Should we have kept Buchanan?

[Plugger46]

Just wondering what people think?

Should we have kept him? He plays a bit like Schneider, obviously not as good, but he can really play. I saw him play a few games for Port Melbourne last year and the year before, and he played very well.

Everyone was on the bandwagon at the end of 2002, after he played some quality footy in the 1's. But after an injury riddled 2003, he's out the door? I'm a little dissapointed to see him go.

[Bleed Red Blood]

Though Buchanen was overtaken in the small forward department this year doesnt mean he didnt have talent and you need talent to win games and premierships.

We could have given him another year I thought.

[Dpw]

Not really fussed, notice he's not training with any other clubs. Thanks and goodluck.

[footyhead]

The fact that an untested young player with talent is no longer on the swans list while Warfe is, is a sad indicment on our club.

[dendol]

The fact that an untested young player with talent is no longer on the swans list while Warfe is, is a sad indicment on our club.

Someone had to go, and buchanan and hunt were the ones. I think Warfe was kept because he still had a year to go on his contract, but more importantly as a backup defender if Schauble, Saddington, Bolton and co were to all get injured. You cant stick kids into the backline to play on the power forwards of the comp without a bit of help from the experienced players.

[Charlie]

The experience argument for Warfe doesn't hold any weight, as far as I'm concerned. For a start, he is only the 14th most experienced player in the team, and Jude Bolton and Nic Fosdike are rapidly closing the gap.

Even in the backline, he is behind Schauble, Seymour, Barry, Saddington and Mathews for experience, which is the majority of our starting defence.

His experience is superfluous to our needs.

[NMWBloods]

I agree that Warfe's experience is not needed in the main backline, however the point dendol was making is that he could be a useful back-up for any backline players that get injured.

As for Buchanan, he's been around for a while and obviously hasn't impressed the club. Not sure where we'd put him in the senior team anyway, as there is no spot for him in the forward line and he's not a midfielder.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I agree that Warfe's experience is not needed in the main backline, however the point dendol was making is that he could be a useful back-up for any backline players that get injured.

As for Buchanan, he's been around for a while and obviously hasn't impressed the club. Not sure where we'd put him in the senior team anyway, as there is no spot for him in the forward line and he's not a midfielder.

Isn't it in our best interests to use those back-up positions to develop new talent, though?

What's the point in keeping a player like Warfe on the list to play half a dozen games off the bench, where he gets game time of 20-30 minutes? That does nothing positive. It doesn't develop Dempster, Powell or James, and he's certainly not capable of influencing the game to the same level as Seymour when he's in the team. You're just delaying a decision that must inevitably be made; that Warfe is dead wood.

When you have a bloke who's 27, struggled with injuries for 5 years, not in your best 22 and rarely gets a touch when he gets a game, there is absolutely no justification to keep him ahead of a young guy who might actually be able to contribute something.

[Dpw]

Isn't it a contract thing, the way I see it is back when he signed he would of been on a contract worth somewhere around 250,000 a year now correct me if Iam wrong but we would have to pay that out which sounds fine but dosen't it also become part of out cap for next year which would mean we would lose a player and 250,000 in our cap and still have to pay another player.

My point being the club is kinda forced into a corner.

[Charlie]

Apart from Brett Kirk and Adam Schneider, I can't see that any of our players would have gotten massive increases in their contracts this year. Considering we had about $700k spare, and that O'Loughlin took a pay cut plus the retirement of Cresswell, I'm quite confident that we could sustain the payment to Warfe without having to waste a spot on our list. What would a first year rookie get? I think it's somewhere around $40,000.

It seems to me that every possible explanation has holes in it, except for one... that he's a favourite of the coaching staff.

[Rod_]

I'm a bit of a softy and due to injury I would have given him another year to show his wares

I agree that he is not a workd beater - but could have been another in and under player.... Is a small forward his only position?

Rod_

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Charlie
Isn't it in our best interests to use those back-up positions to develop new talent, though?

What's the point in keeping a player like Warfe on the list to play half a dozen games off the bench, where he gets game time of 20-30 minutes? That does nothing positive. It doesn't develop Dempster, Powell or James, and he's certainly not capable of influencing the game to the same level as Seymour when he's in the team. You're just delaying a decision that must inevitably be made; that Warfe is dead wood.

When you have a bloke who's 27, struggled with injuries for 5 years, not in your best 22 and rarely gets a touch when he gets a game, there is absolutely no justification to keep him ahead of a young guy who might actually be able to contribute something.

I wasn't actually thinking about whether you'd play him off the bench, but rather in the twos until there is an injury. That way you can keep the young guys on the bench throughout the season and gradually ease them into their positions. Probably not the greatest outcome, but if he is contracted, then at least you might get some value for the money you are spending on him.

As for Buchanan, as I said before, I assume that the club believes he doesn't add anything to the current side.

[Charlie]

So... we have the starting defenders - Schauble, Bolton, Saddington, Mathews, Kennelly and Barry - then we have players rotating through the midfield and off the bench - Crouch, Maxfield, Seymour, Powell, James, Fixter, perhaps Dempster and LRT - and THEN, finally, we have Warfe?

I know you're merely offering up possible reasons, but each and every one of them sounds hard to believe.

I'm left with no other plausible explanation than that Warfe has some friends in high places in the footy department. Very disappointing if this is the case.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Charlie
So... we have the starting defenders - Schauble, Bolton, Saddington, Mathews, Kennelly and Barry - then we have players rotating through the midfield and off the bench - Crouch, Maxfield, Seymour, Powell, James, Fixter, perhaps Dempster and LRT - and THEN, finally, we have Warfe?

I'm not sure what some of these players have to do with Warfe. I suspect he is there as an experienced replacement for injuries to the taller defenders.

I know you're merely offering up possible reasons, but each and every one of them sounds hard to believe.

I'm left with no other plausible explanation than that Warfe has some friends in high places in the footy department. Very disappointing if this is the case.

I've no doubt that Roosy and some others like Warfe and are happy to keep him in the team. Also the remaining year on his contract is also certainly a key factor. Maybe they think they were lucky to get away with a pretty stable back line last year and seeing as they have Warfe anyway, why not keep him around just in case.

[chammond]

I'm left with no other plausible explanation than that Warfe has some friends in high places in the footy department.

Plausible??

We obviously have differing definitions for that word.

Decidedly implausible would better describe that 'explanation'.

Isn't it possibly more reasonable to suggest that our hysteria about Warfe is unfounded, and that the Swans know his worth better than we do?