Player Watch Nick Daicos - Can he be the GOAT?

[beerbandit]

We all know. It happens regularly, where Daicos gets a couple of votes despite being far below the best 5 or 6 players on the ground.

The idea that its always opposition coaches and never McCrae simply makes no sense. One is trying to drive up the performance of his star pupil, the others are worried about their own team and assigning opposition player votes based on their actual performance.

Its far easier to have a conspiracy of one over a conspiracy of many.

How do you know it wasn’t Scott?

Scott tagged him all night and ran 3 different taggers through him to keep them fresh at all times and he still notched 30+.

Maybe it was Scott who rewarded his effort with 2 for getting 30 + with 3 different taggers.

This sort of commentary is really silly as know one knows bar the coaches themselves.

 

[beerbandit]

Not GOAT yet but kid has bags of potential and could end up there I think. Up there with best footy IQ in the comp and the only weeks he's not our best is when he's got a hard tag and being held every contest.

Oppo fans do me a favour and watch him for 5 minutes at the contest - He gets very few of the FKs he deserves, I think it's because of the spotlight on every one in his favour.

Taggers are getting away with murder only because very few are tagged.

 

[Rich01]

Do you have a breakdown on what coaches have voted for which player?

Otherwise this is a very silly post.

All good if you are a neutral.
If you are a pies supporter it sounds like you are being quite defensive.

Whose your team?

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Not GOAT yet but kid has bags of potential and could end up there I think. Up there with best footy IQ in the comp and the only weeks he's not our best is when he's got a hard tag and being held every contest.

Oppo fans do me a favour and watch him for 5 minutes at the contest - He gets very few of the FKs he deserves, I think it's because of the spotlight on every one in his favour.

We're not going through this again are we? Cripps and Bont get more attention in some games than Daicos has over most of his career combined. Your own team double teamed Cripps earlier in the year sending two blokes to him at every stoppage simply to scrag him not even looking at the ball half the time. Bont cops similar all the time.

 

[Fadge]

We're not going through this again are we? Cripps and Bont get more attention in some games than Daicos has over most of his career combined. Your own team double teamed Cripps earlier in the year sending two blokes to him at every stoppage simply to scrag him not even looking at the ball half the time. Bont cops similar all the time.

'Imagining'

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

'Imagining'

Evidence is a few dozen pages back. Feel free to correct urself once you've found them Fudgey

 

[HairyO]

How do you know it wasn’t Scott?

Scott tagged him all night and ran 3 different taggers through him to keep them fresh at all times and he still notched 30+.

Maybe it was Scott who rewarded his effort with 2 for getting 30 + with 3 different taggers.

This sort of commentary is really silly as know one knows bar the coaches themselves.

Hopefully Scott knows the difference between effective and ineffective disposals. Given Daicos had 30 mostly poor disposals, surely he would have been quite happy with his taggers because they did their job.

 

[Fadge]

Evidence is a few dozen pages back. Feel free to correct urself once you've found them Fudgey

This is what you said:

Cripps and Bont get more attention in some games than Daicos has over most of his career combined.

I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

This is what you said:
I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.

Please... Hyperbole may as well be your middle name Fadge

 

[Rich01]

How do you know it wasn’t Scott?

Scott tagged him all night and ran 3 different taggers through him to keep them fresh at all times and he still notched 30+.

Maybe it was Scott who rewarded his effort with 2 for getting 30 + with 3 different taggers.

This sort of commentary is really silly as know one knows bar the coaches themselves.

13 effective disposals with none of them resulting in a score? I’m not sure the oppo coach would have rated this sort of game.

Especially pinning him as 4th bog.

 

[RHLK]

Surely it's the almost-ultimate accolade to stand on the second tier and look up in awe at the legend that is Harry Sheezel?

 

[beerbandit]

All good if you are a neutral.
If you are a pies supporter it sounds like you are being quite defensive.

Whose your team?

My team is Collingwood obviously it’s pinned to my username, but you already knew that so not sure why you had to ask.

So because I’m not a neutral I can’t ask if you know the break down ? LOL.

