Great game LRT

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Mark
Subjective and silly agreed, but some of the anti-LRT stuff is equally silly.

Yep.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Ruckman
Actually I think they might consider such a trade, the Lepper must be over 30 by now and LRT is nowhere as bad as some RWOers make out.

He's 30 in October this year.

If LRT went to another side I have no doubt he would develop far more than he will with us.

[ugg]

Originally posted by NMWBloods

If LRT went to another side I have no doubt he would develop far more than he will with us.

I'm interested to know why you think this is so?

[NMWBloods]

Because I think that players develop football skills better at other sides than with us.

Look at our most skillful players - Davis, Williams, Hall - all developed outside.

The ones that do best with us are the ones with huge natural talent. The rest 'struggle' through.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Because I think that players develop football skills better at other sides than with us.

Look at our most skillful players - Davis, Williams, Hall - all developed outside.

The ones that do best with us are the ones with huge natural talent. The rest 'struggle' through.

What do you see is the cause of this?

[NMWBloods]

Not sure really.

Lack of effective reserves is one thing.

Perhaps not being in a proper football state also hurts.

How much of it is Swans staff I don't know.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
The ones that do best with us are the ones with huge natural talent. The rest 'struggle' through.

Kelly was not "hugely talented" when he arrived.

Neither was Cressa (and he came from another club too).

Kirk? Dunkley? Schauble? Maxfield?

But even if we do take your comment as correct, what you are saying is that average players become much better at other clubs? Can you back it up? Is it even an argument that can be argued (ie. its so hard to prove either way)?

[Sean]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Because I think that players develop football skills better at other sides than with us.

If you count decision making as a skill then I would agree 100%. I don't necessarily think that our players are less skillful than other sides - they just tend to make more mistakes.

Of course, lack of top draft picks would mean that we probably have less raw talent in our side than most of the others.

Look at our most skillful players - Davis, Williams, Hall - all developed outside.

But all three are more skillful with us than with the sides that developed them. Not sure what that means ...

The ones that do best with us are the ones with huge natural talent. The rest 'struggle' through.

That's a bit unfair on the Swans. The players with poor skills weren't developed properly by us but the ones with good skills were already hugely talented. We can't really win that!

I'd say that guys like Malceski & Dempster, for example, have good skills without being hugely talented.

On LRT, I think you are right, he would develop better at another club because there wouldn't be such a huge jump between reserves and AFL footy.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by Sean
But all three are more skillful with us than with the sides that developed them. Not sure what that means ...

I think generally that we have been able to get more out of players who really WANT to play here. But the exact opposite for those who dont. This is a more polarising issue for us because we are so far from the football centres IMO:

Good (better here):
Hall
Williams
Davis
Schauble
Jolly (early days I know)
Maxfield

Bad (better there):
Gaspar
Rocca
S Grant (alright he was still pretty good with us)

Interestingly, I reckon we are ahead overall in player trades that have flopped for the receiver. Specifically ones where we had a 'good' player who after traded got worse. Stafford and Scott Stevens come to mind. And also our recent trading is yet to see players leave and become stars elsewhere (like the above).

[Agent 86]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
...Look at our most skillful players - Davis, Williams, Hall - all developed outside.

The ones that do best with us are the ones with huge natural talent. The rest 'struggle' through.

But don't these 3 players have huge natural talent?

LRT's problem is that he was a relatively late starter & it's always going to be hard. Sort of like learning a new language - the later you start the harder it is (& Tadgh will always have an accent).

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
I think generally that we have been able to get more out of players who really WANT to play here. But the exact opposite for those who dont. This is a more polarising issue for us because we are so far from the football centres IMO:

Good (better here):
Hall
Williams
Davis
Schauble
Jolly (early days I know)
Maxfield

Bad (better there):
Gaspar
Rocca
S Grant (alright he was still pretty good with us)

Interestingly, I reckon we are ahead overall in player trades that have flopped for the receiver. Specifically ones where we had a 'good' player who after traded got worse. Stafford and Scott Stevens come to mind. And also our recent trading is yet to see players leave and become stars elsewhere (like the above).

I think you'll find Williams and Maxfield were great players befor coming to us. Not sure about Schauble, Davis and Hall showed potential at their other club, and Hall has skyrocketed since becoming a swan, where as Davis is improving, but lacks the consistency of Hall. Jolly (early days still).

[giant]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Interestingly, I reckon we are ahead overall in player trades that have flopped for the receiver. Specifically ones where we had a 'good' player who after traded got worse. Stafford and Scott Stevens come to mind. And also our recent trading is yet to see players leave and become stars elsewhere (like the above).

Licuria & Cook have both won F&Bs with their new teams but on balance I'd agree.

Wallace now saying Staff is playing for his career so I think we got that one rite.

[liz]

Originally posted by Sean

I'd say that guys like Malceski & Dempster, for example, have good skills without being hugely talented.

I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "talented" in such a context.

Most would argue that someone like Aker is "talented" based on his ability to make the ball sing at pace off either foot. Or is it this coupled with pace? Where does his demeanour / arrogance fit into the equation.

How about Jon Brown. Does his physique make him talented - or does it just make him big and strong?

Paul Kelly probably didn't have the most natural skills but he had an ability seen in few other players - especially of his size - to literally grab a game by the scruff of its neck and will his team to win. Was that talent? Or something else?

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by ScottH
I think you'll find Williams and Maxfield were great players befor coming to us. Not sure about Schauble, Davis and Hall showed potential at their other club, and Hall has skyrocketed since becoming a swan, where as Davis is improving, but lacks the consistency of Hall. Jolly (early days still).

Yes to all of that, but they have been better with us. Even Williams IMO.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Yes to all of that, but they have been better with us. Even Williams IMO.

Maybe Williams did not stand out as much with the Pies, as he does with our "blue collar" team, but I think you'll find he was pretty good. Maybe his skills have matured with his footy nous these days.