Player Watch #22 Nick Blakey

[Kennedy Parker]

Nick Blakey
Nick Blakey

22

Nick Blakey

Age

24

Ht

196cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.9

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

2.9

3star

M

2.3

2star

T

2.4

4star

MG

189.1

3star

D

8.1

2star

K

6.3

3star

HB

1.9

1star

M

2.1

2star

T

2.6

4star

MG

189.1

3star

D

7.2

2star

K

5.2

2star

HB

2.0

2star

M

1.2

2star

T

1.2

3star

is a prodigious talent with a laser-sharp left boot, an outstanding overhead ability and searing pace. The QBE Sydney Swans Academy product booted 21 goals in 19 games in a brilliant debut season en route to winning the club’s 2019 Rising Star award, and while he added a lively element to the forward line last year, he’s likely to play on a wing or in the midfield in 2020. Nick is the son of former Fitzroy and North Melbourne champion John Blakey, who’s had a variety of roles on the Swans’ coaching panel since 2006.

Nick Blakey

22

Nick Blakey

Age

24

Ht

196cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.9

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

2.9

3star

M

2.3

2star

T

2.4

4star

MG

189.1

3star

D

8.1

2star

K

6.3

3star

HB

1.9

1star

M

2.1

2star

T

2.6

4star

MG

189.1

3star

D

7.2

2star

K

5.2

2star

HB

2.0

2star

M

1.2

2star

T

1.2

3star

DOB: 27 February 2000
DEBUT: 2019
DRAFT: #10, 2018 National Draft
RECRUITED FROM: University Of NSW-Eastern Suburbs (NSW)

Nick Blakey | AFL

Follow Nick Blakey's progress through AFL

www.sydneyswans.com.au

 

[sataris]

No doubt there are some who are harsher than others, not to mention some who make nonsensical points. But I think the 'whipping boy' label doesn't do anyone any favours, because it ends up painting everyone who is critical of Blakey, even in a rational way, with the same brush.

But I do get your frustration. He is 20 years old and from the same draft as Rowbottom, McInerney, Wicks and McLean. The former is almost above reproach completely, and the latter three we've shown a willingness to be patient with. But Blakey is the first round pick and top 10 selection of the lot, so I think it speaks less to the idea of him being unreasonably hated and more to the unfair standards we hold first round selections to. Like he's not allowed to have the same struggles and stumbling blocks that others his age have. You can see it in the conversations around Stephens, Ling and Florent too, all the way back to Heeney.

The best one is when a player has been playing poorly for a number of weeks, has 1 half-decent game, they come around demanding apologies.

 

[Kirkswan]

Mitchell, Lloyd, Dawson, Warner all had to really prove themselves in reserves before Horse gave them a go in the senior squad. I never understand how Horse makes his selection calls. Blakey has all the talent, but could do with a few weeks in reserves

Except there are no reserves... still!!!

 

[Kirkswan]

IMO we can't say how good our depth currently is and still say that Blakey deserves to stay in the 22.

That's just a complete oxymoron.

See, the problem is, you don't know why people aren't playing...

This board talks like Blakey is keeping Stephens out of the game, but perhaps Stephens is being held back while he builds muscle and tank, or to develop an area that the coaches feel needs work... Perhaps they are hold him back like they did with Warner, and he'll burst onto the scene fully fledged...

In exactly the same way, you don't why they are playing Blakey... but I'd lay any money at all they are working with a plan in hand.

This is the Swans... you're either picked or you're not, and if you're picked, then it's because they believe that you can and will play your role for the team. It's all about what is best for team, both development and win wise.

 

[Kiama Chris]

See, the problem is, you don't know why people aren't playing...

This board talks like Blakey is keeping Stephens out of the game, but perhaps Stephens is being held back while he builds muscle and tank, or to develop an area that the coaches feel needs work... Perhaps they are hold him back like they did with Warner, and he'll burst onto the scene fully fledged...

In exactly the same way, you don't why they are playing Blakey... but I'd lay any money at all they are working with a plan in hand.

This is the Swans... you're either picked or you're not, and if you're picked, then it's because they believe that you can and will play your role for the team. It's all about what is best for team, both development and win wise.

In Mick Malthouse's teams you knew there were favourites and black marked. For sure there are people likes. But he dropped Hayward. Even If we disagree, there will be a reason.

 

[caesar88]

See, the problem is, you don't know why people aren't playing...

