Finally a Sensible Article

[NMWBloods]

No thanks.

[giant]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
The one in the other thread that everyone had a sook over.

The one that started by describing Swans as the luckiest premiers in 15 years. Lovely piece of journalism.

Thought this (the subject of this thread) article was excellent - someone actually making an effort to work out what was behind the Swans success other than reverting to the usual cliches. Maybe he didnt necessarily succeed but unlike NMW's Uncle Greg, at least he made an effort.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by giant
The one that started by describing Swans as the luckiest premiers in 15 years. Lovely piece of journalism.

Started?

Swans over odds in flag race

NEVER has a premiership team been at such a long price to defend its title as Sydney in 2006.

Punters clearly do not rate the Swans, with Paul Roos' team a $10 chance.

On Saturday, Sydney defeated St Kilda in Newcastle to win its first competitive pre-season match after five losses.

It's after this, so it's not really 'starting' the article.

And again I'll have to explain as people seem to be blindly ignoring this; he is explaining the long odds.

If someone asks you why are the odds for a horse so long and you say it's because many punters think the horse is too slow, is it insulting that you've said that?

I'll also note that the only team that anyone has come up with as weaker in the past 15 years is Essendon '93. It's hardly a massive insult when you consider the premiers of the past 15 years - all with 2 or more flags except two who only dropped 1 or 2 games in their premiership years and one who was minor premier for three years in a row.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by cruiser
You're just niggling for a fight with someone. Give it a rest.
Mod Note: Any personal problems..take it to the PM

Go the red pen!

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods

I'll also note that the only team that anyone has come up with as weaker in the past 15 years is Essendon '93. It's hardly a massive insult when you consider the premiers of the past 15 years - all with 2 or more flags except two who only dropped 1 or 2 games in their premiership years and one who was minor premier for three years in a row.

I'm not convinced that the Adelaide teams of 1997-8 were any more star-studded than the Swans of 2005. Like our boys, they timed their run well at the end of the year and had no obvious weaknesses.

I don't remember much of the 1997 GF, but I went to the 1998 GF and they were somewhat fortunate that appalling kicking for goal by the Roos in the first half kept them in the game.

I also don't think the Roos team of 1999 was all that special.

Indeed the 1996-1999 period was one of evenness, where half the teams could arguably have snared a premiership. Then we saw the ebb and flow of three very strong teams, in Essendon, the Lions and the Power.

We now look to be back to a very open comp, where a signficant number of teams could win in the next few years, as indeed they could in 2005.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
I'm not convinced that the Adelaide teams of 1997-8 were any more star-studded than the Swans of 2005. Like our boys, they timed their run well at the end of the year and had no obvious weaknesses.

The 97-98 is the most obvious comparison to us. I wrote in the other thread that "at the moment" we are only ahead of Ess 93 and Coll 90. I put that proviso in because Adelaide are ahead purely because of their back-to-back.

I also don't think the Roos team of 1999 was all that special.

It wasn't, but it was at the end of a run that included 2 flags, 1 runner up, and 3 PF appearances. A pretty decent effort.

We now look to be back to a very open comp, where a signficant number of teams could win in the next few years, as indeed they could in 2005.

Completely agree and is why I think we have a great opportunity to add a couple more.

[Pommie Swannie]

"But they're questions you haven't heard asked much, if at all, this year. Because a good six months after the team nobody thought could win an AFL premiership did exactly that, not much has changed."

To me, this is the crux of the situation. No-one who 'knows' about AFL thinks the swans can win it. Last year, arter round 6, EVERYONE who knows anything about the sport said that the Swans had no chance.

At 3-quarter time at the SCG against Geeeelong, the GF said to me it was all over. I told her no way, remember Brisbane up at the Gabba - for once I was right!

And there you go ... I was so nearly wrong! But at the end of the day it's a sport that can hang on such tight margins, so I'm surprised professional journalists are so quick to discount our chances again!

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Pommie Swannie
But at the end of the day it's a sport that can hang on such tight margins, so I'm surprised professional journalists are so quick to discount our chances again!

Definitely the case, which is why it is never over until the fat lady, etc etc.

However, journalists are often required to make a call at the beginning of the year on ladder order.

