PDA

View Full Version : We're Going To Struggle BIG TIME



shearer
30th January 2003, 11:17 AM
I had a look at training the other day and was alarmed at the amount of our better players who arent in the main group at training but are still doing there rehabilitation.

Blokes like Hall,Williams,Creswell, Davis are still a long long way off being fit. There were a heap more as well who havent done much pf the preseason.

The most disturbing thing though was the amount of times Roosy had to bring them in to get up them for there skill errors.Blokes like Fosdike & Bolton were repeat performers and to be honest i know of some u/14's with better skills.

If they cant hit a target when under no pressure how are they going to go in games...probably like they always do, useless .

I was very optimistic that we were going to have a good year but now i think it will be a massive struggle to improve on last year.

NMWBloods
30th January 2003, 11:41 AM
Interesting feedback. This has been a critical problem of ours ever since '96 - an incomplete pre-season. I think there are a few players who have no hope of improving their skills to an adequate level. I'd be interested in other views on this from people who have watched training (preferably without red-and-white glasses on).

desredandwhite
30th January 2003, 12:15 PM
Sorry Shearer - I had to insert the apostrophe into the title of your thread - it was driving me nuts :)

back on topic though, I'm never really sure what to think about reports from pre-season training. Much as I don't necessarily think that a good training run results in a killer season, I also don't think much of bad reports either (not bagging your assessment, shearer, I just don't think you can read very much into it)

We've known about the disrupted pre-seasons to Willo, Davis, Hall etc and the reports coming out suggest that they're doing well, or at least on target with their rehabilitation. Obviously there's not much we can do about those, the best time to have operations is in the off-season! Hopefully they'll get right back into the swing of things.

With the skills, as NW said, this is a recurring theme with us. I guess we'll see what improvements, if any, have been made when the side trots out onto the field for the pre-season matches. One would hope that a lot of emphasis is put in this area this year. Get the basics right before you try something fancy, guys!

My gut feeling though, is that we'll do ok this year. It'll be interesting to see what Roos can do with a full year in charge - see if there's any changes in mindset about the place.

Mike_B
30th January 2003, 12:50 PM
I agree with what Des has said with regards to injuries. Yes its not the ideal situation with players not having a full pre-season (or in some cases no pre-season at all), but when else can injuries be given a chance to heal? As long as these guys are fit when it matters (ie Rd 1), I'm OK with it.

The poor skills are a much bigger concern for me. It's something we've struggled with for a long time, and is something that could definitely hold us back again this year if it doesn't improve.

Steve
30th January 2003, 02:25 PM
Once key players start missing most of the practice games, it is then time to worry.

For experienced players with previously decent fitness levels, it's very rarely a problem not being in full training before February. Only really the younger players, who need their first few PS's to improve fitness/strength, that struggle if they're out of action b/w Nov and Feb.

There was a Collingwood supporter somewhere who at this time last year commented on how much better Sydney looked in training than the Magpies at the time. I'm sure Collingwood are happy with the way things panned out in 2002.

This time of year is just a bad time to be reading anything into performances or appearances. Even in that practice game at Footscray early last year Melbourne were woeful, fielding basically a first-string side, yet won convincingly in Rd 1.

shearer
30th January 2003, 02:41 PM
The problem is if a lot of the squad havent done the preseason they will be behind a lot of other clubs once the season starts.

If the players try to get theer fitness by playing they will be behind the 8 ball against there opponents.

Roosy will have to rotate the playesr a lot more than he would like due to a lack of fitness.

desredandwhite
30th January 2003, 02:44 PM
Shearer, hopefully the law of averages means that other clubs will also have injury problems in pre-season ;-)

Actually I don't recall many recent seasons where we've had ALL our players firing 100% going into february. I wouldn't really see it as a problem, rather it's more a reality thing IMHO.

swan_song
30th January 2003, 03:30 PM
I'm beginnng to feel quite optimistic again re 2003...if we can play like we did for the last six matches, then attractive, attacking footy will be the order of the day...gee I hope so. Around trade time I thought we'd finish in the bottom 3 or 4 for 2003...now, I'm thinking final 8...(*slap* reality...HELLOOO)...no seriously, I'm beginning to think maybe we could get to 7 or 8 spot , and have a real crack during September...
But hey, I thought preseason that we'd have a great 2002, so what do I know...

SWANSBEST
30th January 2003, 03:38 PM
I agree with Steve and Des that there is nothing to be concerned about at present apart from the obvious poor skill levels from the
usual suspects. If you considert the last few yeares Port Adelaide came out the blocks very quickly and faded when it counted while Collingwood were flogged by the Swans in a pre season game last year by about 15 goals and made the Grand Final. That day I was sitting near Eddie and he became so red in the face I thought that he was having a heart attack.

When Adelaide won their 2 premierships they improved form gradually over the season and peaked for the Grand Final. Some years the Swans have looked a million dollars early in the season and folded badly at Finals time .The catch of course , is to win enough games to qualify for the Finals . Roos is also on record of advising supporters not to expect too much too soon,

Cheer Cheer
30th January 2003, 03:41 PM
What it comes down to is that we are still 2 months away from the real stuff, i'll start getting worried if we have injuries / skill problems when the real stuff starts - I appreciate the update though, however i'll hold my breath until we reach round 1, till we can really comment on who skills are down and whos are up etc
Dont read too much into it now

Steve
30th January 2003, 03:57 PM
If players are fit to play by the time the practice matches come around, generally there shouldn't be a major concern.

They might not start the season at full tilt, but (especially for experienced players) with a few games under their belts everything falls into place.

If, as in the case of Hawthorn last year, guys are coming back in Rds 1, 2, 3 etc without a PS and without any games under their belts, those players will struggle with match fitness and form/confidence for maybe a month.

Then when they actually get match fit, their confidence is shot (eg. Hay, Barker etc), and their season is a write-off 1/3 of the way into the year.

In any case, is "a lot of the squad havent done the preseason" a totally accurate statement? Also, there are varying degrees/stages of 'rehabilitation', and given that guys like Williams and Hall are coming back from 'clean-up' type operations after last season finished, you'd imagine they'd be in the final stages of rehab.

NMWBloods
30th January 2003, 04:33 PM
The Swans have only had one good, consistent start to a season since '96 and that was '98. Other years have either been poor starts or we've had about 3 wins and then fallen in a heap. One of the problems has been interrupted pre-seasons by certain players.

Pre-season form can be misleading, but it can also be an indicator. In our Wizard Cup game last year against Port I wrote on the yahoo.groups site that I thought there were worrying signs with our commitment and skill level, and we would experience another below-average season. It was obvious also during the early couple of rounds, despite unbridled optimism in certain corners. In the end we finished off worse than I expected, but we never looked like anything but a poor finish.

As mentioned some teams look good in the pre-season but fare poorly during the year, others do the opposite. Unfortunately, we rarely surprise to the upside.

As for finishing strongly last season, that might be a promising sign, or it might not. We have finished with a wet sail before but not kept going the next year.

I'll reserve judgement until I see them in some proper games, but I wouldn't necessarily underestimate the importance of showing certain signs early in the season.

swansrock4eva
30th January 2003, 05:49 PM
I've been to training a couple of times, quite a while apart (i.e. end of nov, and abt 2 weeks ago). At the one a couple of weeks ago, there was marked improvement in a lot of areas, and the players you have mentioned as in the rehab group were actually working with the fit players, which suggests to me that they are a lot closer than perhaps they looked when you were there, shearer. Also, given that it's about a million degrees hotter and usually a bit more humid up here than in melbourne (generally speaking), and we aren't actually training on a proper ground yet, we're not going to look like the next hot thing. I've seen the training field and it's not a good one in comparison to some of the AFL standard grounds i've seen.

Also, as has been said, who really cares about preseason? it's a time to get the young guys aware of what they are in for in terms of playing, experiment with new things for established players, and basically give everyone a little warm up for the season proper. I'd rather see us do sweet stuff all in the preseason and do a bit of butt kicking when it counts than do a port adelaide and romp it in in the preseason matches and eventually do nothing in the real deal.