This board talks like Blakey is keeping Stephens out of the game, but perhaps Stephens is being held back while he builds muscle and tank, or to develop an area that the coaches feel needs work... Perhaps they are hold him back like they did with Warner, and he'll burst onto the scene fully fledged...

In exactly the same way, you don't why they are playing Blakey... but I'd lay any money at all they are working with a plan in hand.

This is the Swans... you're either picked or you're not, and if you're picked, then it's because they believe that you can and will play your role for the team. It's all about what is best for team, both development and win wise.

So if that's the case, then maybe our depth isn't that good then.

It's nice in theory to say that we have a plan and we know what we're doing with Blakey, the same was said last year. People were saying Blakey should be dropped in rounds 3, 4, 5... and those same people were told he didn't need to be dropped, the club was handling him fine. But by round 10 it hadn't got any better and he was dropped anyway, having already spent more than half the season struggling for form.

Sometimes average form is just average form and that's OK.

 

[Kirkswan]

So if that's the case, then maybe our depth isn't that good then.

It's nice in theory to say that we have a plan and we know what we're doing with Blakey, the same was said last year. People were saying Blakey should be dropped in rounds 3, 4, 5... and those same people were told he didn't need to be dropped, the club was handling him fine. But by round 10 it hadn't got any better and he was dropped anyway, having already spent more than half the season struggling for form.

Sometimes average form is just average form and that's OK.

Your are comparing apples to oranges!!! Last year is in no way comparable to this year...

Last year half the senior team (slight exaggeration) was injured, Blakey and others were forced to take on roles they weren't ready for, and to play out of position, as there was simply no-one else to do it. Given the changes to game plans, venues, accommodation, states etc., just too many variables for any level of comparison imo.

These guys would all be playing around fulfilling their roles, with clear key performance indicators that need to be achieved every week. You'll know when he's not meeting them, as he'll be dropped. While he continues to take the field, I would be accepting that he is meeting those KPIs at a higher level than anyone not currently in the team.

Average form or not, he must be still performing the role to be in the team...

 

[caesar88]

Your are comparing apples to oranges!!! Last year is in no way comparable to this year...

Last year half the senior team (slight exaggeration) was injured, Blakey and others were forced to take on roles they weren't ready for, and to play out of position, as there was simply no-one else to do it. Given the changes to game plans, venues, accommodation, states etc., just too many variables for any level of comparison imo.

These guys would all be playing around fulfilling their roles, with clear key performance indicators that need to be achieved every week. You'll know when he's not meeting them, as he'll be dropped. While he continues to take the field, I would be accepting that he is meeting those KPIs at a higher level than anyone not currently in the team.

Average form or not, he must be still performing the role to be in the team...

But he was dropped last year anyway?

And if this year he is getting to play his preferred role, and not a role he's not ready for, shouldn't he be doing well?

Sorry KS I'm not quite understanding your argument. I have a lot of faith in Horse & co to make the right call most of the time. Maybe not as much faith as you do!

 

[Kirkswan]

But he was dropped last year anyway?

And if this year he is getting to play his preferred role, and not a role he's not ready for, shouldn't he be doing well?

Sorry KS I'm not quite understanding your argument. I have a lot of faith in Horse & co to make the right call most of the time. Maybe not as much faith as you do!

Okay, what I'm saying is, if someone in the reserves was performing at a higher rate, and it was judged that Blakey's performance was impacting the team to a significant level, then that player would replace him and Blakey would play in the reserves. However, Horse would not just go 'in my opinion', the selection committee would sit down and rate his performance against his KPIs, and then they'd look at what was next in his development plan, the impact to the rest of the team, who could come in and perform the role better... (Not that I'm saying that these are the criteria used, I have no idea what is). And selection would be made from there.

Saying Blakey should be dropped because he's out of form, when you have no idea what his role is... well I don't know what it is, but it's not how I think...

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Saying Blakey should be dropped because he's out of form, when you have no idea what his role is... well I don't know what it is, but it's not how I think...

I do not think his role was to be bested by opponents and then waste some prime opportunity disposals.

 

[caesar88]

Okay, what I'm saying is, if someone in the reserves was performing at a higher rate, and it was judged that Blakey's performance was impacting the team to a significant level, then that player would replace him and Blakey would play in the reserves. However, Horse would not just go 'in my opinion', the selection committee would sit down and rate his performance against his KPIs, and then they'd look at what was next in his development plan, the impact to the rest of the team, who could come in and perform the role better... (Not that I'm saying that these are the criteria used, I have no idea what is). And selection would be made from there.

