I respect your opinion TBC, but don't agree we gave Rohan a reasonable run as a leading forward. I feel there were odd games he played that role and performed well, both leading out of the goal square and crashing packs as a contested mark, but my recollection is we didn't stick with it. I recall being a bit miffed by that at the time, as it always seemed his most dangerous position.
I am surprised Scott reckons he was surprised by Rohan's self-assessment as a good mark as that always seemed clear. It speaks to his own attention levels, but also the infrequent occasions he was played as a leading forward.
I know this sounds like expertise after the fact, but it is how I felt at the time.
As for Gleeson's piece, The Age podcast reveals his comparatively shallow analysis of the Swans. It is impressionistic compared with the Melbourne clubs. I regard his piece as a hot take.
I'm with you Mel. I don't see a conflict between being a pressure forward and kicking goals. Even Buddy is pretty decent at applying defensive pressure when he sets his mind to it.
And as you point out, it's not a surprise that he can mark the ball strongly and kick truly. He did that plenty of times for us, albeit he never found quite such a rich vein of form as he is currently in.
I hope for his sake it continues (particularly while the Swans aren't really contending) but it's also a very small sample size of games, and in a team playing exceptionally well. His contributions were never really in question when we were winning and winning comfortably.
I am also on record (at last year's trade time) as expressing disappointment and a little confusion over his trading, with the qualification that I had no insight into his frame of mind or need/desire to be with family. My disappointment was largely predicated on the fact it seemed to be the club initiating the trade, rather than him. Still, plenty of players find that a change of scenery rejuvenates them, and that's likely a contributing factor to Gary's form.
Rohan is still not racking up big possession numbers and if you factor in the greater number of inside 50's geelong have compared to us, his performance is probably not significantly higher than his best at the swans.
One thing I did note about his time at Sydney was his positioning was 'terrible'. 'Terrible' in the sense that he would go to positions that the ball was very unlikely to end up.
But if he was directed to do that by the coaching staff, then that explains it to some degree.
But even if he was playing the defensive forward role, he must still not meeting the swans objectives because he hardly got a game in 2018.
It all reeks of a combination of Rohan being a player that suits only a certain type of role (free running forward), and Geelong can offer that type of role, and Sydney couldnt.
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)
Big mistake by us especially since Bruest is about 6' as far as I know. Maybe he had a late growth spurt. Clubs seem to shy away from the smaller players. I don't see the reason myself. Just look at Caleb Daniels for example. He should have been a first round selection based on ability. Smaller players can compensate for this deficiency other areas.
Bookmarks