Swans Need To Fail.

[bricon]

The problem with the ?bottom out to win a premiership in the future? theory is that it is nonsense. The theory seems to make logical sense, but it doesn?t hold up against serious analysis. The teams that win flags are those that regularly play in finals. Since 1996 Adelaide is the only premier that didn?t regularly play finals football before their premierships; as they only entered the AFL in 1991 their circumstances can be considered unusual. Every other premier has played in at least 4 finals series in the previous six seasons before their premiership.

Here are the premiers since ?96 with their previous six H&A finishing positions:

96 ? North Melbourne (6-3-3-12-8-6)
97 ? Adelaide (13-11-11-5-9-9)
98 ? Adelaide (4-13-11-11-5-9)
99 ? Kangaroos (1-7-2-6-3-3)
00 ? Essendon (1-1-14-6-4-10)
01 ? Brisbane (6-3-16-8-3*-8*)
02 ? Brisbane (2-6-3-16-8-3*)
03 ? Brisbane (2-2-6-3-16-8)
04 ? Port Adelaide (1-1-3-3-14-7)

*I have used the finishing position of the Brisbane Bears in 95 and 96


I see these results as showing that a side must be competitive over a sustained period to win a flag; there is no proof that the ?bottom out and pick up early draft picks? actually leads to a flag.

[NMWBloods]

Of course it makes little sense. Teams that do well aren't full of top 10 draft picks - they're full of a mix of senior players that have developed within the club, trades from other clubs and draft picks from a variety of rounds.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by bricon

99 ? Kangaroos (1-7-2-6-3-3)
00 ? Essendon (1-1-14-6-4-10)

Does this mean that both the Roos and Essendon finished #1 in '98?

[NMWBloods]

Essendon should be 1-8-14-6-4-10.

Note though that most (all?) of the teams finished bottom 4 within a few years of finishing top 4.

[bricon]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Note though that most (all?) of the teams finished bottom 4 within a few years of finishing top 4.

Only ever once (at most) in the previous six seasons. No premier has emerged from a previusly chronic cellar dweller.

Thanks for correcting my Essendon error.

[Wil]

Originally posted by bricon
I see these results as showing that a side must be competitive over a sustained period to win a flag; there is no proof that the ?bottom out and pick up early draft picks? actually leads to a flag.

I have to put my hand up and agree with the "keep making the finals" idea. To try and get some luck with injuries and form leading into the finals. But each year tinkering at the sides to allow that next leap into el grande finale.

But still we need to have a solid, short-medium-long term youth policy. Simplistically speaking: First draft pick is for an immediate need, second for a medium term need, third for a long term need. Willoughby was a hopeless draft pick as (apparently) we do not seem to need him on the senior team. Any first round pick should be a regular in the 22 in his second season. Erickson was a good pick as he may be great in the long term. Well, that's my youth policy - better not let my girlfriend know.

[originalswan]

Short Term Pain - Long Term Gain!

The problem as I see it is that the Swans are perpetually concerned about "bottoming out" due to the potential adverse reaction of it's market (largely Sydney). The management shudder to think what the effects of say 2-3 years of low ladder positions will mean to our overall support base. In effect what will a sustained lack of success (if you qualify success as finishing between 3-6 every year like the Swans) mean to our bottom dollar. It would have to be said that they have a very legitimate concern as the Sydney market does seem to be fickle in support - as witnessed between 1990-1993.

If these concerns of the club were addressed by the AFL, primarily in terms of financial support over this so called unsuccessful period it would at least allow the club to be more vigorous in a re-building program. The club would require this financial assistance due to the perceived drop off in Membership and reduced Corporate Sponsorship.

By rebuilding I mean actually ridding the club of underperformed mediocre senior players at years end, and starting afresh with juniors, not trading away early draft picks in the hope of landing players with the potential calibre of Riewoldt/Dal Santo/ Judd/ Cooney or Luke Ball.

The draft is alot more accurate and sure of landing future stars than it was say even 10 years ago - as every year the top draftees seem to eventually become leading players at their new clubs.

Finally (my longest post!) by ridding the club of middle aged average players and concentrating on juniors you will open up the opportunity of obtaining a marquee player who is out of contract due to salary cap pressures being eased.