Saying Blakey should be dropped because he's out of form, when you have no idea what his role is... well I don't know what it is, but it's not how I think...

You're right I don't know what his role is, but he's not doing much right out there, and I can't imagine his KPIs were missed tackles, missed targets by foot, fumbled ground balls, and carrying on like a pork chop off the ball.

I'm sure he has KPIs but they have to be reflected in his performance. I'm not seeing much from Blakey by way of contribution to the team to justify his selection. I can only go on what I see.

As for your point about him not having a potential replacement who can be better than Blakey, that may be true. Maybe Stephens isn't ready, maybe Clarke hasn't been knocking the door down. But if that's the case, and there's no one waiting in the wings who can offer more than the bare minimum Blakey is currently offering, then our depth isn't as good as we think. That was my original point.

 

[Kirkswan]

I do not think his role was to be bested by opponents and then waste some prime opportunity disposals.

Neither do I, what in my posts gave you that idea?

Although you also think Horse plays 'favourites'... which I find amusing

 

[Kirkswan]

You're right I don't know what his role is, but he's not doing much right out there, and I can't imagine his KPIs were missed tackles, missed targets by foot, fumbled ground balls, and carrying on like a pork chop off the ball.

I'm sure he has KPIs but they have to be reflected in his performance. I'm not seeing much from Blakey by way of contribution to the team to justify his selection. I can only go on what I see.

As for your point about him not having a potential replacement who can be better than Blakey, that may be true. Maybe Stephens isn't ready, maybe Clarke hasn't been knocking the door down. But if that's the case, and there's no one waiting in the wings who can offer more than the bare minimum Blakey is currently offering, then our depth isn't as good as we think. That was my original point.

Right then... I missed it in the first place... oops!

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Neither do I, what in my posts gave you that idea?

Although you also think Horse plays 'favourites'... which I find amusing

grohan for years!!!

 

[Kirkswan]

grohan for years!!!

Sorry but it's going to take more than 3 words to convince me...

 

[caesar88]

Sorry but it's going to take more than 3 words to convince me...

I thought you were a fan of romance

 

[Kirkswan]

I thought you were a fan of romance

 

[the hypnotoad]

You're right I don't know what his role is, but he's not doing much right out there, and I can't imagine his KPIs were missed tackles, missed targets by foot, fumbled ground balls, and carrying on like a pork chop off the ball.

I'm sure he has KPIs but they have to be reflected in his performance. I'm not seeing much from Blakey by way of contribution to the team to justify his selection. I can only go on what I see.

As for your point about him not having a potential replacement who can be better than Blakey, that may be true. Maybe Stephens isn't ready, maybe Clarke hasn't been knocking the door down. But if that's the case, and there's no one waiting in the wings who can offer more than the bare minimum Blakey is currently offering, then our depth isn't as good as we think. That was my original point.

what gets a little tiresome is that you and a couple of other posters give the impression blakey is either bludging or that everything he does turns to shite ...
in the first half against adelaide he gave off two forward-50 handballs, while being tackled, that the recipients kicked goals from, but it wasn't mentioned in the weekly scrutiny of him ... and he was generally good against both brisbane and richmond, without getting 25 touches (as i've mentioned in other posts) ...
i concede he's not been what i'd hoped, and definitely not what i think he can be, but he hasn't been bad ... i think it's more about expectations placed on him ...
but it seems after every game, you and punts, et al, want him dropped, he's the first player mentioned as an 'out'... as if he's killing the team with mistakes ...
but then you, punts and others seem to want changes after every game just for the sake of spending the week talking about it ... and yes, you're entitled to have your opinions and come on here and talk about anything you want, but to someone not of the same opinions as you, it just comes across as unnecessarily harsh and a bit short-sighted ...

 

[caesar88]

what gets a little tiresome is that you and a couple of other posters give the impression blakey is either bludging or that everything he does turns to sh*te ...
in the first half against adelaide he gave off two forward-50 handballs, while being tackled, that the recipients kicked goals from, but it wasn't mentioned in the weekly scrutiny of him ... and he was generally good against both brisbane and richmond, without getting 25 touches (as i've mentioned in other posts) ...
i concede he's not been what i'd hoped, and definitely not what i think he can be, but he hasn't been bad ... i think it's more about expectations placed on him ...
but it seems after every game, you and punts, et al, want him dropped, he's the first player mentioned as an 'out'... as if he's killing the team with mistakes ...
but then you, punts and others seem to want changes after every game just for the sake of spending the week talking about it ... and yes, you're entitled to have your opinions and come on here and talk about anything you want, but to someone not of the same opinions as you, it just comes across as unnecessarily harsh and a bit short-sighted ...

