Best Player Trades

[liz]

Originally posted by robbieando
Because when you make a trade you don't get a player because of their marketability, but for their playing value. In any case to compare Lockett and Hall on their "market" value to the club then Lockett wins hands down, but thats not the reason we got Lockett we got him to play football and as such he should be judged on what he did on the field. What is done off the field can only be seen as an added bonus.

In most instances I agree with that, but I think Lockett was an exception and maybe Hall was to a certain extent as well.

The determination of Barassi to "get" Lockett and the single-mindedness with which the club pursued him suggest that they were well aware of the importance of a marquee player to the Swans at that time. I'm sure that the extent to which Sydney Town took him to their heart exceeded all expectations (as did his on field performances, given he had been spluttering a bit at St Kilda in the years immediately before he left them) but I'm sure that they realised the impact that having such a "larger-than-life" figure at the club might have on marketing and player retention / recruitment.

And while Hall had nothing like the reputation or profile of Lockett, I suspect at the back of their mind they thought that if the Sydney supporters could latch onto one slightly eccentric / non-conformist player in the most glamourous position on the ground in the way they did with Lockett, then it couldn't hurt to try it again.

[Syd]

Originally posted by motorace_182
Maybe.... Plugger hooked the crowds but Bazz could take us all the way

Perhaps, that remains to be seen but lets not forget that in ?96 Plugger damn near took us all the way. I?d hardly blame his efforts on GF day for the loss? it was a team effort.

Originally posted by robbieando
Because when you make a trade you don't get a player because of their marketability, but for their playing value.

Not so sure about that Robbie.

Are you saying that if another club was able to recruit say Matty Lloyd from Essendon that there would be no marketing benefit? Why else did the Bears recruit Capper?

Of course there would a marketing value on certain players (Plugger included), and it would be a huge PART of the reason for his recruitment and therefore have to be valued in as part of how the trade worked out.

[Ajn]

Craig Bolton for a freebie,
But Cresswell and Dale Lewis from the old mid season drafts were top selections, after being overlooked at other drafts.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by lizz
but I'm sure that they realised the impact that having such a "larger-than-life" figure at the club might have on marketing and player retention / recruitment.

I'm not say that when we went after him, that it was for purely footballing reasons, because I have no doubt the club targeted Lockett to lift the clubs profile in Sydney and in turn change to perception of the club to the rest of the football world. What I'm saying however is that you can't judge a players trade on reasons other than his performance on the field, everything else is a bonus.

And while Hall had nothing like the reputation or profile of Lockett, I suspect at the back of their mind they thought that if the Sydney supporters could latch onto one slightly eccentric / non-conformist player in the most glamourous position on the ground in the way they did with Lockett, then it couldn't hurt to try it again.

Of course not, but I think this time targetting Hall had more footballing reasons than when we targetted Lockett. We had a good side, except for the hole in the forward line Lockett's retirement left us, so going after Hall filled the hole and also got us a marketable player.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Syd
Are you saying that if another club was able to recruit say Matty Lloyd from Essendon that there would be no marketing benefit? Why else did the Bears recruit Capper?

No, not at all and I'm certainly not saying the Swans didn't get a huge benefit marketing wise when we got Lockett, what I'm saying is you can't judge a players value to a side on the marketabilty he brings to a side, it helps and its something clubs do look at, but at the end of the day, a player is judged on what they did on the field, not off it.

[stellation]

my vote for best trade goes to when we grabbed Andrew Schauble

picking up Nick Davis for a second round pick wasn't bad either

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Tony Lockett could be a bit of a liability when the opposition ran off him.

Barry is very swift and Barry Hall is holding down centre half forward, even on the SCG, and that's a huge benefit to the team.

His speed also means we could station a less mobile tall like Ball/Doyle on the forward line semi-permanetly this year (We could do with a little extra height down there).

Something we couldn't do with Lockett.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Ruckman
Tony Lockett could be a bit of a liability when the opposition ran off him.

Surprisingly, not too many backmen ran off Lockett in his prime!

Barry is very swift and Barry Hall is holding down centre half forward, even on the SCG, and that's a huge benefit to the team.

