Changes for Rnd 3 V GWS

[Cosmic Wizard]

There should be a lot!

Rampe : no run or confidence, something is wrong (injury?), and it will be exposed against the GWS

Hayward : yet again the worst in stats but still get a game; can't someone learn the game from the two's?

Rohan : that kick for goal in the last quarter was a kick from someone unfit

Cunningham : does some good things, then some shockers

Bring in Newman; Stoddart, O'Riordan, anyone who can generate some run from the back line and can kick straight.

I hope our new game plan hasn't destroyed the Sydney Swans of old, for we only won the first game via Buddy,

The lack of skill and aimless bombing of the ball forward was painful to watch.

No one was running forward to get a possession.

[Daisi]

Bring back Zac Jones... I know, he's not popular here, I know he makes mistakes, but he doesn't back away from physical pressure....and I think after today, GWS are going to bring the nudges and the pushes and the niggles....so bring back Zac to respond in kind

[Bexl]

rohan out reid in as marking power or if reid is not fit I would give mccartin a go. he would do as much as rohan at the moment and i think would compete well.

fox out jones in as a running back man

and probably hayward out and newman in. but i am a little disappointed that stodart has not been an emergency yet as i would like to see how he goes if given a game.

[Captain]

We missed Reid tonight as we really had no other tall forward to compliment Buddy.

In: Reid (if fit), Jones, Newman
Out: Haywood, Fox, Rohan

[barry]

rohan out reid in as marking power or if reid is not fit I would give mccartin a go. he would do as much as rohan at the moment and i think would compete well.

fox out jones in as a running back man

and probably hayward out and newman in. but i am a little disappointed that stodart has not been an emergency yet as i would like to see how he goes if given a game.

I agree with this except for the part about dropping Hayward.

[707]

Lets drop some players at the bottom of the stats sheet and bring in those that tore it up in the NEAFL practice match, and those players are ......... well we don't know because there's no report!

Rohan for Newman - no logic in that, wouldn't blame Newman if he looked for a trade out at years end so this week lets Newman for Rohan please, the latter needs a good run in the NEAFL.

[rickmat]

Bring in Darcy Cameron up forward who will be a target and kick goals as well as pinch ruck for Sinclair

[Auntie.Gerald]

Another way to look at our players......was there any missing today that would be automatic selections in the Port team?

I don�t think so.....Port we�re seriously good and have a nicely balanced team.

I suspect we know internally that if we want to run with the top teams like GWS, Geelong, Port etc on the big ovals like the MCG we need to have a higher tweaking towards running players

The trend in AFL is pushing everything towards a fast keep the ball alive code and we need to be in alignment with that.

Port are !!!

[mcs]

Now is not the time for mass changes or throwing in a bunch of players without experience. Id find a place for Newman, Reid and Jones if they are good to go.

Out: schoolboy errors, sloppiness and inability to take our chances (outside of buddy).

In: The swans football we love and enjoy, composure and better decision making.

[Ludwig]

It's widely regarded that we have the best defence in the league, but this is often confused with having the best defenders, which is something different. We have a very well organised defence with good defenders who need a lot of help from our midfield to repel attacks. We have become increasingly vulnerable to the chaos ball and we are poor at rebounding the ball out of our defence. It reflects as much on our ability to score as it does on our ability to defend.


Melican has good straight line speed and is a good kick on both sides, but is not very agile. We cannot afford to have both Melican and Reg in the same side. We are just not nimble enough. Once the ball is at ground level they are too slow to react. Once Dixon went into the ruck, Port took away a matchup for them and exposed this weakness. Since Melican is the future, it probably means Reg has to be dropped at some time, because we can't have both playing in our defence simultaneously. Aliir is the obvious replacement, once fit to play senior footy, which may be several weeks away. We might even consider playing Marsh in the meantime.
I've always preferred Rohan as a forward, but I now believe he can't contribute enough there and is too good to leave out of the team. He should be moved to defence, adding to our intercept marking and rebound capabilities. Our core defence should be Melican, Aliir, Rampe and Rohan.
Move Mills to the midfield. He doesn't want to be a defender. He wants to play more of a part in our scoring. Continuing to play him in defence will have diminishing returns. He needs to be re-energized.
I would stay with Sinclair as our primary ruckman for the time being, but he just plays in the ruck and goes 1 on 1 against the opposing ruckman around the ground. No venturing into the forward line. When he's tired, he takes a rest on the bench. We will see how it goes.
I would continue to play Ollie and Will for now. Without Rohan in the forward line, Will might get a few more opportunities. I would consider trialing Ollie as a defensive small forward. Maybe give him some time on Zac Langdon, the Giants new pressure forward.
Fox, Newman and Jones can come into the senior side as needed. Jones would be top of the list, but don't mind any of them.
Reid plays when fit to go.


With our ruck situation we will need to structure differently at the stoppages. We are going to lose the hitouts most of the time, so we have to structure up for that probability. It means playing more defensively at the stoppages and perhaps 1 or 2 extras behind the ball. Leave Buddy 1 out in the forward line as much as possible. Keep the forward line open.

[ernie koala]

OUT : Rohan, Fox

IN : Reid, Newman

[Nico]

Even though I have criticised Newman for being a bit of a show pony and not moving the footy on quickly, in hindsight we missed his ability to find the footy in the midfield. I know Hayward is the coach's favourite but right now he is way too soft and has to learn some hardness in the 2's. Just doesn't get where the footy is at, anywhere near as often enough.

[barry]

It'
I've always preferred Rohan as a forward, but I now believe he can't contribute enough there and is too good to leave out of the team. He should be moved to defence, adding to our intercept marking and rebound capabilities. Our core defence should be Melican, Aliir, Rampe and Rohan.


Rohan has been tried forward, tried defense ... Same result.

If anything, he is a tall winger. But teams will drag him down to defence to expose him.

Back to the 2's.

[barry]

Trying to work out Rohan's best place is a road to insanity. The only way to avoid your mind going into meltdown is to absorb the fact that he is over hyped by the faithful. If you accept he's a fringe player, you'll stop thinking he's the answer or to blame for a loss.
Enlightenment is this way.

[aguy]

I said before the season started that I didn�t think there was a place in the seniors for Rohan at this stage. The fact that he has a pretty difficult life situation to deal with I�m sure is compounding things for him. As much as I love the fella he shouldn�t be playing seniors at the moment.

[Ludwig]

Trying to work out Rohan's best place is a road to insanity. The only way to avoid your mind going into meltdown is to absorb the fact that he is over hyped by the faithful. If you accept he's a fringe player, you'll stop thinking he's the answer or to blame for a loss.
Enlightenment is this way.Thanks Barry.

And to think, all that money I wasted over the years on psychiatrists.

[aardvark]

Thanks Barry.

And to think, all that money I wasted over the years on psychiatrists.

His bill is in the mail.

[The Big Cat]

Rohan for Newman - no logic in that, wouldn't blame Newman if he looked for a trade out at years end so this week lets Newman for Rohan please, the latter needs a good run in the NEAFL.
So Newman should spit the dummy because he got dropped. Gee that's the character we need to encourage.

Btw I thought Rohan played OK

[Bexl]

Btw I thought Rohan played OK

Rohan had 7 disposals which was the lowest of any swans player and = with Howard for port who's only job for them was to try and keep buddy quiet. I cant see how you thought he played ok. He took 1 good mark at half back and late in the game kicked a point. apart from those 2 kicks i hardly saw him.

[AB Swannie]

Calf injuries are not generally the quickest to come back from. Even is it was just �tightness� which I reckon is code for grade 1 strain, Jones will be given another week.

