List Mgmt. Nick Daicos

[Kappa]

How many 18-20 year olds win their club's B+F? How many won then in the 60's and 70's?
Let alone at a Historic Club like ours was during JG's short career? The old guard at CFC would have kept him in his place and rewarded the "established stars" (Thompson, Tuddenham, The Richardsons, Price, McKenna....) remember he was a kid when he was knobbled.
How many had Bucks won by the age of 20? How many would Greening have won if he'd played the next 250 games? Sorry to burst your bubble Kapps but you're trying to have 20:20 hindsight (using stats) against people who actually saw the KID play. Your stats and analysis of them don't stack up against the physical evidence of those who were there.

You're saying he was one of the greatest players of all time, and better than the best modern players, yet he never won a BnF despite playing 4-5 seasons? How does that make sense? And you can't say "he would of won a brownlow", he didn't win one, and who knows what would of happened.

 

[Kappa]

Look you're probably right due to the increased coaching and also being full time footballers, the modern guys are probably significantly better than Greening was and Shaun Marsh is probably a better batsman than Bradman was.

But Bradman is the greatest ever batsman, because he was more dominant against his generation than anyone ever has been and probably ever will be. Sport is about competition with your peers, not blokes from 40 years ago or 40 years in the future.

My point was about those posters who say players from the 70s are BETTER than modern players. I completely understand what you're saying, that's not my argument.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Look you're probably right due to the increased coaching and also being full time footballers, the modern guys are probably significantly better than Greening was and Shaun Marsh is probably a better batsman than Bradman was.

But Bradman is the greatest ever batsman, because he was more dominant against his generation than anyone ever has been and probably ever will be. Sport is about competition with your peers, not blokes from 40 years ago or 40 years in the future.

I have a feeling a resurrected Bradman all 92 years of age, would still be a far better batsman than Shaun Marsh (or any Marsh for that matter).

 

[Saintly Viewed]

You're saying he was one of the greatest players of all time, and better than the best modern players, yet he never won a BnF despite playing 4-5 seasons? How does that make sense? And you can't say "he would of won a brownlow", he didn't win one, and who knows what would of happened.

The great best and fairest paradox.

Gary Ablett Snr only ever won one such trophy.
Robert Flower only won one too (and he was in weak teams usually)
Michael Tuck won none.
Wayne Schimmelbusch won none.
Cyril Rioli has never saluted.
John Coleman only won one B/F.

They can be an indication but they are not necessarily everything.

The Copeland traditionally gives great weight to playing more games. So missing chunks of games precludes winning the trophy.

Greening essentially only played 3 seasons where you can say he played enough games in a season to be competitive in such awards, 1969, 1970, 1971.
Our winners were Price, McKenna, Richardson W, and all three had exceptional seasons and all were stars.

Then again Wes Fellowes won one. So it is a fascinating discussion.

Editriginally I stated Peter Hudson did not win a best and fairest at hawthorn, this was a dreadful sloppy error on my part as he did twice 1968 and 1970.
Thanks to the eagle eye of 35Daicos this error has been edited and corrected.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

My point was about those posters who say players from the 70s are BETTER than modern players. I completely understand what you're saying, that's not my argument.

Have people really said that or is it your interpretation?

For me, It's about comparing players of that era & how much better they were in that era.

You often compare yesteryear to today & say they are better. You are correct but if those champions of the past had the same advantages of today then who knows? This where I think you fail, you think that are "we" not taking this into account. I do & I suspect many others do.

Nostalgia, the past, is not a dirty word.

 

[Kappa]

Have people really said that or is it your interpretation?

For me, It's about comparing players of that era & how much better they were in that era.

You often compare yesteryear to today & say they are better. You are correct but if those champions of the past had the same advantages of today then who knows? This where I think you fail, you think that are "we" not taking this into account. I do & I suspect many others do.

Nostalgia, the past, is not a dirty word.

No, the poster I was originally replying to said "The best players I have ever seen are..." and listed a few players from the 70s, clearly stating that those players are better than modern players. That's the part I think is nostalgia gone wild.

