It's certainly possible that the opinion of the expressed majority is correct (and not just because even a broken watch tells the right time twice a day) and that 2019 will indeed be the year the Swans make a Big Splash, but
A) it's hard not to notice that some on RWO have been singing the same "this time for sure" tune for several years now, yet nothing has happened - and
B) the only time the Big Splash approach has landed a flag for the RedandWhite was in 1933.
My recollection is that the last 2 flags were more based on a recruiting-undervalued-players-and-improving-them approach. Happy to be disabused of these notions by means of reasoned argument (as happened in earlier times) but less convinced by the current penchant for vigorous restatement of dogma.
Last edited by Ruck'n'Roll; 22nd October 2018 at 03:07 AM.
My issue is that the other teams competing for the 8 have improved vs our list significantly ie north, bombers, hawks etc
We were well off the pace of Richmond
GWS are in my opinion about to peak with such amazing talent at the right age. Their injury toll all season was worse then ours. We looked like a reserve grade team in the finals vs gws. We were completely dismantled
The pies depth and talent looks like it will be hitting its straps come 2019.......very very exciting list of players and had massive injury toll all season
So yes I will support our team all the way but I can’t see through rose coloured glasses. Our recruitment strategy concerns me a lot. Our outside run vs gws looked absolutely terrible in the finals. So does our backline outside run come down to Stoddart and or Ling ?
We know we need Jones in the midfield
We have fallen behind in my opinion and it could be a very very tough season
I can’t see our plan B for 2019
I'm not one expecting the Swans to go out and make a Big Splash in the trade market anytime soon, though I do suspect they might have built up sufficient space in the cap to go out and recruit an experienced player or two in the upcoming trade periods, mostly based on the fact that they tried - and failed - to lure some targets this year who would have commanded a reasonable salary.
I agree the 2012 premiership team was mostly built around drafting, and supplementing with the trading in of undervalued players from other clubs and either developing them or reinvigorating them. The 2005 team did include some higher profile recruits though - Ball, Williams, and Hall. Hall was not yet a complete player when he arrived, and certainly improved during his time with the Swans, but he was probably at a similar stage of his career to Hogan now (who is considered a big recruit for the Dockers).
Spot on post. Besides Lockett and Franklin, there have been no other really big fish. Hall had big potential but was troubled. Tippett was talented but inconsistent and injury prone. Schwass and Williams were biggish fish but our strength in the two flags were the likes of C Bolton, Ball, Jolly, N Davis, Matter, Shaw, Richards, Kennedy, Mumford etc. Goodes, O'Loughlin, Barry, Roberts-Thompson etc were drafted. Heeney, Mills, Melican( if he stays fit) and others all could develop into the mythical big fish that is often very difficult to land.
Almost LOL.
I don't think there's any singular way to building a winning list. Just because we or another club in the past built a list by recruiting big name players during trade period and was successful, doesn't mean that's the only road to success.
A club needs to be at least moderately successful recruiting through the draft to have any chance, because there are only so many holes in a list that can be filled. Trading is a way of bolstering weaknesses in a list.
I've been omitting McVeigh, Jack, Grundy and Smith form my best 22 caluculations for next year, even though they may all be in that category, just to see how we line up without them. I'm satisfied that we have a good enough list to compete for a top 4 spot, but there's plenty of uncertainty because we will be relying on a lot of young players still below their peak years. It's hard to know how well they will perform over the long season.
I've already posted that I'm not one who thinks we will be after a big fish next year, but we have to see if any major list weaknesses develop in 2019. The list of free agents for next year is not particularly enticing. Gaff and Dahlhouse were the 2 players I thought we should have gone after this year, but it doesn't seem that we were ever in the running for either.
I think we all support the position of getting rid of players who are fringe, and their age determines they will not get any better:
Hannerbury, Rohan, Towers and AJ. You could add Jack into that but needed to draw the line somewhere.
Thats a tick.
The approach of trying to find a few young gems who arent getting a go at rival clubs is another good aim (ie, finding the next kennedy). We have one in Clarke, maybe thurlow, but missed out on Moore and the other collingwood guy (name escapes me at the moment). Therefore, a fail.
I would expect to see us go after more of these types in 2019, and unless a big fish falls in our lap, we probably wont go after a marque player until buddy has gone.
Darcy Moore only signed a 2 year contract. If he blossoms during this time, I expect our club to come at him even harder as I expect the Pies will have trouble meeting his bigger $$$$ contract demands due to them feeling cap squeeze with their list. Buddy by then will only have 2 years remaining on his contract & can look at offering heavily back ended contracts to retain current stars and/or attract another big fish.
P.S. The other Collingwood guy we tried luring was Tom Langdon.
This.
I think any club needs to be flexible in how it approaches recruitment, and look at all ways to improve the list. A club can draw up all the strategies and tactics it likes, but it has to respond to whatever opportunities present themselves and make the most of those. I doubt recruiting a Franklin was ever part of the Swans' list building strategy until his manager came knocking on the door one day.
I'm sad to have lost Hannebery and only time will tell whether that proves to be a sound move or not. But I think one outcome has been to give the club a little bit more flexibility within its cap, so that if a seasoned player (not necessarily one of Franklin's calibre) becomes available to the club next year, or the year after, the club may be in a position to give his recruitment consideration. And if no such players express an interest in coming to the Swans, the club can continue to focus on its home developed talent.
I do think clubs need to do both, and while some clubs have strengthened their best 22 for next year, they've generally done so at the expense of depth, or by trading out of all but the back end of the draft (Hawthorn, Collingwood, Essendon) , or they were coming from a long way back (Freo).
In a couple of these cases, clubs have traded out of the pointy end of the draft for several years in a row. Yes, the draft is a lottery. Yes, you can pick duds with high picks and find gems with lower picks. But it's also a numbers game. Clubs have to sift through a decent number of drafted players to find and develop those who have what it takes to become good, long term players. And while there are no guarantees even with those higher picks, they do give a club more choice to pick the players they think can become good players.
Bookmarks