 

[beerbandit]

13 effective disposals with none of them resulting in a score? I’m not sure the oppo coach would have rated this sort of game.

Especially pinning him as 4th bog.

Maybe he rated the 12 clearances he had?

Who knows?

 

[beerbandit]

Hopefully Scott knows the difference between effective and ineffective disposals. Given Daicos had 30 mostly poor disposals, surely he would have been quite happy with his taggers because they did their job.

Yeah maybe, but who knows what coaches are thinking? They are different beasts.

FWIW I didn’t think he was Collingwoods best that night, but it’s not as if he was horrible, 2 votes is nothing, not sure what the big deal is TBH and for all we know it might of been Scott anyway.

 

[Gone Critical]

We all know. It happens regularly, where Daicos gets a couple of votes despite being far below the best 5 or 6 players on the ground.

The idea that its always opposition coaches and never McCrae simply makes no sense. One is trying to drive up the performance of his star pupil, the others are worried about their own team and assigning opposition player votes based on their actual performance.

Its far easier to have a conspiracy of one over a conspiracy of many.

For mine I look at it the other way. Sidey was Collingwoods best. He played the game McRae is looking for. He was closest to a 4 quarter game. McRae was clearly not happy with what the team produced Friday night. He has said playing for part of the game has to stop. Surely on this basis he is more likely to have given Sidey 2 votes.

For all those who say McRae is giving unnecessary votes to Daicos to push him up in awards 2 things, 1 McRae would not give votes to Daicos if he believed Sidey was more deserving. Sidey is an epitome of what we want in a player and much loved. 2. Giving unwarranted votes to your most valuable asset to bunk him up in an award but ultimately damage him as a player is like trying to blow your own team up.

Conclusion - I am sure that if McRae rated Sidey higher than Daicos he gave the votes to Sidey. I just cant see the situation that the reverse happens as much as it satisfies you conspiratory theorists.

 

[Gone Critical]

I was at the game on Friday so decided to watch the replay today to answer your question properly. Mainly it reinforced my thoughts while I was at the match

1. We were flattered by the scoreboard, Essendon were much better than the 2 goal win suggests
2. Merrett was BOG by the length of the straight
3. Draper was very influential
4. De Goey very disappointing, Lipinski a non event and Josh D no influence were the Collingwood players who really let us down. Crisp apart from the 3 goals which were great was poor. Sidey and Pendles were manful.

5. Nick D. Good 1st half, did some influential things and had plenty of the ball. Collingwoods best to half time and 2nd best on ground after Merrett. 3rd Q Ess went to work on him. Plenty of effort to quell him, particularly by Durham and Shiel and it worked. He was a non event for the 1st 20min, got 3 clearances late in the Q with hard work but was under pressure and were nothing disposals. No kicks off the ground to this point. Influence almost zero.

4th Q did a bit better, had 2 shots on goal that would have made a real difference but neither came close. There were 2 kicks off the ground that I could count. The 1st early in the Q was when he and Shiel were bodying each other, the ball dropped to their feet and Daicos hacked if forward. There was no oncoming traffic or threat of contact, it was just an attempt to get a ball in dispute moving forward. 2nd was similar, Durham and Daicos holding at a clearance, ball drops to their feet, as on 1st occasional neither was in a position to grab the ball and Daicos kicked it off the ground, ineffectual. Again no in a position where there wan oncomiing traffic or risk of contact. I have previously commented on the step over the boundary, a miscalculation and mistake by Daicos, a bad one, but nothing to do with a fear of being tackled, he wasnt at any risk of significant contact so why would he worry.

Collingwood had few good players, Sidey clear best after reviewing and Pendles and Daicos next. I wouldnt have given anyone other than Sidet coaches votes but the 1's and 2's are often a close thing so wont quibble that CDaicos and pendles got something. The surprise to me was one of the coaches saw Crisp as 3rd best. My suspicion is it was McRae who gave Sidey 2 and Scott 2 to Daicos as I thought Sidey was the one who closest played to the style Fly wants and I recon apart from Pendles no one else gave much in the 2nd half

I cant find your dozen scrubbers and I cant find a kick off the ground that suggests he was afraid of oncoming contact. The only 2 kicks I found off the ground didnt involve any oncoming traffic.

