The Swans Recruiting policy

[timthefish]

more p1ss and wind signifying nothing.
just once footyhead in your endless stream of miserable posting whinge, could you please put forth an alternative strategy. you seem to be completely confident in the righteousness of your vision, so please share it.

what. would. you. do?

i suspect you believe in tanking. tell me i'm wrong.

i think the swans are putting faith in their present list and with good reason. the next four/five years are our window. starting this year. for picks 15, 47 and 61 we have picked three players that can play every match in that period. any kids taken with those picks would be likely no use until 2007/2008, let alone a project player such as a baby ruckman.

how i see the swans in 2005
1. we've got an awesome forward set up.
2. if a few things fall into place such as one or more of bevan, buchanan, davis, fixter or schneider slotting into the midfield we'll have the class and aggression we need there.
3. saddington and lrt will be competing for the chb position, and competing well.
4. goodsey will shrug off last year and rip back into form around the ground. who knows with ruck rule changes.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by robbieando
Help in what way???? An outside midfielder who can't kick, that doesn't help the team in any way.

No I can't kick. I would have thought any AFL player can kick.

Enough of the sweeping generalisations. Jude can't play. Baz can't take an overhead mark to save his life. Magic's a useless cripple. And they are our good players.

From what I've read here today, the Swans have set themselves up for a decade of failure. No, we did that when we won some matches we could have lost and so missed out on first draft picks.

The consensus is that either Paul Roos and the Swans management are in the thrall of an evil plot to embrace mediocrity or they are incompetent. Or Roos is competent but is prohibited from showing it by his bosses.

The big error it appears is that we should have simply bought all the Saints players. Or the Cats. Personally, I would have aimed for the Port team but maybe we'd have to take them with their supporters.

Of course, all the naysayers are right. What the hell are our chances of gaining a premiership by trying to move above fifth place by taking on some experienced players that may improve under good coaching. No chance that'll work - look what a disaster that St Kilda thug Barry Hall has been. Better to aim for the wooden spoon for a few years and get a run-up at a premiership from there. The Tigers have got it right, we've got it wrong.

Personally, one of my delights in supporting the Swans is watching players unexpectedly bloom. I don't know who it's going to be next year but I'm looking forward to seeing it. It could be some of the established players on the team who are currently regarded as "also rans". God forbid - it could even be someone we've recently drafted!

[DST]

No matter how smug Richmond looked today in taking 5 players in the top 20 picks, I just could not stomach us losing 14 games in a row to be in that position.

And that is their fundamental problem, yes both St Kilda and now Richmond have great lists but they are built on the back of years of mediocrity at a football department, club and board level.

Recently clubs like Essendon, Roos and Port have shown that great teams can be built from middle of the road to high ladder positions when you work hard to get things right in your football department, club and board.

Since 1996 our football department has worked dam hard to make sure we put out a competitive football teams that take pride in the jumper and the club. Off the field the club has made huge inroads into making sure it is to become an entrenched part of Sydney and the AFL. The Basil Sellers office/training facility, team swans charity promotions, the foresight to get Stade de Oz to be converted into an oval so we can expand the brand into Western Sydney and the desire of the club to reconnect with it's heritage in Melbourne through a committment to a Melbourne office have all made the club stronger.

You may look at the St Kilda & Richmond list now and think wow how good would it be if they were playing for us. But hey you know what, in 5 years time these two clubs will be back to where they were before hand. Unstable boards, constant change in the football department leading too no set vision and reyling on the AFL for hand outs due to mismanagement.

A strong club which is underpinned by a committment to hard work and the processes we know that will work in Sydney will ultimately lead us to success.

DST


P.S Sorry about the rant but we don't need to be like St Kilda, Richmond or anyone else to be succesful. Be ourselves and set-up our own dynasty that other clubs can copy for all they like. I beleive the current board, club executive and football department are on the right course for us.

[liz]

Originally posted by DST

And that is their fundamental problem, yes both St Kilda and now Richmond have great lists but they are built on the back of years of mediocrity at a football department, club and board level.

Richmond does not have a great list all of a sudden. All it has done is added 5 unproven teenagers plus an ageing Hawthorn discard to an uneven and underperforming squad. The players it drafted today are nothing until they get out there and prove they can cut it at the highest level.

For their sakes I hope they can but Richmond's recent list of top 10 picks is hardly something to mortgage the house on - Ottens, Fiora, Pettifer for example.

[DST]

Originally posted by liz
Richmond does not have a great list all of a sudden. All it has done is added 5 unproven teenagers plus an ageing Hawthorn discard to an uneven and underperforming squad. The players it drafted today are nothing until they get out there and prove they can cut it at the highest level.

For their sakes I hope they can but Richmond's recent list of top 10 picks is hardly something to mortgage the house on - Ottens, Fiora, Pettifer for example.

I know Liz, to early to call but they do have a decent midfield set-up of Coughlan, N Brown and Kane Johnson. Add to that a very good tap ruckman in Simmonds and if Deleido, Tambling and that winger they picked up play footy in the next couple of years then they will have a group that does look good on paper.

DST

[robbieando]

Originally posted by liz
Richmond does not have a great list all of a sudden. All it has done is added 5 unproven teenagers plus an ageing Hawthorn discard to an uneven and underperforming squad. The players it drafted today are nothing until they get out there and prove they can cut it at the highest level.

For their sakes I hope they can but Richmond's recent list of top 10 picks is hardly something to mortgage the house on - Ottens, Fiora, Pettifer for example.

Agreed, come back in a year or two and lets see how Richmond benefited form this years draft.

On St Kilda, they got lucky with what they got from "tanking". How lucky were they to be the only team with a priority pick in 2000 when Riewoldt and Koschitzke were the two standout players available.

Also consider that the year before and the years since that two key position haven't been any where near that standard. Then how lucky were they in 2002 when the got Goddard when they moved up to the first pick from pick 3 the night before the draft.

Also consider that NO team has won a premiership with a player taken with priority pick. Luck plays a big role in the early picks and they NEVER promise you anything. The Swans could tank 3 years and get all the early picks to go along with that and yet still not end up anywhere near a premiership, a fact many forget.

[footyhead]

All I will say is : it was a mistake to trade away our first round pick. generaly getting highish picks in the draft is the way to go. (if you look at-at least the last 3 years drafts most teams above us had picks in the draft higher than us). I don't care what reasons you want to give for our situation, but I think it is untenable, at least in terms of winning a premiership. I am sure that we will be comparitivley competative, as this is what the Swans "Buisness" plan is based on, but we will not win the flag within the next 5 years directly as a result of the type of decisions that we saw enacted today.
As for the performance of teams like the saints and Geelong and even richmond- well I will see you about that in 2009.
By then I would hope that most of you have reached the end of your tether, with regards to the Swans "almost" being a real contender.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by footyhead
generaly getting highish picks in the draft is the way to go.

Proven that that just isn't the case. Since the 1999 National Draft the following clubs have had a pick in the first 5 in a draft.

1999 - Collingwood, Fremantle x3 and Richmond
2000 - St Kilda x2, Collingwood, and Carlton
2001 - Hawthorn, St Kilda x2, West Coast and Fremantle
2002 - St Kilda, Kangaroos, Brisbane, Western Bulldogs and Sydney
2003 - Western Bulldogs x 2, Carlton and Melbourne x2

Of these Club only Brisbane have won a premiership in this time, however Jared Brennan, had little impact on their premiership, nor did he play in the Grand Final. Collingwood is the only other team to make a Grand Final since their Top 5 selections and those selects got them Fraser and Didak, both of whom weren't the reason why Collingwood made 2 Grand Finals. Of the rest only Richmond, Sydney and St Kilda have made Premlinary Finals with only St Kilda having any of their Top 5 selections in the team.

So again, since when is an early draft pick the way to go???

(if you look at-at least the last 3 years drafts most teams above us had picks in the draft higher than us)

In 2002, the 4 teams that had picks before our first, all finished below us on the ladder and therefore were entited to have picks higher than us. The next season we also finished above all four teams that selected before us.

In 2003, the teams that finished above us in Collingwood and Brisbane had their first selections after we had our first. With the exception of Brisbane who went to their 4th GF in a row, we finished above Collingwood.

This season we traded away our first pick, therefore the teams that finished above us had selections before our first. But if we kept our first round, only Port would of gone before us having traded for the selection 11.

I don't care what reasons you want to give for our situation, but I think it is untenable, at least in terms of winning a premiership.

Of course you don't care what reasons we have, but thats because those reasons we give, make you look like a even bigger fool.

I am sure that we will be comparitivley competative, as this is what the Swans "Buisness" plan is based on

How would you know what the Swans business plan even is??? Anyway, no club plans to finish low down on the ladder, which is clearly what you want them to do.

but we will not win the flag within the next 5 years directly as a result of the type of decisions that we saw enacted today.

I'm sure our decisions today will be the overwhelming reason why we didn't win a premiership if we don't win one within the 5 years

In short FH, you have no idea what you are talking about. You produce no facts or evidence to support your claims, nor do you even use logic to try and get yourself out of trouble when your rants are shot to pieces. You also haven't given a single suggestion of how the Swans should go about rebuilding and winning a premiership.

No one here is saying we WILL win a premiership within 5 years, but we are saying that we have a team that COULD win one within 5 years. Still I guess it must suck to be you. Bitter people normally are.

[footyhead]

What a nasty nasty man you are turning into.
Cheer Cheer

By the way Robbie you may not like or agree with what I say, but by reducing your argument to personal attacks with invective, you show your true colours.
So could you please try to elevate your antagonistic language a little. Personal attacks should be saved for the school yard.

Originally posted by robbieando

No one here is saying we WILL win a premiership within 5 years, but we are saying that we have a team that COULD win one within 5 years. Still I guess it must suck to be you. Bitter people normally are.

PS, All the teams in the AFL, and certainly most of the supporters would say that they COULD win a preiership within the next 5 years, that does not change the fact that the Swans won't.

[Dpw]

Originally posted by footyhead
What a nasty nasty man you are turning into.
Cheer Cheer

By the way Robbie you may not like or agree with what I say, but by reducing your argument to personal attacks with invective, you show your true colours.
So could you please try to elevate your antagonistic language a little. Personal attacks should be saved for the school yard.



PS, All the teams in the AFL, and certainly most of the supporters would say that they COULD win a preiership within the next 5 years, that does not change the fact that the Swans won't.

what a joke you are footyhead, you dodged all the points that Robbie raised and then turned his post into something it wasnt. how about addressing the points and then trying to put forward a plan stating how you would like it done and why its better?
untill you do that people will just keep dismissing most of your posts as rubbish.

[timthefish]

Originally posted by footyhead
you may not like or agree with what I say

YOU NEVER SAY ANYTHING!! i ask again, what is it you believe should be done? whom should we have taken with pick 15 and why? what would you have done about our urgent need for a ruckman come 2006 or the next knee injury? which players would you have taken with picks 47 and 61 that would be ready for full-time senior football in 2006?

apt moniker you have - leather filled with stale gas.

[Kallias]

Originally posted by footyhead



PS, All the teams in the AFL, and certainly most of the supporters would say that they COULD win a preiership within the next 5 years, that does not change the fact that the Swans won't.

How is that a fact? How can a prediction, or 5 predictions, be fact?

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by timthefish
YOU NEVER SAY ANYTHING!! i ask again, what is it you believe should be done? whom should we have taken with pick 15 and why? what would you have done about our urgent need for a ruckman come 2006 or the next knee injury? which players would you have taken with picks 47 and 61 that would be ready for full-time senior football in 2006?

apt moniker you have - leather filled with stale gas.

Here here. I think Roos wanted a back up ruckman, and the choice has apparently come down to Jolly versus Woods (picked at 18 by Brisbane). A proven 23 yr old with experience and bulk, versus a complete unknown with another 5yrs to go to even get to Jolly in experience. I prefer our decision.

Plus, by all reports, we snagged an absolute gun at 31 anyway (BOG in the U-18 championship final) who is very close to senior footy already. Add some top class youngsters who missed out in the draft to our rookie list, and its a list that has just as much potential as anyone else.

The beauty of footyhead's arguments is that he feels he has nothing to lose by the line of argument, and in fact neither do we. If the Swans dont win a premiership, he feels chipper in his black pessimism, and for us nothing changes anyway. If we win one, we will all laugh at him, and he will ignore it and say it was a fluke... therefore he is still right. Win win I say.

[chammond]

Originally posted by footyhead
By the way Robbie you may not like or agree with what I say, but by reducing your argument to personal attacks with invective, you show your true colours.
So could you please try to elevate your antagonistic language a little. Personal attacks should be saved for the school yard.

Better get the dictionary out again Fhead. Robbie doesn't use invective. He uses facts to prove that you are a half-wit. There is a difference.

And there's not an asterisk anywhere!

[robbieando]

Originally posted by footyhead
By the way Robbie you may not like or agree with what I say, but by reducing your argument to personal attacks with invective, you show your true colours.
So could you please try to elevate your antagonistic language a little. Personal attacks should be saved for the school yard.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, thats some funny **** right there. Since when has making you look you like a fool, by using facts become a personal attack?? I think you need to pull your head out of your arse, because the ****s starting to play with your mind.

PS, All the teams in the AFL, and certainly most of the supporters would say that they COULD win a preiership within the next 5 years, that does not change the fact that the Swans won't.

So again, its OK that other teams say they can win a premiership within five years when at least 10 teams won't, yet its not OK for the Swans to do it??? Again your logic is all over the place and makes you look like a twat.