Changes for Rnd 3 V GWS

**mcs** · 6th April 2018, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by MattW

Yeah, this burgeoning rote criticism of Rohan is a real drag.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion at the end of the day.

Noting as Annie says there are other, far more important issues going on for Rohan in his life at the moment (hence his footy form is far from the most important thing), it isn't unreasonable to consider more broadly whether Rohan has ultimately been able to deliver what would be expect of a player that was taken at #6 in the draft. I know injuries have blighted his career, but its a reasonable question to ask surely.

As for towers, I've been a long term doubter of him, but his form in the back end of last year and the start of this year has been very good - the coaches deserve high praise for their willingness to persist despite many a 'so so' performance early on in his career. Long may his good improvement and form continue.

**Captain** · 6th April 2018, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by Blood Fever

Mitchell we couldn't afford, Nankervis was accurately ranked 3rd or 4th best ruckman and Membrey is a useful mark and kick player. Nothing damning when Florent, Hayward etc were brought in. Kennedy, Parker and Mitchell would have meant 3 one paced players in the midfield long term. Unfortunate that Naismith got injured as he is clearly our best ruck option. To a lesser extent Tippett was a loss but he proved to be a dead loss injury wise.

This view either smacks of accepting mediocrity or not putting your hand up to say we might have got it wrong.

Fact is, the club rated Kennedy, Parker, Hannerbery, Mills and Heeney all ahead of Mitchell. Hence there was no money left for him. They got this massively wrong.

Nankervis was also rated behind Naismith and Sinclair. This is a tougher one but he showed more in two games than the others IMO. Injuries aside, Naismith has never shown much.

**ernie koala** · 6th April 2018, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Captain

This view either smacks of accepting mediocrity or not putting your hand up to say we might have got it wrong.

Fact is, the club rated Kennedy, Parker, Hannerbery, Mills and Heeney all ahead of Mitchell. Hence there was no money left for him. They got this massively wrong.

Nankervis was also rated behind Naismith and Sinclair. This is a tougher one but he showed more in two games than the others IMO. Injuries aside, Naismith has never shown much.

Agree with this. Also noting there isn't a team in the land that hasn't made a blue, when it comes to trading players in and out.

But Nankervis wasn't asking for the farm, and was a pivotal player in both the 2016 finals...He should of played in the GF and been kept on the list...But as always ,it's easy in hindsight.

We could really do with a bash and crash ruckman right now.

**Billericay** · 6th April 2018, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Captain

This view either smacks of accepting mediocrity or not putting your hand up to say we might have got it wrong.

Fact is, the club rated Kennedy, Parker, Hannerbery, Mills and Heeney all ahead of Mitchell. Hence there was no money left for him. They got this massively wrong.

Nankervis was also rated behind Naismith and Sinclair. This is a tougher one but he showed more in two games than the others IMO. Injuries aside, Naismith has never shown much.

I agree Swans made a mistake letting Mitchell go. But it's not as simple as you make out. The core of the midfield is/was largely slow - Kennedy, Parker, Hannebery and they couldn't get rid of those players. They had to work out whether to add another slow accumulator to the mix. I'm sure they'd have loved to kept him if they could to take over from Kennedy. The knock on our midfield is not winning the ball, but speed / explosiveness, so the decision makes sense of a sort on a "needs" basis. I'd much rather have Mitchell running around instead of Hewett in the team but they clearly couldn't afford that.

BTW Damian Barrett's sliding doors today: Sliding Doors: round three - AFL.com.au

"If Tom Mitchell was still a Swan... Then this club would be premiership favourite." (We also have a slower midfield)

Nankervis v Naismith epitomises the ruck dilemma. Is a ruckman's job to win hit-outs or do things around the ground. You really want one that can do both. We don't have that ruckman and went for the former. I'm sure we're hoping Naismith will become better around the ground. He's a pretty big unit, so should be able to throw his weight around. Nankervis got badly beaten by Jacobs on the weekend and I think was a major factor in their midfield being thrashed (although clearances are almost identical). Again, if we'd had the opportunity to push one ruckman of our choosing out, it might not have been Nankervis. This was all before Tippett turned into a disaster and 2 ruckmen became unsustainable.

**Swansongster** · 6th April 2018, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by mcs

Everyone is entitled to their opinion at the end of the day.

Noting as Annie says there are other, far more important issues going on for Rohan in his life at the moment (hence his footy form is far from the most important thing), it isn't unreasonable to consider more broadly whether Rohan has ultimately been able to deliver what would be expect of a player that was taken at #6 in the draft. I know injuries have blighted his career, but its a reasonable question to ask surely.

As for towers, I've been a long term doubter of him, but his form in the back end of last year and the start of this year has been very good - the coaches deserve high praise for their willingness to persist despite many a 'so so' performance early on in his career. Long may his good improvement and form continue.

2009 AFL draft - Wikipedia

Not trying to troll here. Genuinely interested in who you (and other RWOers) think would have been a better option from the 2009 draft (which, with the benefit of hindsight, looks a bit like a dud to me). There were a few beauties before Rohan but not much after - aside from Nathan Fyfe at 20).

