Swans 1996 vs Swans 2006

[Damien]

I think ROK would destroy Roos. Not a good match up.

I would have Roos on Magic.

[ScottH]

Re: Swans 1996 vs Swans 2006

Originally posted by Bloody Hell
And who would shut down Plugger?

Peter Caven.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Damien
I think ROK would destroy Roos. Not a good match up.

I'm not sure about that. Roos was pretty smart and would kill the '06 side with his rebound from half back.

[Bloody Hell]

Re: Re: Re: 96 V 06 Lineup

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I definitely think Dunkley would be in Hall. Dunkley used to be fairly mobile back then.

Just giving Hall a break....

Hall's overhead ability + space Dunks gives opponent= Trouble for Hall

I think maybe I'm thinking of Dunkley at the end of his career. (I think I'm doing this for Cresswell as well ie rating him better than he actually was at the time....)

[alison.z]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I'm not sure about that. Roos was pretty smart and would kill the '06 side with his rebound from half back.

but would roos also be able to combat himself with tactical coaching brilliance or would roos then find away around roos' tactics who would then change his tactics?

how does mol fit in since he played for both? maybe he owuld rather play for 06 but then again maybe for 96?

[swansrock4eva]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
But this is part of my point. Modern footballers are fitter and stronger than previously, which is hardly surprising when considering it is their full-time job and the amount of time and technology devoted to it.

How can you compare a guy who just football for a living to a guy who is a milkman and in his spare time after work and on Saturday plays football and then heads down to the pub afterwards?

Just out of interest, why do we bother with the International Rules each year then? Exactly the same comparison ultimately.

[robbieando]

Re: Re: Re: 96 V 06 Lineup

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I definitely think Dunkley would be in Hall. Dunkley used to be fairly mobile back then.

Around 95-96 Dunks seemed to match up and play well on Carey, so I see no reason why he couldn't line up on Hall for the purpose of this exercise. Roos of 1996 could be used in a attacking mode off half back a bit like he uses Tadhg now, just much slower.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by swansrock4eva
Just out of interest, why do we bother with the International Rules each year then?

Don't know. IMO it's a complete waste of time!

[Bloody Hell]

Originally posted by alison.z
how does mol fit in since he played for both? maybe he owuld rather play for 06 but then again maybe for 96?

There's young Mick and Old Mick...Two very different models.

[reigning premier]

Originally posted by liz
I suspect footballers on average are fitter and stronger than they were even ten years ago. So the 2006 outfit has a headstart and it's hard to compensate for that. Overall I think the 2006 team has more strong, match hardened bodies and they have learned what it takes to play pressure football. So long as Lockett's supply was held, I think 2006 would win quite comfortably.

I agree.....

Every supposed "expert" and anyone who's ever been asked to perform as a commentator on any footy telecast will all p^ss and moan about what it was like in "their day" and how much "tougher and harder" they or the game was in general. And how "today's players" have it so "easy".....

What an absolute load of bollocks.

Even though it's only ten years ago, and we even have one of the same players... the game has changed considerabley. None of the 1996 team, excepting maybe Kelly and Cresswell would make it to 3/4 time at the pace the game is played at now.

You only have to dig out a few old videos tapes.. go on.. I know you have them... of any game played in the 80's and early 90's to see how much faster the game is now.

The comparison is simply unfair. However, I won't sit on the fence. 2006 by a whisker but only because the team is more even. 96 was a few superstars of the game with a bunch of keen youngsters.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by reigning premier
What an absolute load of bollocks.

Even though it's only ten years ago, and we even have one of the same players... the game has changed considerabley. None of the 1996 team, excepting maybe Kelly and Cresswell would make it to 3/4 time at the pace the game is played at now.

Now this is an absolute load of bollocks. If players from 1996 were playing today, then they would have done the training regimes the current players do and would perform fine.

Also, MOL seems to perform okay despite being ten years older!

[Brandon]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Now this is an absolute load of bollocks. If players from 1996 were playing today, then they would have done the training regimes the current players do and would perform fine.

Also, MOL seems to perform okay despite being ten years older!

It's hard to compare, but I would have thought back in those days aerobic capacity would have been a lesser factor in drafting and trading than now?

So those 1996 players might have a lower "maximum endurance" rating than the 2006 crop, even with modern training techniques.

[swansrule100]

i enjoyed watching the 1996 team more.

Probably because i was finally seeing the swans do well i guess.

For what its worth if they played the same as they did on their respective grand finals hall and dunkley would be a big fizzer!!

[Nico]

If Roos coached us in 1996 we would have won by a street.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Nico
If Roos coached us in 1996 we would have won by a street.

I really can't agree with that. There is not a lot to support it.