Roast I've lost my faith in Chris Davies

[Duck Farmer]

Time to fire up some Davies in black and white polo avs.

 

[sobrave]

Imagine if we win the flag and piss Davies wants to celebrate with the players. They should tell him to get stuffed.

 

[Malibu#27]

Imagine if we win the flag and piss Davies wants to celebrate with the players. They should tell him to get stuffed.

Playing devils advocate on that quote as written and not hearing the context. Of the three statements he makes the only one that may be proven wrong is the first that the list might not be good enough.

 

[PowerLil]

Has he got the Collingwood gig yet?

 

[GremioPower]

Of the three statements he makes the only one that may be proven wrong is the first that the list might not be good enough.

Which is the only statement that actually mattered at the time those were made.

 

[GremioPower]

Imagine if we win the flag and piss Davies wants to celebrate with the players. They should tell him to get stuffed.

240volt, you’ve asked about this.

 

[Malibu#27]

Which is the only statement that actually mattered at the time those were made.

That really depends on the context of how he said it then I guess - was it a definitive ‘our list is not good enough’ or a ‘our list might not be good enough but we are not playing as well as we should be’ because they have very different meanings.

 

[GremioPower]

our list might not be good enough but we are not playing as well as we should be

As I see it, it means: “our list is better than what has been showing, even though it’s not good enough [to play against the best].”

The key is that he admits that the list isn’t good enough. It was the day after Hinkley implied the same thing.

 

[FishingRick04]

As I see it, it means: “our list is better than what has been showing, even though it’s not good enough [to play against the best].”

The key is that he admits that the list isn’t good enough. It was the day after Hinkley implied the same thing.

Well our list is stacked like GWS or Sydney with Academy players that’s for sure

 

[GremioPower]

Well our list is stacked like GWS or Sydney with Academy players that’s for sure

I don’t see HOW the list has been built in comparison to others would matter in this context. In my view, it would be another issue entirely whether it is easier for others to build a good list than it is for us.

The whole point here is whether the players we’ve got are level with the top’s. Chris Davies and Ken Hinkley said just a couple of months ago that they weren’t.

 

[240volt]

As I see it, it means: “our list is better than what has been showing, even though it’s not good enough [to play against the best].”

The key is that he admits that the list isn’t good enough. It was the day after Hinkley implied the same thing.

After the Brisbane game it would be easy to think that.
In saying that it’s not something that needs to be said 3/4 way through the season.
These sort of discussions should be talked about at seasons end and addressed then.
Our improvement since the Brisbane game has been helped along with the drop off with teams around us.
I remember one poster said late in the season when we was in the 8 that if we hadn’t won that Hawthorn game by a point we’d be 12 now.
We have done well in the close games this year.
Port have played in 7 games decided by 10 points or less, we’ve won 6 of them.
5 of those 6 by a goal or less.
You need these close games going your way as we seen last year with Collingwood.

What these close wins give you is confidence and that’s another big factor in our on field performances.

 

[El_Scorcho]

It's just not something you'd ever say even with a terrible list. This regime absolutely loves to preload excuses for players and team performance, stripping away belief in the process. Maybe it works on some players who want to prove you wrong, but I think it's fair to say that our mental preparation has been absolutely horrendous over the last decade.

The team should only ever hear that they're good enough to beat anyone if they work hard and execute.

 

[GremioPower]

After the Brisbane game it would be easy to think that.

It doesn’t matter.

It’s year 12.
They once again were shifting the goal posts. It was “the best list” Hinkley had “ever have” in February — and Hinkley has 3 PF and 1 Minor Premiership in his CV.

It’s always “I win; we draw; they lose” with this regime.

 

[KrispyKremeMullanikka]

It doesn’t matter.

It’s year 12.
They once again were shifting the goal posts. It was “the best list” Hinkley had “ever have” in February — and Hinkley has 3 PF and 1 Minor Premiership in his CV.

It’s always “I win; we draw; they lose” with this regime.

You’ve perfectly summed up this regime GremioPower. I win; we draw; they lose. It’s the perfect title for another thread here on our board. May I use it as the title to create another thread on the regime?

 

[GremioPower]

May I use it as the title to create another thread on the regime?

Of course.

 

[240volt]

It doesn’t matter.