Dpw
30th January 2003, 06:48 PM
Can't add much to this thread that really hasn't already been said.

But would like to thankyou for the update and hope you could do it semi-regulary so you could gauge our improvement over the coming months that would be very interesting.

Rod_
30th January 2003, 09:22 PM
I recall reading a report that Paul Roos wasn't concerned about the preseason matches. Therefore I wouldn't be worried about some of the senior players being behind the pack during the preseason. Seems the game plan is for the "real games". Which suits me fine. Blood the young ones during the preseason to see what they have for the real games. Step up and win a regular game......

Rod_

liz
30th January 2003, 11:11 PM
I'm totally with Steve et al re the fitness issue. Most clubs nowadays are far more intelligent with the way they train players in any case - they understand that a 17yo rookie needs a different programme to a 24yo and a 30 yo again a different programme. Also a Barry Hall and a Nic Fosdike, say, need different programmes.

On the skills thing, I suspect that for most players you can't change their core ability to execute basic skills by the time they're in the AFL system. You might be able to tweak some aspects of technique in, for example, tackling, or kicking for goal, but you probably have what you recruited. And they should be able to do all the basics to at least a minimum standard.

What we see out on the ground is as much about decision making, concentration and speed of thought as it is about execution of core skills. If Roos is hauling players like Fosdike and Bolton up because they are making errors, that could be seen as a good thing. They are making mistakes and being called to account for them, being made to realise why they are making them, and learning how not to make them when it counts.

I went to a handful of training sessions last season and the enduring impression I got was that they were just that - training rather than coaching. Most times they would spend a third or so of the session playing under match conditions (though with less tackling and full on body contact). I don't think I ever saw the match stopped, a player pulled up because of a mistake he made, and given a chance to re-execute. Now maybe the coaching aspect went on behind the scenes - I understand most sessions are taped. But I couldn't understand why the teaching and correction didn't happen straight away. It was almost as if the coaching staff expected skill errors to happen and didn't think they could do anything about it.

Maybe what Shearer has seen is Roos actually coaching the team, rather than just letting them run around going through the motions. If so, that's got to be a good thing surely?

Gunn
31st January 2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by lizz
.

On the skills thing, I suspect that for most players you can't change their core ability to execute basic skills by the time they're in the AFL system. You might be able to tweak some aspects of technique in, for example, tackling, or kicking for goal, but you probably have what you recruited. And they should be able to do all the basics to at least a minimum standard.

What we see out on the ground is as much about decision making, concentration and speed of thought as it is about execution of core skills.

I agree with most all you say. Neither Bolton nor Fosdike have improved their foot or had passing since they have been at the club. Both are hopeless. What is particularly galling is there lack of these skills when not even under pressure. I scream every time I see Fosdike clear by himself missing a pass to a forward with the result being a turnover. It happens time and time again. :-( Don't get me started about what they do when under pressure. :-(

I would like to see more enphasis if possible on recruiting skillful players. A mix is OK but we do need skill in the midfield in particular.

Diego
31st January 2003, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by shearer

The most disturbing thing though was the amount of times Roosy had to bring them in to get up them for there skill errors.Blokes like Fosdike & Bolton were repeat performers and to be honest i know of some u/14's with better skills.


Ha why doesn't that surprise me. Ones an athlete and the others a mad as a hater hack who has just been re signed for another 2 years.

Sorry but I still think that Jude Bolton is a hack. His PK attitude towards winning the ball is his only saving grace.

If anything Fosdyke should have improved a lil on his disposals this year, but Jude Bolton cant kick full stop.

shearer
31st January 2003, 02:24 PM
Geez Diego you are brave, bagging the golden child like that.

I think the Jude fans will be very cold this year watching him in the ACTAFL. It was a major shock to me that they resigned him, maybe he is worth a couple of thousand female members to the club, because he isnt worth a pinch of poop on the field.

Diego
31st January 2003, 02:48 PM
I don't care if he is a Golden Boy.

he is basically taking up the spot of someone who can penetrate our forward line with nice foot disposals. Bolton runs around like a chook without a head most times and when he wins the ball he gives it straight back.

I still say we could have maybe used him as trade bait..but then again we would not have received much anyway.

Diego
31st January 2003, 02:52 PM
Oh and if the club has that mentality that a good looker brings in the females no matter how poor his skills are..then we are really destined for big things.

I thought the club learned with Jon Stevens.

TheMase
31st January 2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by shearer
Geez Diego you are brave, bagging the golden child like that.

I think the Jude fans will be very cold this year watching him in the ACTAFL. It was a major shock to me that they resigned him, maybe he is worth a couple of thousand female members to the club, because he isnt worth a pinch of poop on the field.

I agree with this. Jude may really struggle to hold a place in the Swans lineup IF he plays like he did last season.

Players like Fosdike, O'Keefe, Davis, Fixter, Sundqvist, Schneider, Kennelly etc are either above his current position or will if he continues his current 'form'.

If he improves great, if not he will spend the year in the Swans Ressies, and we will look for a trade at seasons end.

If it proves to be wrong, I will have been right in saying we should have traded him this year while he still had some value.

shearer
31st January 2003, 02:54 PM
Id say a can of coke and 10cents worth of frogs....i still remember him hitting the post from 10cm out against Port at the SCG this year.

NMWBloods
31st January 2003, 03:49 PM
I think Fosdike has the requisite skills, he just needs to steady a bit more. As for Bolton, well... :eek:

penga
31st January 2003, 04:07 PM
i think there is a slight amount of promise with bolton, i think it was the richmond game when bolton hit magic on the chest off a lead from the goal square off his 'non-preferred' foot being the left... so if he switches to kicking with his left foot maybe he might start hitting targets...

the swans have never (at least since i started following them) had a player that could consistently dispose of the ball, id love a dollar for every time ive shook and then lowered my head after a perfect opportunity was squandered with a kick straight to the opposition. the best pass (by foot) that i can recall from last season was sunny to hall close to the boundary line in his only game... maybe he is the answer to all our problems????!

desredandwhite
31st January 2003, 04:16 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The delivery highlight for me for 2002 was in the last game - Barry Hall to Stephen Doyle. If he wasn't our best option for FF, I'd have him permanently stationed at CHF, delivering to the forward line.

Diego
31st January 2003, 04:37 PM
yeah I agree there bud, IMHO i think Baz would be better of playing at CHF and sticking a tall down at FF maybe Doyle?

Baz has wonderful foot skills and is strong. great ingredients for a CHF.

i feel he is being wasted left a FF when we paly away from the SCG.

chammond
31st January 2003, 04:45 PM
Can I take it that Jude Bolton is definitely the official anti-christ for the start of this season?

. . . or is it possible that Goodes, Nicks, Seymour, Warfe or O'Loughlin might be resurrected before a ball has been kicked in anger?

I just need to be clear, so that I can really focus all my resentment and angst in the appropriate place.

Diego
31st January 2003, 04:51 PM
No anti christ.

just a very average footballer.

simple really.

NMWBloods
31st January 2003, 05:12 PM
Can I take it that Jude Bolton is definitely the official anti-christ for the start of this season?

Why should this season be different to every other...?



. . . or is it possible that Goodes, Nicks, Seymour, Warfe or O'Loughlin might be resurrected before a ball has been kicked in anger?

No, but underperformers will justifiably take their place in the anti-christ group during the year when appropriate. It happens in other areas of work so why not football.

Charlie
31st January 2003, 05:43 PM
I'd say that's putting it a little over the top... but I have several players in mind who I'd be very surprised to see any improvement in, although I'm aware that it is possible. They are Brad Seymour, Rowan Warfe, Daniel McPherson and Jude Bolton.

Ajn
31st January 2003, 06:45 PM
I agree with the above, but Jude has far more potential and just needs the fosdike poise under pressure skill. Seems to try too hard sometimes, does Jude, but doesn't trust his ability to stand up to immense pressure. Hope he proves us all wrong this year, as for the others......eh!

liz
31st January 2003, 08:54 PM
I disagree with most of the above comments re the core skill ability of Fosdike and Bolton.

