Words of wisdom on BigFooty

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Big Al
I'm not a "Davis lover" but a lover of fair play. He also has the backing of some high profile team mates in recent weeks which is evidence he again has the trust of the players.

I don't get this crap about the "leadership group" trusting another player. It's not as if they are married and he's "playing away from home". They're teammates in a sporting side, and plenty before this team have won premierships even when there were personality clashes amongst the team. Time for the leadership group to stop being a boys club and lead the team by example...BY WINNING!

[giant]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
"The point is that it is hypocritical for Roos to drop Davis for lack of fitness and then say he can't force his way back into the side, when other players continue to play when not fully match fit.

This is starting to get a little circular - again, who are the "other players" that "continue to play when not fully match fit"? Do you know this or are you just speculating? Or are you just being hypocritical?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by giant
This is starting to get a little circular - again, who are the "other players" that "continue to play when not fully match fit"? Do you know this or are you just speculating? Or are you just being hypocritical?

Now you're just being silly and starting to turn it personal.

Sure I know every injury because the club rings and tells me!

You've asked the question and I've answered it:

"Continue to carry" meaning we have a history of carrying injured players. Crouch and Williams are two high profile examples, but there have plenty of others over the past couple of years.

Roos stated that we were carrying injured players in the first half of the year.

Roos stated that we aren't completely healthy at the moment and there are a number of players carrying niggling injuries.

The point is that it is hypocritical for Roos to drop Davis for lack of fitness and then say he can't force his way back into the side, when other players continue to play when not fully match fit.

[giant]

Oh, ok - so this:

QUOTE]Originally posted by NMWBloods
Any reasons why Davis was dropped have surely gone weeks ago given his form in the reserves.

We seem to continue to carry other unfit or injured players though. [/QUOTE]

...was just wrong. Fine. Just checking.

BTW, is it really really true that "rolleyes" is back?

[NMWBloods]

We seem to continue to carry other unfit or injured players though.

=

"Continue to carry" meaning we have a history of carrying injured players. Crouch and Williams are two high profile examples, but there have plenty of others over the past couple of years.

Roos stated that we were carrying injured players in the first half of the year.

Roos stated that we aren't completely healthy at the moment and there are a number of players carrying niggling injuries.

[Captain]

Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
Gee more people STILL pushing the Nick Davis wheelbarrow! How original for RWO.

I know a lot of people who can't be bothered posting on the topic of Davis any more for fear of being attacked by the militant RWO Davis groupie clique. A couple of people in Melbourne even said they have lost a far bit of respect for RWO as a result of the recent hysteria created by a loud and persistantly vigilant portion of Swans supporters here. To be honest I can't blame them.

I CAN see Davis being de-listed at the end of the year. The impression is that he has been given enough rope and has finally hung himself with the coaching staff and player group. It would be a shame, as to be honest I don't see him wanting to move back to Melbourne or interstate again. Don't know whether clubs would be interested in nabbing him given his attitude. Maybe Carlton or Essendon might be interested?

But keep on ranting you Davis-lovers. It makes for amusing, if not embarrassing reading.

JF

An all new low has been reached.

[Sanecow]

"I can say, if you knew what (his injuries) were, you would be shocked at how severe they are," Swans doctor Nathan Gibbs said.

"He has had injuries in the past that would have kept other players out but he was resilient to those. Unfortunately the nature of his injuries this year, you could say the injuries got the better of him eventually.

Gibbs said the best-case scenario for Crouch is a return to the reserves in a fortnight. Given the severity of his injuries though, it is unlikely he would be rushed into seniors for round 22.

Source (August 15, 2006)

[Sanecow]

The Swans have had a small injury list this season, using an AFL-best 24 players in the opening 11 rounds, but Roos has noticed a worrying trend.

"We have had a number of players that have had muscle injuries this year that haven't in the past, and they are not guys who have had a history of calf or hamstring injuries," Roos said.

"We haven't had a lot of injuries, but a couple of those have been quite resilient players that haven't normally succumbed to that sort of injury.

Source (20 June 2006)

Since we haven't had many players on the injured list, I assume they played with these injuries. (Also, the reference by Gibbs and Roos to "resilient" players leads one to conclude that Crouch has a muscle injury and probably a calf or hamstring injury.)

[giant]

Yep, interesting historical perspective - clearly we were carrying injured players in the game vs the Pies after the break. The three obvious candidates from that game - Williams, Crouch & Davis - are no longer playing. Roos realised that, where as last year he could rely on the players to tell him if they were fit enough to play, this season he had to make some tough calls on those who were "too" injured or simply not fit.

