Rookie List

[liz]

OK - I have seen him play then. I saw the Swans play three times against Queenbeyan last season and do now recall him. His name obviously drew attention to him.

I confess I didn't come away from any of those games with a sense of "the Swans would be mad not to get this bloke". However, neither do I profess to be an expert at spotting how talent playing at a lower level will go at AFL level.

Whether or not the guy is a bit stiff not to have gained a rookie list spot, to claim that not picking him means that the Swans are doomed to failure for the next 10 years seems just a tad preposterous.

The Swans have probably had around 6 players a years on their rookie list since the concept was introduced, of whom two have established themselves as automatic selections within the senior team and another looks to be on track to do the same. Arguably you could exclude one of those first two from the argument (Kennelly) given the very unusual background / circumstances of his recruitment.

That just leaves Kirk and Bevan who look to be real rookie list "finds". The club has probably not gained more than 20 or so games in total from all other players promoted from their rookie list (Meiklejohn, Brockman and Bennett would account for most of them).

It will be great if one or more of our new recruits proves to be a good AFL player. And if one just provides a bit of depth in a key position for a couple of years (ie a Vogels or a Campbell), that is no bad thing either.

But if, and when, the Swans win their next premiership it is far more likely to be riding on the back of players like Hall, Goodes, McVeigh, Willoughby etc than coming down to a decision on whether to pick a Quade or a Hayes.

[swans33]

Liz at least you have replied with an intelligent response, and for the most part a logical one. I admit my first post was probably more out of anger than anything else. But it seems to me that Sydney gambled on the draft and have again gambled on the rookie list. Why not pick up an accomplished player, who has been playing against 'men' for years, which is coincidently why he probably didn't stand out. He must have stood out to get into the ACT rep side, and lets no forget he was the youngest player in that side. I just hope his name hasn't played against him, by that I mean the scenario of 'He's Rick Quades nephew we better not select him 'cause everyone will think thats the only reason he got on the list'. He could have been great he could have been crap, unfortunately we'll never know........... cheers

[liz]

Originally posted by swans33
But it seems to me that Sydney gambled on the draft and have again gambled on the rookie list. Why not pick up an accomplished player, who has been playing against 'men' for years, which is coincidently why he probably didn't stand out.

All drafting is a gamble!

But surely they did pick up accomplished players who have "been playing against men for years" when they chose Vogels and Campbell?

[chammond]

Originally posted by liz
All drafting is a gamble!

But surely they did pick up accomplished players who have "been playing against men for years" when they chose Vogels and Campbell?

Which was basically what Roos declared as his plan some months ago . . . . i.e. to target ready-made players to fill the weak-spots in the squad.

He picked up a ready-made ruckman in the trade, a ready-made on-baller in the Draft, but couldn't get the tall defender he also needed. So, as a second-best solution, he looks to the lower levels and picks up two ready made talls from there. And then adds an 18yo full-forward who's played a year of senior SANFL.

Seems like sound risk-management to me?

[robbieando]

Originally posted by swans33
Liz at least you have replied with an intelligent response, and for the most part a logical one. I admit my first post was probably more out of anger than anything else. But it seems to me that Sydney gambled on the draft and have again gambled on the rookie list. Why not pick up an accomplished player, who has been playing against 'men' for years, which is coincidently why he probably didn't stand out. He must have stood out to get into the ACT rep side, and lets no forget he was the youngest player in that side. I just hope his name hasn't played against him, by that I mean the scenario of 'He's Rick Quades nephew we better not select him 'cause everyone will think thats the only reason he got on the list'. He could have been great he could have been crap, unfortunately we'll never know........... cheers

Just a question, how old is Quade and what position does he play??

[liz]

Originally posted by chammond
Which was basically what Roos declared as his plan some months ago . . . . i.e. to target ready-made players to fill the weak-spots in the squad.

The fact that he said it, and that the club seems to have followed through on this stated intention to the best of its ability given the constraints of trading and drafting while not sacrificing one of its more tradeable assets (eg a Kennelly or an O'Keefe) indicates that Roos believes the squad is in a position to have a real crack at the premiership next season.

