More criticism from Hinds

[Boodnutz]

Originally posted by eirinn
I am sick to death of Hinds misunderstanding the whole "Save Nick" thing, making it out as though it's about him being the salvation... it is not, nor was it ever. It was about the way Nick was treated (public shaming), the double standards, and the belief that, whether we win games or not, the Swans are a stronger team with Nick Davis in.

Hinds can make it out to be some crusade, formed by those who believe Nick has done no wrong and is the only sure way to victory... but that isn't what it was. Hinds (and a fair few RWOers) have showed a poor understanding of what was meant by the whole thing.

Hinds doesn't have much to run with. He's got pressure from a sub-editor to get "angle" on a story. Bear in mind, he probably also has other duties in the office such as tea-making for the proper journalists and distributing everyone's mail each morning. So, if he can keep this thing running after just reading a couple of RWO posts then he will.

[giant]

Hinds is clearly one of the best writers covering the Swans on a regular basis - I get more from his columns than I do from a dozen Tim Morrisey articles. And no lesser authority than the Great NMW Bloods agrees with me.

This brilliant article remains my favourite analysis of the GF:

http://www.redandwhiteonline.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11862&highlight=Hinds

[SimonH]

Originally posted by Dr Diabolical
... Yes, but there were other times when the ball went forward and we didn?t do much with it.
...
There was no magical delivery to the forwards in the SF either.
...
No one really looked like they were going to stand up and do anything on Saturday.

Originally posted by Sanecow
I saw multiple missed shots in the second half of the game on the weekend. Apparently you didn't make it that far through. Anecdotally, Kirk's trick shot, Goodes not getting his boot to ball and a number of missed set shots come to mind.

We kicked 3.7 in the second half so it's a joke to suggest that we lost entirely because the ball didn't make it forward in that half of the game.

Footywire suggests that Geelong conceded only one rushed behind for the game so don't even try to run that tired old line.

This kind of 'you said', 'no, you said' debates are kind of pointless, but nonetheless, to wrap it up from my end:

1. DD's 'rebuttal' ultimately boils down to the above 3 statements. Yes, of course 'there were times' the ball went forward with some kind of accuracy in the 2006 game. Name one game ever played Sydney where the ball has never once in the entire game, gone forward with any system. So what? The point of the debate is the differences between the two games as a whole. Similarly, there were times on Saturday when the ball was in dispute at ground level in our forward line (again, there aren't too many games when that never occurs); but again, these occasions were fewer and further between than in 2005.

2. The fact that there was no 'magical delivery' in 2005, whatever that odd phrase is meant to mean, doesn't answer the question: was it better than Saturday? Yes or no?

3. 'Someone oughtta stand up and do sumpfink' is the sort of vague barracking that belongs in the same ballpark as 'we woulda won it if X was playing'.

4. Gee, SC, a similarity between the 2005 and 2006 games was that points were scored, where we would have done better if we kicked goals instead. Amazing. If you actually care to look at the 2 games that were played, contrast the 1.6 we kicked in the 3rd quarter in 2005 when the ball was camped up our end for most of the quarter, with the match-defining unbroken run of 4.1 from Geelong in the latter part of the 3rd quarter in 2006 (yes, I did watch that far-- did you?), during which the ball almost never got past the centre line, much less into our forward 50. And note that the rushed behind, plus the 3 points kicked in 'junk time' when we were only quibbling over the size of the loss (McVeigh, O'Keefe, MOL) meant that we kicked 3.3 for the 2nd half while the game was alive. But no, the quality of our scoring opportunities in 2005 and 2006 were practically identical. Of course.

5. The debate was about whether Hinds was wrong when he said that the differences between the games made analogies between the actual Nick contribution in the 2005 Geelong game, and his theoretical contribution in the 2006 game, meaningless. I said that he was right. Neither of you haven't put forward any case that he was wrong, i.e. that the 2 games were relevantly similar. So I have no idea what your rebuttal was meant to achieve. Presumably you've got some kind of 'anyone who says Nick couldn't save us = doesn't want Nick to come back = baaaaad' agenda. Which is just nonsense. I'm looking forward to seeing #2 playing this Saturday.

[stellation]

Originally posted by SimonH

2. The fact that there was no 'magical delivery' in 2005, whatever that odd phrase is meant to mean, doesn't answer the question: was it better than Saturday? Yes or no?

No.

[Sanecow]

The love of some posters for the phrase "junk time" is such a wank. The 2005 game was won in "junk time".

[DST]

Originally posted by Dr Diabolical
I don't recall the "great delivery" Davis had in the SF...

He got great delivery from our ruckman to kick two of those goals.

While I don't take anything from Nick for those two wonderful goals, the work from our ruckman (was it Ball both times) also had a very large impact on us making the preliminary final.

DST

[Snowy]

I rate Hinds as a pretty good journo actually. He has wit, writes well and is usually perceptive re. the state of footy and he has a fairly good knowledge of the Swans.

[Agent 86]

Originally posted by Snowy
I rate Hinds as a pretty good journo actually. He has wit, writes well and is usually perceptive re. the state of footy and he has a fairly good knowledge of the Swans.

I don't mind him either, but his report card lately would read: "Can do better..."

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by Agent 86
his report card lately would read: "Can do better..."

and should not use RWO to do his research. He should also look for some original stories without constantly rehashing the same reports.

[giant]

Referring to a "disaffected minority" is hardly doing your research on RWO. Some people on here have a way too big opinion on the striking originality of their posts.

As for rehashing stories, it's not exactly unknown in the world of journalism - must be particularly difficult writing about the Swans with their absence of barroom brawling bad eggs and the rather insipid stuff that's offered up by the Swans PR department.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by giant
Some people on here have a way too big opinion on the striking originality of their posts.

If you don't think you have anything original to offer, why do you bother posting?

[Agent 86]

Originally posted by giant
...must be particularly difficult writing about the Swans with their absence of barroom brawling bad eggs and the rather insipid stuff that's offered up by the Swans PR department.

Another reason why we need Spida?

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by giant
As for rehashing stories, it's not exactly unknown in the world of journalism - must be particularly difficult writing about the Swans with their absence of barroom brawling bad eggs and the rather insipid stuff that's offered up by the Swans PR department.

The biggest news for the off season being Tadhg's dacking of LRT, is one such example of how little controversial stuff happens at the Swans. With this in mind, it's not surprising that Hinds and co are looking for new angles. But there is only so much speculation on Davis that the press can keep reporting on. What will they have to waffle about when Nick is back in the team.

[giant]

Originally posted by Sanecow
If you don't think you have anything original to offer, why do you bother posting?

Well, personally, it's mainly about the post count.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by giant
Well, personally, it's mainly about the post count.

I wish the post counts would all be reset to zero.