More criticism from Hinds

[hammo]

It will not be lost on the organisers of the "Save Nick Davis" campaign that the Swans trailed Geelong by four goals entering the final quarter, just as they had in the closing stages of last year's semi-final before the mercurial forward turned the game - and the season - on its head.

However, while more scorn will no doubt be poured on Roos by the disaffected minority for not selecting Davis, it is doubtful Plugger Lockett at his raging best could have made much of the poor supply provided by the Swans midfield, let alone Davis.

source

[ScottH]

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

He copped one huge bomb from ROK to his advantage and outmarked his opponent.
And I think another was from a mark, not sure, but I'm sure someone will remember.
One was from roving the pack and a 50m snap.
The last was from roving the tap.

[Sanecow]

If anyone would know about inefficient forward thrusts, I bet it would be Hinds.

[SimonH]

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

With the greatest of respect: are you on drugs? The point is, his supply in the 2005 SF had to be good enough; and it was good enough. The most famous of Nick's goals was the result of terrific tapwork from Ball (which occurred at a stoppage, i.e. we'd kept the ball in the area); another was a mark from a booming torp from the middle of the ground kicked by ROK, which came at such speed that Davis was able to mark in front of 2 nearby opponents. At least one of the balance was sharked at ground level (meaning again, that the ball had been kept in the area and we hadn't coughed up possession).

Contrast all of that with: forward leads. Man with ball tries to honour lead. Pass goes 10 metres over the head of forward, or 15 metres wide. Easy turnover results.

No one forward-- not G. Ablett Snr in 1989 GF form-- would have been able to snatch the Geelong game for us on the w/e, with the delivery provided to our leading forwards. Hinds is clearly right on this one. Anyone who seriously contends, 'We woulda won it with Nick in the side' is starting with the conclusion and then desperately trying to twist the facts to fit.

Completely different issue to whether Nick should play this coming w/e, anyway.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by SimonH
Anyone who seriously contends, 'We woulda won it with Nick in the side' is starting with the conclusion and then desperately trying to twist the facts to fit.

Unless you watched him tearing through the middle of Manuka, drilling it chest height, lace out, to leading forwards on Saturday afternoon. He does not just kick goals - if that's all he did he would not have to worry about his fitness so much. Nick's value is not only in the goals he kicks but the value he can give as an outside midfileder. To see him spend a good 60% of the match in that role on Saturday makes me think that that is where he will spend a fair amount of time when he returns - running past Kirk, getting ready to pick it up from his ankles 18 inches behind him...

[Guzzitza]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
running past Kirk, getting ready to pick it up from his ankles 18 inches behind him...

Sad but true.
Kirk was worse than usual against the Cats. Mind you he had company.

[BLT]

I think everyone would agree that that Nick Davis goal in the semi last year was all thanks to Jason 'THE DESTROYER' Ball!

I didn't actually get to see the game this weekend, but am I safe enough in hazarding a guess that BLT would have once again have been BOG?

[hammo]

Originally posted by ScottH
He copped one huge bomb from ROK to his advantage and outmarked his opponent.
And I think another was from a mark, not sure, but I'm sure someone will remember.
One was from roving the pack and a 50m snap.
The last was from roving the tap.

It is was all due to Kirk's "you owe us one" comment

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by SimonH
Anyone who seriously contends, 'We woulda won it with Nick in the side' is starting with the conclusion and then desperately trying to twist the facts to fit.

This is exactly what you would have said if Davis had missed the final against Geelong last year.

[giant]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
He does not just kick goals - if that's all he did he would not have to worry about his fitness so much. Nick's value is not only in the goals he kicks but the value he can give as an outside midfileder. To see him spend a good 60% of the match in that role on Saturday makes me think that that is where he will spend a fair amount of time when he returns - running past Kirk, getting ready to pick it up from his ankles 18 inches behind him...

Other than the mandatory cheap shot on Kirk, I agree with this - that is surely the main reason why he had to improve his fitness. Half way thru the season he was in no shape to contribute as a midfielder at all.

He'll still spend plenty of time up forward tho. Hence, Grundy for Davis the likely option.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by Sanecow
This is exactly what you would have said if Davis had missed the final against Geelong last year.

Um, no. Did you watch the 2 games? Notice any difference between them?

As I said, the difference was plainly that in one of them, through the 2nd half we had the ball up forward, sometimes resulting in a mark, and frequently keeping it in the area on the other occasions, and just needed someone to kick the goals; in the other, due to poor delivery, we repeatedly turned it over going through wing and half-forward, and no amount of genius by a specialist forward could have pulled it out of the fire.

If you saw the 2 games differently, bully for you; but you seem not to have grasped the original point.

[hammo]

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting we would have won with Davis in the side.

It's his prolonged exile and the weak excuses offered up by Roos that has angered people.

On the weekend it was the admission that there are injured players being slected in the team when Nick was 100% fit and in form in Canberra. It's common sense that a fit and firing Davo would have given us a better chance at victory than carrying an unfit player.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by SimonH
Um, no. Did you watch the 2 games? Notice any difference between them?

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.

[OldE]

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.

[Xie Shan]

Originally posted by eirinn
Hinds (and a fair few RWOers) have showed a poor understanding of what was meant by the whole thing.

I thought I understood what it meant, but whenever I read the threads on here about it I keep getting confused as to what it is we're actually arguing about.

I'm just a confused out-of-towner, go easy on me. Maybe it's best I stay out of it.