View Full Version : Justin Davies - A real pity
celtic_pride
12 Jul 2006, 15:14
I'm one of a few fans who actually like Justin Davies ... I watched the Wiz Cup GF last night from 2005 and could see that he was a pretty lively player with a lot of natural ability.
But sadly due to injuries and other problems, it appears likely that he won't be on the list next year.
Gee Whiz, we don't have that many players with natural skills at the moment, and I would like to see him stay at least another year. But the club appears (from what I've heard) to have a massive cleanout at the end of the year, and Davies is in the firing line.
AlecDuncan
12 Jul 2006, 15:34
Gee Whiz, we don't have that many players with natural skills at the moment, and I would like to see him stay at least another year. But the club appears (from what I've heard) to have a massive cleanout at the end of the year, and Davies is in the firing line.
The problem is that we will have new players come in:
National Draft: #2, #17, #20, #36, #52
Pre-Season Draft: #2
That's up to six new faces, which means that up to six old faces have to go. Not counting trades, those seven will be out of those non-rookies whose contracts are up, which in 2006 means (I think): bannister; betts; blackwell; chambers; davies; fisher; Hartlett; houlihan; koutoufides; livingston; longmuir; mcgrath; prendergast; raso; russell; simpson; sporn; thornton; & wiggins.
I think we're all agreed that Chambers; Koutoufides; Longmuir; Prendergast & Sporn won't be here next year, and that Betts; Hartlett; Raso; Russell; Simpson; & Thornton are all safe. That leaves one more to go out of: Bannister; Davies; Livingston; McGrath & Wiggins. Out of these it's between Davies and Livo.
Davies has more ability, no question. But does he give a sh1t? Does the club anymore?
Rookies are a separate matter, complicated by the veterans rule. Without Kouta, we may be entitled to an extra rookie (I think).
Update: Corrected for my dodgy counting.
stokesy
12 Jul 2006, 15:41
Quite sad really.
Wiggins has done enough in his games to warrant another year or so, and Bannister may of saved his career.
If Davies was fit and up and about, he would have been given a game before Wiggins, Bannister, Sporn, Prendergast and co.
Basically, Davies had the chance to save his career and cement a spot in this years team, but injury has virtually killed him from the footy world.
BlueFeaver
12 Jul 2006, 15:44
[quote=AlecDuncan]The problem is that we will have new players come in:
National Draft: #2, #17, #20, #36, #52
Pre-Season Draft: #2
That's up to seven new faces, which means that up to seven old faces have to go. Not counting trades, those seven will be out of those non-rookies whose contracts are up, which in 2006 means (I think): bannister; betts; blackwell; chambers; davies; fisher; Hartlett; houlihan; koutoufides; livingston; longmuir; mcgrath; prendergast; raso; russell; simpson; sporn; thornton; & wiggins.
I think we're all agreed that Chambers; Koutoufides; Longmuir; Prendergast & Sporn won't be here next year, and that Betts; Hartlett; Raso; Russell; Simpson; & Thornton are all safe. That leaves one more to go out of: Bannister; Davies; Livingston; McGrath & Wiggins. Out of these it's between Davies and Livo.
Davies has more ability, no question. But does he give a sh1t? Does the club anymore?
Rookies are a separate matter, complicated by the veterans rule. Without Kouta, we may be entitled to an extra rookie (I think).[/quote
Livo, Davies, Prender, Kouta, Sporn, Chambers, Longmuir.
As stated without trades.
Sound fair.
barnesy
12 Jul 2006, 16:36
If we need too clean out 10 players seasons end then we do it. None of this feel sorry anymore.
We need too be considerate but ruthless.
We need not only too allow for the National draft and PSD but the promotion of any rookies.
Therefore up to 10 may need to go.
Prendergast, Longmuir, Chambers, Davies, Sporn, Koutoufides, Livingston.
Bryan is an x factor.