[ScottH]

We have only missed the finals twice (i think) since '96. how many years have we gone into the finals with a near full strength side, last year Goodes was only on 1/2 a leg, MOL was missing the year b4, hell in '96, plugger was barely able to get up a run.

So, while we are getting there, we have been dealt some harsh blows b4 or during the finals campaigns.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by Wil
Willoughby was a hopeless draft pick as (apparently) we do not seem to need him on the senior team. Any first round pick should be a regular in the 22 in his second season. Erickson was a good pick as he may be great in the long term. Well, that's my youth policy - better not let my girlfriend know.

I wouldn't mind wagering that Josh will play more games at AFL level than stork will.

[Wazza]

This is pie in the sky stuff but what would be great for the club is to go through a clean out process the same as WB and Ricmond, a fresh look at our list as there are some guys on it who are not going to make it. Others such as James and Fixter who cant get over injuries have been keeping other players out - for what reason?

There must be 6 players who only have a marginal chance of getting a senior game and another 3-4 in the seniors - to coin a phrase "Its time to go" M Nicks S Maxfield trade Doyle now before he is a complete cripple and we may get something by trading Mathews with a Buchanan Schneider McVeigh or one of the other midgets.(we have too many of small utillity players)


I posted this in another thread Roos is too soft and too close to the players. Premierships are won by teams coached by hardnosed disciplinarians aka Mathews, Sheedy, Pagan etc at least get a couple of experienced assistant coaches that are not mates with Roos, everything seems a bit too chummy for a club not going so well.

Sick of reading the players are trying hard, they can try as hard as they want to but if they dont have the skills to be playing AFL at the top level it doesnt matter how hard they try and as far as we dont have the raw talent ....hello you guys drafted them and are supposed to be developing them .

But given this rant, I still believe all is not lost if we win this week, with Ball and Jolly back the week after. The Swans have no escuses for not being fired up this week with the media and AFL criticism, although very early in the seasons I would tag this as a season defining game.

Cheers

Waz

[Nico]

Of course the theory of going to the bottom to go to the top is predicated on one thing.

Drafting the correct players. There have been plenty of unsuccessful high draftees.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by bricon
Only ever once (at most) in the previous six seasons. No premier has emerged from a previusly chronic cellar dweller.

I actually said that each team was bottom 4 and then went top 4, and then after that won the flag.

92 - NM 5th last
93 - NM 3rd
94-95 - NM finals
96 - NM flag

96 - Ade 4th last
97 - Ade flag

97 - Ess 3rd last
98 - Ess 8th
99 - Ess 1st
00 - Ess flag

98 - Bris last
99 - Bris 3rd
00 - Bris 6th
01 - Bris flag

99 - Port 3rd last
00-03 - Port top 4
04 - Port flag


So each side finished in the bottom 4 (except NM - 5th last), then made finals the following year, then made top 4 within 2 years of the low finish and from there won the flag within 5 years of the low finish.

[Barry Schneider]

What a great plan that article proposes.Lose thousands of members that the Swans have been gradually building up.Lose sponsorship and become a financial basketcase reliant on the AFL to fund us in the lean times just so we might jag a few good players with our high draft picks.
So the club throws away all the good work it has done building up the membership base and gaining credibility in Sydney so we can trawl the bottom of the ladder.

I don't want to go back to the days when the Swans were the laughing stock of Sydney.When the results of our games were read out by sports readers with a laugh because we were hammered every match.
We need to improve our recruiting.Everyone would agree with that.
What we don't need is the demolition of the club in the hope of getting a few good young players.

[Thunder Shaker]

There's also cases where the team did not win a flag but did well.

Don't forget the Swans record:

93 Sydney last by a long long way (uncompetitive spoon)
94 Sydney last by a game (competitive spoon)
95 Sydney 12th (we beat Collingwood in round 22 to keep them out of the finals)
96 Sydney finish 1st, make grand final

One point to consider: 4 teams finish in the bottom four every year, but only one team wins the flag each year. Therefore, if we finish bottom four, we have at best a 1-in-4 chance of winning the flag 3 years later. A bottom four finish is no certainty of future success.

[giant]

Absolutely. If you can finish last and know you'll pick up a Judd AND a Riewoldt, tanking for a season makes lovely sense.

Sadly, that's not guaranteed.