Analysis Scott Selwood Debate

[The Dodger]

Disagree with the Nic Nat comparison. From what I saw NN was the No.1 ruckman and always contributed, unlike Selwood. Three ruck disaster was due to Cox' reluctance to retire, and wanting to hold onto Lycett, not NN's poor play. NN is always a strong contributor and sometimes a match winner. I'm finding it hard to see that Selwood is a net positive contributor to the team, unless he can turn it around I wouldn't be sorry to see him go, lots of players have gone past him.

He couldn't run out run out a game. I agree the ruck disaster was due to Cox, not saying it was NN, just that it contributed to the issue of carrying him. We did carry him. Just go back and have a look at game day threads from the first half of last year. He was non-existent. I think he's great player but last year coming back from OP he was a liability. You can say what you said above as well but I am almost certain Simpson said to the effect that we were carrying him as well. Something along the lines of "hasn't hit full fitness yet" "we are just trying to get gametime under his belt" "we don't expect to see his best yet".
This from after the Carlton game last year:

Eagles coach Adam Simpson said after the loss to Carlton that Naitanui just needs to keep playing in order to get fit enough to hit top form.

"We need to give him time, get his body right and get him to the point where he is really confident. He might not have been outstanding [on Saturday] but I think he has taken steps forward," Simpson said.

If you asked Simpson about Selwood's performance in the last few weeks...I bet he would say almost that exact quote again.

 

[Chris_6678]

After watching On the couch they were talking about the gameplan and how each player is perfectly attuned in how it works. Now Scooter has missed a lot of footy under Simmo so he will be struggling with concept and will revert to his old ways like a lot of players did last year. Give him more time and i am pretty sure he will be a more than handy player for the team.

 

[Bacchus]

He couldn't run out run out a game. I agree the ruck disaster was due to Cox, not saying it was NN, just that it contributed to the issue of carrying him. We did carry him. Just go back and have a look at game day threads from the first half of last year. He was non-existent. I think he's great player but last year coming back from OP he was a liability. You can say what you said above as well but I am almost certain Simpson said to the effect that we were carrying him as well. Something along the lines of "hasn't hit full fitness yet" "we are just trying to get gametime under his belt" "we don't expect to see his best yet".
This from after the Carlton game last year:


If you asked Simpson about Selwood's performance in the last few weeks...I bet he would say almost that exact quote again.

Would we have been better off with Lycett or Cox as the main ruckman last year? Cox was finished and hardly merited a game, and frankly I haven't seen Lycett win too many ruck contests full stop, let alone to the advantage that Nic Nat does. It was very noticeable in games last year and still is this year that when Nic is in the middle we are on top and the advantage disappears when he is gone. He was not a liability last year (do you think we would have done better with Lycett, Cox or Sinclair as No.1 ruckman) ?

Simpson's quotes are deliberately evasive, they do not prove anything. NN can get better, and better is absolutely dominating the competition. The expectations are unrealistically high on him, and as an astute observer such as Wayne Carey said, 'we need to focus on what he does do, not on what he doesn't'. Sandilands has taken years to become a half competent mark. I am not against Selwood, but he just looks bog ordinary currently, and I think he is definitely a liability, negatives are outweighing positives, and there are others who could do better. So in conclusion, the Nic Nat / Selwood comparison does not hold. First, although not at his best NN was a net benefit to the team, and second, there was no-one better to replace him.

 

[The Dodger]

Would we have been better off with Lycett or Cox as the main ruckman last year? Cox was finished and hardly merited a game, and frankly I haven't seen Lycett win too many ruck contests full stop, let alone to the advantage that Nic Nat does. It was very noticeable in games last year and still is this year that when Nic is in the middle we are on top and the advantage disappears when he is gone. He was not a liability last year (do you think we would have done better with Lycett, Cox or Sinclair as No.1 ruckman) ?

Simpson's quotes are deliberately evasive, they do not prove anything. NN can get better, and better is absolutely dominating the competition. The expectations are unrealistically high on him, and as an astute observer such as Wayne Carey said, 'we need to focus on what he does do, not on what he doesn't'. Sandilands has taken years to become a half competent mark. I am not against Selwood, but he just looks bog ordinary currently, and I think he is definitely a liability, negatives are outweighing positives, and there are others who could do better. So in conclusion, the Nic Nat / Selwood comparison does not hold. First, although not at his best NN was a net benefit to the team, and second, there was no-one better to replace him.