I saw Reid and Aliir doing some light training at around midday yesterday before the game in the park opposite the SCG. If they�re both running fine then their respective injuries should have recovered enough to be available.

I like the look of Fox for the most part but his kicking efficiency lets him down. To be fair it let everyone down last night but a running back can ill afford to have this as their weakness. I think Allir comes in for Fox especially considering GWS�s tall forward line.

I�ve always been a big supporter of Gary and haven�t worried too much about possession numbers for him. However, with our increased depth, he is certainly sliding towards our 18-26 category. For me, he stays in but is under pressure.

Hayward will be a good player for a long time but he is clearly given a slightly different role this year pushing more into midfield. I�m ok with this thinking but I don�t think it would hurt him spending a few weeks honing this in the NEAFL. Therefore, I�d bring Reid in for him.

In summary:

Outs: Fox, Hayward
Ins: Aliir, Reid

[Jeynez]

I wouldn�t make too many changes, our skill level was down, and we were failing the basics.

In: Jones (if fit) otherwise Newman
Out: Fox

[MattW]

Calf injuries are not generally the quickest to come back from. Even is it was just �tightness� which I reckon is code for grade 1 strain, Jones will be given another week.

I saw Reid and Aliir doing some light training at around midday yesterday before the game in the park opposite the SCG. If they�re both running fine then their respective injuries should have recovered enough to be available.

I like the look of Fox for the most part but his kicking efficiency lets him down. To be fair it let everyone down last night but a running back can ill afford to have this as their weakness. I think Allir comes in for Fox especially considering GWS�s tall forward line.

I�ve always been a big supporter of Gary and haven�t worried too much about possession numbers for him. However, with our increased depth, he is certainly sliding towards our 18-26 category. For me, he stays in but is under pressure.

Hayward will be a good player for a long time but he is clearly given a slightly different role this year pushing more into midfield. I�m ok with this thinking but I don�t think it would hurt him spending a few weeks honing this in the NEAFL. Therefore, I�d bring Reid in for him.

In summary:

Outs: Fox, Hayward
Ins: Aliir, Reid

I agree we need Aliir in the side and that he matches up well against GWS, but I would be surprised if they picked him given the length of time out (and particularly since he played a full, impressive game of footy). Last year Longmire banged on a bit about how his selection and form in the seniors in 2016 followed excellent form in the reserves. I suspect they'd want him to build up that form again before selecting him in the senior side. Happily, first round of the NEAFL this week.

[The Runner]

Fox - one of our best last night. Great speed in the back half, and provided run. Was surprisingly good 1 on 1.

Those under the pump should be:
Rohan - oh dear. Another terrible night. When the footy gets tough, he goes missing. He just does the odd thing that gives you hope (like the pack grab in the 4th), but he's unfortunately our own Jack Watts (Melbourne edition).
Hewett - his disposal is dreadful. He gets most his ball on the flanks, with some space. But his efficiency in the first two rounds is in par with Kennedy.

So the question when selecting the 22 is, are there players who can take their spots?
Newman - probably. But there's something beyond disposals he's being assessed on that's not delivering. Could be two way running. But it might keep him out.
Jones - straight in.
Reid - you'd think straight in for the Giants. But he's shown to be a player who needs time to get touch. Given that last night was wet weather footy on a dry night, perhaps we wait a week on him
Aliir - as above.

Based on this, I'd be asking for:
In - Jones
Out - Rohan

I'd give George another fortnight to fix his poor ball use.
I'd also be giving Sinclair one more game before bringing Aliir in to ruck.

[Scottee]

Fox - one of our best last night. Great speed in the back half, and provided run. Was surprisingly good 1 on 1.

Those under the pump should be:
Rohan - oh dear. Another terrible night. When the footy gets tough, he goes missing. He just does the odd thing that gives you hope (like the pack grab in the 4th), but he's unfortunately our own Jack Watts (Melbourne edition).
Hewett - his disposal is dreadful. He gets most his ball on the flanks, with some space. But his efficiency in the first two rounds is in par with Kennedy.

So the question when selecting the 22 is, are there players who can take their spots?
Newman - probably. But there's something beyond disposals he's being assessed on that's not delivering. Could be two way running. But it might keep him out.
Jones - straight in.
Reid - you'd think straight in for the Giants. But he's shown to be a player who needs time to get touch. Given that last night was wet weather footy on a dry night, perhaps we wait a week on him
Aliir - as above.

Based on this, I'd be asking for:
In - Jones
Out - Rohan

I'd give George another fortnight to fix his poor ball use.
I'd also be giving Sinclair one more game before bringing Aliir in to ruck.It's a bit hard to comment on who should be playing when we don't know who is tearing it up in the twos[emoji52]

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

[Ludwig]

Especially after seeing the Hawthorn Geelong game I am more convinced than ever that we cannot play with the ball sitting in our defensive 50. We have to be able to get the ball out of there quickly. We need more players ready to break lines. Melican, Reg, Macca and Smith are not going to do it. Even though he's probably our best defender, Reg seems that he has to be the one to go. Macca can move to the midfield or just come off the bench and play where needed.

I think we have to stay with Florent and play Hayward a fair number of games as well. Harry C probably gets the nod over a group of players fighting for the final couple of spots, but he has to keep winning the ball, running hard and tackling. If he keeps doing that he should hold his spot.

Clarkson is not afraid to change things up if something is not working. He had Sicily and O'Brien playing as forwards not long ago. He had Gunston playing back last year. Now Gunston has returned at forward, and the other 2 are looking comfortable playing back.

We need more run from defence and have to make changes to get that done.

We have a deep enough list to flip a few names from week to week to cover injuries and get the best matchups. I'm not too concerned if it's Fox or Newman or Macca. Whatever fits best for that game. The Giants went in very tall last game. They probably will drop Corr and might even drop Patton considering how he played. In any case, they will be pretty tall regrardless of the changes we make.

[The Runner]

Especially after seeing the Hawthorn Geelong game I am more convinced than ever that we cannot play with the ball sitting in our defensive 50. We have to be able to get the ball out of there quickly. We need more players ready to break lines. Melican, Reg, Macca and Smith are not going to do it. Even though he's probably our best defender, Reg seems that he has to be the one to go. Macca can move to the midfield or just come off the bench and play where needed.

I think we have to stay with Florent and play Hayward a fair number of games as well. Harry C probably gets the nod over a group of players fighting for the final couple of spots, but he has to keep winning the ball, running hard and tackling. If he keeps doing that he should hold his spot.

Clarkson is not afraid to change things up if something is not working. He had Sicily and O'Brien playing as forwards not long ago. He had Gunston playing back last year. Now Gunston has returned at forward, and the other 2 are looking comfortable playing back.

We need more run from defence and have to make changes to get that done.

We have a deep enough list to flip a few names from week to week to cover injuries and get the best matchups. I'm not too concerned if it's Fox or Newman or Macca. Whatever fits best for that game. The Giants went in very tall last game. They probably will drop Corr and might even drop Patton considering how he played. In any case, they will be pretty tall regrardless of the changes we make.

So we remove our only true tall defender and take on the Giants?
If we diagnose the real issues from last night, it was skill execution. We fix that, we beat Port last night.

Pretty much anything else is jumping at shadows.

[Cainit]

Agree Port are a quality side who will go deep into September and that we could have easily won. I think not having Sam Reid in the side leaves us to one dimensional.

Also is everyone forgetting that Papley has not as damaging up forward these first two games.

INs Newman
Reid
Jones

Out Rohan (please please please John)
Hayward
Towers (list clogger)

[Ludwig]

So we remove our only true tall defender and take on the Giants?
If we diagnose the real issues from last night, it was skill execution. We fix that, we beat Port last night.

