Rogers, Meiklejohn, Hunt and McGlone delisted

[Ryan Bomford]

Clearly the performance and potential of Willoughby and Schmidt this year has worked against McGlone and was a major contributory factor to his delisting , but I am still LFMAO at footyhead's last post. Roos' 'position' must be just back of CHB

[ugg]

I'm not a Fosdike fan, but I think its ridiculous that you think McGlone is a better player than Fosdike. Sometimes as a rookie listed player you need a bit of luck to get an opportunity. Who knows how many games Bevan would have played if Tadhg was injured for Round 1?

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Willoughby was realy good, especially earlier in the season, Schmidt took a little longer to get going but he did very well later in the season.

[footyhead]

Originally posted by ugg
I'm not a Fosdike fan, but I think its ridiculous that you think McGlone is a better player than Fosdike.

I didn't say that. Look they are probably right to let Scooter go, but my piont is that they don't really know, and we never will cos he never got a shot at senior level.

[Bart]

Originally posted by footyhead
I didn't say that. Look they are probably right to let Scooter go, but my piont is that they don't really know, and we never will cos he never got a shot at senior level.

You don't simply just give someone "a shot". No one deserves "a shot" just to see how they would go. I've seen McClone rack up stacks of possies, but like others on this thread though his disposal was poor.

We have given too many rookies "a shot" in the past and they have been way out of their depth. Think Brent Piltz. Think Aaron Rogers.

Occassionally the rookie draft will unearth a rough diamond like Kirk, Paul Bevan, Mal Michael or Aaron Davey, but they are few and far between. I would think successful rookies would be less than 1% of the pool.

To say "they don't really know" is ridiculous. Clubs these days have a vast array of tools at their diposal to measure performance and likely preformance. I would think the proof was at training sessions in match practice situations against his more skilled team mates.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by footyhead
I didn't say that. Look they are probably right to let Scooter go, but my piont is that they don't really know, and we never will cos he never got a shot at senior level.

But... you would have to expect that Roos, the coaching staff and the football department do "know". That is their job. In time they may be proved wrong but I expect that it is highly unlikely. Their job is to make such decisions. I expect that Scott, and the others, have been watched very closely this season and if there was any chance that the powers that be thought that they may have the potential to be regular contributors in the seniors they would have been given sufficient opportunities.

I do not really want to get personal but there is nothing consistant in your posts footyhead. In one breath you bemoan the culture of complacency and mediocrity of the club and in the next you get uptight when a tough call is made and a kid of mediocre talent is cut from the squad. I guess time will tell on this one. If these are the only players we say goodbye to then I guess you have a point. However, I get the feeling that in this case the first cut will not be the deepest and that there will be nothing conservative about this year's trade period.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
But... you would have to expect that Roos, the coaching staff and the football department do "know". That is their job. In time they may be proved wrong but I expect that it is highly unlikely. Their job is to make such decisions. I expect that Scott, and the others, have been watched very closely this season and if there was any chance that the powers that be thought that they may have the potential to be regular contributors in the seniors they would have been given sufficient opportunities.

That's exactly right. The coaching panel would have observed McGlone and others in the reserves games and at practice and in the pre season. Whether they appear in the Reserves Best or poll well in that voting doesn't really mean a lot, so I think that the coaching panel has a significantly greater understanding of these fringe players than any of us can hope to!

BTW - I like the sigs on the above two posts!!

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by NMWBloods


BTW - I like the sigs on the above two posts!!

Bart's is much more clever than mine... Who or What TF is SSI. Can someone refer me to an earlier thread(s)?

[SimonH]

Originally posted by Ruckman
Incidentally of the 4 delisted players only Meiklejohn was on the 38 man senior list, even with Warfe's retirement we still need to delist at least one extra player just to enter this years draft.
And another one for every player we recruit from elsewhere.

Now just bear with the tardos here. This is the point I've got to so far:
* sydneyswans.com.au has 41 senior players listed (minus 4 delisted/retired makes 37) and 3 rookies (minus Hunt makes 2).
* afana.com.au states that AFL rules are that you must draft at least 3 players, and must have no more than 37 senior listed players (presumably before the draft).
* don't go looking on afl.com.au for a publicly-available document that specifies the precise draft rules, b/c (unless you look harder than me) you won't find one.

I believe (but I can't find confirmation anywhere) that a maximum senior squad size is 42.

There are 3 questions, I s'pose:
a) What's with the '38 man senior list'? Is there a secret 'real senior' list within the 40+ man apparent senior list?
b) If we do currently have 37 senior players, why can't we enter the draft 'as is'?
c) How does this whole stinkin' mysterious thing work?

Your genius is greatly appreciated.

[Bart]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
Bart's is much more clever than mine... Who or What TF is SSI. Can someone refer me to an earlier thread(s)?

http://www.swanssupporters.org/

[Ryan Bomford]

Originally posted by Bart
http://www.swanssupporters.org/

Oh Thank God! For a minute I thought it was some Nazi thing.

[Charlie]

SimonH - the '41 man senior list' refers to the 38 senior players (which, in short, is any player with a number up to 38, with the exception Daniel Hunt, as well as Malceski, Erickson, Meiklejohn and Davis), plus nominated rookies Bevan and Rodgers, and McGlone who was promoted when Sundqvist was placed on the long term injury list.

You may have 38 players on the true senior list. You also have up to six players that I believe can be any combination of veterans and rookies. For instance, a team that has three veterans may only have three rookies.

If, like Sydney, you don't have any veterans, you can have two nominated rookies, who can then play senior matches whilst on the rookie list. This is what was done with Bevan and Rodgers this year.

Now, that list of 38 (or 41, however you look at it) must be reduced to 35, not 37, before the draft. Currently, we are at 37, so at least two more have to go.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by Charlie
Now, that list of 38 (or 41, however you look at it) must be reduced to 35, not 37, before the draft. Currently, we are at 37, so at least two more have to go.

But we need to officially promote Bevan to the senior list, dont we? Which means he effectively takes Warfe's place, meaning that we still have 3 to cut. Is this correct?

[Charlie]

Meiklejohn and Warfe = two off.

Bevan = one on.

List of 38 becomes list of 37, two more must go.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by Charlie
Meiklejohn and Warfe = two off.

Bevan = one on.

List of 38 becomes list of 37, two more must go.

yep, good call, forgot about meiklejohn.