Enter the DOK - RWO Reserves match report

[Jeffers1984]

Interest in the DOK increases given the performance of Mitch Brown on Saturday night, the player some pundits think we should have gone for on draft day.

Yep so have my interests. Let's hope we haven't made a huge @@@@ up here. DOK could become a very good attacking midfielder for us and one we've been screaming for (goalkicking midfielder).

[Northern_Swan]

In accordance with the new ACTAFL rules that there can only be 15 listed players on the ground at one time there were 5 top up players in the 22, Craig Bird plus four unknowns with 50 plus numbers. The four unknowns spent most of their time occupying largely redundant backline positions.

The AFL Canberra site had the players names & numers listed as:
49 BIRD, Craig
50 WOODS, Ben
51 EDIRIWICKRAMA, Ranga
54 ANGEL, Tom
55 HAINES, Ben

This rule could mean that more RAMS players get significant time at a higher level which can only be a positive come national championships.


Good report & photo's too, cheers

[ugg]

The AFL Canberra site had the players names & numers listed as:
49 BIRD, Craig
50 WOODS, Ben
51 EDIRIWICKRAMA, Ranga
54 ANGEL, Tom
55 HAINES, Ben

This rule could mean that more RAMS players get significant time at a higher level which can only be a positive come national championships.


Good report & photo's too, cheers

44 was also a top up player, not Matthew Davis.

[strange]

The AFL Canberra site had the players names & numers listed as:
49 BIRD, Craig
50 WOODS, Ben
51 EDIRIWICKRAMA, Ranga
54 ANGEL, Tom
55 HAINES, Ben

I played footy with both Ranga and Tom last year at Penno and was shocked to see them run around ina swans jumper. Great opportunity for these guys

[smasher]

I am still a believer that Moore could develop as the type we need in the midfield.I watched him through his junior games and then in the TAC cup where he was All Australian and Victoria's B+F in the carnival.All this footy was in the midfield and he is very good at getting the hard ball.He's an in and under player and over time will develop into a key player for us.

[SimonH]

Only 15 on the field at one time-- no arguments there, fair enough, and yes it does provide a good development opportunity for Rams squad members as well.

But only 18 selected in a 22-man squad? This means that (presuming the 3 league emergencies are available to play 2nds, and big Currie is not), if we have any fewer than 5 out through injury, someone doesn't get a game. Which would be absolute freakin' insanity, and would seem to undercut the whole point of having a dedicated Swans reserves side.

Based on my guesswork, it seems that out of our Currie-free squad of 45, Bevan, Brennan, Crouch, M O'Dwyer, Heath Grundy, LRT and Smoky Davis didn't play at either level on the weekend. So 38 warm bodies available; 22 league, 16 reserves, 6 reserves top-up. That's fine. But all except for LRT are expected to become available in the next month or so. So, barring another spate of injuries (touch wood), there is a real chance that we will be saying to some of our junior squad (the ones who benefit most from playing in Canberra), 'Sorry, we'd like to play you but can't.'

What's the contingency plan? They play for the opposition (whether or not the opposition wants 'em)? They get thrown into a Sydney comp side (losing the consistency of coaching, team plans etc)? They are told to go have a dob in the park and do 20 situps at the end?

Surely the solution is that if the 2nds have more than the quota available, they (and their opposition for the day) can just play with a bigger bench. That would allow the Canberrans to keep the rule that we must pick 4 non-squad players, and must have 3 of 'em on the ground at any one time, without stuffing up the idea of a Swans reserves.

PS Don't know about anyone else, but I'm rootin' for Ranga Ediriwickrama to become a huge star of the AFL. Apparently he plays a little cricket, too.

[ugg]

Simon I believe the limit of 18 is purely for logistical reasons. Since only 15 can be on the field at once, that means the other 3 are on the bench with 1 top up player as a reserve. We can't increase this number to 19 because then all the benchwarmers would be listed players and if one of the top up players get injured we have no one to replace him.

[SimonH]

Simon I believe the limit of 18 is purely for logistical reasons. Since only 15 can be on the field at once, that means the other 3 are on the bench with 1 top up player as a reserve. We can't increase this number to 19 because then all the benchwarmers would be listed players and if one of the top up players get injured we have no one to replace him.

I follow the logistics of the current setup. That doesn't change the fact that the rule is likely (barring a continual flow of injuries) to cause very unfavourable results for the Swans at some point during the year.

The only way out, as far as I can see, is to allow us (and our opponents of course) to name a side of more than 22 players, and play an extended bench, in circs where we have more than 18 able-bodied squad members available to play in the 2s. For example: 24 man squad, comprised of 20 Swans-listed players and 4 top-ups, with a 6-man bench. On game day, at any one time: 15 Swans-listed players and 3 top-ups on the field; 5 Swans-listed players and one top-up on the pine.