Pretty much anything else is jumping at shadows.This has been going on for a long time. We have been lauded for our ability to absorb the pressure of the ball being in our defensive 50 so often, but now we are getting hurt by repeat entries because we can't clear the zone. It's not just something that happened this week. We won the centre clearance 19 to 13 v WCE and yet gave up 60 inside 50s. And that's against a team without a strong midfield. We gave up a load of inside 50s after halftime v PA.

It's not just about our defense, but if the ball is living in our defensive end, we're not scoring. We are not a slow team, but we are seriously slow in defence and it shows. It's something that needs to be remedied.

I'm not suggesting that we drop Reg before Aliir is ready to come into the side, especially against a tall Giant's forward line. It's just something that has to be looked at. Maybe there are other solutions, but I don't think the current situation is working.

[0918330512]

Agree Port are a quality side who will go deep into September and that we could have easily won. I think not having Sam Reid in the side leaves us to one dimensional.

Also is everyone forgetting that Papley has not as damaging up forward these first two games.

INs Newman
Reid
Jones

Out Rohan (please please please John)
Hayward
Towers (list clogger)
Yeah, nah, I don�t think many of the powers that be agree with your opinion of Towers.

[Blood Fever]

This has been going on for a long time. We have been lauded for our ability to absorb the pressure of the ball being in our defensive 50 so often, but now we are getting hurt by repeat entries because we can't clear the zone. It's not just something that happened this week. We won the centre clearance 19 to 13 v WCE and yet gave up 60 inside 50s. And that's against a team without a strong midfield. We gave up a load of inside 50s after halftime v PA.

It's not just about our defense, but if the ball is living in our defensive end, we're not scoring. We are not a slow team, but we are seriously slow in defence and it shows. It's something that needs to be remedied.

I'm not suggesting that we drop Reg before Aliir is ready to come into the side, especially against a tall Giant's forward line. It's just something that has to be looked at. Maybe there are other solutions, but I don't think the current situation is working.

Port gave up a load of repeat inside 50s that we should have capitalised on and put a space between them and us. If the forward line hadn't fumbled and dropped marks, it is a totally different game. Forward line the big problem yesterday.

[waswan]

Alir needs to play, another tall down there means Ramps and Reg can be creative.
Ramps always gets a bath from J Cameron cos he is too small.

If we can get Ramps running off the back flank more then our fwd line will function better
Reid in will help heaps, Buddy up the ground turned a few times on the weekend and didn't have a lot to go to, even though he was able to find a few with his exceptional field kicking
Id give Rohan another chance as a fwd, he is better when he is the 3rd tall

Towers needs to lift in what is probably the hardest role in the team being an undersized ruck, no point dropping him, we need him in there this year

[longmile]

Also is everyone forgetting that Papley has not as damaging up forward these first two games.


He's been playing mostly midfield :(

[Auntie.Gerald]

I love to look at future players vs current selections as much as anyone but I don�t this it was personnel that let us down Sunday night

A
Serious team and contenderwas Port
Deep deep list and well recruited
Serious coaching
Serious strategy
Serious execution

Most in the inner sanctum at the swans feel when we get our contested footy right it is unstoppable

I agree in part

Ie contested footy when it�s on is hard to beat ......as long as u convert goals and as long as the other team doesn�t do it better then u

Port did

We still need a plan B

We still need to be flexible against port or against gws re our transitions when under a he pump

The gws game will I think speak volumes Re where we are at strategically and execution

Have we evolved truly ?

[RogueSwan]

Now is not the time for mass changes or throwing in a bunch of players without experience. Id find a place for Newman, Reid and Jones if they are good to go.

Out: schoolboy errors, sloppiness and inability to take our chances (outside of buddy).

In: The swans football we love and enjoy, composure and better decision making.

This. Too many dropped marks (and missed targets). If we held onto those marks we have a chance to regain some control of the game and stop Port getting easy (easier) goals.
Also IN: Hayward and Papley back to the forward line and
OUT: of the midfield.

[O'Reilly Boy]

I'm really worried about the ruck situation. I have taken the point about the merits of playing only one, of conceding the taps etc, and on the stats Sinclair looked competitive in the HO stat on Sunday night. But he was cactus in the second half and offered nothing around the ground, particularly when our game shifted�for whatever reason (fatigue, dewy ball)�to long balls to contests along the line to clear the D50. it was like watching the 2016 GF, where Boyd just kept picking us off and the result was the same: repeats I50s, pressure on an increasingly unsettled defensive set up.

I've also long been a Rohan fanboy, but he's not in it at the moment, for whatever reason. Needs a break from it.

[mcs]

He's been playing mostly midfield :(

I know Papley has been doing more than ok in midfield (one could argue he has been one of the more impressive players in there in the first two games), but we need him desperately back in the forward line for more of the game, starting this week against the Giants.

[Aprilbr]

To me the team while our team is very talented it has two major weaknesses this year. 1. An over-reliance on Buddy (I saw a stat suggesting that they went to him 45% on the weekend) 2. A ruck division well below many others. I think that 1. can be overcome with the addition of Reid. 2. Is much harder to address. Neither Sinclair or Cameron look likely to evolve into a topline ruckman so I�m not hopeful on that one. Our best bet is to shark tap outs as best we can.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Plugger1300]

Papley to stay in the F50 with Buddy
Especially with Bud in hot form
Constantly bringing the ball to ground

Also agree with some posters
Lets not jump at shadows. Yes we have some issues but we should be 2-0
Hopefully with the loss they are highlighted and we can work on them

[Ludwig]

To me the team while our team is very talented it has two major weaknesses this year. 1. An over-reliance on Buddy (I saw a stat suggesting that they went to him 45% on the weekend)

2. A ruck division well below many others.

I think that 1. can be overcome with the addition of Reid.
2. Is much harder to address. Neither Sinclair or Cameron look likely to evolve into a topline ruckman so I�m not hopeful on that one. Our best bet is to shark tap outs as best we can.
I agree on both points.

I think it's more than just having Reid in the lineup that solves the Buddy focus, although it will help. Moving the ball faster, especially in transition, forces the opposition to lose structure and we are more likely to find unattended players running toward goal. Easier said than done, because it obviously requires speed, clean ball handling and disposal skills. But that's what any premiership team is going to need.

We are unlikely to resolve the ruck situation anytime soon. There's no reason to think that even next year, that we are going to have a top 10 ruckman, so sharking the hitouts and defensive stoppage setups looks to be some remedy. It's hard for the Swans, who were stoppage kings for many years, to suddenly have to change. We need to play to our strengths and dominance at stoppages is no longer one of them.

[Cainit]

Why not try Reid as full back and Reg up as a deep forward. I think we looked slow out of defence on the weekend .

[barry]

It's too late in his career for Reg to reinvent himself as a forward. Its CHB or bench.

[Ludwig]

Good to see the injury dwindling down to a nice level:

Jordan Dawson Quad 1 week
Dan Hannebery Knee Test
Alex Johnson Groin 1 week
Zak Jones Calf Test
Sam Naismith Knee Season
Toby Pink Ankle 5-7 weeks
Sam Reid Hamstring Test
Kurt Tippett Retired

AJ and Dawson only a week away from resuming in the ressies and Aliir off the list completely. I wonder if we will give Aliir a go in the seniors this week, but more likely will play ressies I would think.

Hopefully we get some more info on Jones, Hannebery and Reid once the injury update video is out. All 3 are important players for us.