Thats about all I got on this. Any answers to my question?

WalshistheGOAT I did this detailed response to answer the question you asked. For your "dozen scrubbers " I found 2 and have given my opinion.

You are the biggest critic of Daicos in the thread, you rate him way lower than most. I have asked you a simple question which should be easy to respond to. I know you have been back to the thread since the above was posted. Please answer my question. Which players in the modern era have had a better 1st 2 years of their career compared to Nick Daicos?

 

[Arr0w]

WalshistheGOAT I did this detailed response to answer the question you asked. For your "dozen scrubbers " I found 2 and have given my opinion.

You are the biggest critic of Daicos in the thread, you rate him way lower than most. I have asked you a simple question which should be easy to respond to. I know you have been back to the thread since the above was posted. Please answer my question. Which players in the modern era have had a better 1st 2 years of their career compared to Nick Daicos?

This is becoming extremely circular, has Bunton not been mentioned previously?

Kelly, Sheezel?

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

WalshistheGOAT I did this detailed response to answer the question you asked. For your "dozen scrubbers " I found 2 and have given my opinion.

You are the biggest critic of Daicos in the thread, you rate him way lower than most. I have asked you a simple question which should be easy to respond to. I know you have been back to the thread since the above was posted. Please answer my question. Which players in the modern era have had a better 1st 2 years of their career compared to Nick Daicos?

'Better 1st 2 years of their career' is too subjective to anoint a clear winner, however Nick has been in the top handful there is no doubt about that. Personally I rate Sheezel higher in terms of what he's been able to do in a woeful team but his accolades will not be on par with Nick's partly due to the difference in their teams success at the time of debuting so it's really impossible to say imo.

My issue with Nick is purely in relation to things outside of his actual footballing ability. Incessant complaining to umpires during the game while unequivocally being a player that stages for free kicks in an attempt to dupe them being the main one.

 

[Fadge]

'Better 1st 2 years of their career' is too subjective to anoint a clear winner, however Nick has been in the top handful there is no doubt about that. Personally I rate Sheezel higher in terms of what he's been able to do in a woeful team but his accolades will not be on par with Nick's partly due to the difference in their teams success at the time of debuting so it's really impossible to say imo.

My issue with Nick is purely in relation to things outside of his actual footballing ability. Incessant complaining to umpires during the game while unequivocally being a player that stages for free kicks in an attempt to dupe them being the main one.

'Top handful'?

And the other three with Sheezel are?

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

'Top handful'?

And the other three with Sheezel are?

Depends on if you include mature age recruits

 

[Gone Critical]

This is becoming extremely circular, has Bunton not been mentioned previously?

Kelly, Sheezel?

Modern player probably leaves Bunton out. Starting at 23 makes Kelly not relevent but he wasn't as good as Sheezel/Daicos anyway.

The crux of it is if you want to be really premature and discuss potential GOAT, which this thread has, then the player has to have had an extraordinary career start. Seems like Daicos and Sheezel are the only candidates in the last 50 years.

 

[Gone Critical]

'Better 1st 2 years of their career' is too subjective to anoint a clear winner, however Nick has been in the top handful there is no doubt about that. Personally I rate Sheezel higher in terms of what he's been able to do in a woeful team but his accolades will not be on par with Nick's partly due to the difference in their teams success at the time of debuting so it's really impossible to say imo.

My issue with Nick is purely in relation to things outside of his actual footballing ability. Incessant complaining to umpires during the game while unequivocally being a player that stages for free kicks in an attempt to dupe them being the main one.

Not asking for a clear winner just players who you think would be in the argument with Daicos's 1st 2 years. Lets also exclude mature age. Are there any apart from Sheezel?

So if your only issue with Nick is complaining to umpires and staging, where do you place him? I thought you were arguing he was timid, only good outside and mainly did dump disposals. You do seem to have muddled your assessment up. Who are the players whose 1st 2 seasons compare with him or are there none apart from Sheezel? Its a simple question

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Not asking for a clear winner just players who you think would be in the argument with Daicos's 1st 2 years. Lets also exclude mature age. Are there any apart from Sheezel?