Wiggo has done enough too go again and possibly Bannister.
But that depends on how the team finishes off and if Bower, Hartlett come in and cement there spot. Also A FLint, Jackson, Smith maybe promoted and play well.
Unfortunately Teague and Saddington are contracted I believe.
We need too hit the draft hard and nuture a group of kids together and really bond them.
untapped
12 Jul 2006, 16:43
Rookies are a separate matter, complicated by the veterans rule. Without Kouta, we may be entitled to an extra rookie (I think).[/quote
Livo, Davies, Prender, Kouta, Sporn, Chambers, Longmuir.
As stated without trades.
Sound fair.[/quote]
Those 7 look likely, and if they are the ones to go Jackson would be the smart elevation onto the senior list.
Davies: can't get a good run with his body to show what he can do
Prendergast: just never found a spot and made it his own
Livo: fighting for Thornton's spot and he's flying
Sporn: Injury set him back everytime he started playing well (was better
than Thornton when drafted but example of injury shuting the door)
Chambers: Age and goes missing too often
Longmuir: Glen Bowyer, David Clarke, David Gallagher, Brett Johnson, Mike Martyn, Ricky Mott... the list goes on, enough said
Look we can't dump everyone...
I think we need to keep 2-3, eg Teague and Livo...
reasons;
1. As fill in men for 2-3 games a year when required.
2. They play well in the ants and we need some exp. for the younger kids playing their for guidance.
AlecDuncan
12 Jul 2006, 16:52
If we need too clean out 10 players seasons end then we do it. None of this feel sorry anymore.
The problem is, you can't "clean out" players under contract. The best you can do is trade them, and who else would have players like Teague? It's not about being sorry for them, it's about list management.
Who comes out of contract when? Remembering who comes out of contract and when at other clubs. Draftees getting two year minimum contracts. Rookies come and go as you please, but must be promoted to play. Salary cap and cash flow issues. Pre-season draftees insisting on minimum terms like contract length before signing. Judging future draft depths and father-son selections a year in advance, and guessing who you'll need to delist then. It's all a juggling act.
It's good we've got five, to maybe seven obvious openings for new players this draft. Ten would mean getting rid of players like Bannister for very late picks. Not likely to be beneficial in my book.
BlueFeaver
12 Jul 2006, 17:01
The problem is, you can't "clean out" players under contract. The best you can do is trade them, and who else would have players like Teague? It's not about being sorry for them, it's about list management.
Who comes out of contract when? Remembering who comes out of contract and when at other clubs. Draftees getting two year minimum contracts. Rookies come and go as you please, but must be promoted to play. Salary cap and cash flow issues. Pre-season draftees insisting on minimum terms like contract length before signing. Judging future draft depths and father-son selections a year in advance, and guessing who you'll need to delist then. It's all a juggling act.
It's good we've got five, to maybe seven obvious openings for new players this draft. Ten would mean getting rid of players like Bannister for very late picks. Not likely to be beneficial in my book.
Good post. Seven is a good turnover of players, this will inject some more youth and vigour around the club. It will also allow us some depth in the list. What will be interesting is what players are thrown up as trade options from other clubs. With the depth of this years draft alot of clubs will try and be very active.
bluevegas
12 Jul 2006, 19:31
The problem is that we will have new players come in:
National Draft: #2, #17, #20, #36, #52
Pre-Season Draft: #2
That's up to six new faces, which means that up to six old faces have to go. Not counting trades, those seven will be out of those non-rookies whose contracts are up, which in 2006 means (I think): bannister; betts; blackwell; chambers; davies; fisher; Hartlett; houlihan; koutoufides; livingston; longmuir; mcgrath; prendergast; raso; russell; simpson; sporn; thornton; & wiggins.
I think we're all agreed that Chambers; Koutoufides; Longmuir; Prendergast & Sporn won't be here next year, and that Betts; Hartlett; Raso; Russell; Simpson; & Thornton are all safe. That leaves one more to go out of: Bannister; Davies; Livingston; McGrath & Wiggins. Out of these it's between Davies and Livo.