I honestly believe they both have decent to good skills. The point of my previous post was that they don't mess up on the ground because they can't kick the ball - I've seen them deliver beautiful passes (yes both of them) too often to believe this.

They mess up because they pick the wrong option, aren't concentrating or take too long decide what they are going to do and then get ball to boot or hand. And they don't do it all the time, just sometimes. Sure, maybe more often than they should (especially Bolton) but to fix the outcome you have to fix the cause of the problem. And hopefully that's what Roos is doing if he is pulling them up at training.

Further, notwithstanding the above comments, I actually thought that the skill level Fosdike showed in the second half of last year was good to very good. I know he was terrible pre-Roos but not after. Sure, he made some mistakes but you will never eliminate them all. And some are because he is trying to be too creative, trying to make something that isn't there. But I'd rather a player who backs himself and his team mates and tries to do something different. The alternative is safe, boring and predictable footy, and that won't win us a premiership. If these risks sometimes result in mistakes, turnovers, even opposition goals so be it, so long as more often they result in a Swans goal (or at least shot on goal) that wouldn't have happened without a risk being taken.

Xie Shan
31st January 2003, 09:25 PM
I don't want to get into the Bolton debate except to say it was noticeable when Roos took over last year, most of the young players lifted, while Jude still struggled to find form. Whatever his (many) critics say, I doubt he'll get any worse in 2003. I do hope to see him get better, as I would with any Swans player.

On the pre-season training, the skill level is probably the most worrying thing, but we'd have to account for the fact it's been a pretty hot summer here. Not having followed AFL for long, I wouldn't know what to expect of players' skill levels during summer training.

Diego
31st January 2003, 10:20 PM
Sorry Lizz but Jude is a hack. I have to disagree with you.

Yeah he properly hit our forwards lace out like 3 times last year, but how many times did he turn the ball over or kick it out of bounds? Too many Clangers for an AFL player. Not good enough.

And if he cant concentrate on playing the football we need him to play then what's he doing in AFL footy?

Fossie does have foot skills but you can say that he does lose concentration sometimes as evident under Eade.

Hopefully I will be proven wrong this year by Jude. But I strongly doubt it.

One thing I don't question is his commitment at winning the hard ball.

chammond
31st January 2003, 10:42 PM
I don't want to get into the Bolton debate except to say it was noticeable when Roos took over last year, most of the young players lifted, while Jude still struggled to find form. Whatever his (many) critics say, I doubt he'll get any worse in 2003. I do hope to see him get better, as I would with any Swans player.

Sydfan83 - don't get too carried away with what's posted on this board. Bolton doesn't have that many critics - there's just a small group that love to stick the boot in every time his name is mentioned - just as there's a group that don't like Seymour, and another that doesn't like Warfe, and so on.

The fact is that Bolton played every game in 2001 and, apart from his suspension, only missed one game in 2002. This, plus the fact that he's just had his conract renewed, shows that the Swans' match committee obviously don't have any grave misgivings about Bolton, and that's the only opinion that makes any difference.

Diego
31st January 2003, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by chammond
Sydfan83 - don't get too carried away with what's posted on this board. Bolton doesn't have that many critics - there's just a small group that love to stick the boot in every time his name is mentioned -


:rolleyes:

I bet your one of those who likes the "oh well the boys tried their best" when we lose every week.

desredandwhite
31st January 2003, 11:02 PM
I think Cliff is more the type who prefers to wait for the bad performance before bagging the player.

I'm disappointed with JB's 2002 progress as the next guy, but I honestly believe he has potential (yes, it's a dirty word!).. If the club believes in him enough to retain him on the list for 2003 and can see something in him, I'm willing to wait for performances before criticising his sloppy skills :D

Diego
31st January 2003, 11:12 PM
Well his skills havent improved since 2001. However I am prepared to cut every blade of grass with a nail clipper on the Driver ave field at the end of the season if he is in our top5 performers for 2003!

:D

desredandwhite
31st January 2003, 11:22 PM
That's a bold statement, Diego - and I'll remember it come October if Jude cracks the top 5 in the B&F ;)

Diego
31st January 2003, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by desredandwhite
That's a bold statement, Diego - and I'll remember it come October if Jude cracks the top 5 in the B&F ;)


Yeah big staement..well lets make it the patch of grass near the goal square. ;)

Benevolent Ert
1st February 2003, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by desredandwhite
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The delivery highlight for me for 2002 was in the last game - Barry Hall to Stephen Doyle. If he wasn't our best option for FF, I'd have him permanently stationed at CHF, delivering to the forward line.

I've said this before too - and from watching Scotty STevens at Port Melbourne last year I'm of the opinion that young "Splinters" does his best work in the goal square. Have 'Big Bad' roaming the 50 and Scotty in the square - and to stretch defences occasionally, plonk big Doyley next to him

chammond
1st February 2003, 03:55 PM
I bet your one of those who likes the "oh well the boys tried their best" when we lose every week.

You've found me out, Diego, and as a reward I've found what you've been looking for . . .

http://judebolton.1hwy.com/

BTW, I can lend you a nail clipper . . . it looks a bit like a chainsaw, but it does the job okay.

Diego
1st February 2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by chammond
You've found me out, Diego, and as a reward I've found what you've been looking for . . .

http://judebolton.1hwy.com/

BTW, I can lend you a nail clipper . . . it looks a bit like a chainsaw, but it does the job okay.

from your website:


Personally Jude is one of my favourite players not only because he?s got GREAT footy skills or because he plays for the BEST team

I can only agree on one thing in that statement..:p

hehe i am confident i will not need any clippers let alone a chainsaw. ;) :o

omnipotent
2nd February 2003, 04:58 AM
the lack of fitness is a worry but also I spoke to a high up official at another club the other day and he said that most clubs expected Sydney to finish in the bottom three and there was some sort of consensus which suggested that we have almost the worst list in the competition. The same person said that's why they can't understand why guys such as Hall and Davis wanted to come to us. They think they must be motivated only by money.

Gunn
2nd February 2003, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by chammond
Sydfan83 - don't get too carried away with what's posted on this board. Bolton doesn't have that many critics - there's just a small group that love to stick the boot in every time his name is mentioned - just as there's a group that don't like Seymour, and another that doesn't like Warfe, and so on.


In case anyone doesn't yet know, I am a foundation member of the anti Warfe group. Now there is a player that has dreadful skills and hasn't improved one bit since he came to Sydney. He is my litmus test of how we are progressing. If he can get a game then the standard of our list is so low we are going nowhere.

I am not a member of any other group but I have applied for application forms for a couple of others. I'll fill them out but won't send them in just yet. :-)

DST
2nd February 2003, 11:41 AM
Omnipotent, I would be interested to know which club your source comes from on rating our list the worst in the league?

DST

SWANSBEST
2nd February 2003, 07:31 PM
Eddie has been saying plenty about the Sydney scene lately so I guess that he is the most likely source of information. He never misses an opportunity to put the boot into the Swans. The use of Nick Davis in the argument adds more weight to my theory.

CureTheSane
2nd February 2003, 07:57 PM
Tend to agree with Warfe being so-so
I've always been pretty unimpressed with him.
I think perhaps he should have ben delisted, but this sure is the make or break year for him.

Scott Stevens needs to bulk up more on last year if he is to be any sort of target in the goal square.

TheHood
3rd February 2003, 08:31 AM
Scott Stevens needs to bulk up more on last year if he is to be any sort of target in the goal square.

Good point CTS. Scott is deceptively tall and has good insticnts and skills so if he can find an extra 10 or 15kgs, plus some wild courage, he would be a real force up forward.

I'd love to see a foward line of:

Davis Doyle Stevens
O'Loughlin Hall Goodes/Ball

There are a few avenues to goal here.

shearer
3rd February 2003, 03:56 PM
Good to see have mentioned Warfe as skill deficient.I once heard this by an ex-swans player who was talking about the best kick at the swans.

