I thought we were pretty ordinary...

[ROK Lobster]

...all year. There is not another premiership in our list, regardless of what goes in Roo's powerpoint presentation.

[Nico]

Gee ROK I think you have just summed up about a dozen threads in one line.

[Robbo]

This off-season (delistings and trading) will indicate whether Paul Roos and the match commitee have any balls.

If they delist guys like Phillips, Simpkin and Brabazon and keep hacks like McVeigh, Crouch and Mathews then it will pretty much prove that Roos is a girls blouse.

[mcs]

I think you are spot on Robbo. McVeigh I think could still come good though, but I really think Crouch and Matthews need to go and sad to say it I think Leapin' Leo might need to take a long hard look at himself, especially if there are no major revisions of the rules that will help his style of defending.

I fully expect that they dont have any balls and we will go in with almost an identical list next year.

[ernie koala]

McVeigh I think could still come good though,

[mcs]

lol I said Could! Im far from convinced though and wouldnt be sad if he left as part of a trade deal.

[WASwansFanatic]

...all year. There is not another premiership in our list, regardless of what goes in Roo's powerpoint presentation.

I finally agree with you!!

[SimonH]

...all year. There is not another premiership in our list, regardless of what goes in Roo's powerpoint presentation.

Had you written this in mid-September 2004, everyone would have agreed with you then, too. And just like in 2007, 2004 had a few matches of genuine quality interspersed with too many of 'trying hard, but not really there' mediocrity... concluding with a seemingly brutal showing-up of how our side could never hope to rise far above the lower reaches of the top 8, in a knockout final.

There are way too many variables to say 'this team will win the flag in 2008/9'. Suffice to say that, without any 'delist 6 players and trade 9 others' nonsense, a 'par' result for 2008 is better than 7th.

[satchmopugdog]

...all year. There is not another premiership in our list, regardless of what goes in Roo's powerpoint presentation.

Yep...they looked battle weary all year. I don't think even Erin and Bec's biscuits could have helped this year. Exhausted troops.

[goswannie14]

Had you written this in mid-September 2004, everyone would have agreed with you then, too. And just like in 2007, 2004 had a few matches of genuine quality interspersed with too many of 'trying hard, but not really there' mediocrity... concluding with a seemingly brutal showing-up of how our side could never hope to rise far above the lower reaches of the top 8, in a knockout final.

There are way too many variables to say 'this team will win the flag in 2008/9'. Suffice to say that, without any 'delist 6 players and trade 9 others' nonsense, a 'par' result for 2008 is better than 7th.

Very well put Simon. My main criticisms are that the list should continue to be refreshed every year and that we should not play players who are not fit.

It is also all well and good to have faith in your game plan, but if it is not working, then you need to have a plan b and use it.

[NMWBloods]

Difference is that it's the same players and it's three years on.

[reigning premier]

We never looked like a contender all year. Despite all our wishful thinking, getting rolled by Collingwood shouldn't have come as too much of a surprise.

Time to cull a few from the list and get the younger players some game time. A few options in the game plan wouldn't hurt either.

[SimonH]

Very well put Simon. My main criticisms are that the list should continue to be refreshed every year and that we should not play players who are not fit.

It is also all well and good to have faith in your game plan, but if it is not working, then you need to have a plan b and use it.

Completely agree with both points. We don't need to (and in fact, shouldn't) go mental and say 'sack half the side'; but just to keep the list ticking over and to make room for the Cheeses and Jacks of the rookie list, we do need to make some tough decisions about a couple of mid-to-later career players. Most of the limited fun available to us between now and list lodgment time, will involve arguing about which ones it should be.

Difference is that it's the same players and it's three years on.

The names Nicks, Ball, Williams, James, Saddington, Maxfield, Schauble and (the presumably departing) Doyle suggest to me that you're letting your black-coloured glasses get the better of you.

Our elite players might be overwhelmingly the wrong side of 25 (which is the case for every team in the comp that hasn't been at the wrong end of the ladder in the last few years); but our list as a whole is not unusually old. Add up the ages; divide by the number of players; compare the result with the result you get for other teams. The whole 'ageing list' thing is a myth (except so far as we're all ageing, tragically, 24 hours every day).

People who say 'but Sydney has no good youth coming on to replace BBBH, Kirk and Leo' (as the commentators did on Saturday night) are overwhelmingly people who have never (or barely) seen the youth they're talking about; so I wouldn't place too much stock in their opinions.

BBBH will be hard to replace; it's the nature of the player. Barlow is a different style of player, but at least has been a very bright spark the last few weeks.

Our defence still risks being skinny without Leo Barry, but with Kennelly back for a couple of years, CBolt having many years left in him, Richards likewise, LRT, Dempster, Malceski and Laidlaw, it's a fair foundation to build on. The apparent/possible failure of Colombo Faulks may mean that we need to trade our 2nd round pick for an established defender in his early 20s. Experience shows it's not worth using a 1st round pick to pick a young defender; it's simply too hard to pick winners with them because standouts in underage comps are generally put on the ball or in the forward-line.

Brett Kirk is an elite contested ball winner; one of the best few in the comp. Obviously you can't replace that on demand. However, the category of player that I'm least concerned about on the Sydney list is 'inside midfielders'. We've got plenty, and I'm sure will continue to have plenty when Kirk and JBolt go. We just need more speed and delivering quality from a classy outside midfielder; hopefully DOK will become one, and pick 11 in the 2007 draft should be sent in that direction as well.

[reigning premier]

Spot on Simon.

I've never agreed that we have an old list. It certainly not getting any younger but with Everitt our oldest by a fair bit, and most senior players around 29, we're hardly dad's army... Yet.

The introduction of Barlow and Schmidt has been the two highlights in our list this year. We need to find another two or three with their ability to step up.

Agree re the recruiting a defender with 1st rd pick. Jack should be a shoe in for this role anyway.

The likes of Hall, Kirk, Kenelly. MO'L and Goodes are never going to be easily replaced simply because you don't get players of their quality in many drafts/trade periods.

[NMWBloods]

The names Nicks, Ball, Williams, James, Saddington, Maxfield, Schauble and (the presumably departing) Doyle suggest to me that you're letting your black-coloured glasses get the better of you.

Of those, only two played in the 2005 GF and one was replaced by an older guy!

Our elite players might be overwhelmingly the wrong side of 25 (which is the case for every team in the comp that hasn't been at the wrong end of the ladder in the last few years); but our list as a whole is not unusually old. Add up the ages; divide by the number of players; compare the result with the result you get for other teams. The whole 'ageing list' thing is a myth (except so far as we're all ageing, tragically, 24 hours every day).

I did the comparison to Port. Our modal age is higher. Players just on the right side of 30 may as well be on the wrong side.

Having replacements only matters if they get to play.