Impressive GWS small forward Zac Langdon has a broken hand and will miss several weeks, although his name doesn't appear on the GWS injury list. We all know that Tom Scully fractured his ankle and will miss most of the season.

[liz]

I'd say there's close to zero chance that Aliir gets a run in the seniors this week. His only chance would be an injury to one of the incumbent taller defenders but even then, I suspect Marsh would be preferred to Aliir.

I like Aliir but he's a bit of a confidence player and he's also still inexperienced at senior level. I don't think it would do him any good to come into the senior team without a few weeks of solid NEAFL under his belt. He's not played any football for around a month now.

[stevoswan]

So Newman should spit the dummy because he got dropped. Gee that's the character we need to encourage.



He's been with club for four season's now. Would you hang around when you keep getting dropped after a 21 possession game in a winning team? .....and while 6 possession players remain in the team?

[jono2707]

He's been with club for four season's now. Would you hang around when you keep getting dropped after a 21 possession game in a winning team? .....and while 6 possession players remain in the team?

Conversely why would you spit the dummy when omitted from the team for a week?

I think it was mystifying and barring anything we're not aware of, he should be back soon.

[stevoswan]

He's been playing mostly midfield :(

Paps obviously has footy smarts, which is why he finds himself in the mid field a lot these days. While I'm all for having a bevy of 'versatile' players, a couple of seasons ago we were crying out for some quick damaging small forwards....we get one of the best and now we're wasting him in a mid field that really doesn't need boosting. The other recent small forward acquisition in Hayward seems to be spending some time in the midfield as well. I say, just leave where they can be most damaging and can help out Bud as well.......!!

[stevoswan]

Conversely why would you spit the dummy when omitted from the team for a week?

I think it was mystifying and barring anything we're not aware of, he should be back soon.

Do you know something we don't? Because whenever I got dropped from the seniors (didn't happen much I must say;)), while I may have been confident of quickly regaining my place, I was never thinking 'oh, it'll just be for a week'. No one knows what the future holds.....or what the coach is thinking. I agree he should be back soon.....this week (!) but, barring adverse disciplinary reasons, he wouldn't know that for sure.

[Ludwig]

I'd say there's close to zero chance that Aliir gets a run in the seniors this week. His only chance would be an injury to one of the incumbent taller defenders but even then, I suspect Marsh would be preferred to Aliir.

I like Aliir but he's a bit of a confidence player and he's also still inexperienced at senior level. I don't think it would do him any good to come into the senior team without a few weeks of solid NEAFL under his belt. He's not played any football for around a month now.I was thinking the same. As much as I would like to see Aliir back in the side, he's missed a lot of footy the past month. I was hoping we would get a report on the NEAFL practice match, because he was listed as 'test' on last week's injury report, so there was a chance of him playing, and if he did play and play well, he would be some chance of senior selection, especially given the tall GWS lineup. It's hard to read into Tom Harley's injury update this week, but it sounds like he didn't play on the weekend.

Also sounds like Hanners and Reid will play but Jones is doubtful. Again, just trying to read Harley's mind. So maybe just Reid in. Perhaps for Hayward, but very hard to guess selection these days.

[Auntie.Gerald]

As we all know there are so many layers to achieve peak performance.

We saw Ollie and Heeney featuring in our transitions a lot first half / getting us forward to control the game in the opposition arc

It was clever coaching by the Swans to be less macca and Lloyd dependent and caught Port our a little first half by using our running wingers really well on such a small field

I truly believe one of the top priorities right now is still getting our transitions right for the 4 qtrs and obviously we didn�t capitalise on our entries first half

I�m going to do my best to move my attention away from arguing about this player and that and more so focus on our tactics and flexibility of transitions and entries against GWS

I think this area leads to greater opportunities or concerns vs a focus on players just the minute as we have depth and we have players who can play a role in our evolving style of footy

[Flying South]

I don�t understand the logic behind people calling for Aliir to replace Grundy.

A modern defensive unit performs many roles these days. And I agree a very important part of the modern game is your rebounding defender. A role played to mixed success by the likes Lloyd, Newman, Jones, McVeigh, Mills, Aliir, etc. But the primary function of any defensive unit is to defend against opposition forward attacks. And there aren�t many better pure defenders in the league than our core defensive unit of Grundy, Rampe, Melican and Smith. They may not be �sexy� like those flashy running defenders, but you can�t win a game without them. Whilst Grundy may getting into the twilight of his career, 2017 was one of his better years and he was widely regarded as very unlucky to have missed All Australian nomination. Other highlights;
- 3rd in Bob Skilton Medal,
- played all 24 matches
- ranked 1st in club for 1%�s
- 4th for marks and contested marks
- shared the Paul Roos Award for Player of the Finals
- his stats were mostly up on his career averages.

Not a bad year. What were the highlights of Aliir�s year? Look I agree Aliir has potential. But at the moment that�s all it is. Potential that may or may not develop. Grundy has the runs on the board. Aliir doesn�t. The thought of him going up against likes of Walker, Cameron, Jenkins, Hawkins, Lynch, etc scares me. Ludwigs intuition about him may prove to be well founded in the future. And I will applaud him if correct. But until then, he needs to get on the park in the reserves, put in some good consistent games together and force the coaches to promote him. I will be cheering him when he does.

[ernie koala]

To me the team while our team is very talented it has two major weaknesses this year. 1. An over-reliance on Buddy (I saw a stat suggesting that they went to him 45% on the weekend) 2. A ruck division well below many others. I think that 1. can be overcome with the addition of Reid. 2. Is much harder to address. Neither Sinclair or Cameron look likely to evolve into a topline ruckman so I�m not hopeful on that one. Our best bet is to shark tap outs as best we can. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I agree with most of this.

But I don't think it's the tap outs that are the problem, Sinclair did OK in that department...

It's the lack of a big hard body, ala Mummy or dare I say it...Nankervis, that's what we lack and it's not something the coaches can manufacture.

It was no more obvious than when the big bodied Dickson went into the ruck and just through his physical presence helped turn the game in Ports favour....

I see this as our achilles heal at present.

[CureTheSane]

I don't have much to say about the list at this point of the season.
Coaching staff always know better than us, but right now they know far better than us.

I would like to see Allir play.

Also, haven't seen much said about McVeigh, and I don't believe that players should be congratulated for doing their jobs, but he surprised me on Sunday.
Big issues with his lack of chase, but I saw a 50+m kick from him which really surprised me.
For me he locks down his role for next week and the week after if he can pull it out like that.

[liz]

It's the lack of a big hard body, ala Mummy or dare I say it...Nankervis, that's what we lack and it's not something the coaches can manufacture.

It was no more obvious than when the big bodied Dickson went into the ruck and just through his physical presence helped turn the game in Ports favour....

I see this as our achilles heal at present.

Maybe we should play Buddy in the ruck.




(Not serious, in case anyone is wondering).

[Ludwig]

I don�t understand the logic behind people calling for Aliir to replace Grundy.

I think it's only me FS.

I actually agree with everything you say about Reg. He's a great defender, particularly in the air. The problem is that the traditional key forward that Reg matches up well on is going out of the game. I really like Melican, but he's more of a quicker version of Reg. I think he's already AFL level and could be a top notch defender. It's really Melican that replaces Reg, and this will be the case when Reg does hang up the boots. The matchups for Reg and Melican are becoming increasingly difficult with the way the forward line structures are evolving. Sometimes there's not even one good matchup let alone two. I think we should be proactive in our adjustments and not let the game overtake us and force us into these decisions. But I understand those who want to wait to get more data from future games. It's also a hard call given that Reg has generally started seasons slowly then builds to a very high level.

Aliir could be a flop, but barring injury, this is unlikely. It's rare to have an athletic tall defender who takes the game on the way Aliir does. His disposal is very good as well. He is prone to error, but probably no more than Zak Jones, who has a similar disposition toward the game and a lot more life experience with footy. The thing about Aliir is that he is the kind of inclusion in the side that can substantially raise our level of play because he brings an attacking weapon into our defence and this is something we lack at present. We may not be good enough to win a premiership unless he clicks. Our next best hope is AJ.

[Scottee]

We keep talking about Aliir for the back line but we have no idea what Maibaum has been doing in the 2s as a potential third tall. It's a bit like the sound of one hand clapping with the information vacuum on the 2s.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

[Blood Fever]

Maybe we should play Buddy in the ruck.




(Not serious, in case anyone is wondering).


When he gets the ball 80 metres out, especially, on the run, he is our most creative player. Creates heaps of goals. Need two of him! Buddy to Buddy.

[Ludwig]

Maybe we should play Buddy in the ruck.

(Not serious, in case anyone is wondering).I know you're not serious, but no need to say so. If I said it, people would think I'm serious, even though I wouldn't be either. But I would leave everyone wondering. One has so much more latitude when adopting the madman theory.

It's a good suggestion in that I'm sure if Buddy were a ruckman he'd be the best ruckman ever, bar none. But he just might end up being the best ever to have played the game in any case. If Buddy were a ruckman, he'd have 5 Brownlows by now. It's a shame it's such an injury prone position.

[MattW]

I was thinking the same. As much as I would like to see Aliir back in the side, he's missed a lot of footy the past month. I was hoping we would get a report on the NEAFL practice match, because he was listed as 'test' on last week's injury report, so there was a chance of him playing, and if he did play and play well, he would be some chance of senior selection, especially given the tall GWS lineup. It's hard to read into Tom Harley's injury update this week, but it sounds like he didn't play on the weekend.

Also sounds like Hanners and Reid will play but Jones is doubtful. Again, just trying to read Harley's mind. So maybe just Reid in. Perhaps for Hayward, but very hard to guess selection these days.

Yep, that's pretty much my read on Harley and Longmire's pressers today. That is:
- Hanners plays
- Reid plays seniors
- Jones doesn't play, possibly next week
- Aliir plays reserves (for some weeks until he builds up form).

Hayward is the obvious out for Reid, unless Fox is out and the likes of Cunningham and Florent play a little more off halfback.

[dejavoodoo44]

Maybe we should play Buddy in the ruck.




(Not serious, in case anyone is wondering).
I was thinking Rohan in the ruck. What could possibly go wrong?

[The Runner]

Rohan was a clear Worst on Ground last week, and showed no signs of turning around his poor showing in big, tough games of footy in his career.

There is no point debating Cameron v Sinclair in the ruck. You'll get the same outcome. The only way to really mix things up would be to put Aliir in. we aren't going to win the majority of taps, and that does not matter. What matters is winning the clearances. We got beaten on the weekend because a) our skills were poor under pressure; b) Ollie Wines was the best midfielder on the ground.

The backline had a forgettable night, but it was a one-off. How often will you see Reg, Rampe and Melican all make basic errors that directly lead to a goal, all in the one night?

In terms of 'what we need to fix'... we are missing Papley up front, and are robbing Peter to pay Paul by playing him in the middle. But it's the right move. Reid will give us another target, but won't fix our lack of pressure in the front half to create repeat turnovers (looking at you Gary)

[penga]

Maybe we should play Buddy in the ruck.




(Not serious, in case anyone is wondering).


I'd love us to think outside the box on the ruck shortage. Could we play Dawson as second ruck? He's the same size as Grigg. His numbers in the NEAFL as a midfielder were impressive. Essentially, concede the centre bounce, attempt to break even on the around the ground ruck contests but then have an extra midfielder around the ball.

Or Kennedy? Or Melican?

[AnnieH]

I hope they name ruthless.
He's a good player.

[707]

Reid for Fox

[ugg]

Reid for Fox
No jones
Emg newman Fox Foote O�Riordan

[707]

Reid for Fox
No jones
Emg newman Fox Foote O�Riordan I finally have news on last weeks practice match, apparently Newman, Foote & O'Riordan impressed :-)

[ernie koala]

I'm surprised Rohan has held his spot.

He needs to use his pace and height, to have more impact..Apply more consistent pressure...Get more of the ball...And do it over 4 quarters....

That's the wish list for him anyway.

[Ludwig]

Toby Greene still out for the Giants, Hopper and Perryman in for Scully and Zac Langdon. Their 2 best small forwards are out, but they still have a strong side, and very tall.

We are close to full strength. I thought Fox played well, but probably not needed so much given the Giants don't have a strong mid sized forward for a matchup. In any case, we still have Jones and Aliir to come into the side at some point and it's going to be hard to find any outs from here. It looks that we are going full steam ahead in the Hayward and Florent development, which makes sense, given there at so many more youngsters who should be knocking on the door very soon. We have to keep the conveyor belt moving along.

I see that Rohan was named in the midfield. I know that doesn't mean much, but with Reid and Hayward in the side I prefer Rohan playing behind the ball. One of the keys to success this year is the challenge of getting Rohan more involved in the play. I think there's too much work for him to do to compete for possessions in such a strong forward line. Rohan has a player profile quite similar to Dangerfield, with his size, pace, marking and kicking skills. So why is Danger a Brownlow medalist and Rohan, ... well, Rohan? It has to be his willingness to work hard enough. Let's try to make it a little easier for him to get his hands on the ball. He will be usefull in defence with his ability to cover the ball over the back and using his pace to run the ball out of the back line, especially with neither Jones and Aliir in the side.

[Nico]

A few players from last have dodged a bullet.

[0918330512]

A few players from last have dodged a bullet.

Fired from the grassy knoll of RWO

[rb4x]

I would seriously consider whether Rohan has the tank for a midfield role.

[Ludwig]

I was quite disappointed with the audio quality in this week's selection video, not that the visual part was all that hot either. So the first thing I did was call Andrew Ireland to complain. He told me that the Swans were understaffed in the Media Department, with only 8 employees and were presently doing interviews to fill several vacant positions, including



Multimedia Coordinator - Audio
Audio Engagement Executive
Audio Services Manager
Sound Production Development Coach
Audio Equipment Procurement Manager
Audio Executive Assistant
Assistant Audio Executive Assistant
Sound Producer - Sweet Caroline Division
Fan Engagement Coordinator - Sweet Caroline Division


So don't despair. Improvements are just around the corner.

[dimelb]

... I see that Rohan was named in the midfield. I know that doesn't mean much, but with Reid and Hayward in the side I prefer Rohan playing behind the ball. One of the keys to success this year is the challenge of getting Rohan more involved in the play. I think there's too much work for him to do to compete for possessions in such a strong forward line. Rohan has a player profile quite similar to Dangerfield, with his size, pace, marking and kicking skills. So why is Danger a Brownlow medalist and Rohan, ... well, Rohan? It has to be his willingness to work hard enough. Let's try to make it a little easier for him to get his hands on the ball. He will be usefull in defence with his ability to cover the ball over the back and using his pace to run the ball out of the back line, especially with neither Jones and Aliir in the side.

Like many others I wonder about Rohan's progress. Yes, the injury was horrific, but I think he is past that. And I've thought about the resemblance he bears with Dangerfield. My guess is that Dangerfield is an imaginative player in any position. He also seems to have a capacity to read the game as well as the best of his era, and I suspect this is what Rohan lacks, comparatively speaking. Playing on a wing could be a way of using him to link the backs with the forwards; his speed and marking ability would be was useful in this role as they are up forward. He has the chance to be a more productive player, and I hope he can grab it with both hands - so to speak.