How are his quotes evasive? He says he is not operating at his best yet and was obviously being asked about it because of lack of match impact. I don't know why you are so ropable about this? I am almost certain if you find an interview from NN early last year he will say the same thing. Just getting a bit better each game etc. He was coming back from OP...is it really hard to understand?

Again...the ruck shuffle just exacerbated the situation. But if you must ask IMO Lycett was our best performed ruck for most of last year (he hasn't been this year - before you go construing these comments as me saying "oh why isn't he in the team now". There was many a argument from quite a few on this board that NN needed more time to get better. And in the same instance you say NN was important...well Selwood isn't... therefore he could quietly work himself back into form not being the no.1 anything.

So in conclusion...it holds in the fact that we have a player below their best still being given time to get to their best in the top league. That is what I was arguing...not about whether Selwood offers as much as our no.1 ruck man.

 

[Goosecat]

I know I've brought it up before but I think it's worth mentioning again. If Scooter wasn't in contract negotiations as we speak, for a number of years worth more then a million dollars out of the clubs pockets, he may not be given the same time and opportunity to prove his worth.
The club has to decide what this 100 game 25 year old B&F winning mid is worth. Or whether he is asking more then they are willing to pay and to look at other opportunities. It's a decision made more difficult then normal because they have little recent game exposure to go on, other then what they get to see right now.
I believe if he still had another year left and we weren't needing to make a decision this year, right now, you might see a different program.
I am more then happy with the way Simmo and the club have been handling things since he came on board.
I see no reason not to back them in here with the way they feel they need to handle it.
Let's not forget also that Simmo has done pretty well in getting the best out of the likes of Wellingham, Masten, Gaff etc. He just may be able to repeat that.

 

[Jack_the_Ninja]

I think a simple real estate search under his name would tell all, if has already bought a house in Melbourne then don't play him again. For one he could only downgrade our trade deal with performances like that and two send a message to players who think they are going to jump ship all the time.

 

[Goosecat]

I think a simple real estate search under his name would tell all, if has already bought a house in Melbourne then don't play him again. For one he could only downgrade our trade deal with performances like that and two send a message to players who think they are going to jump ship all the time.

I don't think he's planning on leaving at all. He's a principled bloke who's backed himself in to show what he's worth, whilst giving the club a chance to make an evidence based decision. He'll stand or fall on his own performance. That's admirable

 

[swingdog]

I don't think he's planning on leaving at all. He's a principled bloke who's backed himself in to show what he's worth, whilst giving the club a chance to make an evidence based decision. He'll stand or fall on his own performance. That's admirable

I'm wondering whether he might be thinking whether he's good enough to be in this side anymore. That could either make him work harder to adapt to the new game plan or think he might be better off at a club further down the ladder. Should be lots of openings at Gold Coast soon.

 

[Johnno22]

I think a simple real estate search under his name would tell all, if has already bought a house in Melbourne then don't play him again. For one he could only downgrade our trade deal with performances like that and two send a message to players who think they are going to jump ship all the time.

The search revealed he has just purchased a house in the South of France.

Armed with this information we can now make a rational decision.

 

[Max zero]

I'm wondering whether he might be thinking whether he's good enough to be in this side anymore. That could either make him work harder to adapt to the new game plan or think he might be better off at a club further down the ladder. Should be lots of openings at Gold Coast soon.

I actually think you may have a point. He hasn't been in the term consistently for a long time especially not under Simpson. Before his injuries he was a BF winner and a key part of our team. Now he is the 5th wheel.

The team has changed (for the better) and he is probably wondering where he fits into it.

 

[Eaglemaniac]

The Nic Nat comparisons don't work for me, because NN was only needing fitness, and could still influence a game in our favour with his deft tapping. Selwood issue is fitness and more importantly his lack of ability to hit a target and make the right decision without panicking. That is something that is better served initially at a lower level to build confidence, and then when he is dominating that level he should then be brought back up to see how he goes at AFL level. It is bad player management to do otherwise.

 

[boondy]

I think a simple real estate search under his name would tell all, if has already bought a house in Melbourne then don't play him again. For one he could only downgrade our trade deal with performances like that and two send a message to players who think they are going to jump ship all the time.

A search found he has bought a sleep at work sticker business

 

[The Dodger]

The Nic Nat comparisons don't work for me, because NN was only needing fitness, and could still influence a game in our favour with his deft tapping. Selwood issue is fitness and more importantly his lack of ability to hit a target and make the right decision without panicking. That is something that is better served initially at a lower level to build confidence, and then when he is dominating that level he should then be brought back up to see how he goes at AFL level. It is bad player management to do otherwise.

