Age only a state of mind: Colless

[satchmopugdog]

If anyone there had any foresight they would have planned to bottom out during the Hill redevelopment period...

Now that is forward planning...but it would have meant coming last in 2005 /2006 instead of winning the PREMIERSHIP. Mmmmmmm let me think. I'll take the Preeemiership. thank you very much

[ROK Lobster]

Now that is forward planning...but it would have meant coming last in 2005 /2006 instead of winning the PREMIERSHIP. Mmmmmmm let me think. I'll take the Preeemiership. thank you very much

2005 was fine, they only dug it up this year. We overachieved in 2006.

[Nico]

Which is not even going to happen unless a hole in the world appears at the SCG and Goodes, Eski, ROK, Barry, Bolton, Kirk, Fosdike, Micky, LRT and Davo fall in.

You forgot Bevo.

[DST]

2005 was fine, they only dug it up this year. We overachieved in 2006.

On reflection we played much better football in 2006 (including winning a final in Perth) that we did in 2005.

For want of another 2 points in the GF, 2006 would have gone down as arguably our best year since being in Sydney outside of 1996 when we were on fire in that latter part of the year.

DST

[liz]

On reflection we played much better football in 2006 (including winning a final in Perth) that we did in 2005.

Not sure I agree with that. In 2006 we beat the sides we should have beaten but our track record against the top teams was very very ordinary. I reckon the only really good win we had was the QF.

[hammo]

Why does the club keep perpetuating this myth?

We have had 11 years of sustained success and developed what I would say is a rusted on membership base. Corporate sponsorship is among the best in the AFL and presumably locked in for at least 3 years. To keep saying that the club can't afford to bottom out by finishing in the bottom 4 treats the supporters with contempt.

Secondly, why is there never any analysis of the flip side to not "bottoming out"?

That's the future where Sydney will never get a top 5 draft pick, and rarely a top 8 pick, and therefore can't replish its playing stocks with the best talent in the country.

That means more seasons of Roos / Longmire / Colless talking about having a team of no stars, a midfield of Cortinas etc, and using that as an excuse for a dour gameplan based on stoppages instead of backing the talent in the side to play attacking footy.

People point to Geelong as a club which didn't bottom out but they've been the beneficiary of some of the best father and son picks in the history of the draft - two Abletts, Scarlett and now Hawkins who all would be top 5s.

Sure there are other ways to rebuild but the most efficient way is through the draft.

[goswannie14]

People point to Geelong as a club which didn't bottom out but they've been the beneficiary of some of the best father and son picks in the history of the draft - two Abletts, Scarlett and now Hawkins who all would be top 5s.

Sure there are other ways to rebuild but the most efficient way is through the draft.

The Geelong perspective is interesting in that they have the same playing list as last year, but are performing way better than last year. I suspect that the 2005 Semi had more of a lasting effect on them that they would have liked to admit.

[NMWBloods]

Not sure I agree with that. In 2006 we beat the sides we should have beaten but our track record against the top teams was very very ordinary. I reckon the only really good win we had was the QF.

Not sure if it was significantly worse than 2005.

Against WC and Adel in 2006 we went 0-2, in 2005 we went 1-3. The only win was home against WC, which we didn't have in 2006. So that's much the same.

We went 1-0 against Freo both years, they made finals in 2006 not in 2005.

We went 0-1 against Coll in 2006 and Coll didn't make finals in 2005, but we fell over the line against a weaker 'Pies outfit in 2005 by 1 pt.

We went 0-1 against StK both years.

We went 1-0 against Bulldogs both years.

We went 1-1 against Melbourne both years.

We went 1-1 against Kangaroos in 2005, they did not make finals in 2006 and we beat them.

I think the feeling that we played better in 2006 was that early in the season (rds 5-10) we played well, won six games in a row and scored well. We had a down period from rds 11-15 against some top teams, but then we bounced back. We went into finals looking pretty good, with finals experience behind us, and we won our way into the GF and looked the goods to win.

In 2005, we played pretty ordinary football, much like 2004, for the first 14 rounds. This is a strong memory of the 2005 H&A season. From there we won 7 of our next 8, and first three wins were against top 8 sides. In finals though, we were lucky to make it through, our finals record in the past had been mixed, so I think there is not the feeling that we were a favourite going into finals.

Looking at it objectively, I don't think there is a lot to choose between the two years in terms of performance, but I think 2006 was a little better.

[hammo]

In 2005, we played pretty ordinary football, much like 2004, for the first 14 rounds. This is a strong memory of the 2005 H&A season. From there we won 7 of our next 8, and first three wins were against top 8 sides.

Yep, hence Demetriou's comments about our style of play.

We were ordinary in the first half of 2005 but clearly in the top 2 or 3 teams heading home. If you have the season highlights DVD it's worth watching to see how bad we actually were in early 2005.

[dimelb]

The Geelong perspective is interesting in that they have the same playing list as last year, but are performing way better than last year. I suspect that the 2005 Semi had more of a lasting effect on them that they would have liked to admit.

I think the biggest single factor in Geelong's rise is the rise of Nathan Ablett in FF. Other important factors are the regeneration of Ottens, the input of Egan, a haircut for Cam Mooney and the continued improvement in G Ablett and Bartel to the point where their midfield is starting to look like the elite midfield of a fit WC or the fab 4 at Brisbane.
We have not seen anything like this improvement in any player at Sydney except Malceski, but we have had a few disappointments, including Vogels and Grundy, who may yet come good if they get more consistent time in the ones.

[Bas]

We have not seen anything like this improvement in any player at Sydney except Malceski, but we have had a few disappointments, including Vogels and Grundy, who may yet come good if they get more consistent time in the ones.

Probably more the reason why we need to go for Darcy Danniher.

[liz]

Probably more the reason why we need to go for Darcy Danniher.

But why Daniher over any other youngster touted to go top 30 in this year's draft? The only reason he is getting more attention than any other player is a link to his father. It's not as if he's mooted as a Hawkins or Gibbs or Murphy and hence likely to be a steal to whichever club - if either - takes him as a FS pick.

Why is he more likely to be the Swans' salvation over Rance or Collier or Selwood or any other name that is possibly going to be around when the Swans get to pick?