He replied "If it was Derek Kickett kicking you would lead to were u wanted to kick the goal from, Kevin Dyson was just as good, but if Rowan Warfe had the nut it was a case of lead and pray that he got it within 100m of you"....i think that says it all.

Charlie
3rd February 2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by TheHood
Good point CTS. Scott is deceptively tall and has good insticnts and skills so if he can find an extra 10 or 15kgs, plus some wild courage, he would be a real force up forward.

I'd love to see a foward line of:

Davis Doyle Stevens
O'Loughlin Hall Goodes/Ball

There are a few avenues to goal here.

And.... who will play in the ruck?

NMWBloods
3rd February 2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by Charlie
And.... who will play in the ruck?

Goodes, Ball and Doyle would rotate.

penga
3rd February 2003, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by NMWBloods
Goodes, Ball and Doyle would rotate.

if lumbering rookie ricky could carry our ruck division last year why couldnt our new rookie in meiklejohn be used? does anyone have an insight on this fella??? i cant wait to the 16th where we can see for ourselves!!!

we could potentially end up with a very large team the way we are drafting ie potentially hypothetically speaking:

b: Schauble (192) LRT (196) James (189)
hb: Nicks (185) Saddington (194) Dempster (189)
c: Kennelly (190) Goodes (191) O'Mohaney (190)
hf: Meiklejohn (197) Hall (194) Hunt (192)
f: O'loughlin (188) Doyle (203) Stevens (192)
ball: Ball (200) C Bolton (188) Sundqvist (188)
int: Powell (190) O'Keefe (187) Macleski (186) Warfe (189)

imagine the matchup problems that would create, ie on the height basis and taking away all skills of course... :)

thanks lizz, however u may have to edit your post now... :)

desredandwhite
3rd February 2003, 09:34 PM
That side would be slaughtered if it rained ;)

Also, don't forget Ricky Mott was 20/21 when he was drafted. An extra couple of years to bulk up and play in a state league would have really helped him out early last year..

liz
3rd February 2003, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by penga
if lumbering rookie ricky could carry our ruck division last year why couldnt our new rookie in meiklejohn be used? does anyone have an insight on this fella??? i cant wait to the 16th where we can see for ourselves!!!

we could potentially end up with a very large team the way we are drafting ie potentially hypothetically speaking:

b: Schauble (192) LRT (196) Powell (190)
hb: James (189) Saddington (194) Dempster (189)
c: Kennelly (190) Goodes (191) O'Mohaney (190)
hf: Meiklejohn (197) Hall (194) Hunt (192)
f: O'loughlin (188) Doyle (203) Stevens (192)
ball: Ball (200) C Bolton (188) Sundqvist (188)
int: Powell (190) O'Keefe (187) Macleski (186) Warfe (189)

imagine the matchup problems that create, ie on the height basis and taking away all skills of course... :)

Powell might struggle a bit there - unless we've cloned him. But in order for it to be a totally balanced team, maybe just slip Schneider or Crouch in there. On the bench only of course - wouldn't want to upset the starting balance!

Had to confess I'd always thought James was a bit taller than 189cm - though I see that's what he's officially listed at. Also, looking at those heights, it's amazing how effective Goodes has been in the ruck considering how "short" he is.

penga
3rd February 2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by lizz
But in order for it to be a totally balanced team, maybe just slip Schneider or Crouch in there. On the bench only of course - wouldn't want to upset the starting balance!

Had to confess I'd always thought James was a bit taller than 189cm - though I see that's what he's officially listed at. Also, looking at those heights, it's amazing how effective Goodes has been in the ruck considering how "short" he is.

i always thought that a 189cm fb was a bit short when everyone was saying that he is primed as the replacement for dunks... maybe the site has it wrong???

i made up a spreadsheet of all our players ages, heights and weights. some of the stats were omitted for the rookies as they havent been posted on the official site as yet regarding their height, weight, age etc and the average age was 23 (age at end of 2003 season) 186cm and 84kg. everyone included.

Ajn
3rd February 2003, 11:07 PM
It would help if we taught the Irish Lad to kick first.

penga
3rd February 2003, 11:10 PM
sydney always get flogged in the rain, so i dont think that this team would be any different than current standards... :)

it would be good if we got some more rain during the preseason so that we might actually work out how to play in the wet...

Ajn
3rd February 2003, 11:18 PM
that's why they fixed the scg bog problem, although in '96.....

shearer
4th February 2003, 08:25 AM
Only skilful sides win in the wet. Wet weather brings out the best in skilful players.

For any further proof that semi at the SCG against Adelaide, in 1998(i think).Jarman,Vardy & co tore us apart cos they had one touch skill and could still hit people lace out with a wet brick.

Were not a skilful side, so pray the heavens dont open.

A swans fan
4th February 2003, 12:59 PM
For any further proof that semi at the SCG against Adelaide, in 1998(i think).Jarman,Vardy & co tore us apart cos they had one touch skill and could still hit people lace out with a wet brick.

OMG!! Don't remind me of that match!!
I have nightmares everytime anyone reminds me of it!!!

:eek:

skilts stilts
5th February 2003, 01:53 PM
Why all the pessimism about 2003.Anything less than top 8 is unacceptable.The only gap we need to fill is Dunkley.That might be a temporary problem but should be offset by the youngsters ready to step up to the plate and the return of a few injured players.
The negative comments are getting a bit boring and so are the excuses already emanating from the coach.When a new coach starts sprouting that supporters should not expect much and that the team is in a rebuilding phase you know he has serious doubts about his own ability.
I have no doubts we have the cattle to make the 8 and we should accept nothing less.

Reggi
5th February 2003, 08:26 PM
Wait and see.

Really it depends on how much our player group has teaken on the responsibility over the summer.

We have a group that must step up

Doyle
Fosdike
Bolton
Saddington
Goodes
N Davis?

Some slow improvers

Kenneally
Fixter

and a group who are under the pump

Stevens
Buchanan
Sundqvist
Luke Ablett
Schneider
O'Keefe

Really it depends on whether these players were willing to do everything possible to improve over the summer. If not we and they could be in trouble.

We will have some indication in a few weeks.

liz
5th February 2003, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by Reggi
Wait and see.


and a group who are under the pump

Stevens
Buchanan
Sundqvist
Luke Ablett
Schneider
O'Keefe



Stevens, Buchanan, Ablett I agree. Is going to be particularly tough for Bucky given he will have missed pretty much the entire pre-season.

O'Keefe has probably done pretty much everything that could be expected of him thus far given injuries and the personal problems he had last year. I agree he can't stand still but I'd group him in the first lot.

Sundqvist and Schneider - I think that's a tough call, especially Schneider. He's only been on the list a year and was suffering from GF for most of that. When he wasn't he played some pretty good football, by all reports, for Port. If you're going to include Schneider in this group, why not LRT, Powell and Hunt as well?

There's also that group of mature players who need to stand up and be at least consistent - not that they (all) haven't in the past. Just it will be ultra important this year. Schauble and Nicks are two I'm particularly thinking of here because when they play well the team functions much better.

SWANSBEST
5th February 2003, 09:59 PM
It is interesting that Schneider has been mentioned a few times on this thread. I have only seen him play once and that was for the Redbacks and he was BOG. I thought that he was a real ball magnet and I was very impressed with his skills. Not long after he contacted GF and played little football. I will be watching him with much interest.

skilts stilts
6th February 2003, 11:22 AM
If Buchannan,Stevens et al are classified as under the pump then guys like McPherson,Kirk,Barry,Matthews,Goodes and Cresswell must be at deaths door.

snajik
6th February 2003, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by skilts stilts
If Buchannan,Stevens et al are classified as under the pump then guys like McPherson,Kirk,Barry,Matthews,Goodes and Cresswell must be at deaths door.