Alright Eaglemaniac you made me do this ...this is what you posted after the round 3 win over the Saints last year:

This pumping up Naitanui are way off the mark. He looks slow, out of form and is having very little influence on the contest.

this after Round 4 loss to Cats you were talking about Sinclair being dropped discussion:

He's been winning taps, harrassing the ball carrier, hitting up targets on the run, providing a good forward target, taking some great contested grabs and kicked a few goals, while Naitanui has done sweet FA. We all know Naitanui can be a million times better but right now he is way off, so if any of our talls are to be dropped for another runner, it should be Nic Nat

One of my main issues with last years MC & coaching panel was playing players on reputation and not form, so i dont want to see that happen with this coaching panel as well. Naitanui could use some time in the WAFL to get some fitness and form, and we're likely to lose this game anyway. It makes no sense to keep playing guys in the hope they come good.

 

[Eaglemaniac]

Alright Eaglemaniac you made me do this ...this is what you posted after the round 3 win over the Saints last year:



this after Round 4 loss to Cats you were talking about Sinclair being dropped discussion:

Well there you go, at least I'm consistent about not playing guys that aren't in form haha

 

[Bacchus]

How are his quotes evasive? He says he is not operating at his best yet and was obviously being asked about it because of lack of match impact. I don't know why you are so ropable about this? I am almost certain if you find an interview from NN early last year he will say the same thing. Just getting a bit better each game etc. He was coming back from OP...is it really hard to understand?

Again...the ruck shuffle just exacerbated the situation. But if you must ask IMO Lycett was our best performed ruck for most of last year (he hasn't been this year - before you go construing these comments as me saying "oh why isn't he in the team now". There was many a argument from quite a few on this board that NN needed more time to get better. And in the same instance you say NN was important...well Selwood isn't... therefore he could quietly work himself back into form not being the no.1 anything.

So in conclusion...it holds in the fact that we have a player below their best still being given time to get to their best in the top league. That is what I was arguing...not about whether Selwood offers as much as our no.1 ruck man.

To put it simply, Naitanui has skill and Selwood doesn't. I can't remember how good Selwood was at his best but he's certainly not best 22 now. He was poor against NM, average against Essendon and embarrassing against Richmond. Kicks straight up in the air, hacked kicks over the shoulder, slow passes that let the opposition in, multiple goal misses from 15 m out, the list could go on. I don't know how long he can continue to be carried.
As for Lycett being a better no.1 ruck last year than Naitanui, I'm scratching my head about this one too. Lycett showed some promise as a forward and an around the ground ruck but as a tap ruckman and clearance player I'm sure Naitanui had him covered.

 

[The Dodger]

To put it simply, Naitanui has skill and Selwood doesn't. I can't remember how good Selwood was at his best but he's certainly not best 22 now. He was poor against NM, average against Essendon and embarrassing against Richmond. Kicks straight up in the air, hacked kicks over the shoulder, slow passes that let the opposition in, multiple goal misses from 15 m out, the list could go on. I don't know how long he can continue to be carried.
As for Lycett being a better no.1 ruck last year than Naitanui, I'm scratching my head about this one too. Lycett showed some promise as a forward and an around the ground ruck but as a tap ruckman and clearance player I'm sure Naitanui had him covered.

Selwood was pretty good in 2011 & 12. Perhaps he won't make it in this team but I feel we are getting way off the original point and that is that Simpson in charge of this team does not mind carrying players and getting them back to form giving them time in the team and not via WAFL. That was my point. Not who has more impact etc.

Lycett was really good last year. He isn't a great tap ruck man but he had a good presence around the ground. He is more a Maric than a NN. I think you are re-writing history for Naitanui last year. He was coming back form OP, no pre-season etc. You don't magically comeback from OP, it takes time and patience. And as I said in the previous post if you asked NN last year (and I have absolutely no doubt that there would be an interview out there during this period) that he would say he has to get back fitness & form etc.

I can find some posts no doubt (I think some were mine) saying that if any of the 3 (NN, Lycett & NN) had to be dropped at the start of the year that it was NN who should have been. I don't think its as clear as you remember it.