 

[DERKADERRR]

Very little footage remains of poor John as his career was before the saturation coverage we have today.

Here is one I found - watch out for 22 - especially his marking (at times seemingly hanging in the air) and his speed away from the contest for a big man, also his endurance was good - those run and give / receive gallops of his were barnstorming.

From the vision you can see glimpses of what people are mentioning, high leaping marks, speed, goal sense and good awareness in traffic, I'm sure he was a talent.

 

[Dundalis]

Is this thread about Nick Daicos, or John Greening? Even going back a page or two, not a mention of the actual subject of the thread title.

 

[left at home]

Is this thread about Nick Daicos, or John Greening? Even going back a page or two, not a mention of the actual subject of the thread title.

No news about nick, so it like many threads when that happens, goes of topic.

 

[Kappa]

Is this thread about Nick Daicos, or John Greening? Even going back a page or two, not a mention of the actual subject of the thread title.

Check back in 2 years for news about Nick

 

[rand corp]

By all reports Nick is training the house down and looks set for a big year

 

[Toecrusher]

I'm pretty sure the same type of tree would need to be planted in both paddocks to keep this a fair exercise!!

Anything new on young Daicos, BTW?!

Stop changing the subject. Why would you bring up young Daicos in a thread about Daicos, when the discussion is about Greening & trees?
Maybe we need a thread for all things off subject.

 

[left at home]

Stop changing the subject. Why would you bring up young Daicos in a thread about Daicos, when the discussion is about Greening & trees?
Maybe we need a thread for all things off subject.

We already do, the freeman thread

 

[rand corp]

Anybody else hearing that Nick Daicos has retired to pursue a career as an arborist.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Anybody else hearing that Nick Daicos has retired to pursue a career as an arborist.

I heard he was going to the NFL to become a punter

 

[Dynamics]

A little friend called evolution. Over time we get better at desirable things, not worse. A bigger player pool and more competite games (due to professionalism) results in better players. Every era the players have gotten better and better in all areas of the game. The only stat which hasnt gone up a huge amount is goal kicking accuracy, which can be explained by players taking more difficult shots due to defensive tactics.

Sorry to go back in time to this post but evolution often has nothing to do with getting better at things.

Just felt like I needed to point that out.

Carry on!

 

[Carringbush2010]

The greening incident was a disgrace.

I’d be wary of thinking it only happened to us.

Duncan Wright not exactly Santa Claus.

Thankfully the king hit has disappeared from our game. And I think the eagle this year should have got a year minimum intent or not.

Whilst I agree that the King Hit is gone is a good thing, I think ruling on outcome rather than intent is a slippery slope.

Don't get me wrong I respect your sentiment to protect the player, but unfortunately (and I don't need to tell you either) AF by it's very nature is combative and is not for everyone because of that fact.

If the governing body(s) of the game rule purely on outcome rather than intent (they already are and I don't need to tell you) then the game is in danger of becoming sterilized and some would argue it already has become.

King hit = no, that's not football

Unfortunate injuries or worse from unintentional collisions = are part of and should stay part of the game.

IMV that eagles intent was to hit and should've got a year anyway, hitting is not football. Certainly seemed it was ruled by intent thankfully even if the sentence was way too lenient.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Ever seen Genius at work mate? Watch Federer play tennis...compared to today's best. Watch Kelly Slater surf or Serena Williams still dominating at an age where she should have been well surpassed.
I actually work quite closely with GFC (yeah I know...traitorous aint it? They all give it to me mercilessly if they beat us!) and I've seen lots of the best TAC and AFL talent up close and personal for many years now, so I tend to think I know a little bit about talent when I see it.
You're undoubtedly right that a majority of players have improved over the journey, the middle to lower tier players definitely are better than before, BUT
the absolute cream, the ones that you can tell are a cut above the rest, they haven't changed that much over time. Jono Brown would always have been the dominant forward he became for the Lions. Patrick obviously is a gun (always has been / don't get a big head!) and Charlie Curnow will be unbelievable if he gets a good team around him.
Seeing all of these champs as young men (and Patrick for a lot longer obviously) they're sort've the same age as Johnny Greening was when he was DOMINATING the league. I can confidently state that in my judgement JG was at least two tiers above any junior player I've ever seen. Some say Marcus Whelan, Des Fothergill and Ron Todd we're prodigies as well but Johnny Greening was certainly one.