Not quite as dismal as Colin Powell's speech, but a pile of rubbish nonetheless. The Swans will finish top 4 this year and all of these guys will be strong contributors.

skilts stilts
6th February 2003, 01:42 PM
That is nearly as funny as Hussein expecting his army to inflict heavy casualties on the enemy.If your expecting a top 4 position it certainly won't be due largely to the efforts of that bunch.

shearer
6th February 2003, 01:44 PM
We definately arent top 4 material..maybe next year but not this year.

snajik
6th February 2003, 01:57 PM
Let's discuss this again in 7 months time.

liz
6th February 2003, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by skilts stilts
If Buchannan,Stevens et al are classified as under the pump then guys like McPherson,Kirk,Barry,Matthews,Goodes and Cresswell must be at deaths door.

Barry, Mathews, Goodes and Cresswell are clearly established senior team players and unless something happens to change the pecking order, can't really consider to be under the pump per se. Not to mention two of these players finished in the top 3 at the B&F count, and another did the previous year.

Kirk may not quite be an automatic first team player but I fancy he will be in the team far more often than not in 2003. His skills may not be the best ever but his fitness and work ethic can't really be criticised.

McPherson may well be under the pump in the sense that others are poised to overtake him in the selection pecking order but he's still a proven "handy" player at AFL level.

Stevens and Buchanan are different in the sense they are far from established AFL players. Stevens is entering his fourth year on the list and Buchanan his third. Both will have to do something this year to convince the coaching staff they have what it takes - they won't get another year otherwise. May be a little tough, but that's how the AFL system works. Plenty of youngsters only get two years to show something, so they've not been starved of time.

Steve
6th February 2003, 10:30 PM
You'd be hard pressed arguing that any of our current players played above their ability/potential in 2002, and for various reasons (including injury) many played well below it.

Probably Williams, Cresswell and Crouch played to their fulll capabilities over the whole season. Fixter and Kennelly played pretty much to the highest standard that could be expected of them at that stage of their development.

That leaves a huge scope for improvement for those ready and willing to take up the challenge.

Guys like O'Keefe, Doyle and Ablett, as well as the likes of Seymour, Warfe, Nicks really need to have good seasons - no matter what.

A full season of poor performances and big questions will be asked.

If they can't get on the park they'll be (somewhat legitimately) branded as injury-riddled.

One possible bonus for us is that we have a number of relatively unknown 'rookies' who are effectively starting their careers as 20-something players. Stevens, Doyle, Ablett, Sundqvist, even O'Keefe are really looking to begin their seniors careers having had that bit extra time to develop.

You'd imagine few sides have really focussed in on Fosdike, Bolton, Mathews, Fixter, Crouch etc - they have an opportunity to take advantage of that in the first half of the year.

Maybe they won't admit it but there'd be a number of clubs who'd be happy to have a young(ish) group of talls of the quality of Hall, Saddington, Doyle, Goodes, Stevens, O'Loughlin, LRT etc.

omnipotent
7th February 2003, 01:18 AM
I went interstate at the weekend and everybody I talked with thinks we have the worst list. I am starting to agree. They further pointed out that we recruited a guy, Davis, who admits even in an article the footy is not a big thing in his life and he doesn't like it full-on. Last night I went to a Collingwood function and heard their coaches and general staff talk, . Malthouse was super impressive. As was their recruiter Judkins. I think in terms of professionalism, when I compare with Swans functions, they are light years ahead of us. Perhaps it's because we are such a young club and lack the tradition, but I loved the feel about their function. My Pie supporting friends are trying to convert me. I seems they might make a foray into Sydney territory and I think they will be successful and many in the west might follow the black and white.

Reggi
7th February 2003, 07:20 AM
These days two years is about as long as smaller players get. Buchanan was lucky to get another year, Schnieder would want to get some runs on the board.

Charlie
7th February 2003, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by omnipotent
I went interstate at the weekend and everybody I talked with thinks we have the worst list. I am starting to agree. They further pointed out that we recruited a guy, Davis, who admits even in an article the footy is not a big thing in his life and he doesn't like it full-on. Last night I went to a Collingwood function and heard their coaches and general staff talk, . Malthouse was super impressive. As was their recruiter Judkins. I think in terms of professionalism, when I compare with Swans functions, they are light years ahead of us. Perhaps it's because we are such a young club and lack the tradition, but I loved the feel about their function. My Pie supporting friends are trying to convert me. I seems they might make a foray into Sydney territory and I think they will be successful and many in the west might follow the black and white.

a) I think I'll wait and see just how bad our "worst list" is. That is certainly overstating it. We're probably not at finals level, but just wait.

b) Young club? We happen to be 18 years older than Collingwood, thankyou very much.

c) Malthouse is a good talker, uh huh. He dazzles you with comments like "the cart is slow but the ox is patient". And you sit back in your chair thinking, he's soooo much smarter than me, I have no idea what that means... In actual fact I doubt he does either.

d) If Davis is such a loser, and Collingwood is so professional, why did they fight tooth and nail to keep him?

e) Why would people in the West be anymore likely to follow the Pies? I don't remember them ever saying they were going to move home games to Sydney. I don't see the Collingwood Army accepting that. So if they are only playing in Melbourne, with one AWAY game in Sydney a year, why on earth would people in the West bother following them? It takes more than a training camp to get new fans.

NMWBloods
7th February 2003, 08:51 AM
Good points Charlie. Malthouse is like Sam Newman. They're smarter than the average footballer so they think they're geniuses - failing to realise that just makes them middle of the road in the real world...

snajik
7th February 2003, 01:26 PM
Only Brisbane and Adelaide stretched us last season. Footscray may have belted us, but that game proved to be an aberration.

This is a very even competition. Ladder positions over the last few years reveal just how volatile it can be. No one expected Geelong, Melbourne or Collingwood to do as well as they did at this stage last year. There is no reason that with universal incremental improvement Sydney can't be this year's big improvers.

Anyone who thinks we have the worst list in the competition is a complete idiot. I suspect that this interpretation has a lot to do with the Melbourne media's fixation with the ruminations of Maguire, Sheedy and Malthouse. They seem to dictate the views of the masses.

Even if we were the worst team going around that should never impact on you level of support.

TheMase
7th February 2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by snajik
Anyone who thinks we have the worst list in the competition is a complete idiot.

I agree with this.

Some of the players on our list, clubs would LOVE to get a hold of.

Like these players IMO:

Jason Saddington, Adam Goodes, Barry Hall, Ryan O'Keefe, Ben Fixter, TADHG KENNELLY, Lewis Roberts-Thompson, Stephen Doyle, Nick Davis ;) and many more :D

Cheer Cheer
7th February 2003, 03:44 PM
The sig says it all

TheMase
7th February 2003, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by Cheer Cheer
The sig says it all

:D

floppinab
7th February 2003, 04:37 PM
This thing about list comparison is pretty hard to take. The difference in list quality from one team to the next I would suggest is not much different apart from Brisbane certainly being the standout. Keeping in mind that the environment the Club creates has of course a hell of a lot to do with how a list develops, with again what Brisbane have been able to do contributing hugely to their success.

To say conclusively we have the worst list in the comp is rediculous taking the simplest measure of ladder position for the past few years as some sort of grading of that issue.

On my point of environment I'm hoping to see an improvement in skill level this year associated with a more positive style of play. I'm convinced it was Eades negative and containment style of play (which fundamentally stresses a lesser emphasis on ball skills) which was the key contributor to our poor skills. A stated more attacking, higher scoring, approach from Roos should help and hopefully lead to a better skilled list of footballers this year.

omnipotent
7th February 2003, 07:28 PM
we are only 18 years older if you count South melbourne and who would be silly enough to do that. South melbourne is dead and buried and we want no part of it. Go to Melbourne and talk to the old south supporters, most support other clubs or have given the game away, they are pissed off with losing their club. Some were conned and and still see a link between the club, but it is as tenuous as you could possibly imagine. sydney is Sydney, we have moved away from the Melbourne roots and occasionally pretend some allegiance to south for appeasement reasons only. But no intelligent person would actually believe that the two clubs are associated. South Melbourne is dead and buried. We started in 1982. Anyway apart from really early years, south was a loser club with a loser mentality.