Because there's more to a player's performance than a few handballs, and there's also been the strong possibility of someone having to make way from the senior team every week so far, so naturally the talk turns to the bottom few performers.

 

[momentbymoment]

So if that's the case, then maybe our depth isn't that good then.

It's nice in theory to say that we have a plan and we know what we're doing with Blakey, the same was said last year. People were saying Blakey should be dropped in rounds 3, 4, 5... and those same people were told he didn't need to be dropped, the club was handling him fine. But by round 10 it hadn't got any better and he was dropped anyway, having already spent more than half the season struggling for form.

Sometimes average form is just average form and that's OK.

I find the talk about Blakey strange.
For the last 5 years the constant discussion was about how slow we are. Well, Blakey is not slow. He is fast and he is dynamic and he may become a very very good player, but that won’t happen if we mess around with him in and out of the team.

Happy to roTate Stephen’s in but let’s not keep throwing mud at Blakey.

 

[Superstar swan]

Blakey has been fine. Yea he doesn’t win a lot of footy and that’s something he needs to work on but look at the things he does. He always competes and provides run not many on the list can. The past few weeks he hasn’t kicked a goal but he’s been dangerous including a near goal of the year contender where he run the length of the field. He has things to work on but so does every sub 50 game player.

 

[BarneyBent]

I think the performances of Gulden, Warner and to a lesser extent Campbell have really distorted some fans' expectations of young players. Those three are exceptional. They are not the yardstick by which to compare Blakey.

Blakey is currently producing more than Stephens did last year, and as far as promising young players go is ahead of the curve. Yes, he's had some really frustrating moments and has a bunch of things to work on. But he's still a net positive and he shouldn't be dropped unless someone undeniably better is going to come in. Rowbottom may be that player, though Heeney's injury may save him. But his form is not a major concern to me.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

I think the performances of Gulden, Warner and to a lesser extent Campbell have really distorted some fans' expectations of young players. Those three are exceptional. They are not the yardstick by which to compare Blakey.

Blakey is currently producing more than Stephens did last year, and as far as promising young players go is ahead of the curve. Yes, he's had some really frustrating moments and has a bunch of things to work on. But he's still a net positive and he shouldn't be dropped unless someone undeniably better is going to come in. Rowbottom may be that player, though Heeney's injury may save him. But his form is not a major concern to me.

Stephens had 8 games!

 

[Kapers]

Blakey has been fine. Yea he doesn’t win a lot of footy and that’s something he needs to work on but look at the things he does. He always competes and provides run not many on the list can. The past few weeks he hasn’t kicked a goal but he’s been dangerous including a near goal of the year contender where he run the length of the field. He has things to work on but so does every sub 50 game player.

I think it comes down to what people think is best for Blakey.

Those calling for him to be dropped (me included) remember that his BEST game last year came after a reset in the reserves. I don't think there's anything wrong with him having 2-3 games in seniors then having a game in the reserves to consolidate what he's learned, or work on some other aspects of his game, similar to McInerney or Warner.

I just want what is best for Blakey's development, and I think we have past evidence that reserves don't hurt Blakey but help him.

 

[caesar88]

I find the talk about Blakey strange.
For the last 5 years the constant discussion was about how slow we are. Well, Blakey is not slow. He is fast and he is dynamic and he may become a very very good player, but that won’t happen if we mess around with him in and out of the team.

Happy to roTate Stephen’s in but let’s not keep throwing mud at Blakey.

Ok

 

[Jewelsbon]

I think it comes down to what people think is best for Blakey.

Those calling for him to be dropped (me included) remember that his BEST game last year came after a reset in the reserves. I don't think there's anything wrong with him having 2-3 games in seniors then having a game in the reserves to consolidate what he's learned, or work on some other aspects of his game, similar to McInerney or Warner.

I just want what is best for Blakey's development, and I think we have past evidence that reserves don't hurt Blakey but help him.

But this is the problem that people seem to be forgetting - there hasn't been any reserves games for him to consolidate what he's learnt, only the GWS practise games week in and week out! Perhaps if the coaching staff thinks there's things he needs to refine, they must think he can only do it by playing REAL matches with REAL match pressure.
Personally I think he's doing fine, if anything his problem is he's trying TOO hard!