[barry]

Rohan has a player profile quite similar to Dangerfield, with his size, pace, marking and kicking skills. .

Woah. Easy tiger.

[Cainit]

Wow Rohan the spud gets another game..... we really need to start trading in some good players next yearn and getting rid of the list cloggers eg Rohan, Towers, Allir Allir and Sinclair. I know its good to have good depth but these guys are getting games consisantly bar Allir Allir. Just cant belive we game up Nankervis Tom Mitchell and Membrey. I just hope we dont loose Dawson in two years time.

[barry]

Wow Rohan the spud gets another game..... we really need to start trading in some good players next yearn and getting rid of the list cloggers eg Rohan, Towers, Allir Allir and Sinclair. I know its good to have good depth but these guys are getting games consisantly bar Allir Allir. Just cant belive we game up Nankervis Tom Mitchell and Membrey. I just hope we dont loose Dawson in two years time.

That is pretty damning list management stats right there.

[Ludwig]

Woah. Easy tiger.I was going to say something about how I agree with you about Rohan's lack of production, but decided to leave that part out. I do think you and others have a right to question what Gary has produced so far and there has to be a point where we pull the plug.

I do think he is still in our best 22, even with his current output, but he is closing in on #22. He does show from time to time just how talented he is. The big complaint is that he goes missing. He could be one of the big improvers this year, but I think it will be same thing again if he's left in a forward line that includes Buddy and Reid going for the high ball coming in and so many others rotating through the forward line. I don't think we need him as a pressure forward. We have enough of those. He might get lost on the wing as well, that's why I think he needs to be given someone to play on, so he's got something to do every play and just can't get lost.

There's been a serious improvement in Dean Towers this year. He's playing with confidence. I liked the way he took that mark in the 4th qtr (I think) from Buddy's great fend off and kick and then he kicked the goal in a pressure situation. Putting him in the ruck has changed him as a player. He puts himself in the game now; not standing back and letting others do the work. Rohan never had a problem with commitment to a given play, but it's more about working himself into the game. We need to do the same for Gary that we did for Dean. Force them to play to their potential. Also, with Towers now playing as a 3rd forward who has similar skills as Rohan, a move to the backline or somewhere outside the forward line seems a move asking to be made.

[Blood Fever]

That is pretty damning list management stats right there.

Mitchell we couldn't afford, Nankervis was accurately ranked 3rd or 4th best ruckman and Membrey is a useful mark and kick player. Nothing damning when Florent, Hayward etc were brought in. Kennedy, Parker and Mitchell would have meant 3 one paced players in the midfield long term. Unfortunate that Naismith got injured as he is clearly our best ruck option. To a lesser extent Tippett was a loss but he proved to be a dead loss injury wise.

[Markwebbos]

Ludwig, I concur completely re: Towers. Playing him on the ball / in-the-ruck has got him more involved, allowed him to play instinctively, think less and grow in confidence.

Rohan looked completely at sea against Port: Towers_v1.0 esque.

But I do have a fond memory of the last Swans v GWS game at the SCG: Swans winning the first 4 centre clearances, Gaz playing off the back of the square, and us kicking the first 4 goals of the game. It was downhill after that.

[Hotpotato]

Dean Towers is up and about.
Doesn�t shimmy very well but has improved heaps in many skills.

[mcs]

Like many others I wonder about Rohan's progress. Yes, the injury was horrific, but I think he is past that. And I've thought about the resemblance he bears with Dangerfield. My guess is that Dangerfield is an imaginative player in any position. He also seems to have a capacity to read the game as well as the best of his era, and I suspect this is what Rohan lacks, comparatively speaking. Playing on a wing could be a way of using him to link the backs with the forwards; his speed and marking ability would be was useful in this role as they are up forward. He has the chance to be a more productive player, and I hope he can grab it with both hands - so to speak.

I have a bad feeling that Rohan will never fulfill the potential his junior footy suggested. I want to see him take those final steps to become the high quality, dominant player we know is potentially lurking in there - but I wonder if when we look back on his career we will say 'if only'.

[Cheer_Cheer]

It is looking like this seasons official whipping boy has been announced.

[mcs]

Mitchell we couldn't afford, Nankervis was accurately ranked 3rd or 4th best ruckman and Membrey is a useful mark and kick player. Nothing damning when Florent, Hayward etc were brought in. Kennedy, Parker and Mitchell would have meant 3 one paced players in the midfield long term. Unfortunate that Naismith got injured as he is clearly our best ruck option. To a lesser extent Tippett was a loss but he proved to be a dead loss injury wise.

Membrey has done nothing yet to suggest to me he will ever be anymore than a slightly upgraded version of Jesse White - I want to see him doing good against the best teams before I'll consider him anything but a peripheral loss.

Nankervis going was a disappointment but these things happen.

[MattW]

Yeah, this burgeoning rote criticism of Rohan is a real drag.

[AnnieH]

Get off Rohan's back... he's got an awful lot on his mind and he has a very stressful time ahead of him. Leave him where he is for now.. a) we need him; and b) more importantly, he needs us.
How about Faulty Towers!!! Loving his work at the moment.

Did they name Ruthless?

[mcs]

Yeah, this burgeoning rote criticism of Rohan is a real drag.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion at the end of the day.

Noting as Annie says there are other, far more important issues going on for Rohan in his life at the moment (hence his footy form is far from the most important thing), it isn't unreasonable to consider more broadly whether Rohan has ultimately been able to deliver what would be expect of a player that was taken at #6 in the draft. I know injuries have blighted his career, but its a reasonable question to ask surely.

As for towers, I've been a long term doubter of him, but his form in the back end of last year and the start of this year has been very good - the coaches deserve high praise for their willingness to persist despite many a 'so so' performance early on in his career. Long may his good improvement and form continue.

[Captain]

Mitchell we couldn't afford, Nankervis was accurately ranked 3rd or 4th best ruckman and Membrey is a useful mark and kick player. Nothing damning when Florent, Hayward etc were brought in. Kennedy, Parker and Mitchell would have meant 3 one paced players in the midfield long term. Unfortunate that Naismith got injured as he is clearly our best ruck option. To a lesser extent Tippett was a loss but he proved to be a dead loss injury wise.

This view either smacks of accepting mediocrity or not putting your hand up to say we might have got it wrong.

Fact is, the club rated Kennedy, Parker, Hannerbery, Mills and Heeney all ahead of Mitchell. Hence there was no money left for him. They got this massively wrong.

Nankervis was also rated behind Naismith and Sinclair. This is a tougher one but he showed more in two games than the others IMO. Injuries aside, Naismith has never shown much.

[ernie koala]

This view either smacks of accepting mediocrity or not putting your hand up to say we might have got it wrong.

Fact is, the club rated Kennedy, Parker, Hannerbery, Mills and Heeney all ahead of Mitchell. Hence there was no money left for him. They got this massively wrong.

Nankervis was also rated behind Naismith and Sinclair. This is a tougher one but he showed more in two games than the others IMO. Injuries aside, Naismith has never shown much.

Agree with this. Also noting there isn't a team in the land that hasn't made a blue, when it comes to trading players in and out.

But Nankervis wasn't asking for the farm, and was a pivotal player in both the 2016 finals...He should of played in the GF and been kept on the list...But as always ,it's easy in hindsight.

We could really do with a bash and crash ruckman right now.

[Billericay]

This view either smacks of accepting mediocrity or not putting your hand up to say we might have got it wrong.

