5 tallest kids?

**sfan** · 25th April 2005, 08:53 AM

Having seen the Newcastle practice match and all games so far I think we are a small side that is unable to play a contested possession game. We cannot compete at the elite level with this side week in week out with an over possession game between midgets. Bucky, Bevan, Schnieder, Spriggs, Crouch, McVeigh etc

I would identify the 5 biggest kids we have on the list and do a Hawks and just play them regardless. They will only develop with quality game time. The reserves comp is a waste of time as it does not provide any learning pressure. Winning by 100 points does not teach the skills needed to win at the AFL level. Roos needs to make it clear to the fans and board that that this is the intention and we can then understand that we are truly building for the future.

Leigh Matthews played a 18 year old beanpole at the weekend. We should do the same with Ericksen. He is the tallest (205cm) player on the Sydney list

**midaro** · 25th April 2005, 10:17 AM

IN: Ericksen
OUT: LRT

...would make my week.

**anne** · 25th April 2005, 11:40 AM

It's not a matter of just playing taller kids. The major problem is that Sydney does not draft many tall players. Year in year out they draft small fast players of mediocre standard who are often athletic but not footy smart. Hawthorn was criticised for not taking Tambling etc . They made a conscious decision to draft the best 2 tall players and look at the result. Mediocre talls are better than mediocre smalls. Our recruiting stinks.

**BonBon** · 25th April 2005, 11:46 AM

Our 5 tallest kids are:

Jason Ball
Stephen Doyle
Darren Jolly
Jason Saddington
Lewis Roberts-Thomson

**liz** · 25th April 2005, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by anne
It's not a matter of just playing taller kids. The major problem is that Sydney does not draft many tall players. Year in year out they draft small fast players of mediocre standard who are often athletic but not footy smart.

The facts don't support that assertion. LRT, Powell, Dempster, James, Erikson, Davis, Hunt are all tall players drafted in the past four years. In that same period the club has drafted mids in Malceski and Thewlis and smaller players in McVeigh, Willoughby, Moore, Schneider, Buchanan, Spriggs and Schmidt. I don't think that shows any bias in any particular direction.

From the rookie list, Meiklejohn, Bevan, Piltz and Rogers have all been given a go ( 3 talls).

It is at the tall end of the list that a lack of top picks has probably hurt us because there are usually only a handful of obviously good tall players and they go early. After that, there will be players who make it but it becomes much more of a gamble and you have to be prepared to be patient. There will probably also be more misses than hits.

Even of the smaller players that the Swans have drafted, I reckon its fair to say that Schmidt, Moore, Schneider and Buchanan are more footballer than athlete, while McVeigh and Willoughby both showed themselves to be skilled as juniors as well as athletically gifted. And to be fair, McVeigh is showing his skills in the rare opportunities he gets to work through the midfield.

**Schneiderman** · 25th April 2005, 12:54 PM

What about Grundy, Vogels and Campbell?

I think our tall stocks are just fine. They just need time to develop and some quality smalls around their feet.

**sfan** · 25th April 2005, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Schneiderman
What about Grundy, Vogels and Campbell?

I think our tall stocks are just fine. They just need time to develop and some quality smalls around their feet.

I would throw them in the deep end and see what happens for 5-6 weeks. It can't hurt. The Hawks are now getting good return from adopting the same process. Our midget mid field will not get the job done as they do not have the skills to find a target 3-5 times every play. We then turnover and get killed for it.

**Schneiderman** · 25th April 2005, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by sfan
I would throw them in the deep end and see what happens for 5-6 weeks. It can't hurt. The Hawks are now getting good return from adopting the same process. Our midget mid field will not get the job done as they do not have the skills to find a target 3-5 times every play. We then turnover and get killed for it.

Ahhh... they are Rookies. You cant play them until you nominate them or elevate them.

And you keep forgetting the Hawks finished second last last year, and have missed the finals for the last three. This is despite having the talents of Crawford, Everitt and Mitchell. They have no choice in playing youngsters, whilst the team running around for Sydney at the moment finished 3rd and 5th the last two years. You'd be throwing the baby out with the bath water with too many changes.

**sfan** · 25th April 2005, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Ahhh... they are Rookies. You cant play them until you nominate them or elevate them.

And you keep forgetting the Hawks finished second last last year, and have missed the finals for the last three. This is despite having the talents of Crawford, Everitt and Mitchell. They have no choice in playing youngsters, whilst the team running around for Sydney at the moment finished 3rd and 5th the last two years. You'd be throwing the baby out with the bath water with too many changes.

Agreed with the rookie list. Maybe we need to have a poor year or 2 to get some good picks?

**Schneiderman** · 25th April 2005, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by sfan
Agreed with the rookie list. Maybe we need to have a poor year or 2 to get some good picks?

LMAO. Coming from someone who just had a shot at our team for not doing well, I find that ironic.

Are you enjoying the 2-3 record at the moment? Will you feel good when we finish 4-18 for the year? And then do it all again next year? And then have to wait another 2-3 whilst those top draft picks (fingers-crossed we pick correctly) mature and develop?

The big question to anyone who starts thinking we should tank it and go for the draft picks, is can you stand four to five years of mediocrity? And what if we get another Rocca, Gaspar, Grant or a Buckley or Stevens?

From what I have seen on this board, not only would half the members self-destruct (since they struggle with just a few losses in a row), but we would never agree on whether our picks were worth anything or not. Look at how we have turned on Bevan, Schneider, LRT, Kennelly, ROK, Goodes, Saddo, Jude....