Whether or not people think he is deluded on the relative quality of the squad compared to the Brisbanes, Ports, Saints of this world, that attitude kinda makes sense in that this is likely to be the final season for Ball, Maxfield and Nicks, while Williams' time is also running out.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Old Royboy
Every year it gets harder to pick out the diamonds at the back end of the draft. Fifteen other teams have bypassed these guys who on the surface look like gems. Why?

Have we picked up guys with bad training habits? Off field ratbags? Just not good enough? Or have we been smart?

Performance will tell. I hope we have been smart, but reserve judgement until I see them in action next year.

That's a good post. It does seem strange that 15 other clubs passed these players up, but each to their own opinion.

For example when asked why Richmond did not pick up Moore in the draft Wallace simply said - "too slow". Yet talk to regular observers and they have the opposite opinion.

I also wonder if other clubs have an aversion to NSW juniors.

Before the pre season draft there are 100's of hopefuls so there are many overlooked. We went for our full quota whereas other clubs are down to as low as 3 on the Rookie List. Each club has a different philosophy, but we have been successful with rookies and I reckon they have backed themselves to unearth more Bevans.

In the recent newsletter they stated we are on a 5 year plan. This looks like the first laying of the foundations. The only way to go, with some of the senior players in the twilight of their careers.
Better it be done now rather than when these guys retire, alah Carlton.

[wedge.maverick]

Originally posted by robbieando
Just a question, how old is Quade and what position does he play??

Ryan Quade would be about 20 and played as a CHB when in the Rams system.He always looked to have a bility but he was soft and lacked spark.

[chammond]

Originally posted by Nico
We went for our full quota whereas other clubs are down to as low as 3 on the Rookie List. Each club has a different philosophy, but we have been successful with rookies and I reckon they have backed themselves to unearth more Bevans.

That's a really interesting point . . . . the Swans don't usually take all their rookie options, yet this year they've taken a full book, with half of them being locals.

I wonder how much of this change of heart is down to Bevan's fantastic form?

[DST]

Originally posted by Nico
I also wonder if other clubs have an aversion to NSW juniors.

Before the pre season draft there are 100's of hopefuls so there are many overlooked. We went for our full quota whereas other clubs are down to as low as 3 on the Rookie List. Each club has a different philosophy, but we have been successful with rookies and I reckon they have backed themselves to unearth more Bevans.

Nico, if you have a look at the rookie draft almost all players drafted onto the rookie list are from their own state. I don't think it has anything to do with them by passing NSW juniors.

Both Brisbane & Sydney have an extra allowance to draft rookies over all other clubs, so it is not surprising that we take more of them. As for some clubs only taking none, a couple or the minimum this has to do with costs. The AFL don't pay a cent for the rookies (they do however for senior listed players through the yearly distribution covering the TPP) so every cent they spend comes off the bottom line. With a number of clubs really trying hard to reel in the expenses a full rookie list is an easy part to cut.

As we have seen with Bevan we can make the rookie list for us. A kid like Bevan playing a number of games under the nose of scouts in Vic, SA or WA may have just pushed him over the line. In NSW he will be seen but not as often as others so we have the advantage of at least being able to hope they get overlooked and slip through to the rookie draft where we can then put a couple of years work into them.

DST

[swans33]

Originally posted by wedge.maverick
Ryan Quade would be about 20 and played as a CHB when in the Rams system.He always looked to have a bility but he was soft and lacked spark.

He played for the RAMS approximately 3-4 years ago. He has now matured physically and is by no means 'soft'. He is a smart player and although he may not have this 'spark' you speak of he is rarely beaten

[j s]

Originally posted by swans33
Why not pick up an accomplished player, who has been playing against 'men' for years

They did - Ed Clarke

[wedge.maverick]

Originally posted by swans33
He played for the RAMS approximately 3-4 years ago. He has now matured physically and is by no means 'soft'. He is a smart player and although he may not have this 'spark' you speak of he is rarely beaten

How would you compare him to Ainslie's Joel White who I've seen a lot of? Ryan Quade is still at the age where another good year of ACT footy and his name will be thereabouts again.