Just a couple of articles available at that time that showed the thinking:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...nic-groin-injury/story-fni5faul-1226898613920

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...d-by-injury-says-worsfold-20140427-zr0d1.html

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/we-wont-drop-nic-naitanui-eagles-20140415-zqv46.html

 

[paran]

Selwood was pretty good in 2011 & 12. Perhaps he won't make it in this team but I feel we are getting way off the original point and that is that Simpson in charge of this team does not mind carrying players and getting them back to form giving them time in the team and not via WAFL. That was my point. Not who has more impact etc.

Lycett was really good last year. He isn't a great tap ruck man but he had a good presence around the ground. He is more a Maric than a NN. I think you are re-writing history for Naitanui last year. He was coming back form OP, no pre-season etc. You don't magically comeback from OP, it takes time and patience. And as I said in the previous post if you asked NN last year (and I have absolutely no doubt that there would be an interview out there during this period) that he would say he has to get back fitness & form etc.

I can find some posts no doubt (I think some were mine) saying that if any of the 3 (NN, Lycett & NN) had to be dropped at the start of the year that it was NN who should have been. I don't think its as clear as you remember it.

Just a couple of articles available at that time that showed the thinking:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...nic-groin-injury/story-fni5faul-1226898613920

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...d-by-injury-says-worsfold-20140427-zr0d1.html

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/we-wont-drop-nic-naitanui-eagles-20140415-zqv46.html

It's different circumstances when you're in development mode or in finals more though, right? And also if a player is in his development phase or if he's already matured. We're gunning for a top 4 spot, last year was about devlopment. Scooter is a fully mature players, Nicnat is/was still developing.

 

[Jiggyman]

At the moment there are a few players who deserve the spot more than him but his performance in the past mean that he should be given a reasonable chance to merge in with the "new" team. I have no problem with that and should he make the required improvement, with his experience and toughness, he would be invaluable for finals should we make them. I trust the coaches call in this instance and agree with them. It's not all about the now but also in the planning. If he continues to show lack of skills or composure then by all means, drop him for someone else..but he deserves a reasonable chance given his background.

Stop it. You're making too much sense.

 

[Spuddage]

A search found he has bought a sleep at work sticker business

Haha! You look like an alien!

Scotty selwood reminds me of his older brothers. All of them possess brilliant footy skills.

 

[The Dodger]

It's different circumstances when you're in development mode or in finals more though, right? And also if a player is in his development phase or if he's already matured. We're gunning for a top 4 spot, last year was about devlopment. Scooter is a fully mature players, Nicnat is/was still developing.

That's a good point. I still was just using it as an example of this coaches group carrying a player in the past. Not saying I agree with either scenario just that they have done it.

 

[paran]

That's a good point. I still was just using it as an example of this coaches group carrying a player in the past. Not saying I agree with either scenario just that they have done it.

I hear ya, but at a certain point he's got to be treated the same as the rest of the squad, doesn't he?! Let's face it, with a NicNat, JK, EMac, Darling, Hurn you can argue that their skills are extremely unique in the squad or that structurally they are critical to the game plan. You can't do that with Scooter. This whole season has been proof he hasn't been missed, now we drop Rosa instead of Scooter... I think Scooter needs to show some leadership here and step down, because the MC clearly has NFI.

BTW, does anyone know who comprises the match committee?

 

[The Dodger]

I hear ya, but at a certain point he's got to be treated the same as the rest of the squad, doesn't he?! Let's face it, with a NicNat, JK, EMac, Darling, Hurn you can argue that their skills are extremely unique in the squad or that structurally they are critical to the game plan. You can't do that with Scooter. This whole season has been proof he hasn't been missed, now we drop Rosa instead of Scooter... I think Scooter needs to show some leadership here and step down, because the MC clearly has NFI.

BTW, does anyone know who comprises the match committee?

I think what you say above... we can. We can argue their skills are unique, but I think the match committee argue about things like leadership, seniority and that counts towards a player being given more time than others. As some have mentioned above I don't think the situation is as open and closed as the club would like with things like his free agency status and contract negotiations possibly playing a part in decisions being made.

I think Simpson is on the MC along with Gepp and not sure who else.

 

[alexmcd]

Good decision to make him sub IMO. He has been put on notice. Hopefully he can pick up his game and buy into Simmo's gameplan.

 

[Piss Poor]

Well at least Simmo can see what we are, signs of a good coach, he isn't taking passengers.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I think a simple real estate search under his name would tell all, if has already bought a house in Melbourne then don't play him again. For one he could only downgrade our trade deal with performances like that and two send a message to players who think they are going to jump ship all the time.

There are three properties listed under his name - all are in WA.