Matthew Davis, what to do?

[Sanecow]

[In the] 2003 AFL National Draft, Davis was selected with Sydney's fifth and final pick - number 59 overall - and spent his first year at the Club developing his game in the seconds and had a reasonable debut season playing half-back flank before a groin injury kept him out of the final round and two finals.

The shy youngster is at his best when carrying the football, good overhead and an aggressive tackler, but remains behind the other players of his year because he didn't come through the usual AFL pathway (from the Under-18's Championships). In 2005 he was hampered by tightness in his groin which affected his performance so underwent surgery before the end of the season to ensure a full pre-season.

Injury list after round 20

The Sydney Swans injury list as of Monday 21st August:

PLAYER INJURY STATUS
Matthew Davis Hip Test

Three years on, sitting injured on the Senior list without a game to his name, what's going to happen to the least smokey "smokey" ever?

[SimonH]

In a system where clubs are effectively obliged to delist 3 players per year: you wouldn't want to have your money on him. It's hard to compose a list of 3 players ahead of him for the chop.

(I know that we've got Willo's retirement and MOL on the veteran's list in 2007, but they will probably be eaten up by the rookie promotion of Phillips and one other rookie-- or, more improbably, Sydney breaking with all history and actually utilising 4 draft picks!)

As we speak, injuries aren't a huge issue: he's been pretty consistently on the park for the seconds in 2006, but quite simply 3 years on he's still nearer to the back than the front of the queue for a game.

[hammo]

At least he'll have plenty of mates to catch up with in the SANFL

[SimonH]

Unlike most of our dumped SA draftees, his SANFL mates will struggle to even remember him:

the tall midfielder from Jamestown in South Adelaide played a handful of games for North Adelaide in the SANFL under-17's at centre half-forward or centre half-back before spending most of the 2003 season playing in the country.

[ugg]

I think everyone, coaches included, is really confused as to where his role lies. On Saturday he was playing on the wing without really getting up to much. He's probably suited to playing in defence but when the ball doesn't come down there much, there's only so much that can be gained playing there. They've chucked him up forward a few times but all that's shown is that he's not a forward.

[liz]

Everytime I've seen Davis play this year, he has looked very low intensity, even when he's doing some nice things. He certainly has never looked as if he believes he can break into the senior team - rather he has seemed to be marking out time before being dispatched.

[Matt79]

Originally posted by liz
Everytime I've seen Davis play this year, he has looked very low intensity, even when he's doing some nice things.

Perhaps it must be a name thing.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Matt79
Perhaps it must be a name thing.

Are you comparing him to Ben or Lethal?

[ItsAllGoodes]

I would suggest that Matthew Davis' future depends very much what happens with the likes of Spriggs and Kennelly.

If Tadhg decides to go home and/or if Spriggs looks to be traded we may find an automatic 3 players to drop from our list (together with Willo).

Not for a minute saying that I want either to happen. I would have played Spriggs on the weekend ahead of Mathews, and I would play him this weekend. If he doesnt get played this weekend I would think that his future has already been decided, i.e. to do the right thing by him and give him a chance to get a game with someone like Carlton

And obviously we all want Tadhg to stay for a few more years yet.

My gut feel is that Matthew wont be around next year. Several of the rookies are putting up their hands to be added to the Senior list and have gone right past him in the pecking order, e.g. Phillips, Simpkin

[liz]

Originally posted by ItsAllGoodes


My gut feel is that Matthew wont be around next year. Several of the rookies are putting up their hands to be added to the Senior list and have gone right past him in the pecking order, e.g. Phillips, Simpkin

I don't think he'll be around either. Right now I'd prefer they kept any of Phillips, Rowe, Barlow, Jack or Simpkin ahead of Davis, and I could probably make a case for Prior, Wall and Currie too.

I was a huge fan of what I saw from Davis in his first year on the list but he seems to have gone backwards since then. Laidlaw has overtaken him as the obvious replacement for Kennelly, IMO, if it comes to that.