Davies has more ability, no question. But does he give a sh1t? Does the club anymore?
Rookies are a separate matter, complicated by the veterans rule. Without Kouta, we may be entitled to an extra rookie (I think).
Update: Corrected for my dodgy counting.
Agree that you have selected the right people for culling but I think that Mcgrath is a stronger possibility for delistment. Seems to have reasonable skills but has alot of clangers abit like Justin Murphy.
Wiggins is my pick of a realistic trade, meaning Carlton would be willing to trade him for a someone of same or higher stock. A fair player but will never be a match winner or a consistently good player. Clubs will ask for trades for the Fevs, Lance, Waite, Fisher, Walker and alike but the Blues will rightly say NO. We will offer Sporn, Teague, Houlihan, Livingston & prendagast but no club will want to pick them up with giving something of their own.
My opinion only but not realistic one, is if a club is prepared to give a couple of first rounders or a top 5 of their teams best they can have Stevo. May aswell trade him whilst his value is high.
I would keep Bannister & Davies as they can be useful fringe players that can do specific jobs & can fulfill roles as required without being in our best 22.
This is a good honest thread.
how many of these draftees can come straight into the team ? How many can do a Murph. Not many ?
A lot of people seem to be thinking that the Rookies are deqad certs. They are not, simply because this is how things work out.
So we may end up losing 7 players with no-one to replace them come the start of next season. im sure ther ewill be plenty coming through by mid-season, but by then the season is gone.
What to do ?
All i know is that the bullants are just getting better and better.
Agree that you have selected the right people for culling but I think that Mcgrath is a stronger possibility for delistment. Seems to have reasonable skills but has alot of clangers abit like Justin Murphy.
Wiggins is my pick of a realistic trade, meaning Carlton would be willing to trade him for a someone of same or higher stock. A fair player but will never be a match winner or a consistently good player. Clubs will ask for trades for the Fevs, Lance, Waite, Fisher, Walker and alike but the Blues will rightly say NO. We will offer Sporn, Teague, Houlihan, Livingston & prendagast but no club will want to pick them up with giving something of their own.
My opinion only but not realistic one, is if a club is prepared to give a couple of first rounders or a top 5 of their teams best they can have Stevo. May aswell trade him whilst his value is high.
I would keep Bannister & Davies as they can be useful fringe players that can do specific jobs & can fulfill roles as required without being in our best 22.
Totally disagree about Wiggins. This guy could become a lot better than people realise. Pencil him in for a turn around ALA Simpson.
barnesy
12 Jul 2006, 20:01
The problem is, you can't "clean out" players under contract. The best you can do is trade them, and who else would have players like Teague? It's not about being sorry for them, it's about list management.
Who comes out of contract when? Remembering who comes out of contract and when at other clubs. Draftees getting two year minimum contracts. Rookies come and go as you please, but must be promoted to play. Salary cap and cash flow issues. Pre-season draftees insisting on minimum terms like contract length before signing. Judging future draft depths and father-son selections a year in advance, and guessing who you'll need to delist then. It's all a juggling act.
It's good we've got five, to maybe seven obvious openings for new players this draft. Ten would mean getting rid of players like Bannister for very late picks. Not likely to be beneficial in my book.
I'll take that on board - fair point.
gandaal
12 Jul 2006, 20:04
Justin Davies- Poor disposal, goes missing frequently and doesn't put in the extra effort required to put himself in a position to get the ball and/or help his teammates.
Gone
Blah Blah Blue
12 Jul 2006, 20:24
1.
Agree a real disapointment
2.
Had enough opportunities though
3.
If being given the #7 guernsy is not sufficient encouragement / incentive to put in and live up to a number then nothing is.
4.
Do not want or expect to see him at CFC next year