carey is also a better player thats why he has made a go of the comeback. It has nothing to do with the media down here. Why wouldnt you want to talk about the best player who has played the game and he was having a fair infulence on the game that night, set up numerous goals for burns, welsh and johncock.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Frosty_13
Lockett and Carey comebacks were not too diffrent. Just that Carey is a lot fitter and more agile than plugger. Carey is also a better player thats why he has made a go of the comeback.

What rubbish - Lockett was quite a bit older than Carey.

[sprite]

I wou;d still want him in Red & White, than against it!!

[sydnophile]

Originally posted by sprite
I wou;d still want him in Red & White, than against it!!

Courageously said sprite! I'll second that.
It was sheer mismanagement that the Swans didn't nab him last year.

Wayne Carey had an initial preference to come to Sydney but:
1) There were rumours around at the time that Pagan might be offered the coaching job. Colless et al where hellbent on not guaranteeing Paul Roos future, and so kept Paul Roos in the background. Carey had already made it obvious on FOX Footy that he wanted a fresh start (thereby implying no Pagan). By not having confirmed Paul's appointment by end August 2002 made the Swans future look too unclear at the time for Carey's liking. He couldn't be sure what or who he would be dealing with in 2003.

2) On top of that, I read how Ricky Nixon blew apart any hope of a deal as soon as Carey departed Sydney. He got on the blower to Colless and ranted in his ear for an hour or so about "Carey will want this, Carey will want that", and mentioning outlandish sums. This was probably without WC's knowledge or consent. Carey later revealed after a public spat with Nixon that he'd basically dropped him soon after the debacle at the 'roos which was why he was managing approaches to various clubs in 2nd part of 2002 by himself. So without checking Nixon's bona fides Colless just "took his word for it", and dropped the matter out of hand.

It was unbelievably un-astute of the powers-that-be not to recognise by mid-August 2002 that Paul Roos was key to the Swans future. Blind freddy could see it, but not Colless, and it cost us getting Carey.

[floppinab]

I wou;d still want him in Red & White, than against it!!

[/Points to the scoreboard/], doing quite alright without him thanks.

But seriously in our current forward structure where would you fit him. IMO one more permanent forward puts the existing structure out of balance, Hall (for better or worse) is playing this role.
More importantly in a team where no sole player is the focus (arguably the root of our success this year) Carey would have taken that focus too heavily.

[penga]

Originally posted by sydnophile
Courageously said sprite! I'll second that.
It was sheer mismanagement that the Swans didn't nab him last year.

Wayne Carey had an initial preference to come to Sydney but:
1) There were rumours around at the time that Pagan might be offered the coaching job. Colless et al where hellbent on not guaranteeing Paul Roos future, and so kept Paul Roos in the background. Carey had already made it obvious on FOX Footy that he wanted a fresh start (thereby implying no Pagan). By not having confirmed Paul's appointment by end August 2002 made the Swans future look too unclear at the time for Carey's liking. He couldn't be sure what or who he would be dealing with in 2003.

2) On top of that, I read how Ricky Nixon blew apart any hope of a deal as soon as Carey departed Sydney. He got on the blower to Colless and ranted in his ear for an hour or so about "Carey will want this, Carey will want that", and mentioning outlandish sums. This was probably without WC's knowledge or consent. Carey later revealed after a public spat with Nixon that he'd basically dropped him soon after the debacle at the 'roos which was why he was managing approaches to various clubs in 2nd part of 2002 by himself. So without checking Nixon's bona fides Colless just "took his word for it", and dropped the matter out of hand.

It was unbelievably un-astute of the powers-that-be not to recognise by mid-August 2002 that Paul Roos was key to the Swans future. Blind freddy could see it, but not Colless, and it cost us getting Carey.

so u r the new rumour mongerer on this site eh? thats such a crock... we didnt go for carey because:

1. he is a w,anker
2. he is a w,anker
3. too old
4. he is a w,anker
5. too slow
6. he is a w,anker
7. too injury prone
8. he is a w,anker
9. he is a w,anker
10. he is a w,anker
11. the sydney crowd HATES him!
12. he is a w,anker
13. he is a w,anker
14. wouldve cost us too much for a trade


oh yeah, i forgot:
15. he is a w,anker

[liz]

Originally posted by sydnophile
Courageously said sprite! I'll second that.
It was sheer mismanagement that the Swans didn't nab him last year.

