Highlight of the game were
1. Luke Parkers hanger (I hope Heeney is ok)
2. Buddys 60m bomb
Highlight of the game were
1. Luke Parkers hanger (I hope Heeney is ok)
2. Buddys 60m bomb
Onya Ugg, I knew you could confirm my suspicions about how well the "young" Swans played.Originally Posted by ugg
Just going on games listed in the AFL Record season guide, that is, I didn't include games played this year, the Swans team last night had 2032 total games, while GWS had 2065.
Footywire is a good source of heaps of stats. You can find the age stats down the page on the right side:
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/f...stics?mid=6193
How good was Nick Smith last night? Is he the best stopping back pocket player of the last decade? I'm a big Enright fan, but Smith takes down these targets every week.
Wasn't perfect but was still a very good win, and great to see the youngsters keep pressing and learning when things didn't go there way. GWS may well be an outstanding team in a few years time.
Ta, they seem up to date too.
I think the age stats is misleading. Our 27+ players are the key to our team . Our under 20's are important but not key. GWS instead rely on their 20 to 23 year olds who should improve over the years.
So while you can argue swans had a hunger team, truth is the giants have more potential to improve in the next 3 to 4 years and that's all that matters.
What exactly is a 'hunger team' - didn't we feed the boys for a couple of days before?
Your point is somewhat offset by the fact that the 20-23 year olds of GWS is chock a block full of high draft picks - whereas a significant majority of our younger guys are much lower picks (the obvious 2 exceptions being Mills and Heeney). You also can't argue that some of the older GWS players aren't well and truly amongst their most important (Davis/Mumford/Shaw/Griffen) players as well.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
Or that Parker, Hannebery, Mitchell and Rampe aren't core to our team.
I find it baffling that the "potential to improve in the next 3 to 4 years is all that matters" (Barry's comment). I thought the most important thing was who could field a team right here, right now, capable of competing for a premiership. There are loads of teams who always look to the future, worrying about how things might be in a few years time. Then there are the teams who go out and try to win the thing this year (and are confident they will find a way of bringing through new players in one way or another as their older players eventually fade).
And being 27 or older is a bit of a "so what". The better players in the competition generally play good football at least into their early thirties. Some can keep going for longer. More than half of the 21 and younger players in the competition will be long gone from the system before these tried and tested players ride off into the sunset.
I would add Papley's play through the middle late in the game.
Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk
We have them where we want them, everything is going according to plan!
Finally back with the computer. What a great game to watch, complete with the traditional Swans nail-chewing and indignation with umpires who need help from their sponsor.
The old blokes took centre stage for a change: Buddy, the mids (each put in handsomely) and the codgers down the back. Together with some cracking input from the youngsters they withstood everything a genuinely good team could throw at them and emerged as the deserving winners, although the game was closer than the score indicated. The TLM will be a tough one to vote - worthy recipients will miss out.
Tippett continues to shine as one of our best investments over the last couple of years and has become a more complete player in the process. I noted it took two or three players to keep Heeney relatively quiet, so exposing them elsewhere. Reg, Teddy, Smooch and Laids were terrific. Buddy was himself, and long may he reign. The mids were better than a very good opposition. The young newbies turned in exciting cameos, remarkably composed despite their lack of experience.
The farewell to Adam and Mikepyke, which was why we were in Sydney, was as emotion-filled as others have indicated, especially the little kids taking time off from Auskick to pay their tribute to the greats of the club.
I wouldn't change anyone for next week, especially not Cunningham given his continued development, and McVeigh can have another run with the twos, although I doubt that will happen.
He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)
Hunger = younger. Except you cant edit posts on a phone to correct it.
"potential to improve in the next 3 to 4 years is all that matters" is why you compare ages/games in the first place.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks