Mega Thread The Former Player Thread: Part 2

[SM]

I'd suggest you read all of the words I wrote rather than just some.

I did. This seems to be another occasion where you're determined to go around in circles on a point you're way off base on.

"Unfair treatment" is in the eye of the beholder. It's very big of you to take on the perspective of Nankervis to determine he wasn't unfairly treated, and that we did absolutely everything correctly and he therefore just spontaneously wanted out for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

 

[Bloods86]

I did. This seems to be another occasion where you're determined to go around in circles on a point you're way off base on.

You clearly didn't or you wouldn't be asking me the question of whether he wanted out, which he clearly did or he wouldn't have left, or selectively bolding my post to argue against something I didn't say.

Let me know when you're willing to engage in good faith, otherwise we're done here.

Edit: I see you've added to your original post to actually respond to what I said. Maybe Nank thought he was unfairly treated, I can't say, but you'd have to show how he was because he's not here.

 

[SM]

You clearly didn't or you wouldn't be asking me the question of whether he wanted out, which he clearly did or he wouldn't have left, or selectively bolding my post to argue against something I didn't say.

Let me know when you're willing to engage in good faith, otherwise we're done here.

I think you've missed the point of me bolding those selective phrases. People tend to not leave organisations if they are enjoying their time there. Nankervis wanted out, as you said yourself. Us allowing him to get to a position of wanting out was a mistake. It's as simple as that.

Throwing around terms like 'engage in good faith' just because you're stubbornly digging in over a completely disingenuous point is a bit laughable by the way.

 

[Bloods86]

I think you've missed the point of me bolding those selective phrases. People tend to not leave organisations if they are enjoying their time there. Nankervis wanted out, as you said yourself. Us allowing him to get to a position of wanting out was a mistake. It's as simple as that.

Throwing around terms like 'engage in good faith' just because you're stubbornly digging in over a completely disingenuous point is a bit laughable by the way.

I think he left for greater opportunity.

You'd have to make the case that we unfairly treated him to make him want out, in order for it to be a mistake.

 

[bedford]

I think he left for greater opportunity.

You'd have to make the case that we unfairly treated him to make him want out, in order for it to be a mistake.

He WAS unfairly treated and it's cost us a flag

 

[Kiama Chris]

I think there’s a little bit of revisionist history happening with Mumford. He was a good ruck with us but he became a much better and consistent player at the Giants. At the time of making the decision to bring Franklin in, it was an understandable decision to let Mumford go to facilitate it because he was a good but oft injured and somewhat inconsistent player at that time. And frankly, them’s the breaks of getting Lance Franklin.

I’d say the more flagrantly bad decision re: rucks was allowing Nankervis to go in favour of Naismith. Even letting Darcy Cameron go was understandable at the time because nobody expected he’d go on to be what he has become, but there were clear signs Nankervis had what it took and was quite foreseeably a superior player to Naismith at the time of making the call.

I was watching a fair bit of NEAFL at the time and agree about Cameron and Nankervis. We have always favoured tap ruckmen.

 

[SM]

I think he left for greater opportunity.

You'd have to make the case that we unfairly treated him to make him want out, in order for it to be a mistake.

Right.. and us not giving him the greater opportunity was the mistake we made. Same thing happened with Titch and a number of other players around that period.

 

[Bloods86]

Right.. and us not giving him the greater opportunity was the mistake we made. Same thing happened with Titch and a number of other players around that period.

It would be a mistake if it was unfair, otherwise it's an argument over outcomes in hindsight, which I don't really respect.

Mitchell played 26 games in 2016, after 19 the year before, not sure what you mean.

 

[SM]

It would be a mistake if it was unfair, otherwise it's an argument over outcomes in hindsight, which I don't really respect.

Mitchell played 26 games in 2016, after 19 the year before, not sure what you mean.

I'm terribly sorry you don't respect my view which I started off by saying I had at the time and was not a result of hindsight but nothing I can do about that.

If you want to talk about not taking discussions in good faith, pretending Titch wasn't frustrated at a lack of opportunity in his first few years at the club isn't the way to go about it. We clearly, belatedly, threw him into the team but it was likely too little too late.

