Reserves Round 10

[ugg]

There was an AFL Canberra v AFL Queensland match a few weeks ago and no Swans were picked. This has occured the last few years the fixture has been played. It must have been a point of contention when the club joined the league and must have been agreed about in advance. I don't think the players would get much out of playing in this game in any case, while the other clubs wouldn't want such an opportunity to bypass their better players.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by liz
It is probably fair to say that our back-up options aren't "particularly outstanding". If they were, they wouldn't be playing reserves. I'd be surprised if I watched any future club champions or AA players running around in the reserves yesterday. But then the highest draft pick running around was a no 16 from 3 years ago.

Not disputing your interpretation of the quality of the players you saw (you watched the game, I didn't), but your comments bring to mind a couple of responses:
1. When Bucky was running around in the 2s in 2003/4, did you (or anybody) think 'that's a guy who will be playing in an Australian jersey in a couple of years' time?'. Different players take different periods to come on.
2. Malceski was widely slated as 'a class above' in the 2s, at least in 2005, and he (increasingly famously) came from the dregs of the draft. So once they're out on the field, draft numbers don't count for a whole lot.

If people say 'Sydney needs more depth', then what they may mean is 'Sydney needs more experienced players running around in the 2s and ready to slot in to the senior side without further development'. This is pretty much the accepted (albeit lazy) definition of 'depth'. It is also the 'keep the ilk of Saddo, Powell, Nicks, James etc indefinitely for a rainy day' approach to list management.

All of the Victorian teams who have gone down this path (often through necessity rather than choice) have been badly bitten, and suffered. We don't even want to think about it. If a mid or later career player is not capable of earning their spot in the 22 (when they are fit and all of the squad is fit), then their spot on our list belongs to someone new. Brutal, but good list management is brutal. And our list management appears to be pretty good.

[liz]

Originally posted by SimonH
Not disputing your interpretation of the quality of the players you saw (you watched the game, I didn't), but your comments bring to mind a couple of responses:
1. When Bucky was running around in the 2s in 2003/4, did you (or anybody) think 'that's a guy who will be playing in an Australian jersey in a couple of years' time?'. Different players take different periods to come on.
2. Malceski was widely slated as 'a class above' in the 2s, at least in 2005, and he (increasingly famously) came from the dregs of the draft. So once they're out on the field, draft numbers don't count for a whole lot.

I recall watching a reserves game against Queanbeyan in 2004, in Canberra, when our boys got slaughtered. (This was before they started dominating, though they did have Warfe and Nicks running around for them that day, both fairly fresh back from injury.) It really did look a case of men against boys that day and many of our boys looked scared of the physical contact (Erikson a point in case, though to be fair, he, Schmidt, Willoughby and Davis were in their first few months with the club).

Monty played that day - it was the season after he had been redrafted and his self-belief and fitness were probably way off where he has lifted them to now. He was a stand-out that game - not in the way that Malceski was many times last year, and not even in the way that Schneider stood out in his first, injury interrupted year in the very few games I saw him play - but his attack on the ball and tenacity was clearly above the rest. I don't claim to have predicted he would develop as he has, but I recall that moment as my flash of understanding of why the club had redrafted him.

My views on what I saw on Saturday (and on previous occasions, this year and last) aren't based on draft positions - and Schmidt, Willoughby and Moore have not really come from the dregs of the draft, more mid-table. It's more than none of them seems to have that X-factor which I think probably stands out even early on.

And before someone points to Kirk as a counter-example, I also remember the first time I saw him play, in a pre-season game. I am pretty sure it was against Collingwood (could have been the Roos but think it was Pies) and it was either at Manuka or Campbelltown (Manuka I think). He was new onto the rookie list but played a blinder that day. He was everywhere and I wondering out loud why he was on the rookie list.

Schmidt and Moore I think could become good players but I don't think they'll be the next Crawfords or Cousins. At a pinch maybe the next Mitchells (which wouldn't be a bad thing) but I'm not convinced yet.

Willoughby I suspect won't make it and this will probably be his swansong on the list. Shame, because he works his butt off during games, but I think very small players need to be a bit smarter than he is.

If there was some X-factor running around in the twos I think its is wrapped up in Phillips (as I've said before - but he is so tiny compared to the others), Thornton (smart but very skinny at the moment) and Barlow (but mixed up with lots of mistakes at the moment). Laidlaw's pace gives him something extra too, especially combined with a penetrating kick and solid body size, but he didn't play yesterday.