But still no direct evidence that the Swans "continue to play other unfit or injured players".

[SimonH]

Back onto Nick Davis himself rather than internecine backbiting: did anyone see the photos of him in the SMH and Tele today? Perfectly happy and smiling doing post-match stretches with (I think) Mattie Laidlaw at Clovelly Beach, while wearing a silly beanie. Looking not even remotely like the embittered 'I'm gonna walk out 'cos youse have done me wrong' soul that some would think, or wish, he's become.

He's showing every sign of being a professional sportsperson who is changing what he can, dealing with or ignoring what he can't, and getting on with it.

There's probably some kind of broader bumpersticker-style lesson in that for all of us, but I'm buggered if I know what it is.

[Eala ?ireann]

Without trying to start a slanging match or anything, does anyone have any theories on who these half-baked players are at the moment so we can presume that one of them could be left out for Davis?

For example, if Hall was one of them, you wouldn't leave him out and put Davis in. If Kennelly was one, you wouldn't leave him out and put Davis in. So who do we reckon these players are if people are now believing what Roosey says when they were rubbishing him and calling him arrogant or blame-dodging recently.

Surely the people to be replaced to bring Davis in (with position re-jigging) are Dempster, Bevan, Grundy, Richards and maybe one or two others, MOL maybe, but I would think not.

I think if these lads were injured they'd be out, so that leaves it to being more core, important players like the Boltons, Kirk, O'Keefe, LRT or someone that would have to step aside for Davis. I wouldn't make those changes if I was coach.

So, the long and the short of it is, if people here reckon we have players playing with a niggles who should step aside for Davis (or be put aside more appropriately as the case may be), who are they and how would Davis fill their spot?

A genuine question out of curiousity.

Let me just add, that as a fan of this footy club and not of the coaches or particular players particularly (although an admitted patriotic empathy with Tadhg), I hope that when Davis comes in he does indeed kick bags and bags of goals.

[giant]

Originally posted by Eala ?ireann
Without trying to start a slanging match or anything, does anyone have any theories on who these half-baked players are at the moment so we can presume that one of them could be left out for Davis?

The answer appears to be "no one on this site."

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by giant
But still no direct evidence that the Swans "continue to play other unfit or injured players".

Naturally they tend to keep a lid on it until the player is dropped. If you asked for evidence that Williams or Crouch were injured before they went, there was none so your argument is specious.

All evidence points to the fact that injured players are regularly taking the field for the Swans. Off the top of my head in recent times:

2005:
1. Maxfield early 2005.
2. The half-dozen injured Swans in last year's Grand Final late 2005.
3. O'Loughlin managing chronic knee tendonitis.

2006:
1. Crouch buggered beyond belief
2. Williams playing with a career ending injury
3. Hall 30 June 2006 "Sydney superstar Barry Hall says he is managing a back injury, which has troubled him in recent times. "
4. O'Loughlin managing chronic knee tendonitis.

It would be a stunning change of attitude if none of the players were playing injured or unfit, especially in light of the fact that Roos asserts otherwise.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Eala ?ireann
Without trying to start a slanging match or anything, does anyone have any theories on who these half-baked players are at the moment so we can presume that one of them could be left out for Davis?

So, the long and the short of it is, if people here reckon we have players playing with a niggles who should step aside for Davis (or be put aside more appropriately as the case may be), who are they and how would Davis fill their spot?

Like giant you miss the point.

Firstly, of course no one knows who is injured. The club is hardly going to come out and see. However, Roos did state there were injured players in the team.

Secondly, it wasn't about them being dropped for Davis, but rather Davis was dropped because Roos decided he wasn't fully match fit and performing to his potential. However, other players are obviously not match fit and not performing to their potential, but remain in the side. Seems to be different rules.

[hammo]

Originally posted by Eala ?ireann


Surely the people to be replaced to bring Davis in (with position re-jigging) are Dempster, Bevan, Grundy, Richards and maybe one or two others, MOL maybe, but I would think not.

I don't think there's much doubt that Grundy will make way.

The opportunist goals he scored on the weekend would have been scored by Davo anyway.

Reg will be unlucky but you would have to think Davo would have kicked all 7 of the goals he has since coming in. Plus Davis gives the added advantge now that he is "fit and in form" of being able to rotate through the midfield.

Bevan will be replaced by Mathews next week.