Experts don't pick Sydney in Top 8

[ROK Lobster]

Under no circumstance does it warrant spitting on people.

That is the most disgusting habit,that is worse than being a bigot or racist.

If they play crap they deserve it in my book. After that St Kilda draw at the dome I got down near the race and went home feeling like I'd walked acress the Simpson desert.

[2005]

If you read what I said Koala Bear I was talking about the 3 above as its get boring and most of it is just Bull@@@ !!

Bloody oath Im one eyed always will be, always have been.
Ill critisize when its warranted then get over it, move on to another topic !!

[ernie koala]

[QUOTE=2005;362102]

Some of criticism especially towards Jude Bolton, Jarrad McVeigh, Ben Mathews and Paul Bevan here is over the top BS at times!!

I just shake my head and wonder at some people at times.



So true Grim !
I joined this forum not long ago, as I enjoy a debate and love to speculate and hear people differing opinions on the Swans.
The crap some people go on about the 3 above is boring & Bull@@@@!!

Doesn't sound like you enjoy a debate to me. Sounds like you think any veiw contary to yours is "boring and bul@@@@". Well I think reading one eyed, rose tinted commentary is BORING AND BULL@@@@.

[swantastic]

I reserve my right to spit at the coach or players if the circumstances warrant it.

Under no circumstance does it warrant spitting on people.

That is the most disgusting habit,that is worse than being a bigot or racist.

[Old Royboy]

I would have thought Craig B's speech would go some way to explaining the Bevo selection

If that is the case then you agree with me.

[satchmopugdog]

I would have thought Craig B's speech would go some way to explaining the Bevo selection

Yep!

[connolly]

You?re reading a little too much between the lines. I said that up to a point, the selectors prefer committed hacks to talented party boys. I've no argument with that - it was the commitment and discipline of our team that was no small factor in the successes of 2005 and 2006, but that sort of thinking can be carried too far. What I do have issue with is the past reluctance to drop/rest out of form or half fit players.

We had a less than successful 2007, and are just saddling up for 2008. The committed crew failed through poor form and playing with injury, so I feel it reasonable to question if they were kept in the firsts for too long.

I remember last year Bevan came back from injury at a reserves game at Manuka. He played an absolute Barry Crocker, but his reward was immediate promotion the next week. Later on, Monty was dropped; he took his medicine, ran his guts out in the ressies, and played well too. But he still had to pay a couple of weeks more penance before he was reinstated. (which is why I have the feeling he is not considered a full Blood) I?m sure there were good reasons for the above, but with no explaination form the club, fans have every right to ask why.

Meanwhile Laidlaw, Jack, Moore and co were burning it up. Those guys did not get a chance until injuries (not demotions) occurred, and even then spent about ? of their games on the bench, did not get much opportunity to show their wares and were shunted off back to Canberra almost immediately. Granted, it didn?t help much that two of the reserve grade standouts were Jack and Barlow, both rookie listed players who had to wait for long-term injuries to get a chance.

There are all sorts of other issues that impact on selections, one of which is the fact that any Sydney reserve grader promoted to play in the backline will have to learn on the job. (was this why Bevan got back?)

At the end of the day, these judgements rest with Roos, and the selectors, and I?m sure Roos would be the first to admit he?s not perfect. It appears that he?s recognised that he got things a bit wrong, because he?s on record already as saying things will be a little different this year and the kids will get their chance. I certainly hope so.

I would have thought Craig B's speech would go some way to explaining the Bevo selection

[satchmopugdog]

The article from Craig Bolton and his speech at the guernsey presentation night was full of optimism about how well we will do this year.
Very passionate indeed. If all he says is true about the structure of the club then we are in for a goodish year.

Hope so as I am hurting badly now...as of 2 hours ago I am an empty nester. Youngest off to work at Uluru for a year. It is the same feeling as when you say goodbye to your pets when they are put down. Gutwrenching

[Old Royboy]

How about you? Do you, as you suggest, think players are picked on favouritism rather than maximising the chances of winning?

You?re reading a little too much between the lines. I said that up to a point, the selectors prefer committed hacks to talented party boys. I've no argument with that - it was the commitment and discipline of our team that was no small factor in the successes of 2005 and 2006, but that sort of thinking can be carried too far. What I do have issue with is the past reluctance to drop/rest out of form or half fit players.

We had a less than successful 2007, and are just saddling up for 2008. The committed crew failed through poor form and playing with injury, so I feel it reasonable to question if they were kept in the firsts for too long.

I remember last year Bevan came back from injury at a reserves game at Manuka. He played an absolute Barry Crocker, but his reward was immediate promotion the next week. Later on, Monty was dropped; he took his medicine, ran his guts out in the ressies, and played well too. But he still had to pay a couple of weeks more penance before he was reinstated. (which is why I have the feeling he is not considered a full Blood) I?m sure there were good reasons for the above, but with no explaination form the club, fans have every right to ask why.

Meanwhile Laidlaw, Jack, Moore and co were burning it up. Those guys did not get a chance until injuries (not demotions) occurred, and even then spent about ? of their games on the bench, did not get much opportunity to show their wares and were shunted off back to Canberra almost immediately. Granted, it didn?t help much that two of the reserve grade standouts were Jack and Barlow, both rookie listed players who had to wait for long-term injuries to get a chance.

There are all sorts of other issues that impact on selections, one of which is the fact that any Sydney reserve grader promoted to play in the backline will have to learn on the job. (was this why Bevan got back?)

At the end of the day, these judgements rest with Roos, and the selectors, and I?m sure Roos would be the first to admit he?s not perfect. It appears that he?s recognised that he got things a bit wrong, because he?s on record already as saying things will be a little different this year and the kids will get their chance. I certainly hope so.

[Margie]

Coaches may think they are choosing the side capable of winning, but their selection decisions may be coloured by favouritism or errors. Nothing hugely unusual in that.

When Chambers continued to get a game the other year, he was selected because they thought it would help the team - they were wrong.
Other players get chosen out of loyalty, when selecting them was a mistake (eg: Ricciuto for Adelaide in last year's final).

Yes, but you're talking about Bevan, Mathews, Bolton etc being chosen week after week, year after year.

Bevan holding sway over coaches, selection committees, the board, sponsors etc. does seem illogical.

[Go Swannies]

Au contraire. It seems more logical to expect to find "pro-Swans comments" on a Swans fan site than say, an Eagles fansite.

And I'm not trying to start an argument either. I really would like to know if people here think that the Swans coaches select the team without winning being the primary goal?

And if you do think that, why do you think they'd do it and why would you watch? It's not like the players selected are so spectacular that they can be there purely to entertain rather than contribute to victory. And you'd think that Roos and others would be thinking of their legacy and future and being losers won't look good on the resume.

Or do you think this is the key (from Pt 3 of the Roos interview):

"So you respect a hard working player more than a guy who?s a genius but doesn?t have that work ethic?

There?s no doubt about that. The most frustrating players you deal with, as a teammate and as a coach, are the ones that you know have enormous ability but that you know don?t put 100 per cent into it. It?s very hard for me to understand that and it?s hard for a lot of people to understand that. They are the ones that you get very frustrated with because you just can?t comprehend why you wouldn?t put everything into it because it?s such a good opportunity."

But that suggests he thinks everyone should want to win. Except RWO doesn't think he does. I'm confused.

[Go Swannies]

Yes, it's always the pro-Swans comments that are full of logic...

Thanks you. Unexpected praise indeed. But I shouldn't be surprised to find support for pro-Swans support on a Swans fansite, I guess.

[swannymum]

I agree wholeheartedly with Go Swannies. Not much other logic going on on these pages.....

Went to see the Kangaroos/Demons match and some of our "supporters" sound suspiciously like a Demons supporter there. The only thing that came out of his mouth was negative!! I'd hate to live with the guy

[Go Swannies]

I think what ROK is getting at is that fully paid up members of the Bloods brotherhood are cut an awful lot more slack at the selction table than the blokes who "play footy for fun". Schneider is gone, but he was in the latter group, along with Nick and Monty.

The message is that up to a point, our selectors (including the leadership group) prefer committed hacks rather than talented party boys. Other side of the coin is that this makes it much harder for newbies to break into the side.

I don't get that. First off, I think a lot of the reason that Roos doesn't play the kids is that he thinks that playing a kid too early can break them. That may be a hangover from his playing days "list" and it may be an error but he has always said that he takes it slow for their own good.

I do agree that talented party boys won't last at the Swans with Roos. Hence the team's harsh treatment of Davis, pulling wild Spida into the conforming brotherhood, and getting rid of bad apple Schneider. Then again, talent has probably only prevailed over discipline in two of the past seven premierships - and look what happened to the crap Cats when they got serious last year - so I'd go for discipline every time. And I reckon Monty isn't a footy for fun player - he's driven in the Kirk mold.

So we come to the "committed hacks". I heard an hour long interview with Leigh Matthews the other week where he made sense (as always) when he said that he has to avoid coaching as a fan: "as a coach I don't think any player is trying to do less than his best: as a fan I sometimes think a player isn't trying hard enough - and when that thought crosses my mind I have to go back to thinking like a coach."

Don't you think that a coach is a bit like a general or a chess player - using what he has to win the battle? I believe that when Roos picks Ben or McVeigh or Jude it's because he doesn't think he has another player available that will do the role as well as they do. That may be a boring shut-down role and he will build their likely error rate into the equation. But if I thought that, as I suggested earlier, the selection committee would pick a player because he's a mate even though that selection reduced the Swans' chance of victory, I'd stop watching footy.

How about you? Do you, as you suggest, think players are picked on favouritism rather than maximising the chances of winning?

There are two exclusions to that "reduced success" absolute. I don't have problems with playing a kid to give him experience, even though he'll possibly stuff up and others may not cover for his inexperience well enough to win the game. The counter to that is watching a kid's enthusiasm in his first game - and the ideal when he plays a blinder.

And then there's the time when chess master Roos is outcoached by chess master X. Roos thinks "I'll play pawn Ben on knight Y and hopefully he'll shut their star out of the game and won't give away too much." But instead the star remains a star and Ben gives away the winning goal - lose-lose and RWO is full of hatred on Monday. According to Leigh, Ben was still doing his best and the fault lies with Roos' game plan. It happens and you just have to sit back and wait for next week. I've got enough faith in the smarts of our coaches to expect to win more than we lose.

[2005]

[QUOTE=TheGrimReaper;362048]Some of criticism especially towards Jude Bolton, Jarrad McVeigh, Ben Mathews and Paul Bevan here is over the top BS at times!!

I just shake my head and wonder at some people at times.



So true Grim !
I joined this forum not long ago, as I enjoy a debate and love to speculate and hear people differing opinions on the Swans.
The crap some people go on about the 3 above is boring & Bull@@@@!!