Soft players

[doodles98]

Agree. I never use the terms 'soft' or 'spud', they are insulting to the player & our game.

it's all in perspective.. we are talking the soft of the elite and the spuds of the elite here..... Jordan Russell in his time at Collingwood was nothing but a spud.. not sure how to describe it better without wasting everyone's time. Fraser was soft.. especially for a Ruckman.. The problem with jack watts is he is soft imo... so it is not just a derogatory term.. they reflect a problem with some players who lack intensity/mongrel.. whatever you want to call it.

 

[Deathray]

Not sure why Daics was originally dragged into this well intentioned topic. I certainly never viewed him as soft nor an 'outside' player. The vast majority of his goals in season 90 were earnt by beating his man 1 on 1.
I can understand mentioning Lonie given the Lions thing. I don't agree with labeling any player soft but am happy to label them shite if justified.

 

[TheFreshBanana]

Not sure why Daics was originally dragged into this well intentioned topic. I certainly never viewed him as soft nor an 'outside' player. The vast majority of his goals in season 90 were earnt by beating his man 1 on 1.
I can understand mentioning Lonie given the Lions thing. I don't agree with labeling any player soft but am happy to label them shite if justified.

Why? They would still be better footballers than you (assuming).

 

[jmac70]

Why? They would still be better footballers than you (assuming).

Surely the 'shite' label would be made in comparison to other AFL footballers, not the general public? For the record I think it is a supporters right to clasify players according to vegetable type. This is far more acceptable that the descriptors leveled at Trav Cloke last year.

 

[TheFreshBanana]

Surely the 'shite' label would be made in comparison to other AFL footballers, not the general public?

So would the label be of calling a player 'soft'.

 

[jmac70]

So would the label be of calling a player 'soft'.

I agree, although it is a label that I often use to describe opposition players, such as Josh Hunt.

 

[doodles98]

Not sure why Daics was originally dragged into this well intentioned topic. I certainly never viewed him as soft nor an 'outside' player. The vast majority of his goals in season 90 were earnt by beating his man 1 on 1.
I can understand mentioning Lonie given the Lions thing. I don't agree with labeling any player soft but am happy to label them shite if justified.

Yeah Daics was not soft.. he just wasn't a nasty mongrel either.. he always got a heap of attention and took a beating most games and kept going and doing the job....he never let it make him shy away and he'd beat his man 1 v1 most times... that's not soft!

 

[forwardflanker]

Having watched Brett Lee's brutal rebuttal of Piers Morgan's criticism of the courage of England's batsmen, I am moved to question our right as posters to question the hardness of our AFL players. Morgan showed that he was unwilling to stand and play the bowling he abused the English players of handling badly. (none of them stepped away). Would we be willing to keep our eyes on the ball as Jonathan Brown bore down on us with murder in his eye. Unless we have done it, perhaps we should keep quiet on this matter.
Players like Loney and Didak, heavily criticised on these pages, never backed off, but played to give the team the best use of their skills. This meant keeping their feet. Daicos, who played the same way, if somewhat better, escapes the criticism. I don't believe that there are any soft players taking the field for AFL clubs. Thoughts?

If they're getting paid 300k a year they should run straight at the ball.

Also whilst Daicos may have been a forward pocket I don't remember him shirking the issue when it was his turn. As much as I love Didak he did shirk it often (though to his credit he did have a decent crack in Grand Finals and other important matches)