Scott Watters and Scott Cummings wtf?

Remove this Banner Ad

Has had more than 10 kicks in a game twice in his career & has had more than 5 marks 3 times in his career.

Strong argument for does nothing outside of ruck contests/clearances, can't take a mark, can't kick and has the endurance of a hamster which means West Coast have to always play a 2nd ruck.
We've nearly always played 2 rucks for the last 20 years. Your argument is flawed.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Has had more than 10 kicks in a game twice in his career & has had more than 5 marks 3 times in his career.

Strong argument for does nothing outside of ruck contests/clearances, can't take a mark, can't kick and has the endurance of a hamster which means West Coast have to always play a 2nd ruck.
Had our best clearance differential for quite sometime on Saturday. With Nic we regularly dominate stoppages he attends that’s invaluable
 
Name those critics, I can't find one.
David Schwartz said Jack Watts was a better pick then Nsitanui even after his AA season. Nsitanui gets smashed unfairly even to this day

And Leigh Matthews just roasted him as well.
 
Has had more than 10 kicks in a game twice in his career & has had more than 5 marks 3 times in his career.

Strong argument for does nothing outside of ruck contests/clearances, can't take a mark, can't kick and has the endurance of a hamster which means West Coast have to always play a 2nd ruck.
Those are completely arbitrary, and useless measures to grade Naitanui on, and really are nothing more than middle school levels of analysis. He isn't paid to provide link up in between the arcs by taking uncontested marks. He averages more contested marks per game than Grundy over his career with less game time, so don't worry about the unimportant uncontested marks. He has the best tapwork in the league, bar none, offering the highest win % of taps, highest conversion to taps to advantage and his taps to advantage are just of higher quality than anyone elses. Over their careers he's averaged more goals than Grundy or Gawn. Yes he plays less game time than other elite rucks, which is more predominant now than in years gone by due to his recent injuries, but he will build that as time goes on. Not to mention the fact he is a burst player and not an endurance player like the others, I'd back him in to attend a do or die clearance and get the ball forward or do something clutch before any other ruckman, he's often been the difference between winning or losing games.

It's really apparent that you haven't been exposed to him much or you wouldn't come out with such a stupid, off the mark assessment of his output. He has one of the highest clearance differentials in the game when he attends a stoppage vs when he doesn't, the man is elite.
 
I'm am extraordinary critic of Nic Nat. Doesn't he cost his club like 200k a game?

If you add up every players salary and divide it by the number of games played he cost the most
In that case he is costing about $45k a disposal
 
David Schwartz said Jack Watts was a better pick then Nsitanui even after his AA season. Nsitanui gets smashed unfairly even to this day

And Leigh Matthews just roasted him as well.

Saying Jack Watts was a better pick is hardly a criticism, saying he's a s*** player - that would be a criticism.

Matthews? What observing he's not covering the ground - yet? That's a criticism?
 
I think everyone's getting confused of what they think my view of a criticism is.

For mine, Saying other players are better picks or not covering the ground well - yet, are observations not criticisms.

Has anyone heard any commentator say NN will never make it because he's just simply not good enough or he looks disinterested and is not invested? Even then they more observations than criticisms.
 
Those are completely arbitrary, and useless measures to grade Naitanui on, and really are nothing more than middle school levels of analysis. He isn't paid to provide link up in between the arcs by taking uncontested marks. He averages more contested marks per game than Grundy over his career with less game time, so don't worry about the unimportant uncontested marks.

junior school level of analysis, Grundy is able to outrun an opponent, thus creating an uncontested situation.

stupid, off the mark assessment of his output

stop the frothing, it wasn't an 'assessment', it was a response to the question 'are there any grounds for criticism?'
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Those are completely arbitrary, and useless measures to grade Naitanui on, and really are nothing more than middle school levels of analysis. He isn't paid to provide link up in between the arcs by taking uncontested marks. He averages more contested marks per game than Grundy over his career with less game time, so don't worry about the unimportant uncontested marks. He has the best tapwork in the league, bar none, offering the highest win % of taps, highest conversion to taps to advantage and his taps to advantage are just of higher quality than anyone elses. Over their careers he's averaged more goals than Grundy or Gawn. Yes he plays less game time than other elite rucks, which is more predominant now than in years gone by due to his recent injuries, but he will build that as time goes on. Not to mention the fact he is a burst player and not an endurance player like the others, I'd back him in to attend a do or die clearance and get the ball forward or do something clutch before any other ruckman, he's often been the difference between winning or losing games.

It's really apparent that you haven't been exposed to him much or you wouldn't come out with such a stupid, off the mark assessment of his output. He has one of the highest clearance differentials in the game when he attends a stoppage vs when he doesn't, the man is elite.

He is especially valuable in the current game with 6-6-6 and clearances being so valuable.

This goes double for WC where we have a very efficient forward but can sometimes be starved due to a lack of supply.

Basically he is up there with Kennedy and McGovern as our most important players.
 
I'll quote from these two clowns from footy WA

Scott Watters:

"Luke Schuey has been under rated"

Pffft really? Anyone who under rates that bloke is a fool, there is no one that disputes Luke's ability. Not disputable.

Scott Cummings:

"Nic Nat has had his critics"

Show me one critic of Nic Nat Scott.

This is not up for debate Scott's, you're both wrong and those players should rightly be pi55ed at you two w******.

Seriously poor form and not helping the west teams.
Gary Lyon. Because he is an A grade flog.
 
Mate, I like your posting a lot, but you're off the mark here. NicNat has been criticised from pillar to post over the years, by those who focus on what traditional rucks do and can't see what he brings to the team.

Nic Nat actually does and always has done more of what a traditional ruck should do, more than any other ruckman in the league. If you're going to pick an issue, it'd be the number of games he's missed (not something really within his control) and the significantly reduced time on ground he has compared to other rucks (which is about preserving him and also maximising his impact).

If you were to extrapolate Nic Nat's career numbers out to 85% gametime (he averages low 70s for his career), people will see he's actually a long way ahead of his peers, even statistically. Simply watching him and how the Eagles' midfield operates with him there should be enough, though.

The real issue is people (often media) are too lazy to properly analyse, and don't understand that the ruckman's role isn't or shouldn't be judged by kick or mark totals.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Scott Watters and Scott Cummings wtf?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top