Scooter.....

[motorace_182]

I have blown this boys trumpet repeatedly over the last few months and have been desperate to see Scotty get a run in the firsts. Is this his time?? No Davis; Fozzie and Willo in doubt, is it his chance to have a go. He'll be playing vs the Fab 5, so it will be a baptism of fire for the lad. But why not give him a run. There are obvious arguments that he will be destroyed mentally, but there will be no real expectations and we can ease him into the game. I reckon give the kid a go, its time and he is prime.

[robbieando]

I doubt he'll get a match anytime soon. I would think Thewlis and Dempster are ahead of him in the pecking order.

[footyhead]

Originally posted by robbieando
I doubt he'll get a match anytime soon. I would think Thewlis and Dempster are ahead of him in the pecking order.

Why ? Have either of those performed better than Scooter consistantly or even recently in the seconds ?
Or is it just that Scooter was on the rookie list before he started performing so well, and really just an after thought who has never really been expected to "make it" and there fore not really invested in.
If the later is the case then God help the Swans cos this team needs an awful lot of improvment before they will ever be anywhere near in contention for the flag.
A wise team would seek on feild improvment from where ever it may come.
A pecking order based on the notion that certain rookie players are more a priority than others - purley because of where they come from is dangerous. Rookies should be played on form and potentiol alone.
Unless of course things like player representation comes into it.
I can see no reason why Scooter should not get the nod before either Thewlis or Demster - Unless it would make Thewlis or Demsters "agents" unhappy, and that actually might have more to do with it than we realize.
In todays corporate big money football, there are often many more powerfull people working behind the scenery than is often supposed.
Poor fellow my football.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by footyhead
Why ? Have either of those performed better than Scooter consistantly or even recently in the seconds ?
Or is it just that Scooter was on the rookie list before he started performing so well, and really just an after thought who has never really been expected to "make it" and there fore not really invested in.
If the later is the case then God help the Swans cos this team needs an awful lot of improvment before they will ever be anywhere near in contention for the flag.
A wise team would seek on feild improvment from where ever it may come.
A pecking order based on the notion that certain rookie players are more a priority than others - purley because of where they come from is dangerous. Rookies should be played on form and potentiol alone.
Unless of course things like player representation comes into it.
I can see no reason why Scooter should not get the nod before either Thewlis or Demster - Unless it would make Thewlis or Demsters "agents" unhappy, and that actually might have more to do with it than we realize.
In todays corporate big money football, there are often many more powerfull people working behind the scenery than is often supposed.
Poor fellow my football.

Above is the biggest load of crap I have ever read on this board. You talk as if McGlone is some sort of anti-Christ who will one day lead the Swans to a premiership.

In any case maybe the fact Thewlis and Dempster have been named as emergencies and not McGlone has something to do with why McGlone is seen to be behind Thewlis and Dempster. You talk about form and potental, well its clear to see the club see Thewlis and Dempster as having more than McGlone.

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by robbieando
Its clear to see the club see Thewlis and Dempster as having more than McGlone.

Yes - a body ready for AFL footy. McGlone is probably seen as needing another year. Here are their stats.

Sean Dempster #26
Height 189 cm, Weight: 79 kg (BMI: 22.1)

Joshua Thewlis #38
Height 189 cm, Weight: 80 kg (BMI: 22.4)

Scott McGlone #39
Height 184cm, Weight: 70kg (BMI: 20.7)

For McGlone to match the BMI of the others, he needs about another 5 kg of muscle.

[daniel f]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
Yes - a body ready for AFL footy. McGlone is probably seen as needing another year. Here are their stats.

Sean Dempster #26
Height 189 cm, Weight: 79 kg (BMI: 22.1)

Joshua Thewlis #38
Height 189 cm, Weight: 80 kg (BMI: 22.4)

Scott McGlone #39
Height 184cm, Weight: 70kg (BMI: 20.7)

For McGlone to match the BMI of the others, he needs about another 5 kg of muscle.

I agree in theory,but there has been some past players who played good football with slight frames,what about Paul Kelly he was hardly muscled up when he first played senior footy but was still as tough at the ball,theres heaps of examples Tuck was never that heavy or muscled up for his size but played a record amount of games,im not saying mcglone is or could ever be as good as either of these playersand am not comparing them as players but just saying there is exceptions to every rule.just to add ive never actually seen mcglone play but do see he seems to be in our best players nearly every week in the twos so in his 3rd or 4th year [which is it?]i reckon he surely has to be given a senior run this season.

[Bart]

Originally posted by footyhead
Unless it would make Thewlis or Demsters "agents" unhappy, and that actually might have more to do with it than we realize.
In todays corporate big money football, there are often many more powerfull people working behind the scenery than is often supposed.

Yes I can see the corporate world dancing down Driver Avenue with effigies of Thewlis and Dempster in an effort to persuade Swans management not to pick McGlone over them.

gotta hand it to you footyhead ya got a furtive imagination.

The day anyone outside the selection committee selects our side is the day I give it away. I have no evidence this is the case. But hey The SSI Mujahideen did choose Roos for us. Thanks SSI, I love youse.

[Captain]

Originally posted by robbieando
You talk as if McGlone is some sort of anti-Christ who will one day lead the Swans to a premiership.

So so true Robbie. About time someone said this.

McGlone is hardly going to change our current poor position. People talk as if he is going to solve all of our problems.

[footyhead]

Originally posted by Captain
So so true Robbie. About time someone said this.

McGlone is hardly going to change our current poor position. People talk as if he is going to solve all of our problems.

No one is saying that Mcglone will do anything.
All that has been said is that we should play the kids if they are fit and in form.
Mcglone has been both for a long time and still he has not been played.
This in my opinion is bad for the team.
Primarily because it creates a team culture whereby certain individuals know that no matter how hard they try, they are no certainty of breakinging into the team, even if they are in really good form.
Secondly and in conjuntion with the first problem, certain other individuals within the team will also know that no matter if they are quite slack at times, they will probably not be dropped to the 2ands.
This is very bad and may go a long way to explaining the way that the Swans have played both under eade and Roos - this year.

[dendol]

Originally posted by footyhead
No one is saying that Mcglone will do anything.
All that has been said is that we should play the kids if they are fit and in form.
Mcglone has been both for a long time and still he has not been played.
This in my opinion is bad for the team.
Primarily because it creates a team culture whereby certain individuals know that no matter how hard they try, they are no certainty of breakinging into the team, even if they are in really good form.
Secondly and in conjuntion with the first problem, certain other individuals within the team will also know that no matter if they are quite slack at times, they will probably not be dropped to the 2ands.
This is very bad and may go a long way to explaining the way that the Swans have played both under eade and Roos - this year.

have you considered that Roos and co may have sat McGlone down at the start of the year and mapped out what they wanted from him this year. It was probably something like staying fit and having a solid run in the 2's, ready for a full 2005 preseason and a proper crack at the seniors next year.

He may be in a purple patch of form right now, but that shouldnt suddenly mean he be rushed into the seniors. There are others that have been on the list longer than he has that havent had a proper run yet either. I definately think Thewlis and Dempster should get the opportunity to prove themselves before McGlone.

And you may argue that Bevan is a rookie and was given a chance before all of those guys, but his body looks mature and ready for it. If you want a shining example of why small, skinny midfielders dont work, look at the Bulldogs. And there is no greater test of physical strength than Brisbane this week - NOT the right time to blood a 70kg kid when you have McVeigh and co already.

[BAM_BAM]

Originally posted by dendol
NOT the right time to blood a 70kg kid when you have McVeigh and co already.

I want Scooter to have a run as much as FH, but this is the exact reason why I haven't jumped with both feet into the debate. I'd like to see him bulk up a little more in the offseason and have a red hot go next year.

[Thunder Shaker]

If we had 22 fit players and no other kids in the side, we could afford to have the luxury of allocating one or two places in the side for kids not quite ready for senior football. Because we've only got about 16-18 fully fit players at the moment and have a few first-year players in the side already, we don't have that luxury right now.

I would love to see Scooter out there, but it won't hurt to wait until his body is fully developed.

[Nico]

Originally posted by footyhead
No one is saying that Mcglone will do anything.
All that has been said is that we should play the kids if they are fit and in form.
Mcglone has been both for a long time and still he has not been played.
This in my opinion is bad for the team.
Primarily because it creates a team culture whereby certain individuals know that no matter how hard they try, they are no certainty of breakinging into the team, even if they are in really good form.
Secondly and in conjuntion with the first problem, certain other individuals within the team will also know that no matter if they are quite slack at times, they will probably not be dropped to the 2ands.
This is very bad and may go a long way to explaining the way that the Swans have played both under eade and Roos - this year.

Not a bad point you have there Footyhead. Very rarely does anyone from "the core" get dropped.

[dendol]

Originally posted by Nico
Not a bad point you have there Footyhead. Very rarely does anyone from "the core" get dropped.

true, but you normally have to work your up and play consistently good footy to get there. Its the same principle that applies to the Australian Cricket Team. Once you've establised yourself, you are usually given a bigger period of time to play yourself into form if you happen to be out of form - ala Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh.

You can say this has applied to Maxfield this year when many were calling for him to be dropped.

[Scottee]

I'd be happy if just one of them got a chance!