It’s year 12.
They once again were shifting the goal posts. It was “the best list” Hinkley had “ever have” in February — and Hinkley has 3 PF and 1 Minor Premiership in his CV.

It’s always “I win; we draw; they lose” with this regime.

Not that I take a lot of notice what Hinkley says but he also said in that interview.
At our best we can match it with any team.
Yes he should have gone years ago but he’s still here.
And if we win the flag he might be here even longer.

 

[GremioPower]

Not that I take a lot of notice what Hinkley says but he also said in that interview.
At our best we can match it with any team.
Yes he should have gone years ago but he’s still here.
And if we win the flag he might be here even longer.

And it should be pointed out that he doesn't deserve to be here, regardless. A flag won't change that.

 

[sobrave]

Dave Pissies

 

[Malibu#27]

As I see it, it means: “our list is better than what has been showing, even though it’s not good enough [to play against the best].”

The key is that he admits that the list isn’t good enough. It was the day after Hinkley implied the same thing.

I don’t see it that at way.

I see it as ‘“our list may or may not be good enough, but even if it’s not, there’s no excuse for the way we are currently playing.”

 

[Chewy316]

He's very good at applying for other jobs. Not so good at actually getting them.

 

[GremioPower]

I don’t see it that at way.

I see it as ‘“our list may or may not be good enough, but even if it’s not, there’s no excuse for the way we are currently playing.”

If you are Chris Davies, you must defend the list. It was deemed AWESOME at beginning of the season, and you are the one responsible for it. You can defend the list either by stating that you believe in it ("I don't know why we aren't competing at the level we believe we can, but we are sure that this list is capable of doing it") or by deflecting the attention bringing it towards you ("the players are working hard, and this list was supposed to be strong; if it's not, as the current results seem to be showing, then we need to assess what we have misevaluated").

Otherwise, you are just throwing the players under the bus.

 

[Malibu#27]

If you are Chris Davies, you must defend the list. It was deemed AWESOME at beginning of the season, and you are the one responsible for it. You can defend the list either by stating that you believe in it ("I don't know why we aren't competing at the level we believe we can, but we are sure that this list is capable of doing it") or by deflecting the attention bringing it towards you ("the players are working hard, and this list was supposed to be strong; if it's not, as the current results seem to be showing, then we need to assess what we have misevaluated").

Otherwise, you are just throwing the players under the bus.

"I don't know why we aren't competing at the level we believe we can, but we are sure that this list is capable of doing it"

is the same as

"our list may or may not be good enough, but even if it’s not, there’s no excuse for the way we are currently playing"


I think its easy to over-interpret what is said and read way too much into it.

 

[GremioPower]

"I don't know why we aren't competing at the level we believe we can, but we are sure that this list is capable of doing it"

is the same as

"our list may or may not be good enough, but even if it’s not, there’s no excuse for the way we are currently playing"


I think its easy to over-interpret what is said and read way too much into it.

Malibu, I don’t see it.

That “may not be good enough” was in the very next day of Hinkley saying that the list is not up to it. It means “it’s not good enough”.

It’s not overinterpreting when it’s not the first time. It has always been something else for YEARS. It’s the same people who went to the 2019 Members Convention pretending 2018 never happened.

They don’t deserve any benefit of doubt or “bona fide” interpretation. They must state everything as clear as possible. When they do not, it should be read as an attempt to cover their asses. It’s what they do.

 

[PowerLil]

He's very good at applying for other jobs. Not so good at actually getting them.

Gee, I wonder why..................?

 

[Malibu#27]

Malibu, I don’t see it.

That “may not be good enough” was in the very next day of Hinkley saying that the list is not up to it. It means “it’s not good enough”.

It’s not overinterpreting when it’s not the first time. It has always been something else for YEARS. It’s the same people who went to the 2019 Members Convention pretending 2018 never happened.

They don’t deserve any benefit of doubt or “bona fide” interpretation. They must state everything as clear as possible. When they do not, it should be read as an attempt to cover their asses. It’s what they do.

People will see what they want to see. Again .. "May" does not mean "Its not". You choose to interpret that as them making excuses, so be it.


As for the 'They must state everything as clear as possible', in that case I suggest we stop having press conferences if it means people are going to over analyze every unscripted word that they say.