Swans Need To Fail.

[Snowy]

http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/news/Jake-Niall/Swans-need-to-fail/2005/05/04/1115092561654.html

[ScottH]

The Swans should pursue a comprehensive, rather than a piecemeal, youth policy. And if they cannot bear St Kilda's prolonged pain for gain, then look to Geelong, which was in a similar bind not so long ago.

Hear Hear.

[footyhead]

Oh oh

[Rod_]

Lot of truth there!

Rod_

[Charlie]

Meh. We've discussed this a thousand times. Each time, we come to the same conclusions. How long it takes to come to those conclusions depends on the level of mass hysteria, which is directly correlated to a variety of factors. These factors include:
- the number of games we've lost in a row.
- the number of kicks Lewis Roberts-Thomson has had.
- the number of times Paul Roos has said 'we're not the most talented team'.
- the length of Ryan O'Keefe's hair.
- Jason Saddington's presence on the list.

A by-product of this hysteria, incidentally, is that Footyhead starts to sound like he's making sense. It doesn't really matter how long it takes to reach our inevitable conclusions. At the end of the day, we always come around to the idea that we can't actually afford to 'do a St Kilda', that there's no evidence that 'doing a St Kilda' actually works, and we don't want them to 'do a St Kilda' in any case.

That some second string footy journo from The Age says we need to bomb out doesn't really change any of these conclusions. This thread will be the same. You'll see.

[NMWBloods]

So why not do a Geelong? I talked about Geelong doing well with youngsters without bottoming out last year, yet, as is the wont of so many on this site without any justification, another side, more successful than us, was belittled.*

The article is spot on in a few comments:

"Yet, with the exception of 1996 and, to a lesser degree, 2003, they've not had a team that was realistically within cooee of a premiership.

Sydney's modus operandi is to hang around the ladder's middle, pick off the odd mature player - Barry Hall and Paul Williams are the only recent cream - and rely on clever coaching and a reasonable run with injuries to make the finals.

It's a recipe that will never land a premiership and that, ultimately, will bring only mediocrity. "

How familiar is that.

I hardly think identifying some of the key problems of the Swans is "mass hysteria".


* On a side note it amazes me how often people here belittle other sides as failures or expected failures (eg: West Coast, "The 'Aints", Geelong, etc), yet who are we talk - one of the least successful sides in the competition. I find this chauvinism annoying and rather weak.

[footyhead]

Originally posted by Charlie

A by-product of this hysteria, incidentally, is that Footyhead starts to sound like he's making sense. .

Is it possible that someone who dissagrees with you could could make sense Charlie ?
Shun the thought.

Maybe the journo's are reading my posts!!!

Maybe you should Stop taking your self so seriously? You could be wrong.

[Sanecow]

Jake Niall < Footyhead
or
Jake Niall = Footyhead
?

[Wil]

Kind of agree - especially on the comprehensive youth policy.

BUT until St. Kilda win a premiership then they have done nothing. All they and Geelong are, is us post-2003.

At this point the only models we should be following, if we need to, is Brisbane's or Port Adelaide's.

[NMWBloods]

Port Adelaide is the best example - the lowest they finished was 14th in 2000 and bounced back from there, and have managed to build a side that finished top for a number of years and took home a flag.

St Kilda and Geelong have not achieved anything yet, but at least they look like they can challenge for a flag.

[barry]

Originally posted by Wil
Kind of agree - especially on the comprehensive youth policy.

BUT until St. Kilda win a premiership then they have done nothing. All they and Geelong are, is us post-2003.

At this point the only models we should be following, if we need to, is Brisbane's or Port Adelaide's.

Brisbanes model was a "merger" and the associated trade and pick benfits that arose from that.

Port Adelaides model was "entry to AFL" and the associated pick, and selection benefits that arose from that.

I posted on bigfooty last year, that new teams such as WC, Adelaide, Port and Brisbane Lions, peaked at about 7 years after entry. When their core group was mid 20's. Freo's the only exception.

We cant follow those "models".

Also, I love to have someone explain what exactly Geelongs model is ?

[NMWBloods]

Geelong recruited youngsters and added them into their existing team, gave them decent gametime.

[Wil]

Originally posted by barry
We cant follow those "models".

Kind of my point. No one has "fairly" won the premiership since, what, Essendon in 2000?

[anne]

St Kilda haven't won a flag yet but they have , by coming down the bottom for 3 years, assembled the best list in the competition. The only reason they haven't as yet won a flag is that their coach is below standard. Melbourne and West Coast have built strong lists by irregular low finishes and Hawthorn is about to reap the benefits. Even Essendon and Collingwood appear to be following that route this year. So why shouldn't Sydney? There is no alternative route to the top for us ie. no merger, no concessions etc. it is not as if we need to tank games. We need to play youngsters, get rid of the charity cases and dead wood and plan for long term success, not continual mediocrity.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Swans to avoid trading their first pick for a B-grade ruckman (Darren Jolly) or to use their next pick on David Spriggs.

Actually I don't think we used our next choice on Spiggs (didn't we get him in the preseason). Wasn't this weeks debutante Jared More our next choice?


And while I don't believe the membership would drop hugely with a crap year, I suspect corporate hospitality/sponsorship may be a more fickle beast (As FDR said "a full pocketbook growls more than an empty belly").
In any case while the draft is less than a complete lottery than it used to be, there's no guarentee that early choices = champions.