 

[The Blue Max]

Losing those three ruckmen set us back 5 years, or close to.

I realise you can’t keep everyone, but when Nankervis left I remember thinking - ‘this is gonna hurt’.

Tippet failing compounded the issue of course.

 

[Bloods86]

I'm terribly sorry you don't respect my view which I started off by saying I had at the time and was not a result of hindsight but nothing I can do about that.

If you want to talk about not taking discussions in good faith, pretending Titch wasn't frustrated at a lack of opportunity in his first few years at the club isn't the way to go about it. We clearly, belatedly, threw him into the team but it was likely too little too late.

Your earlier statement was about Buddy's deal pushing players out. Maybe you were making the claim that it was about money, but that's not opportunity which you then seemed to argue was the mistake. Unless you're suggesting Buddy was the lesser forward, which you wouldn't be.

Maybe you're referring to not wanting to "let him go" (which we couldn't stop if we wanted to). I didn't want to lose him either.

Mitchell had been frustrated yes, years before. Lol, pretending... I'm not sure that 2015 and 2016 is "too little too late".

 

[melbournehammer]

I love revisiting 2016. Its a decade ago and still provokes frustration. I could find my posts from around then as well. I wasnt particularly frustrated with losing tom Mithcell as i felt he was the most replaceable of the mids we had. unfortunately as with a lot of things about then hanners basically broke down after 2016 and keiran jack was starting to slow down. but i would have played parker, hanners, jack and jpk before mitchell every time.

I do remember being frustrated with losing nank. the way the hawks bullied us in 2014 without mummy to land on top of lewis suggested we needed a big lad not afraid to throw his weight around. nank was it and naismith wasnt. Once we got buddy it sort of pushed tippett to playing largely ruck and sometimes forward. nank was a better forward than naismith and he was the bully we needed. naismith the better tap ruck.

all ancient history now.

 

[bedford]

You two need to take this to the Ye Old Bear and Bandicoot! The place where all disputes are settled over a quiet pint....

Never been there , is it one of those craft beer pubs

 

[SwansLakeside]

Does this pic put people in mind of anyone, it does me.
CHF in the Swans team of the Century. The freakish Laurie Nash.

 

[.Shotties.]

Mitchell played 26 games in 2016, after 19 the year before, not sure what you mean.

And in 2016 he had a similar number of CBAs as AAs Jack, Parker, Kennedy and Hannebery.

Titch may have held a grudge over his earlier years, but there's objectively no way he lacked opportunity in his last two seasons.

 

[Kiama Chris]

Does this pic put people in mind of anyone, it does me.
CHF in the Swans team of the Century. The freakish Laurie Nash.
View attachment 2370170

Low centre of gravity, focus, hair!

 

[TheGoatBaron]

Does this pic put people in mind of anyone, it does me.
CHF in the Swans team of the Century. The freakish Laurie Nash.
View attachment 2370170

Looks liked bedford

 

[robbieando]

And in 2016 he had a similar number of CBAs as AAs Jack, Parker, Kennedy and Hannebery.

Titch may have held a grudge over his earlier years, but there's objectively no way he lacked opportunity in his last two seasons.

To expand further on this he missed his first season with us in 2012 entirely with injury so he didn’t miss any opportunities as he didn’t play at any level.

His first game for us at any level was Round 2 2013 (no pre season matches) and that was for half a game and had to gain match fitness to push for a senior debut which he did by Round 10 and then played 14 matches for the year including 2 finals. So that is hardly a lack of opportunities either.

2014 he started the year in the senior side played the first four games, got injured and couldn’t get back into a side that was winning when he returned which is not uncommon.

His form definitely deserved more than 2 late games in the season but he at least was given an opportunity to play for a spot in the team for finals.

This likely upset him, as it would any player but he didn’t ask for a trade immediately and then worked his way into the senior side where he then proceeded to play 45 games in 2015 and 2016 out of 49 that we played.