So if your only issue with Nick is complaining to umpires and staging, where do you place him? I thought you were arguing he was timid, only good outside and mainly did dump disposals. You do seem to have muddled your assessment up. Who are the players 1st 2 seasons you rate above him or are there none? Its a simple question

I believe that was a different poster that stated that, however I do support the sentiment that he's not a naturally inside player due to his clear lack of physicality and proclivity for shirking contests over his career.

I'd have Sheezel Walsh Daicos and Ashcroft all fairly similar, Ashcroft was unfortunately crippled by injury despite starting arguably better than any of them, Walsh had just as good a 1st year imo but his 2nd season was a Covid effected one so impossible to compare to others. Sheezel and Walsh were also plunged into basket case clubs which makes comparing their output due to roles/support etc extremely difficult.

Joel Selwood would be another I'd have in that bracket but for different reasons. He played the perfect supporting cast role in a team full of genuine superstars. If Walsh, Daicos, Ashcroft or Sheezel were in that team it's difficult to judge how they'd fair playing a similar role.

So for me I'd have Daicos in the top handful. You can argue that he's the most talented of the lot, but he's certainly the biggest figjam of that group by a longgggggg way.

 

[Gone Critical]

I believe that was a different poster that stated that, however I do support the sentiment that he's not a naturally inside player due to his clear lack of physicality and proclivity for shirking contests over his career.

I'd have Sheezel Walsh Daicos and Ashcroft all fairly similar, Ashcroft was unfortunately crippled by injury despite starting arguably better than any of them, Walsh had just as good a 1st year imo but his 2nd season was a Covid effected one so impossible to compare to others. Sheezel and Walsh were also plunged into basket case clubs which makes comparing their output due to roles/support etc extremely difficult.

Joel Selwood would be another I'd have in that bracket but for different reasons. He played the perfect supporting cast role in a team full of genuine superstars. If Walsh, Daicos, Ashcroft or Sheezel were in that team it's difficult to judge how they'd fair playing a similar role.

So for me I'd have Daicos in the top handful. You can argue that he's the most talented of the lot, but he's certainly the biggest figjam of that group by a longgggggg way.

Love it. I know that was hard for you but we got there. I agree with your grouping. Sometimes it’s a bit like the old Buckley/Hird/Voss argument that needed a bit of Riccuito.

Of Walsh, Daicos , Sheezel and Ashcroft I would have Nick ahead but would agree come career end any of them could be the dominant one or maybe they will be meshed together. Reid of course may pass them all.

Selwood was a young player I loved and had a stellar career. He and Pendles for mine are on the same footing. Not up with Martin Fyfe Danger and GAJ but sensational none the less.

I know you love Walsh and as someone who is probably older than you I can now hate Carlton just as much but look at Walsh and just think I love what he does.

Daicos though I am pretty certain is going to be Collingwood greatest. I know it’s had to accept but he just does special stuff all the time but mostly when games are white hot and on the line. I understand why that shits Carlton supporters no end. Especially last 2 min of round 8 this year. You were Nicked.

 

[Arr0w]

Modern player probably leaves Bunton out. Starting at 23 makes Kelly not relevent but he wasn't as good as Sheezel/Daicos anyway.

But guys like Bunton would be in GOAT conversations, that's what this thread is about.

Kelly's first 2 years were exceptional, 20+ touches, scoring a goal a game as a mid/forward, stats that are elite/rare even today, although would never be considered in GOAT conversations

The crux of it is if you want to be really premature and discuss potential GOAT, which this thread has, then the player has to have had an extraordinary career start. Seems like Daicos and Sheezel are the only candidates in the last 50 years.

So that would mean we should ignore, Lockett, Carey, Matthews or GAS, because they had slow starts to their careers and or were older?

Seems that we are narrowing the criteria somewhat.

Stating players need to have had great starts to a career, making assumptions they have similar development increases or we should ignore anyone that has a slower start output wise like Reid

And any of the likes of Warner, B King, JHF, etc, might end up the best player of their era

I think this thread is extremely premature