Fact is, the club rated Kennedy, Parker, Hannerbery, Mills and Heeney all ahead of Mitchell. Hence there was no money left for him. They got this massively wrong.

Nankervis was also rated behind Naismith and Sinclair. This is a tougher one but he showed more in two games than the others IMO. Injuries aside, Naismith has never shown much.

I agree Swans made a mistake letting Mitchell go. But it's not as simple as you make out. The core of the midfield is/was largely slow - Kennedy, Parker, Hannebery and they couldn't get rid of those players. They had to work out whether to add another slow accumulator to the mix. I'm sure they'd have loved to kept him if they could to take over from Kennedy. The knock on our midfield is not winning the ball, but speed / explosiveness, so the decision makes sense of a sort on a "needs" basis. I'd much rather have Mitchell running around instead of Hewett in the team but they clearly couldn't afford that.

BTW Damian Barrett's sliding doors today: Sliding Doors: round three - AFL.com.au (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-04-06/sliding-doors-round-three)

"If Tom Mitchell was still a Swan... Then this club would be premiership favourite." (We also have a slower midfield)

Nankervis v Naismith epitomises the ruck dilemma. Is a ruckman's job to win hit-outs or do things around the ground. You really want one that can do both. We don't have that ruckman and went for the former. I'm sure we're hoping Naismith will become better around the ground. He's a pretty big unit, so should be able to throw his weight around. Nankervis got badly beaten by Jacobs on the weekend and I think was a major factor in their midfield being thrashed (although clearances are almost identical). Again, if we'd had the opportunity to push one ruckman of our choosing out, it might not have been Nankervis. This was all before Tippett turned into a disaster and 2 ruckmen became unsustainable.

[Swansongster]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion at the end of the day.

Noting as Annie says there are other, far more important issues going on for Rohan in his life at the moment (hence his footy form is far from the most important thing), it isn't unreasonable to consider more broadly whether Rohan has ultimately been able to deliver what would be expect of a player that was taken at #6 in the draft. I know injuries have blighted his career, but its a reasonable question to ask surely.

As for towers, I've been a long term doubter of him, but his form in the back end of last year and the start of this year has been very good - the coaches deserve high praise for their willingness to persist despite many a 'so so' performance early on in his career. Long may his good improvement and form continue.

2009 AFL draft - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_AFL_draft)

Not trying to troll here. Genuinely interested in who you (and other RWOers) think would have been a better option from the 2009 draft (which, with the benefit of hindsight, looks a bit like a dud to me). There were a few beauties before Rohan but not much after - aside from Nathan Fyfe at 20).

[AnnieH]

This view either smacks of accepting mediocrity or not putting your hand up to say we might have got it wrong.

Fact is, the club rated Kennedy, Parker, Hannerbery, Mills and Heeney all ahead of Mitchell. Hence there was no money left for him. They got this massively wrong.

Nankervis was also rated behind Naismith and Sinclair. This is a tougher one but he showed more in two games than the others IMO. Injuries aside, Naismith has never shown much.

Mitchell is the best player in a mediocre team.

[Papernick]

The hindsight thinking here is insane.

Yes we would have liked to have kept Mitchell but at the time we did not know has much the cap would rise by and had we matched the Hawks offer we may have lost Heeney or Mills. I believe we made the right call.

As for Nanka I had a feeling we�d regret that too but at the time he was arguable our fourth ruckman and the only one coming off contract so we really had no hand to keep him.

Don�t let that stop you mindlessly abuse the squad though Cainit

[liz]

I don't particular rate Nankervis as anything other than a solid ruckman. I acknowledge that Naismith's non-availability through injury (not just this year, but the string of niggling injuries that have blighted his career) diminishes his worth but I think he's a far better stoppage ruckman than Nankervis - or would be, if he could stay on the paddock. The club couldn't have foreseen that Naismith would rupture his ACL, nor that Tippett would suffer a career ending ankle injury. There was also a suggestion that Nankervis wanted to move to Melbourne regardless of his place in the pecking order - just to be closer to his family. Given he's from Tasmania, I am not sure how valid this is. It doesn't take that much longer to fly to Sydney than it does to Melbourne but maybe his family likes the ferry!

As for Mitchell, yes, he's a good player and the Swans knew he was a good player. He's gotten better since he moved to Hawthorn, or at least is getting more opportunity in his preferred role. I still wouldn't take him ahead of any of Parker, Kennedy or Hannebery however, regardless of how many touches he racks up. And for salary cap and age profile reasons, it would have had to have been a choice between him and one of those three, not someone like Hewett. On a purely cap basis, it could have been a choice between him and one of Mills or Heeney but I wouldn't choose him over them either.

As for Barrett's piece, we were premiership favourites (without Mitchell) at the start of the season and probably still would be had our skills not deserted us last Sunday. I don't think Mitchell in the team would have changed the result because winning our share of contested ball wasn't the issue. We could well be premiership favourites (without Mitchell) after this weekend if we knock off the Giants.

[grarmy]

Membrey has done nothing yet to suggest to me he will ever be anymore than a slightly upgraded version of Jesse White

Jessie....just when those terrible memories were being put to bed.

[Ludwig]

Agree with Liz on both Nanka and Mitchell. The only argument I have about the Mitchell trade is that we only ended up with a lowish 1st round pick when he was worth a lot more. But we definitely needed to thin out our inside slower mids, which enabled us to add Florent and Hayward. It's more than just saying that we lost a very good player. We have to credit the list management of the club for having the foresight to go hard at transitioning the team to a quicker more agile side, which we have done through the past 2 drafts. We changed the age demographic by 5 years in the Mitchell-Florent exchange. Despite Mitchell having a fantastic year, the game as a whole is clearly moving in the direction we have chosen.

As for Rohan, I didn't think he showed any signs that his mind wasn't on the game. It wasn't that abnormal a game for him. I think if he wasn't mentally fit to play, he wouldn't be selected. He's just be handed a role where it's difficult to rack up possession and harder still when the team has a player like Buddy, who demands the ball so much and is in stellar form. I'm more concerned about Rampe and Reg lifting their games for now.

[Blood Fever]

I agree Swans made a mistake letting Mitchell go. But it's not as simple as you make out. The core of the midfield is/was largely slow - Kennedy, Parker, Hannebery and they couldn't get rid of those players. They had to work out whether to add another slow accumulator to the mix. I'm sure they'd have loved to kept him if they could to take over from Kennedy. The knock on our midfield is not winning the ball, but speed / explosiveness, so the decision makes sense of a sort on a "needs" basis. I'd much rather have Mitchell running around instead of Hewett in the team but they clearly couldn't afford that.

BTW Damian Barrett's sliding doors today: Sliding Doors: round three - AFL.com.au (http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-04-06/sliding-doors-round-three)

"If Tom Mitchell was still a Swan... Then this club would be premiership favourite." (We also have a slower midfield)

Nankervis v Naismith epitomises the ruck dilemma. Is a ruckman's job to win hit-outs or do things around the ground. You really want one that can do both. We don't have that ruckman and went for the former. I'm sure we're hoping Naismith will become better around the ground. He's a pretty big unit, so should be able to throw his weight around. Nankervis got badly beaten by Jacobs on the weekend and I think was a major factor in their midfield being thrashed (although clearances are almost identical). Again, if we'd had the opportunity to push one ruckman of our choosing out, it might not have been Nankervis. This was all before Tippett turned into a disaster and 2 ruckmen became unsustainable.

Sliding Doors, although clever, is just a collection of shallow thought bubbles.