[hammo]

Is Phillips now permanently on the senior list or for the remainder of this season only?

[Jeffers1984]

I'll say that he's gone which is a great shame for smokey who looked the goods in his first year. Quick as a flash and skills to match.

I'd say Phillips, Simpkins and Barlow will be promoted to the seniors while Prior, Jack, Rowe and probably Currie will be kept for one more.

Wall, Stef, M Davis, Willo and Willoughby () will get cut IMO.

[hammo]

Originally posted by Jeffers1984
I'll say that he's gone which is a great shame for smokey who looked the goods in his first year. Quick as a flash and skills to match.

I'd say Phillips, Simpkins and Barlow will be promoted to the seniors while Prior, Jack, Rowe and probably Currie will be kept for one more.

Wall, Stef, M Davis, Willo and Willoughby () will get cut IMO.

Given the ongoing snubs at the selection table, Spriggs will surely be delisted before Willoughby. I will tear up my membership card if Willoughby is traded / delisted before playing a single game. We would have helped develop a top class midfielder for one lucky club.

I am not convinced about Jack. He seems to be too much in the Bevan mould and unlikely to cut it at AFL level.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by Jeffers1984
I'll say that he's gone which is a great shame for smokey who looked the goods in his first year. Quick as a flash and skills to match.

I'd say Phillips, Simpkins and Barlow will be promoted to the seniors while Prior, Jack, Rowe and probably Currie will be kept for one more.

Wall, Stef, M Davis, Willo and Willoughby () will get cut IMO.

Even though you've tried to be harsh, you've been too generous. We can have no more than 38 players on our senior list. We must take 3 draft picks, meaning that come draft day we can have no more than 35 on the list. Even with MOL moving to the veteran's list, on the above scenario we will have 37 (from our start-of-2006 38: minus MOL, Paul Willo, M Davis and Willoughby; plus Phillips, Simpkin and Barlow). You've gotta cut 2 more (and/or reduce the number of rookie promotions).

Players on the rookie list like Wall and Garrubba don't count; by cutting them you only create more room to participate in the rookie draft.

My 2 cents' worth for a minimalist solution is as follows.
Promote: Phillips
Delist (from senior list): M. Davis, Spriggs

I'll leave the 'keeps' and 'delists' from the rookie list to those who have seen more of 'em, but Garrubba is a guaranteed delisting.

The whole plan goes out the window if we trade for Spida, of course.

[liz]

Originally posted by SimonH

My 2 cents' worth for a minimalist solution is as follows.
Promote: Phillips
Delist (from senior list): M. Davis, Spriggs

I'll leave the 'keeps' and 'delists' from the rookie list to those who have seen more of 'em, but Garrubba is a guaranteed delisting.

The whole plan goes out the window if we trade for Spida, of course.

If we trade for Spider, at least one other ruckman, possibly two will go. I don't see the point in keeping two developmental ruckmen on the list (Erikson and Shaw - not to mention maybe Rowe too who doesn;t count from a senior list numbers POV) plus two "as-AFL-ready-as-they're-ever-going-to-be" ruckmen in Doyle and Chambers.

Erikson was taken as a long term project and for skinny rucks that often means more than three years. That said, he really doesn't look close to fullfilling a crash-bash ruckman role for another decade. His ground level skills are pretty good for a beanpole but he'll never play AFL on the basis of just being good below the knees.

I also think they'll be tempted to either dump Chambers or trade Doyle.

I wouldn't be surprised to see someone like Moore ask to be traded elsewhere. I hope it doesn't happen but we can't rule it out. Maybe Schmidt too. Willoughby and Spriggs are likely to go too.

In terms of promotions from the rookie list, even Phillips isn't an obvious pick. He'll be kept, for sure, but maybe still on the rookie list. Other rookies look promising but most of them are very raw and it is likely to be a case of giving them another year to see how close they are to a senior list spot this time next year.