**AnnieH** · 6th April 2018, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Captain

This view either smacks of accepting mediocrity or not putting your hand up to say we might have got it wrong.

Fact is, the club rated Kennedy, Parker, Hannerbery, Mills and Heeney all ahead of Mitchell. Hence there was no money left for him. They got this massively wrong.

Nankervis was also rated behind Naismith and Sinclair. This is a tougher one but he showed more in two games than the others IMO. Injuries aside, Naismith has never shown much.

Mitchell is the best player in a mediocre team.

**Papernick** · 6th April 2018, 12:32 PM

The hindsight thinking here is insane.

Yes we would have liked to have kept Mitchell but at the time we did not know has much the cap would rise by and had we matched the Hawks offer we may have lost Heeney or Mills. I believe we made the right call.

As for Nanka I had a feeling we�d regret that too but at the time he was arguable our fourth ruckman and the only one coming off contract so we really had no hand to keep him.

Don�t let that stop you mindlessly abuse the squad though Cainit

**liz** · 6th April 2018, 12:49 PM

I don't particular rate Nankervis as anything other than a solid ruckman. I acknowledge that Naismith's non-availability through injury (not just this year, but the string of niggling injuries that have blighted his career) diminishes his worth but I think he's a far better stoppage ruckman than Nankervis - or would be, if he could stay on the paddock. The club couldn't have foreseen that Naismith would rupture his ACL, nor that Tippett would suffer a career ending ankle injury. There was also a suggestion that Nankervis wanted to move to Melbourne regardless of his place in the pecking order - just to be closer to his family. Given he's from Tasmania, I am not sure how valid this is. It doesn't take that much longer to fly to Sydney than it does to Melbourne but maybe his family likes the ferry!

As for Mitchell, yes, he's a good player and the Swans knew he was a good player. He's gotten better since he moved to Hawthorn, or at least is getting more opportunity in his preferred role. I still wouldn't take him ahead of any of Parker, Kennedy or Hannebery however, regardless of how many touches he racks up. And for salary cap and age profile reasons, it would have had to have been a choice between him and one of those three, not someone like Hewett. On a purely cap basis, it could have been a choice between him and one of Mills or Heeney but I wouldn't choose him over them either.

As for Barrett's piece, we were premiership favourites (without Mitchell) at the start of the season and probably still would be had our skills not deserted us last Sunday. I don't think Mitchell in the team would have changed the result because winning our share of contested ball wasn't the issue. We could well be premiership favourites (without Mitchell) after this weekend if we knock off the Giants.

**grarmy** · 6th April 2018, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by mcs

Membrey has done nothing yet to suggest to me he will ever be anymore than a slightly upgraded version of Jesse White

Jessie....just when those terrible memories were being put to bed.

**Ludwig** · 6th April 2018, 01:20 PM

Agree with Liz on both Nanka and Mitchell. The only argument I have about the Mitchell trade is that we only ended up with a lowish 1st round pick when he was worth a lot more. But we definitely needed to thin out our inside slower mids, which enabled us to add Florent and Hayward. It's more than just saying that we lost a very good player. We have to credit the list management of the club for having the foresight to go hard at transitioning the team to a quicker more agile side, which we have done through the past 2 drafts. We changed the age demographic by 5 years in the Mitchell-Florent exchange. Despite Mitchell having a fantastic year, the game as a whole is clearly moving in the direction we have chosen.

As for Rohan, I didn't think he showed any signs that his mind wasn't on the game. It wasn't that abnormal a game for him. I think if he wasn't mentally fit to play, he wouldn't be selected. He's just be handed a role where it's difficult to rack up possession and harder still when the team has a player like Buddy, who demands the ball so much and is in stellar form. I'm more concerned about Rampe and Reg lifting their games for now.

**Blood Fever** · 6th April 2018, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Billericay

I agree Swans made a mistake letting Mitchell go. But it's not as simple as you make out. The core of the midfield is/was largely slow - Kennedy, Parker, Hannebery and they couldn't get rid of those players. They had to work out whether to add another slow accumulator to the mix. I'm sure they'd have loved to kept him if they could to take over from Kennedy. The knock on our midfield is not winning the ball, but speed / explosiveness, so the decision makes sense of a sort on a "needs" basis. I'd much rather have Mitchell running around instead of Hewett in the team but they clearly couldn't afford that.

BTW Damian Barrett's sliding doors today: Sliding Doors: round three - AFL.com.au

"If Tom Mitchell was still a Swan... Then this club would be premiership favourite." (We also have a slower midfield)

Nankervis v Naismith epitomises the ruck dilemma. Is a ruckman's job to win hit-outs or do things around the ground. You really want one that can do both. We don't have that ruckman and went for the former. I'm sure we're hoping Naismith will become better around the ground. He's a pretty big unit, so should be able to throw his weight around. Nankervis got badly beaten by Jacobs on the weekend and I think was a major factor in their midfield being thrashed (although clearances are almost identical). Again, if we'd had the opportunity to push one ruckman of our choosing out, it might not have been Nankervis. This was all before Tippett turned into a disaster and 2 ruckmen became unsustainable.

Sliding Doors, although clever, is just a collection of shallow thought bubbles.