It was unbelievably un-astute of the powers-that-be not to recognise by mid-August 2002 that Paul Roos was key to the Swans future. Blind freddy could see it, but not Colless, and it cost us getting Carey.

I can't see that Roos would have been interested in Carey had it been his decision. Right from when he did get the job on a permanent basis he was clear that he was working towards being a contender in 2 or 3 years. In the meantime he was about building a squad from bottom up, finding out which youngsters could play at senior level. How would Carey fit into that?

And even with the benefit of hindsight, would we be a better team with Carey in it than not? I doubt it. For a start, this team has been successful on the basis there are no stars - everyone works together and none is more important than anyone else. The fact that we have a large core of players who have played every game has been important as well, whereas Carey has been in and out of the Adelaide team all season with various niggles and unfortunate war-wound (ie his knee gash).

Secondly, our forward line has been remarkably efficient. The few games where we have failed to kick a winning score it has been because the midfield has been unable to deliver the ball often enough into the forward line. In terms of conversion of inside-50s into scoring shots, aren't we way ahead of the competition.

Carey is still capable of being a damaging player and he may be the difference between the Crows winning the premiership or not. But in terms of where the Swans are at the moment, I have no regrets that he didn't come here.

[BAM_BAM]

well said Lizz, We were looking to the future and he although he has been a great player, is getting old and is not the future. besides I agree with Penga he is a wanker

[SXP]

Originally posted by BAM_BAM
besides I agree with Penga he is a wanker

I would second that too!

[sydnophile]

Gee penga, it must be fun to dish out throw away lines without having to back anything up yourself. Makes life so simple doesn't it?

The fact that the press was linking every man and his dog to the Swans coaching position is well known. I believe what Colless said back then that he wasn't after Pagan (Daily Telegraph, 30/7/02, page 58), but the uncertainty he created at the time was instrumental in fuelling rumour flames.

It's also well known we had talks with Carey (DT, 7/8/02, pg 62). That article also mentioned that it was the Swans uncertain future over a possible Pagan was a main drawback for Carey. We'll never get the full story of what went on, but in the end it was Carey's probably decision more than ours. ('Nuff said.)

The point of view put by lizz is pretty compelling.
The press would have only ever focussed on Carey, and that would have been stifling for the team to develop on their own terms as a total unit, not just as a backdrop to a "star".

[penga]

Originally posted by sydnophile
blah blah blah(Daily Telegraph, 30/7/02, page 58),

blah blah blah (DT, 7/8/02, pg 62). blah blah blah blah blah blah

you are quoting (very loosely used) rumours to further your rumour, not much credentials there!

[DaveW]

Re: Quote of the Week or Year

Originally posted by Plugger46
Carey is virtually finished, and was overrated anyway. There are about 10 Adelaide players I'm more concerned about.

[DaveW]

Originally posted by floppinab
But seriously in our current forward structure where would you fit him. IMO one more permanent forward puts the existing structure out of balance, Hall (for better or worse) is playing this role.
More importantly in a team where no sole player is the focus (arguably the root of our success this year) Carey would have taken that focus too heavily.

Carey would've played CHF and Hall FF. Simple. You could even swap the two for a bit of variety. This would allow O'Loughlin to play as a dangerous third tall forward. And would allow Goodes to play, well... anywhere. At the moment I think that dangerous centre half forward might be one thing Sydney lacks.

Carey's had the exact opposite effect for Adelaide to the one you're supposing for Sydney. He and Perrie are working quite nicely as the twin tall forwards. And this has freed up Brett Burton - required to play at full forward for much of last year - to roam free on the wing. And the Birdman has found his niche; he's now in career best form playing up the ground. Burton's height and athleticism prove a handful to deal with in the midfield, and I could picture Goodes playing this role if he wasn't required up forward (where his kicking lets him down) or in the ruck.


And sydnophile, do you not think the fact that Adelaide were also considered a much greater premiership threat than Sydney in the immediate future would have also influenced Carey's decision to join the Crows?