Charlie
7th February 2003, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by omnipotent
we are only 18 years older if you count South melbourne and who would be silly enough to do that. South melbourne is dead and buried and we want no part of it. Go to Melbourne and talk to the old south supporters, most support other clubs or have given the game away, they are pissed off with losing their club. Some were conned and and still see a link between the club, but it is as tenuous as you could possibly imagine. sydney is Sydney, we have moved away from the Melbourne roots and occasionally pretend some allegiance to south for appeasement reasons only. But no intelligent person would actually believe that the two clubs are associated. South Melbourne is dead and buried. We started in 1982. Anyway apart from really early years, south was a loser club with a loser mentality.

Well, as a matter of fact I live in Melbourne, and have been watching footy with the people you know nothing about for the last 8 years now. Crawl back into your hole and go on believing that you know what you are talking about. But I don't want to hear it.

South and Sydney are the same club. Come to Melbourne and talk to the old South supporters.

chammond
7th February 2003, 08:05 PM
Well, as a matter of fact I live in Melbourne, and have been watching footy with the people you know nothing about for the last 8 years now. Crawl back into your hole and go on believing that you know what you are talking about. But I don't want to hear it.

Brilliant, Charlie!

Just about the perfect response.

omnipotent
7th February 2003, 09:41 PM
well I am sorry guys but the way I see it, if a club moves interstate it is not an amalgam but becomes a new club. I have friends in Melbourne who did follow south and most don't follow Sydney - their children follow other clubs like Richmond. Some are annoyed that south didn't fight hard enough to retain its base in Melbourne. I don't want to be associated with South. I know we will never have the tradition like clubs such as Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon but we can still build something here. We are SYDNEY, not MELBOURNE, and we should create our own club as a separate entity totally divorced from links with south. And if you check South's records since about the 1930's it was a loser club. I pity people like Charlie who think the two clubs are linked. Do you really believe that the Paul Kellys of this world were playing for the south jumper? Get hold of yourself! The kids growing up around me know more about the Brisbane lions than south, and south doesn't interest them. Go and have a burial ceremony for south if you still are stupid enough to see them as being married to us. We don't want to be haunted by the sceptre of a loser club. I will not crawl into my hole Sydney Swans are Sydney and not south. And I would love us to get rid of the Swan and take something like the shark which is not as gentle. No wonder south were not successful with a moniker like swan. It is a bit risible really. Let us start afresh with a nickname which is more quintessentially Sydney. We have already modified the jumper anyway. So Melbourne swans supporters you are only welcome if you consider us as a Sydney entity, not some relic of South's sad past.

robbieando
7th February 2003, 10:32 PM
well I am sorry guys but the way I see it, if a club moves interstate it is not an amalgam but becomes a new club.

Wrong its the same club. South didn't fold it was the same club and as such South Melbourne have more rights to this club than Sydney does.


I have friends in Melbourne who did follow south and most don't follow Sydney - their children follow other clubs like Richmond. Some are annoyed that south didn't fight hard enough to retain its base in Melbourne.

No different to what happened with Fitzroy. These same people have over time come to learn that if we didn't move the club would of died.


I don't want to be associated with South. I know we will never have the tradition like clubs such as Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon but we can still build something here.

I doubt it very much why go 10 steps back when if things stay the same we can go 10 steps forward instead. So what if we haven't been successful - this is what makes this club so great for me we earn success the hard way and when we do its worth it. I have always said I rather support a unsuccessful side than a successful side, because we fans would understand what success means better than a fan who is spoiled for success.


We are SYDNEY, not MELBOURNE, and we should create our own club as a separate entity totally divorced from links with south.

We are Sydney now, but we can't forget what we had and still have in Melbourne, a separate enitity now is just a waste of time.


And if you check South's records since about the 1930's it was a loser club.

And what since we moved to Sydney we have been a picture of success?? Of course not


I pity people like Charlie who think the two clubs are linked. Do you really believe that the Paul Kellys of this world were playing for the south jumper?

They aren't linked you fool they are the same bloodly thing. The jumper we wear today was first worn back in 1987. Paul Kelly played for the Red and White the same as Bob Skilton before him


Get hold of yourself! The kids growing up around me know more about the Brisbane lions than south, and south doesn't interest them.

Funny that seeing as the Brisbane Lions only came into being in 1996


Go and have a burial ceremony for south if you still are stupid enough to see them as being married to us. We don't want to be haunted by the sceptre of a loser club.

You don't seem to have many supporters on that front. Why have a burial for a club that hasn't died??? Remember since moving here the Swans have had more failure than success. Your just a johny come lately who thinks that they have more rights to this club than the orignial fans from Melbourne.


I will not crawl into my hole Sydney Swans are Sydney and not south. And I would love us to get rid of the Swan and take something like the shark which is not as gentle. No wonder south were not successful with a moniker like swan. It is a bit risible really. Let us start afresh with a nickname which is more quintessentially Sydney. We have already modified the jumper anyway.

You can't do **** about us here in Melbourne because we are this club like it or not. If you want your own club go to the AFL and ask for your own one to start. Like it or not the Swans are here to stay and frankly you have no right to tell me that I can't support MY club, just because you don't like the logo. Start afresh with your own club not mine.


Melbourne swans supporters you are only welcome if you consider us as a Sydney entity, not some relic of South's sad past

Excuse me but you have no right to tell Melbourne based fans what to do with this club we sent the club up to Sydney and frankly I don't care what you think this club is South Melbourne like it or not. If you want your own club go start one from the ground up, call it what you like - but don't think you can change this club because we will forever be known as the SWANS.

DICKHEAD

JF_Bay22_SCG
7th February 2003, 11:17 PM
I have to agree with Robbie Ando and Charlie. The team that was South Melbourne IS now called the Sydney Swans. The team has an interesting dual history, and even more interestingly two quite distinct groups of supporters, reflecting the intrensically different sporting cultures in both Sydney and Melbourne.

Do that mean that we should forget our history as South Melbourne-NO WAY! The club that won the flag in 1933 is MY FOOTY CLUB. Roy Cazaly, Bobby Skilton Graham Teasdale etc played in RED & WHITE for MY club.

I went through a period in the early 90s wanting Sydney to play in NSW light and dark blue. Then the club wisely chose to teach the Sydney people about the club's traditions and history. They started playing "Cheer Cheer" as the official club song. That has been the MOST important aspect of the evolution of this club. For once people on both sides of the Barassi line identified with the same song. Sydney did a Steve Waugh and learnt that to understand your future you have to be proud of your past.

We are a club that now is as established in Sydney as it ever has been. Does this mean we should show disrespect to our Melbourne fans-NO WAY!!!????

Anyway, who cares how you started following the Swans? We are Swans fans. We wear a red and white scarf to games. We chant "Sydney", EVEN IN MELBOURNE!!!! Each person has a funny story as to how they got interested in the club, or indeed AFL in general. The children of 97 are now fully fledged supporters (creating fan websites etc etc :o) ) I truly love our Melbourne fans. I get to feel the true Melbourne football culture without having to go an watch another team.

We are very very lucky to have supporters like the ones we do in Melbourne. Come and watch a game with em one day Sydney people. And learn to respect their unequivocal love of their club.:D

cheers fellas.

JF (slowly waking up out of a very extended off-season slumber)

NMWBloods
7th February 2003, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by omnipotent
we are only 18 years older if you count South melbourne and who would be silly enough to do that. South melbourne is dead and buried and we want no part of it. Go to Melbourne and talk to the old south supporters, most support other clubs or have given the game away, they are pissed off with losing their club. Some were conned and and still see a link between the club, but it is as tenuous as you could possibly imagine. sydney is Sydney, we have moved away from the Melbourne roots and occasionally pretend some allegiance to south for appeasement reasons only. But no intelligent person would actually believe that the two clubs are associated. South Melbourne is dead and buried. We started in 1982. Anyway apart from really early years, south was a loser club with a loser mentality.