The club has said that the pending contract renewals for Mills and Heeney were higher than expected and that cut into the money offered to Tom.

This idea he had an overall lack of opportunities in terms of games played is just wrong. End of the day he wanted to be the number one inside midfielder at a club and with players like Kennedy and Parker he was never going to be close to first choice and Hawthorn could offer him that. Don’t think money came into it either.

Unfortunately he just got injured at the wrong time and was stuck behind some all time greats of the club in the position he wanted to play.

 

[SwansProudly]

Does this pic put people in mind of anyone, it does me.
CHF in the Swans team of the Century. The freakish Laurie Nash.
View attachment 2370170

Laurence Nash was inducted into the Sport Australia Hall of Fame in 2012 as an Athlete Member for his contributions to the sports of Australian football and cricket.
‘Laurie’ Nash remains one of an elite group of athletes who have played both Australian football (VFL/AFL) and cricket at the highest level.
...
He made his cricket debut for Australia in 1932 against South Africa, beginning his career with the impressive bowling figures of 4/18 in the first innings and 1/4 in the second.

Laurence Nash | Sport Australia Hall of Fame

Laurence Nash was inducted into the Sport Australia Hall of Fame in 2012 as an Athlete Member for his contributions to the sports of Australian football and cricket. 'Laurie' Nash remains one of an elite group of athletes who have played both Australian football (VFL/AFL) and cricket at the...

sahof.org.au

 

[McGowan3]

And in 2016 he had a similar number of CBAs as AAs Jack, Parker, Kennedy and Hannebery.

Titch may have held a grudge over his earlier years, but there's objectively no way he lacked opportunity in his last two seasons.

This not necessarily a criticism given the brutal business side of the game but both Barry and Tom Mitchell both were mercenary and ended up playing at 3 clubs.

 

[.Shotties.]

This not necessarily a criticism given the brutal business side of the game but both Barry and Tom Mitchell both were mercenary and ended up playing at 3 clubs.

As I've gotten older and realised the realities of sport and life, I don't really begrudge players leaving. (a snide comment here and there aside) They've got a short period of their life to make money, reach goals or whatever it is they want to do. Loyalty is often expected to be a one way street in professional sports.

 

[bedford]

Laurence Nash was inducted into the Sport Australia Hall of Fame in 2012 as an Athlete Member for his contributions to the sports of Australian football and cricket.
‘Laurie’ Nash remains one of an elite group of athletes who have played both Australian football (VFL/AFL) and cricket at the highest level.
...
He made his cricket debut for Australia in 1932 against South Africa, beginning his career with the impressive bowling figures of 4/18 in the first innings and 1/4 in the second.

Laurence Nash | Sport Australia Hall of Fame

Laurence Nash was inducted into the Sport Australia Hall of Fame in 2012 as an Athlete Member for his contributions to the sports of Australian football and cricket. 'Laurie' Nash remains one of an elite group of athletes who have played both Australian football (VFL/AFL) and cricket at the...

sahof.org.au

His book is a must read
The Don didn't like Catholics and had no time for them

 

[McGowan3]

His book is a must read
The Don didn't like Catholics and had no time for them

Sectarianism between Catholics and Protestants was a big issue for many years in Australia. As a young adult, I was around just as things were changing. My parents who were Irish Catholic predominantly mixed socially with their extended family and other Catholics. Think it was similar for Protestants. There weren't many 'mixed' marriages. Thankfully it is behind us now.

 

[Jewelsbon]

Sectarianism between Catholics and Protestants was a big issue for many years in Australia. As a young adult, I was around just as things were changing. My parents who were Irish Catholic predominantly mixed socially with their extended family and other Catholics. Think it was similar for Protestants. There weren't many 'mixed' marriages. Thankfully it is behind us now.

Yep I'll attest to this. My family is Anglican and my husbands is Catholic - my grandmother refused to come to our wedding because I was marrying a Catholic and his grandmother refused to come because we married at my family's Anglican church.
Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[The Blue Max]

His book is a must read
The Don didn't like Catholics and had no time for them

Bloody great footballer from what I’ve read. Better than Whitten.