Sydney Worst Premiership Team Ever - The Australia

[Reggi]

Couldn't agree more lIz

[Zlatorog]

Originally posted by Reggi
Couldn't agree more lIz

Ditto here...

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
I don't really give a rat's whatever whether people rate the Swans list in terms of talent. The fact is, they are the reigning premiers and deserve their success. No-one can take it away from the 22 + support + coaches who won the flag.

I agree, and as the article says "Lucky or not, the Swans' name is on the cup".

Even the most ardent Swans fan would be hard pressed to argue that the squad has the same level of flair of the Brisbane side at the start of the decade - or the Essendon squad at the turn of the century.

But, if anything, that makes their achievement more worthy, not less.

Yep.

[Legs Akimbo]

The media pundits want to write about talent and individual brilliance not teamwork and discipline.

Even then I think Goodes, Hall, Bolton, Barry et al would be rated higher in the Media if they played for a foundation club in a footy state.

I like being under rated and I suspect a lot of our guys running out on the field every week like it too.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo

I like being under rated

I don't think there's many that under rate you, Legs.

[Nico]

Couldn't give a rats toss bag what the "pundits" say.

If we were the worst team to win the flag then the 15 sides behind us must have been even more shizen.

Winners are grinners and the losers can please themselves.

[Legs Akimbo]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
I don't think there's many that under rate you, Legs.

Thanks ROKL. I have delusions of grandeur occasionally, but don't we all.

[goswannie14]

I thought the article was okay, but Reggi, you blew the argument when you went to Collingwood supporters for back up. Yes they are human...just.

[giant]

The Reggi reading of that article is right - if the writer didn't believe any of that crap why litter virtually every other line with another reason why the Swans were "joke" premiers? even the final line, is just a bottom-covering exercise in case they do OK despite themselves.

It staggers me we cop so much of this - if the Eagles had won, would anyone have been commenting that this was the weakest forward line ever to have won a premiership (coz it sure would have been)?

We were the only team contesting that didn't have a significant weak link - the Eagles & Cats had no forwards, the Crows a weak spine, the Saints were weak down back when it counted - only the Swans had a good (not great) overall team - hence, we won the flag. Thus endeth the lesson. Now piss off Greg Denham & cover the Commonwealth Games badminton.

[NMWBloods]

I'm a bit uncertain what some people expect him to write. The key point to motivate the story is that the Swans are priced at $10, which is said to be the longest price on a defending premier.

Naturally given this, the article is going to look at a series of reasons why people might think this and a series of reasons why they may or may not be wrong with their assessment.

How could he write the article otherwise?

It's not a bad article on that basis, without pretending to be a detailed assessment of the team.

[hammo]

I agree with giant and reggi. As a season preview the article is appalling.

I don't understand how people are comfortable with the side being tagged "the worst permiership side since Collingwood".

Again far too much emphasis on the negatives (rule changes etc) and not the positives.

NMWBloods asks what some people expect him to write? How about the emergence of Barry Hall as arguably the best forward in the competition, the miserly backline led by C.Bolton and Leo Barry, the genuine stars in Nick Davis, Paul Williams and Adam Goodes, the unearthing of Amon Buchanan and the tactical nous of Paul Roos.

Denham will no doubt take the easy line later in the week by anointing St Kilda as his favourites for the flag.

Good to see the ever-predictable, blinkered view of the Melbourne mafia has made its return for 2006.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by hammo
I agree with giant and reggi. As a season preview the article is appalling.

I didn't read it as a season preview - it was an article about the odds on the premiers.

I don't understand how people are comfortable with the side being tagged "the worst permiership side since Collingwood".

This has actually been mentioned elsewhere and he is referring to it.

Again far too much emphasis on the negatives (rule changes etc) and not the positives.

Again I'll say he is explaining why the odds are so long. He would be remiss not to mention these negatives - if someone says the odds are long, why is that, how could the reasons not be stated? These are all various negatives that have been raised in various articles and comments previously made - he is simply pulling them together to explain the long odds.

NMWBloods asks what some people expect him to write? How about the emergence of Barry Hall as arguably the best forward in the competition,

He mentions Hall as one of the quality players.

the miserly backline led by C.Bolton and Leo Barry,

"their defence was second-best".

Note though he also made that a quite reasonable comment is that we were one of the lower scoring teams in the comp.

the genuine stars in Nick Davis, Paul Williams and Adam Goodes, the unearthing of Amon Buchanan and the tactical nous of Paul Roos.

"With a quality coach and players such as Hall, Williams, Adam Goodes, Brett Kirk, Michael O'Loughlin, Jude Bolton and Leo Barry"

Also "Sean Dempster and Luke Vogels had impressive first seasons. The injury-plagued Doyle becomes important as a replacement for Ball, while Sydney also recruited back-up ruckman Paul Chambers from Geelong and ex-Bomber Ted Richards for additional depth."

Denham will no doubt take the easy line later in the week by anointing St Kilda as his favourites for the flag.

Good to see the ever-predictable, blinkered view of the Melbourne mafia has made its return for 2006.

Again I have to say, what are his negative blinkered views about the Swans?

[liz]

Notwithstanding my comments earlier on this thread regarding the suggestion that the Swans are the worst premiers for a while, I don't find the article to be particularly offensive.

It is typical of the stuff churned out by most footy journalists - ie devoid of any original comment or insight and trotting out the same old lines without much thought. But I don't interpret it as either overly critical or overly positive towards the team and its prospects for this year.

[Wardy]

At the end of the day - does it really matter what journalists think ? they are hardly the pillars of society so I wouldnt get all upset about what they write when most of it is tripe!. The Swans actually have the flag - doesnt matter how you get it - they won it fair and square, and it made a vast number journalists look really stupid because they said the Swans had no chance.

To be honest as much as I would love the Swans to go back to back, I cant see it - I hope I'm wrong.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
It is typical of the stuff churned out by most footy journalists - ie devoid of any original comment or insight and trotting out the same old lines without much thought.

That's right. It's hardly the stuff of Pulitzers. It's pretty basic really.

I just think it interesting that the football public have written off the Swans to price them at $10.

As far as compared to other premiers, I think Swans 06 are better than Collingwood 90 and Essendon 93. At this point though I don't see them as better than any other premiership side I have seen in the past 30 years. That's not necessarily the huge insult that some see it as.