Typically they go safe. They got the Swans wrong last year, but write that off as experience and play it safe again.

Lots of reasons for that - herd mentality, lack of thought, playing the odds.

However, I don't think calls of 4th-6th are a massive discount of our chances. Seems a fraction more favourable than , or in line with, the public's punting.

And when you consider that the rabid one-eyed RWO Swans fans only picked a 3rd place finish on average, those estimates from the media are not particularly low.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
However, I don't think calls of 4th-6th are a massive discount of our chances. Seems a fraction more favourable than , or in line with, the public's punting.

I totally agree. Considering the depth of talent we have in our side, and using talent as the primary (almost singular guide) as journos and the public do, placing us at 5th is actually pretty generous. Imagine, for example, where we would be rated had we LOST the GF by 4pts. I think they'd struggle to put us in the 8.

What surprises me is the fixation the media have with Geelong and Adelaide. Neither has a forward line that is any better than WC (and way weaker than ours or the Saints), both have a hard-working but unspectacular midfield (like ours, but behind WC and Saints) and both have a solid backline at best (on par with ours). So why rate them higher than us?? No idea.

The opinions will change real quick if we start to play the same football we played in the last half of last season early on. Considering the team hass not changed much, and that last year was a real learning experience, I think this is a strong possibiility.

I maintain that this year and next were the two Roos was aiming to have a real crack at the flag. Last year was a 'fluke', like 2003 but with a premiership to boot. 2006/07 are the years he expected the team to peak and have complete grasp of the game plan. That leaves us with this year and next to have a real crack at a (now second) flag.

[liz]

Originally posted by Schneiderman


What surprises me is the fixation the media have with Geelong and Adelaide. Neither has a forward line that is any better than WC (and way weaker than ours or the Saints), both have a hard-working but unspectacular midfield (like ours, but behind WC and Saints) and both have a solid backline at best (on par with ours). So why rate them higher than us?? No idea.

Geelong have a structurally better backline than ours. I say "structurally" because they've conceded more goals than the Swans in recent seasons. That's partly down to the style the teams play and the success of the midfields over the past couple of seasons.

But in Scarlett and Harley they have, IMO, the best FB/CHB combination in the league.

Leo does a fine job at FB but is prone to have the odd bag kicked on him - not surprisingly given how small he is. Scarlett almost never has more than a handful kicked on him. And LRT/ B2 are a decent CHB combo but still a bit vulnerable due to inexperience and size/weight disadvantages respectively.

Adelaide have a more brilliant midfield than the Swans. Their backline, while statistically the best last year, probably relies on structure and tactics a bit more than most - as the Swans does. Will be interesting to see if Rutten can back up his 2005.

[sharp9]

Have to agree about Geelong.

Currently they are not much above ordinary. One star (Scarlett) and about four other quality players (Ling, Mooney, G. Ablett, Harley) then a seven or eight players who could be really, really good, but aren't yet (Kelly, Bartel, Corey, S. Johnson etc) some promising youngsters who haven't done much (Tenace, Mackie, Playfair, Egan) and then a very long tail of Mathewsesque players who look alright when the team is winning but will have to make a big leap in perfromance if the team is to go anywhere near the GF.

They could do it but it is far more likely (IMO) that Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane or St. Kilda will grow further and be too good for them when the time counts. We didn't smack them by 60 points by accident. There were real weaknessess which haven't been filled as yet (reliable forward line for one).

They do have a good work ethic and "B" quality depth so they will comfortably make the finals (unlike West Coast who will need to lift in order to do so) but will be found wanting unless the bottom 8 players really grow in a way that I wouldn't expect them to. However stranger things have happened.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
I totally agree. Considering the depth of talent we have in our side, and using talent as the primary (almost singular guide) as journos and the public do, placing us at 5th is actually pretty generous. Imagine, for example, where we would be rated had we LOST the GF by 4pts. I think they'd struggle to put us in the 8.

What surprises me is the fixation the media have with Geelong and Adelaide. Neither has a forward line that is any better than WC (and way weaker than ours or the Saints), both have a hard-working but unspectacular midfield (like ours, but behind WC and Saints) and both have a solid backline at best (on par with ours). So why rate them higher than us?? No idea.