So you can claim bias if you want mate but sometimes you just might have to admit that someone else may have a valid view.

My uncle says that Daniel (Minogue) was the Ron Barassi of his time. I'd go a step further and wouldn't put either Dan Minogue or Ron Barassi in the same conversation as JG (even though I just did lol) - from the clips I've seen of JG it's like he was transported from now to back then. Like Pendles slows time down when he has the ball times it by 5 IMO. It's like he's the 16 yo playing keepings off the 5 yo's in the back yard.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Fair points re Cyril.
Cyril is a great player, elite. No argument.

But if picking between the two Daicos makes the grade for me ahead of Cyril.
Peter was in games for longer, Peter could destroy opponents from the middle of the ground.

And the numbers are compelling.
For all Cyril’s brilliance he never kicked 50 goals in a season and if I’m not mistaken only twice over 40 goals.
Might have even been stretched to have 30 goal seasons, maybe once or twice more.

He did the brilliant things true, but all that notwithstanding, his career goal kicking average is about 1.46 or so, under a goal and half. Possessions about 15 on average a game.

Peter Daicos kicks 2.2 goals a games, averages 18 possessions a game (in a less possession game era) and compellingly kicked over 50 goals a season 5 times including 97 in our flag of 1990.

Sorry Cyril does not match. Daicos is better for me.

Agreed different players to an extent.

Cyril needs one possession to have x factor impact on a game, in crucial game winning moments

The almighty Sir Peter (and I can't believe I'm saying this about a bloke that is all x factor) had less moments that were as visually spectacular as a Cyril, don't get wrong I agree with everything in your post and the almighty will go down in 900 years from now in the highlight reel alongside Cyril - but as much as the almighty had game winning moments Cyril had more of the visually spectacular.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Very little footage remains of poor John as his career was before the saturation coverage we have today.

Here is one I found - watch out for 22 - especially his marking (at times seemingly hanging in the air) and his speed away from the contest for a big man, also his endurance was good - those run and give / receive gallops of his were barnstorming.

Not to mention his presence of mind in the phone box, Pendles like (if not better!)

 

[sr36]

Agreed different players to an extent.

Cyril needs one possession to have x factor impact on a game, in crucial game winning moments

The almighty Sir Peter (and I can't believe I'm saying this about a bloke that is all x factor) had less moments that were as visually spectacular as a Cyril, don't get wrong I agree with everything in your post and the almighty will go down in 900 years from now in the highlight reel alongside Cyril - but as much as the almighty had game winning moments Cyril had more of the visually spectacular.

Offensively, Daicos was vastly superior to Cyril, but what made Cyril great was that he was offensively top shelf but also defensively elite. Overall, I'd pick Daicos for his era's style of footy, but for modern footy, I'd pick Cyril.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Anyhoo,

Apologies got drowned in the Greening could have been euphoria.

Back to Nick, with those genes he could be anything. Josh? I feel he'll come good at some stage - we've seen some examples of composure from the elder brother. The ball's in his court (as it is for Nick). They're both very young and there certainly is potential, I'm confident given our current development panel.

 

[loki04]

So he turns 16 this year? Will start to get a better idea of where he sits over next 2 seasons before his draft year.

 

[sr36]

Anyhoo,

Apologies got drowned in the Greening could have been euphoria.

Back to Nick, with those genes he could be anything. Josh? I feel he'll come good at some stage - we've seen some examples of composure from the elder brother. The ball's in his court (as it is for Nick). They're both very young and there certainly is potential, I'm confident given our current development panel.

Umm?
Back to Nick, here's what I think about Josh...

 

[Kappa]

Anyway, back to the ACTUAL topic of the thread.

I reckon Josh Daicos is in for a big year. Discuss.