It's generally considered that you don't need both a CHF and FF on the SCG, so I don't think there is a huge benefit for Hall on this.

His speed also means we could station a less mobile tall like Ball/Doyle on the forward line semi-permanetly this year (We could do with a little extra height down there).

Something we couldn't do with Lockett.

Something we didn't need to do with Lockett!!!

[Ruck'n'Roll]

NMWBloods

Dear Bloods,
I would ask you to cast your mind back to the real Tony Locket not the "Theres only one Tony Lockett"

He was a great full forward and a brilliant shot for goal but . . .

LOTS of defenders ran off Tony Lockett, even before he joined the Swans. In fact he belted Peter Caven at the SCG because he'd just been stood up by him for the second time!

As to your perception that a second forward target wasn't needed when we had Lockett . . .
I would make the observation that the great (premiership winning) teams generally don't rely on a single forward focal point. One of the Lockett era Swans weeknesses was the predictability (almost overdependance) with which the team looked for the big guy.

[NMWBloods]

Re: NMWBloods

Originally posted by Ruckman
Dear Bloods,
I would ask you to cast your mind back to the real Tony Locket not the "Theres only one Tony Lockett"

He was a great full forward and a brilliant shot for goal but . . .

LOTS of defenders ran off Tony Lockett, even before he joined the Swans. In fact he belted Peter Caven at the SCG because he'd just been stood up by him for the second time!

That's why they didn't run off him again...

As to your perception that a second forward target wasn't needed when we had Lockett . . .

Ah, but that's not exactly what I said. Rather that we didn't need a tall immobile forward. What we needed was someone reasonable at CHF.

I would make the observation that the great (premiership winning) teams generally don't rely on a single forward focal point. One of the Lockett era Swans weeknesses was the predictability (almost overdependance) with which the team looked for the big guy.

I agree with that, but that isn't necessarily a reflection on Lockett nor a mark in favour of Hall.

[footyhead]

Re: Re: NMWBloods

Originally posted by NMWBloods


I agree with that, but that isn't necessarily a reflection on Lockett nor a mark in favour of Hall.

This brings up an interesting point.
I remeber at the end of the 1996 seasone, either in one of the finals, or at the very end of the home and away seasone, one of the commentators on TV said that "Paul Roos was running around basically in a coaching capacity, telling the young players in the back line just to relax and settel down"!
Now this was in a big game and I have often thought of the significants of the braodcast obsevation of Roosy's coaching prowess.
Do you think that Paul ever volunteerd opinions while playing in that rather predictable team of 1996 that they should have a better crumbing set up in the forward line, or any of the other million ideas that I am sure that he had running around his head ?
wat da ya think ?

[NMWBloods]

I think he was the general of the backline and probably gave lots of opinions on that. I doubt whether he commented much on the rest of the game unless asked.

that rather predictable team of 1996

This is rather harsh for a team that came from nowhere to nearly win the big one.

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
This is rather harsh for a team that came from nowhere to nearly win the big one.

Completely agree

Tactically Eade was pretty innovative (as was Drum sitting next to him in the coaching box) and, especially in 1996, caught the competition by surprise with many of his moves.

Up forward, we were not as one-dimensional as some remember, with Obie acting as a valuable foil to Lockett, O'Loughlin emerging as an important contributor, plus the likes of Lewis, Kelly and Kickett chipping in for their fair share of goals.

Compared to the current team there were probably more players who predominantly played in one position - today almost all of them seem capable of playing all over the ground - but relative to the rest of the competition at the time (and even many teams today) we were hardly inflexible.

[footyhead]

Well I suppose I am basing that more from 97 on, when we really did look a little predictable up forward imo

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Re: Re: NMWBloods

Originally posted by NMWBloods
That's why they didn't run off him again...

Are you really suggesting that being suspended for 4 weeks was better than being run off?
Besides Caven was't the only one to run off him.

Incidentally Tony was 6ft3in and weighed half-a-ton, this means he wasn't the worlds most gifted aerialist so the presence of a little tall timber would have been usefull.