The opinions will change real quick if we start to play the same football we played in the last half of last season early on. Considering the team hass not changed much, and that last year was a real learning experience, I think this is a strong possibiility.

I maintain that this year and next were the two Roos was aiming to have a real crack at the flag. Last year was a 'fluke', like 2003 but with a premiership to boot. 2006/07 are the years he expected the team to peak and have complete grasp of the game plan. That leaves us with this year and next to have a real crack at a (now second) flag.

I'm not sure if you are serious or taking the p1ss with your first and last para, but I'll assume it was serious as I think they are both very good points.

I agree also that opinions will definitely change if we can get our game going. Changing opinions on who is most likely to win the flag is nearly a weekly occurrence amongst the media.

WRT your second para I agree with Liz that Geelong has one of the best backlines in the comp and Adelaide's midfield is very good. Geelong's problem IMO is what Sharp9 has said that they go well when winning but can struggle when not, which is a little bit of StKilda's syndrome.

Geelong has no forward line to speak of, which is a major problem for them. Adelaide's forward line is not actually that hopeless, just unheralded - it has a lot of options. They're not great, like having a Hall or Tredrea, but they are there.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

The Saints and WC seem unable to grasp the difference between premiership favouritism and premiers (Barham's @#$%&head meter must go bersek when he looks at those teams).

I think Geelong's forward line will improve this year. In the past it's been Kent Kingsley dependant, and he's not good enough to succeed againt a good key defender, if Nathan Ablett or Ottens can provide a key forward target, then they will allow Kingsley to take a mediocre defender, at which point all of a sudden they have a forward line, especially as I think Playfair looks good.

Adelaide on the other hand appear to be developing a good dependable spine (McGregor, Perrie, Bock, Rutten). Whether that spine (esp the forwards) will reach their potential before their 30+yo midfield falls apart is the question.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Ruckman
I think Geelong's forward line will improve this year. In the past it's been Kent Kingsley dependant, and he's not good enough to succeed againt a good key defender, if Nathan Ablett or Ottens can provide a key forward target, then they will allow Kingsley to take a mediocre defender, at which point all of a sudden they have a forward line, especially as I think Playfair looks good.

Yep. I think Ottens is absolutely critical to Geelong's chances. I doubt if Nathan Ablett is at the point where he can be a regular forward target.

[giant]

Here's my assessment of the teams as they stood at Sept 05 along a very scientific analysis with absolutely no research to back it whatsoever.

5 pts - Best in competition
4 pts - Top 4
3 pts - 5-8
2 pts - 9-12
1 pt - 13-16

Along these dimensions:

Backs/Forwards/Midfield & Followers/Bench & beyond (depth & felxibility)/Coaching staff (including game plan, support staff etc)

Hence I'd rank the 5 teams that were actually a prospect of winning the flag last year as follows:

Swans:
Backs - 4
Forwards - 5
M&F - 4
B&B - 4
CS - 5
TOTAL = 22

WCE:
Backs - 3
Forwards - 2
M&F - 5
B&B - 4
CS - 4
TOTAL = 18

Adelaide:
Backs - 5
Forwards - 3
M&F - 4
B&B - 3
CS - 4
TOTAL = 19

Saints:
Backs - 4
Forwards - 4
M&F - 4
B&B - 5
CS - 3
TOTAL = 20

Geelong:
Backs - 4
Forwards - 3
M&F - 3
B&B - 3
CS - 4
TOTAL = 17

From this incontravertible analysis, we can see that the Swans were indeed the best team in the competition and deserved to win the premiership nws Denham's & NMW's thoughts to the contrary.

Can someone outside this 5 win in 2006? Sure - Melbourne & the Dogs can look as good as anyone in the competition if everything is going their way. Most likely tho, it will come from this 5. Would my ratings change much this year? Don't reckon much - Saints re missing Jones & Penny from the backline & dependent on a few crocks for their forward line; the Cats could gain some potency in the frwd line if Ottens stays on the park; Swans could drop down in the M&F rating if Jolly et al don't step up to the plate; ? over Crows' defence to repeat last year's performance.

The excitng bit is we only have a few more days before we find out!!