Swans Need To Fail.

[bricon]

Originally posted by 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.

Not only do you need to pick up a Judd or a Riewolt but we have to be able to keep them. There's no point picking up the best kid available if we know that he really wants to play somewhere else.

The's no point in developing a gun kid for 2 years knowing that he'll almost certainly leave at the end of his first contract. That happened with Shannon Grant - luckily we were able to get Schwatta for Grant; trades like that (win/win) rarely happen.

[giant]

Originally posted by bricon
Not only do you need to pick up a Judd or a Riewolt but we have to be able to keep them. There's no point picking up the best kid available if we know that he really wants to play somewhere else.

The's no point in developing a gun kid for 2 years knowing that he'll almost certainly leave at the end of his first contract. That happened with Shannon Grant - luckily we were able to get Schwatta for Grant; trades like that (win/win) rarely happen.

Fair point too - I assume that was part of the rationale for going for McV rather than a Vic-based alternative (tho I suspect JM may well join his brother at Essendon at some pt anyway...).

Grant on the other hand seems to be going from strength to strength - hving a corker of a season. D'oh....

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by bricon
The's no point in developing a gun kid for 2 years knowing that he'll almost certainly leave at the end of his first contract. That happened with Shannon Grant - luckily we were able to get Schwatta for Grant; trades like that (win/win) rarely happen.

Win/Win?????????
Your perspective differs from mine a little, I thought at the time we were being hosed and with every passing year that Shannon plays it gets worse.
Of course we wern't hosed as badly as we had been over Gaspar the mercenary and Rocca the mommas boy, but we were still hosed.

[SimonH]

It's good to see a proponent of the 'bottom out theory' have to commit himself to an article-length exposition of the theory so it becomes readily apparent what nonsense it is.

Firstly, the factual errors. On the early evidence, it appears likely that Darren Jolly was an excellent pickup. Anyone who blandly dismisses him as a "B-grade ruckman" clearly hasn't watched any of Sydney's first 5 matches this year. And David Spriggs (third pick, not second) is likely to contribute far more to the Sydney Swans than the average #47 draft pick contributes to their club. And neither of them are of an age where picking them up was inconsistent with a youth policy.

Then of course there is the out-and-out fallacy that current failure equals great players in the future. Those great players equal guaranteed future success.

The problem is that the whole debate about 'quality of list' is solipsistic- 'you're winning games, so your list must be great', and vice versa. So let's look at the predictions that have been made when the win-loss sheet is blank, and people only had the names to look at. Many (probably most) commentators predicted that Geelong would finish well down towards the bottom of the table last year. The list they were looking at when they made the prediction was the same list that almost took Geelong to a GF. As was Sydney's list in 2003 the same list that most commentators predicted would take us deep into the wrong end of the table. Anyone heard the phrase 'it's what you do with it that counts'?

One thing that amuses me no end is the vagueness of the alternative solution, i.e. 'pick youngsters and play them'. Um... derr. Sydney's list is plenty young enough. We don't have any post-mid-career players regularly running around in the twos, and no sane team would drop/trade Willo, Maxfield, O'Loughlin, Schauble, Barry, Hall etc simply b/c they're no longer under 25. Mr Niall won't spell out what the portentous phrase "a comprehensive, rather than piecemeal, youth policy" means, because the above is all it could mean, and he would look as silly as he is. And if Geelong represents the triumph of an 'all youth, all the time' policy, why on earth are they happy to have Peter Riccardi running around with the nippers every week? What's 31-yo Brenton Sanderson doing being retained on their list for the 2005 season? Why were they rapt to have Ben Graham fronting up to play for their club until he pissed off to the US? Why have they bought in an established star from another club? Anything to do with a blend of youth and experience, and (gasp) actually playing your best players? No, didn't think so.

And incidentally, what a shock to read that a number of premiers have finished in the bottom 4 within the previous 4 years of winning the 'ship. In an even competition, where your arithmetical chance of coming bottom 4 in any given year is... 1 in 4! Who would have thunk it? Not to mention the fact that any team that had an 8-year record (1995-2002) of 13-13-12-15-15-12-16-13 should, on the theory, now be the undisputed powerhouse of the competition. Instead, Fremantle are a fringe lower-reaches-of-the-eight team.

That's enough raving from me. Carn the Swannies on Saturday night. Especially Moore, Vogels & Saddo.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by SimonH
That's enough raving from me. Carn the Swannies on Saturday night. Especially Moore, Vogels & Saddo.

Excellent post SimonH. Not a rant at all, but a methodical slice-and-dice of a stupid and uninformed article.

I'd like to add also:
- How is a comparison to Geelong at all relevant to Sydney? The approach they have taken, whilst admirable and perhaps even desirable, is unique to an established team over one such as the Swans. They have, and always will have, a fanatical fan base that packs out their smallish suburban ground regardless of result. Distance from Melbourne helps to fuel the support, and it affords them with luxury of risking a really bad year by playing untried players. The amazing thing for both them and Melbourne, is that a lot of the players running around for them now were actually LOW draft picks, and quite a few of there good players could well have been on ours or anyone elses lists instead.

- For me personally, I found the line "provide it a financial security blanket that allows the club the luxury of falling down the ladder". WTF?? What about the fans Jake? The players? The coaches? What luxury do they see in falling down the ladder? Just ask Kells how "luxurious" 93-95 really were. Even with the GF in 96, I'm sure he would have wanted to follow a better path given the choice. Sportsmen hate to lose, and to play in a team where there is even a hint of it being contrived to get draft picks would really stink. Imagine the reception the player that was picked as a result of such "efforts" would get, the pressure they would feel.

The thing that pisses me off the most is how flippant Jake Niall is about the whole prospect of "falling down the ladder." He obviously has no appreciation for anyone who is involved with a football club, and treats the whole thing like a political affair, where anything goes. Thankfully its Sport.