This is the biggest load of crap. I have followed the Swans since '75, my cousin since '65 and my Dad since '38 or thereabouts. There are many long-time SouthMelbourne supporters still following the Swans. You obviously weren't following them when they did move from Melb to Sydney or you wouldn't be spouting such puerile rubbish. Judging by this post I think you're a troll anyway with no idea of the history of the club.

NMWBloods
7th February 2003, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by omnipotent
Do you really believe that the Paul Kellys of this world were playing for the south jumper? Get hold of yourself!

Why do you think they sing the Notre Dame March if there is no link to South? Why do you think no 14 is such a special number?

tez
7th February 2003, 11:45 PM
Without Sth Melb the Sydney Swans would not exist and
this cannot be disputed. Those Melbourne supporters
who followed their clubs move to Sydney are true red and
white and not like the fickle who drop off after a couple of
losses. These are real supporters. I still remember
going to see the Frances Jacksons, Stevie Wright,
Colin Hounsel , Mark Browning etc at the SCG playing
their hearts out for the Red and White and have been to
most games since then. If more Sydney supporters were
true Red and White like our Melb supporters our club
would be a lot stronger. Yes, we are the Sydney Swans
but always remember how we came to be.





BY the way I am a Sydneysider.

Charlie
7th February 2003, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by omnipotent
well I am sorry guys but the way I see it, if a club moves interstate it is not an amalgam but becomes a new club. I have friends in Melbourne who did follow south and most don't follow Sydney - their children follow other clubs like Richmond. Some are annoyed that south didn't fight hard enough to retain its base in Melbourne. I don't want to be associated with South. I know we will never have the tradition like clubs such as Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon but we can still build something here. We are SYDNEY, not MELBOURNE, and we should create our own club as a separate entity totally divorced from links with south. And if you check South's records since about the 1930's it was a loser club. I pity people like Charlie who think the two clubs are linked. Do you really believe that the Paul Kellys of this world were playing for the south jumper? Get hold of yourself! The kids growing up around me know more about the Brisbane lions than south, and south doesn't interest them. Go and have a burial ceremony for south if you still are stupid enough to see them as being married to us. We don't want to be haunted by the sceptre of a loser club. I will not crawl into my hole Sydney Swans are Sydney and not south. And I would love us to get rid of the Swan and take something like the shark which is not as gentle. No wonder south were not successful with a moniker like swan. It is a bit risible really. Let us start afresh with a nickname which is more quintessentially Sydney. We have already modified the jumper anyway. So Melbourne swans supporters you are only welcome if you consider us as a Sydney entity, not some relic of South's sad past.

What a sad excuse for a Sydney supporter.

Who is the WE you talk about??? You think you are superior, or actually have any support for your viewpoint??? WRONG!

You think that the Sydney based fans can decide whether Melbourne fans are welcome? WRONG! I see the Sydney based membership of our club going down a little each year, but the Melbourne fans stick around. You know why??? South Melbourne didn't give up.... WE DON'T GIVE UP EITHER.

You think we are supporters of an extinct loser club. Bullcrap. Although I wasn't born in the days of the SMFC name, I am priveliged to share the tradition of the Lakeside Oval, through the people who I go to watch the game with. Yeah, you know those people who never shut up, WHO NEVER LEAVE BEFORE THE END OF THE GAME, even when we are surrounded by 50,000 moronic Collingwood or Essendon fans, ready to rub in our defeat the moment the siren goes! We don't skulk off to the pub to catch the end of the rugby mate!!!

You are the first supporter who is too bloody-minded to realise, WE ARE THE SAME TEAM! Before you go telling us who's welcome or not, I'll let you know, YOU'RE not welcome at MY club!!!

Charlie
8th February 2003, 12:03 AM
Oh, and by the way. They will change our club's nickname over my dead body. I know that Robbie and JF at least would join me in chaining ourselves to the SCG goalposts to prevent that from happening.

Omnipotent, you aren't part of our club.

desredandwhite
8th February 2003, 12:33 AM
I'll have to go in to bat for the South Melbourne connection too. I've lived in Sydney since moving to this country, and have only followed the game seriously for 6 years. However, I believe that the old South roots are what make our club so interesting. While it is true that we are now the Sydney Football Club, we are merely adding to the history that began way back when with the South Melbourne Football Club. From Pratt to Cazaly to Skilton to Healy to Kelly, they all played for The Club.

As someone mentioned above, you need to understand where you came from to really appreciate where you're going.

Oh, and if you consider being "a loser club" a valid way to decide where your allegiances lie, you're probably following football for all the wrong reasons.

desredandwhite
8th February 2003, 12:40 AM
BTW guys, please remember to argue the topic and not the person. Thanks.

liz
8th February 2003, 12:48 AM
In many ways there is room for both views.

The majority of Swans fans are Sydney people through and through, some of whom were never even aware of the Swans in their SM incarnation (myself included - I didn't live in the country). If those people want to follow the Swans as Sydney's team and have no interest in its SM history, so be it.

But those whose interest does stem from the old South Melbourne connection are exceedingly welcome as far as I am concerned. And those who only date from the club's Sydney phase but are interested in the pre-Sydney history (again including myself) surely have the right to do so. It is clear that many associated with South Melbourne view the Swans as a continuation of their club - eg Bob Skilton who regularly attends Sydney functions.

I do have a problem with anyone who denies the rights of the other group, however, particularly when it doesn't affect their own reasons / methods of following the club.

JF_Bay22_SCG
8th February 2003, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by Charlie
Oh, and by the way. They will change our club's nickname over my dead body. I know that Robbie and JF at least would join me in chaining ourselves to the SCG goalposts to prevent that from happening.

Yeah, but we should leave that for Ian Frazer, aka Give the Kids a Kick. Apparently boltcutters had to be found to get him to leave his seat that he handcuffed himself to.

I lived in North America for a year where everyone remarked on how unmanly it was to call a team the Swans. :mad: (as if we just thought that thinking up a name for a sporting side was something we did over here, well just in rugby league then! )

I then had to remind them of the fact that in the 30s the club got the nickname because of the amount of West Australians in the line-up, and not because of the things that swim around Albert Park Lake, as is commonly known. It is called HISTORY, something most Americans seem to forget when relating to sporting franchises.

I then went on to take the piss out of sporting teams called the Anaheim Mighty Ducks, or Toronto Raptors (named because Durassic Park came out the year the team was created). Or even worse, teams called the Quebec Nordiques one year and the Colorado Avalanche the next. Great traditional names, those!!!!!:p

JF Go Montreal Canadiens (NHL), Montreal Alouettes (CFL), Toronto Blue Jays (MLB) by the way:D

robbieando
8th February 2003, 07:52 AM
If someone doesn't like the history of this club and wants to change it, go support another club that suits your needs. You would have to be stupid to think the club would be willing to lose over 6000 paid up members just because a small number of people want a club with a better nickname, better colors and a better history.

I love this club too much to just let some small minded people effect what we have - A GREAT CLUB WITH A GREAT HISTORY.

Sure we don't have the preimerships the Collingwoods and the Carltons have, but heck the lack of success is what inspires me to new heights where this club is conserned.

When we finally brake though for that 1 premiership, I tell you it will mean more to me than it would if it was premiership number 20. We value success more than the big clubs do, they just take it for granted. Failure hurts but at least I always look on the bright side of life and can see the bright days ahead. In the early 90's when we were always losing and I was having to put up with endless **** from the kids at school I would always look ahead at what could be, not what should of been.

I love this club, I love what its about and most of all I accept the history for what it is - A GREAT ****ING HISTORY.

Try and take away MY club and I'll make sure you'll be in court for years blocking any attempt. Trust me when I say the day the colors change, the nickname changes and the history wiped is the day AUSTRALIAN RULES FOOTBALL dies for me.

JUST TRY ME

SWANSBEST
8th February 2003, 09:18 AM
Well said Robbieando and others

I have been a passionate Swans supporter for 50 years . My father ,now dead ,attended the 1933 Grnd Final and his father was also an old Bloods supporter . The family lived in Middle Park.I remember as a child being taken to the Lakeside Oval to see great players like Ron Clegg and Fred Goldsmith play and also watching the night premierships which we won more often than not..

