Good player, but if he stayed he'd probably be the leading goalkicker in the NEAFL. It was best for him to be traded out and is another reason why we have a good club.Originally Posted by Burra
I'd say Rohan has his spot.
Good player, but if he stayed he'd probably be the leading goalkicker in the NEAFL. It was best for him to be traded out and is another reason why we have a good club.
I'd say Rohan has his spot.
The eternal connundrum "what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" was finally solved when David Hasselhoff punched himself in the face.
Interesting article by Chris Judd in the Age Why Josh Kelly could be the AFL's perfect footballer
which argues that the AFL's ideal is that "free flowing football is encouraged ahead of repetitive short passages of play" therefore "the value proposition of different players" has changed and also changing the interpretation of deliberate out of bounds a year ago has "changed the value of good ball users when compared to stoppage players as stoppage numbers reduced"
Judd's article is interesting.
He could have added that the emphasis on free flowing football is such that "improper disposal of the ball" seems to have disappeared from the game almost completely. Watching games over the weekend I've seen the ball passed as prescribed, hit without first being held, dropped (whether on the boot or not doesn't seem to matter much), thrown whether with one hand or two, handed over like a parcel, even headed (well that's what it looked like). As far as I'm aware the AFL hasn't introduced a new law of the game, but has simply allowed all these methods of disposal.
I'm not against the fashion, indeed I'd be happy if the concept of incorrect disposal was, well, disposed of. The game has opened up and the prime values now are accurate hands and feet (as it always has been) and good leg speed. Ability to tackle is still valued - and lawful.
Our problem is that the Swans are trained as if the old rule still applied.
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)
He's recovering well now. Had kicked four goals as captain of the side in another impressive showing as an U17.
— Callum Twomey (@CalTwomey) April 24, 2017
How about the protected zone rule. I saw it paid in one game but completely ignored in others. It so blatant by sides that they seem to know they will get away with it. GWS did it many times. Maybe we are still playing to the old rules. It is almost as if umpires are making it up as the game moves on. There were a couple of frees in the St Kilda/Geelong game that no one seemed to know what they were for.
Nankervis close to BOG. Always said he was better than Naismith. Had all the skills with us and it was only a matter of maturity and more work. He had 52 hit outs tonight, not bad for a "short" ruckman.
Yes Nankervis was good but Melbourne had to use makeshift ruckmen for half the match. So he didn't have much opposition.
But what about that run Jayden Hunt did to put a block on to protect his teammate with the ball? I can't think of a single Swans player who could do that. Hayward perhaps.
We lost Nankervis because we stupidly traded Jetta for Sinclair (we should have taken any draft pick they offered), a player we didn't need and has turned out to be totally useless. Without Sinclair on our list Nankervis would have never left. With all the injuries we have to Tippett and Naismith, Nanka would have been playing every week. That said, I'm hopeful that his replacement, Darcy Cameron will turn out to be at least as good as Nankervis.
Melbourne ran out of legs in the 2nd half, but their midfield looked fantastic in the first half. I kept thinking that we couldn't possibly complete with this team the way we're playing. I wonder what would have happened if they hadn't been 2 men down.
I think we lost Nankervis because he knew Naismith was ahead of him as the first choice ruckman with Tippett the forward/ruck. That was clear when Naismith was brought back for the GF displacing Nankervis who had filled the position when Naismith was injured. I don't think the Sinclair recruitment had anything to do with it.
With the Richmond offer of being their No. 1 ruckman every week, Nankervis was no longer prepared to stay at the Swans to be called up only when there were injuries - and as you say, the other two do seem to get plenty of those.
I don't think anyone would criticise Nankervis for that. Indeed the club seemed regretful but understanding. It is frustrating though to see a ruckman the Swans drafted as a teenager, and put a lot of development work into, leave just as he started to reach ruck maturity and now flourish for another club.
And I agree with your comments re Melbourne - in fact I can't see us beating either of those two teams unless we have a sudden resurgence in form. I think Melbourne would have won if they weren't two players down. Losing the ruckman was particularly hard (and now Melbourne are bereft of rucks, a situation with which we are familiar).
You are right in that he was behind Naismith by the end of last year and that was the direct cause of his leaving. However, I feel that being in 3rd position instead of 4th in the ruck pecking order also was a big contributing factor.
A few days ago I was reviewing the 2016 trade period, mainly to check on the crazt deal that Carlton did with Hawthorn to get that 2nd round draft pick needed to complete the O'Meara trade. In following throw on all the draft pick movements I realised that the Nankervis trade actually got us the pick we used to take Maibaum and it was the swap of picks 52 and 57 Hawthorn gave us along with pick 14 for Tom Mitchell that ended up getting us Cameron. Pick 52 turned into pick 48 which we used to get Cameron. West Coast had a pick 4 picks later, which would have been before our pick had we not moved up 5 places with the Mitchell trade, and they may well have taken the local ruckman given their dire ruck situation losing NicNat. I have heard many comment at the surprise that West Coast did not take Cameron in the draft.
I'm not surprised Nankervis is doing well, but he's still has a long way to go to be an accomplished ruckman. I wish him the best of luck. I don't think we did badly in trading Nankervis and Mitchell and it will all pay off in the long run.
Melbourne are now out of ruckmen. It will be interesting to see what transpires. I think the ruckman was a position created by doctors, for doctors.
Last edited by Ludwig; 25th April 2017 at 02:25 AM.
The better Melb go and the worse we go has me more worried about keeping Zac Jones.
Maybe other teams will have a go at Zac but I hope we keep him.
Sam Reid comes out and says he is happy in Sydney and wants to stay, but we have heard nothing from Zac. Not sure if that is good or bad.
We really need Zak Jones in our side
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks