Is Anyone Safe?

[Bas]

Originally posted by chammond
The more interesting issue will be the competition between Schneider and Buchanan. With the introduction of Spriggs, and return to fitness of Fosdike, there won't be room for two players like Schneider and Buchanan. It'll be a keen battle!

The more competition for places in the side, the better the team should be. Hopefully, players will be performing their best each week in the knowledge that a few poor games and they get replaced.

[chammond]

Originally posted by Bas
The more competition for places in the side, the better the team should be. Hopefully, players will be performing their best each week in the knowledge that a few poor games and they get replaced.

Could make the pre-season Cup much more interesting?

If you assume that Williams, Bolton and Kirk are shoe-ins for on-ball roles, and there's only one spot in the team for a specialist forward pocket, it means that Schneider, Buchanan, Fosdike, Spriggs, Ablett and McVeigh (and, I guess, Bevan, Willoughby and Schmidt) will all be competing for a maximum of three senior positions.

Otherwise, they'll have to try to dislodge Crouch, Mathews, Maxfield or Davis.

It will be something to see if Roos puts all the aspirants into the mix in the first Wizard Cup game and tells them that they will be playing for a starting spot in round 1 . . .

[sharp9]

Monty is my love-child, OK? End of story, 'nuff said!

[Jeffers1984]

Originally posted by sharp9
Monty is my love-child, OK? End of story, 'nuff said!

Mine too!

[liz]

Originally posted by sharpie
But he's been here for something like 5 years and not done much. Each year he is one of the first we discuss as being delisted, yet he stays. My point is, there are always quite a few guys that look like getting the chop, but very rarely is there such a big clearout that they all go.

2005 will be Ablett's 5th year on the list, the same as Buchanan and Sundqvist.

I don't think there's a huge amount between what Ablett and Buchanan have delivered thus far, with Sundqvist lagging someway behind, not helped by his knee injury.

Ablett may well be safer because his physical attributes (size and ability to kick long) are not shared by many other up and coming midfielders on the list. I certainly have no problem with him being retained on the list for next year based on what he showed towards the end of 2004. However, I reckon all three of these players need to demonstrate they can become close to regular selections in the senior team to be safe for 2006.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by liz
However, I reckon all three of these players need to demonstrate they can become close to regular selections in the senior team to be safe for 2006.

But that's the thing. Each year we name a number of guys who we expect to get the chop. But you can only get rid of so many at a time, thus the chances are that at least 2 of these 3 will still be around in 2006.

Now read this article:
Earlier draftees to fire up Swans

It states:

Barham doesn't expect Nick Malceski and Jarrad Sundqvist - who are both recovering from knee reconstructions earlier this year - to have dominant years given the seriousness of their injuries but remains hopeful they recapture their good form by the end of the 2005

So if they are not expecting anything from Sundqvist this year, then he looks certain to be around in 2006, otherwise what is the point of keeping him for keeping's sake? That will make 6 years on the list for a guy that has played a handful of games, and done nothing memorable in any of them.

Is anyone safe? It seems that its not so much a matter of being safe, as being terribly unlucky to be one of the few singled out to be delisted.

[chammond]

Originally posted by sharpie
It seems that its not so much a matter of being safe, as being terribly unlucky to be one of the few singled out to be delisted.

Isn't that a good sign?

[sharpie]

Originally posted by chammond
Isn't that a good sign?

Dunno if its a good sign or not. Its a point rather than a sign.

[sharp9]

Mmmm...what it is saying is that the management are making hard headed selections based on "talent." Obviously they have looked at Thewlis and Meiklejohn and said, "even though they gave their all and are reasonable players with some potential, and even though they are more likely to play at AFL level over the next season, we will delist them in favour of the players we think have more talent in the long term...Malceski, Sundqvist, Fixter, Powell and LRT." Another way of looking at that is to suggest that it is superb management strategy. It would be cheaper to de-list some of those players and say "come back when you have re-habbed and we will have another look." But imagine the sense of vindication (not to mention obligation) which those young players get when they are retained on the list despite being injured or under-performing. It says "we REALLY believe in you, and we LOOK AFTER our chosen few, and you are one of them."

I think that might inspire me to find ANY way to give my best. Talk about engendering loyalty as well.

[liz]

Originally posted by sharpie
But that's the thing. Each year we name a number of guys who we expect to get the chop. But you can only get rid of so many at a time, thus the chances are that at least 2 of these 3 will still be around in 2006.

Surely though, "being safe" means that your name doesn't even come up in delisting talks. The contrary position - ie that you're not safe - doesn't mean that you will get delisted, just that you will get considered. So if none of Ablett, Buchanan, Fixter etc establishes himself as a senior regular in 2005, no, they probably won't all get delisted but they will all have reason to feel nervous.

In contrast, if Paul Bevan or Jarred McVeigh play not one single senior game between them next year (eg due to a dream injury run amongst more experienced and inform midfielders), I suspect they've done enough to stay beyond 2005 unless they show a serious lack of application.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by liz
Surely though, "being safe" means that your name doesn't even come up in delisting talks. The contrary position - ie that you're not safe - doesn't mean that you will get delisted, just that you will get considered. So if none of Ablett, Buchanan, Fixter etc establishes himself as a senior regular in 2005, no, they probably won't all get delisted but they will all have reason to feel nervous.

In contrast, if Paul Bevan or Jarred McVeigh play not one single senior game between them next year (eg due to a dream injury run amongst more experienced and inform midfielders), I suspect they've done enough to stay beyond 2005 unless they show a serious lack of application.

if you look at it that way, it makes sense as well. either way.