. There is a great sense of history in my continuing support of the Swans. When South moved to Sydney there was never a question about changing allegiances in our family . We were red and white through and through. Following the Swans was also compatible with my father's philosophy of spreading the game north of the border. I think our family became even more fanatical as we considered the Swans were on a crusade The lack of premierships has increased the desire and when we do win one the feeling will be so much better because of the struggle involved.

To even contemplate a change in name or colours is madness as far as I concerned and would destroy that bond or sense of belonging that most of us feel for the Swans.

TheMase
8th February 2003, 09:59 AM
Thanks to everyone that has defended the South Melbourne connection.

I believe that our club has a fantastic history, and I don't think that should ever be lost.....

A great history is it...

What about the 1945 Bloodbath Grandfinal, how many players were reporter? 11?

Bob Pratt, set the highest goalkicking total back in the 30's and that still stands today at 152.

We have the most brownlow medals out of any club in the competitions history (well we did, not sure if that is still the case).

A fantastic history, and one that should NEVER be forgotten.




Also another thanks to Robbie and Charlie and everyone else that has defended this connection again. It just reminded me on how much PASSION our supporter have for this club, nearly brought a tear to my eye. Thanks guys :)

Dpw
8th February 2003, 10:05 AM
Got to agree with you guys(robbie and co)

Histroy has many angles, we should respect all of them.

As a WA lad it was from the VFL highlight packages on saturday and sunday that started my interest in them and the amount of WA players playing for them and my absloute fav Brad Tumbridge.

Cheer Cheer
8th February 2003, 02:16 PM
Just on the old south melbourne fans in melbourne, me , like charlie have been watching sydney play in melb for 8 yrs now and the reason we have a huge following in melbourne is because, unlike a previous person said, all the old south melbourne fans have accepted sydney as their team to follow and come out in droves to the melbourne games.
We have close to the strongest interstate following in melbourne and we can attribute this following largely to all the south melbourne supporters who have continued their support for the swans after the move to sydney.

Ajn
8th February 2003, 10:21 PM
agreed. As a fellow Melbournite, it was a tough transitition and not all followed, many changed teams, but we will stand strong through the good and bad times. As we have done!

robbieando
9th February 2003, 05:23 PM
The ones who remain are the real fans, the ones who left (and they are very few it has to be said) well its there loss. I was born the winter we moved to Sydney and my father decided to wait a few years before getting me involved in Footy just because he was an active member of KSAS. Its a family thing for me and many others. I believe the support we have in Melbourne is the greatest in the league. After all how many fans would stay with a club when they are yanked interstate and mistreated for many years and finally put up with bad management who nearly sent the club bankrupt. Not many.

We have massive passion for this club and slowly but surely the same passion is being instilled in the "newer" supporters.

JF_Bay22_SCG
10th February 2003, 12:30 AM
I can only concur with what Robbie is talking about. We have always been a battling footy club, one that would often just be satisfied with keeping the wolves at bay for another week. Whereas clubs like Hawthorn in the 80s-90s would become blaze about success, it sometimes seemed over the years that we have been fighting an insummountable tide.

Whether I deny it on not that this footy club is pretty much a huge chunk of my life. Put it this way; my Grandpa died on one Saturday early in the morning in the 90s. I was naturally extremely emotional for a while, especially especially in lieu of my mother's hystrionics. Then at 4pm I got my bag and scarf and said "See ya, off to the footy!" I came back totally refreshed and over the sadness of losing my grandpa (wins over Carlton help!!), much to the bewilderment of my totally clueless mother. The footy is a very powerful emotional tool in my life. Regardless of whether things are going well or bad for me in life my moods still have this strange way of sinking when we have gotten beat, and soaring when we put together last quarters like against North Melbourne last year. (Was I the only one who couldn't sleep that night because of the adrenalin?)

I know this sounds very pathetic, but as somebody who has grown up since 1983 watching the Swans, I liken their involvement in my life as very much that of a parent does of a child. In the early days we were an unloved bastard child- ridiculed by most and cherished by so few. Involvement with this child proved difficult most of the time. People would laugh, call you names, or wonder why you could feel proud in continually having such pride in wearing my red and white scarf to games.

With the hard days grew an attachment to this troubled child. Just as a parent would not desert a child in need of support, I refused to part with them, even as my 'other child', the Canberra Raiders were winning premierships etc etc in the NSWRL. Others who have not been through these hard days with their 'child' are never going to contemplate what it means when the thing you devote your heart and soul to suddenly comes good.

People may think that going to the footy is a passive thing. To the first-game watcher it is. There is no attachment, hence no emotional involvement. They may like the game though. Hopefully the adrenalin factor of a big win will have them hooked. Hopefully they'll come again.

In Melbourne much of the attachment comes through hereditory lines. "Once a Sainter, always a Sainter". Hence the respect and emotional attachment is continued from generation to generation. So somebody denouncing the Swans South Melbourne history is indirectly denouncing them AND their family.

It really took me until the finals in 96 to realise just how important this club was to me. My reactions when we beat Essendon in 96 were more hysterical than anything I think I have experienced ever in my life. For at least an hour I was not politely sobbing but WAILING HYSTERICALLY, so much so that I managed to see a guy run off with a 10 foot flag right from under my nose.

Several who have been there through the hard times were similar to me. Only they could describe what it feel like to see this retarded child finally come good and stick it to the world. Disbelief, wonder, excitement, shock, vindication; words cannot describe what was running through my vains in the minutes after that kick went through. To this day the most powerful emotions I have ever experienced IN MY LIFE!

I yearn for something greater. A premiership and a life's ambition realised.

The next chance for that begins in late March against Carlton.

Anyone for one better than 96?

JF

Rizzo
10th February 2003, 02:50 PM
I think this discussion has moved dramatically from the orginal topic. If you guys wish to continue the South or no-South roots discussion may you should start another post? My preference would be to respect the different opinions here and move on.

Rich (with no moderator powers at all).

desredandwhite
10th February 2003, 03:19 PM
Rich is right - it's all been said and done - please start a new thread if you want to continue that discussion.

10th February 2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by snajik
(regarding "worst list in the league" [omnipotent, 2003]) I suspect that this interpretation has a lot to do with the Melbourne media's fixation with the ruminations of Maguire, Sheedy and Malthouse. They seem to dictate the views of the masses.


OMG Snajik! Those were my thoughts exactly! Wasn't even going to give this thought a mention until u brought it to light. Well perceived :)

Thread just didn't seem worth it for a Victorian to reply to. A Victorian who happens to be very close to a particularly prominent Collingwood player. :rolleyes:

10th February 2003, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by omnipotent
Go to Melbourne and talk to the old south supporters, most support other clubs or have given the game away, they are pissed off with losing their club.
ROFLMAO You are so naive! But your name must suggest you are indeed correct :rolleyes:
I'm going to enjoy your posts throughout the year oh magnificent one. That is, if indeed, Des allows you to continue berating other members of this board in the way that you are. I don't see you lasting long. As for me, well, a suspension for getting rid of the ilks of you will be well worth it.

robbieando
10th February 2003, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Mr_Juicy
ROFLMAO You are so naive! But your name must suggest you are indeed correct :rolleyes:
I'm going to enjoy your posts throughout the year oh magnificent one. That is, if indeed, Des allows you to continue berating other members of this board in the way that you are. I don't see you lasting long. As for me, well, a suspension for getting rid of the ilks of you will be well worth it.

Woah settle down. Sure what he posted was crap, wrong and against what most of this board thinks, we should let him be after all no one has supported what he had to say and he hasn't posted since.

10th February 2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG

In Melbourne much of the attachment comes through hereditory lines. "Once a Sainter, always a Sainter". Hence the respect and emotional attachment is continued from generation to generation. So somebody denouncing the Swans South Melbourne history is indirectly denouncing them AND their family.


JF
****ing oath!