[liz]

Sliding Doors, although clever, is just a collection of shallow thought bubbles.

I agree with the main part of your sentence but have issues with the qualifier.

[barry]

Mitchell is a once a generation player you build a midfield around. Swans, in a short term approach, weren't prepared to do that, believing they could extract premierships with the current line up.

Hawthorn were prepared to build a midfield around mitchell, and a now reaping the benefits.

Nankervis v nainsmith was a call the swans got wrong. Nanker is a premiership ruckman who spends a lot on the ground (game time and lack of injuries)

[Ludwig]

Mitchell is a once a generation playerRohan is a once in a generation player. He gives you something to write about day after day after day. A forum poster's dream.

[liz]

Mitchell is a once a generation player you build a midfield around.

Couldn't agree less with that. Hawthorn won't be a contender while they have a single player capable of winning contested ball. You need a spread, which is what the Swans have. Kennedy is undisputably as good as contested ball winner as Mitchell, and IMO, Hannebery and Parker are just as good players with more strings to their bows. Regardless, a midfield with all four wasn't 4/3 times as good as a midfield with just three of them. Arguably it was less effective due to the lack of variety.

Ablett ran around in the Gold Coast midfield for several years racking up the same kind of numbers and look where that got them.

[707]

We made a decision on Mitchell based on the profile type of our mids and the significant hit to our bursting salary cap. We did a quick trade for unders just so we could do further deals and keeping us out of the subsequent 11th hour quagmire that Hawthorn got into trying to get O'Meara across the line. If we'd held out for more O'Meara may have been done for pick 14 and we would have been stuck with late negotiations.

Mitchell is a ball magnet but he plays a much larger amount of game time at Hawthorn than he would if still with us where he'd be competing for midfield time with our other guns. Get over it I say, we're moving forward with a more dynamic group.

[Blood Fever]

I agree with the main part of your sentence but have issues with the qualifier.

Clever in that a fair number of people read it as meaningful. Clever as opposed to intelligent.

[aardvark]

Couldn't agree less with that. Hawthorn won't be a contender while they have a single player capable of winning contested ball. .

From what I witnessed on the weekend Hawthorn will smash us. Does this mean we won't be contenders?

[barry]

From what I witnessed on the weekend Hawthorn will smash us. Does this mean we won't be contenders?

It's a brave woman who says hawthorn aren't contenders from what we have seen so far.

[liz]

From what I witnessed on the weekend Hawthorn will smash us. Does this mean we won't be contenders?

You can't judge who'll beat who based on single games. We have had a long standing problem with Hawthorn in that their game style directly counters ours and they're good at it. But I don't believe they are genuine contenders this year, and I think we are. Others will have different opinions.

[aardvark]

You can't judge who'll beat who based on single games. We have had a long standing problem with Hawthorn in that their game style directly counters ours and they're good at it. But I don't believe they are genuine contenders this year, and I think we are. Others will have different opinions.

It is true that Horse has only won 5 from 17 V Clarkson. He's Clarkson's bunny but that's another issue. I just think it's a shame we didn't pay Mitch what he's worth and we kept wasting money on Tippett.
Still it's time to move on I suppose.

[liz]

He's Clarkson's bunny but that's another issue.

I wouldn't say Bunny, because a lot of the games have been very close. We should have won the first encounter last season, despite being down to 20 men by half-time. The second one was 50/50 - could have gone either way. It's just that we were smashing most other teams around the time that the second game was played.

Mind you, the loss probably galvanised the group somewhat. We went down to the Cattery the following week and beat them very comfortably, something that might not have happened had Hawthorn not reminded them of what it feels like to lose.

[ernie koala]

From what I've seen tonight. The Wobbles have made a very astute trade to get Sam Murray...

It's early days I know, but he is igniting the Wobbles right now.

We may need to add him to the growing list of Swans players prospering elsewhere

[Papernick]

From what I've seen tonight. The Wobbles have made a very astute trade to get Sam Murray...It's early days I know, but he is igniting the Wobbles right now.

Really? They�ve picked up a bloke that would have been lucky to get a game for us. Sure he�s going OK for them but by geez they�d hope he is because they paid top top dollar for him. Murray will be a handy player imo but not much more. Time will tell but I think it unlikely we�ll voew that trade badly in years to come.

Let�s not forget the Pies have really only now got one decent pick this year at the draft because of this trade

[Papernick]

We may need to add him to the growing list of Swans players prospering elsewhere

Surely you�re at home bored on a Friday night on a wind up?

You really saying we have a record of letting players go who dominate at other clubs?

Mitchell is going gangbusters but that topic is well covered here. Nankervis? He did well but it�s really injuries that have us missing him. Membrey? Get off the grass. Biggs? Really?

The reality is we rarely we rarely let players go who hurt us.

[Papernick]

It is true that Horse has only won 5 from 17 V Clarkson. He's Clarkson's bunny but that's another issue. I just think it's a shame we didn't pay Mitch what he's worth and we kept wasting money on Tippett.
Still it's time to move on I suppose.

We didn�t pay him what he was worth because we couldn�t do so without risking losing Heeney or Mills. Quite simple and I just can�t understand why people here can�t work that out

[goswannies]

Also noting there isn't a team in the land that hasn't made a blue, when it comes to trading players in and out.

Aymen to that.

Late 1977 after we lost the elimination final to the Tigers we traded a player with 19 games experience and his sight unseen brother to Essendon in exchange for centreman Neville Fields.

Not only did our 19 game player proceed to play almost 300 games for his new club, captain it, represent his state and country etc etc, the unseen brother was considered a better player until his career was ravaged by injuries.

But after this deal, and just a few seasons with us, Neville Fields eventually returned to the Bombers. And to rub salt into the wound, a third brother and important defender in our back 6 left us to join his brothers (subsequently winning State and All Australian honours) and which ultimately enticed a recruitment of a fourth brother by the Bombers.

Hindsight is 20:20. What if we never traded out Terry Daniher ...

It�s as pointless to speculate on that as to lament Tom Mitchell�s departure. Like father. Like son.

[Blood Fever]

We didn�t pay him what he was worth because we couldn�t do so without risking losing Heeney or Mills. Quite simple and I just can�t understand why people here can�t work that out


They don't want to be logical. They are alert to any opportunity to find fault. Good luck to Murray because he will get more of an opportunity at the Pies. Swans will be happy for him and his development. Same with Nankervis and probably Mitchell. Heeney and Mills tracking nicely to be long term guns. Did the best we could within financial reality.

[Ludwig]

It's a great advertisement for our development of players with Mitchell, Nanka and Murray doing well. It will only help to increase the price for players other clubs want from our list. We should get a 1st rounder for Jordan Foote.:rolleyes:

[Papernick]

It's a great advertisement for our development of players with Mitchell, Nanka and Murray doing well. It will only help to increase the price for players other clubs want from our list. We should get a 1st rounder for Jordan Foote.:rolleyes:

At least one I�d say!!

The fact we got what looks like being about 600 points for a guy that would have struggled to get a game for us this year is a great complyto our development program but also points to how desperate the Pies list management strategy is, not that we really need any more evidence.

Any gnashing if teeth on here re that deal is beyond ridiculous

[barry]

We didn�t pay him what he was worth because we couldn�t do so without risking losing Heeney or Mills. Quite simple and I just can�t understand why people here can�t work that out

How do you work out that?. Why heeney,mills and not mcveigh,Rohan?

[aardvark]

We didn�t pay him what he was worth because we couldn�t do so without risking losing Heeney or Mills. Quite simple and I just can�t understand why people here can�t work that out

I'd trade Mitch for Mills in a heartbeat.