Experts don't pick Sydney in Top 8

[Flossie]

I think we should all expect the best from the team. I think they will be up in the top eight, maybe even top four. I never write the Swannies off, they are a tough determined unit.

[RogueSwan]

Finally, our X factor as always will be Adam Goodes. He?s the barometer for the Swans ? usually if he plays well we win and if he goes missing we lose. If he?s primed for a big year as we've been reading then I think we?ll do OK.

Granted that a firing Goodes is great, I would not have thought he was the barometer. Unfortunately I think it is Bazza. I have seen plenty of games when Goodes has had a blinder and the rest of the team stunk, but when Bazza plays well so does the rest of the team. It probably indicates that the skills are up if they can pin point Bazza, through his triple teaming.

On the topic, the Footy hand out in the Sun Herald last sunday, 2/03/08, predicted 7th place.
from memory:

1. cats
2. weagles
3. hawks?
4. ?
5. pies
6. ?
7. swans
8. lions

[ernie koala]

Some of criticism especially towards Jude Bolton, Jarrad McVeigh, Ben Mathews and Paul Bevan here is over the top BS at times!!

I just shake my head and wonder at some people at times.

Granted that Mathews was lucky to play all 23 games last year, but he must have done the job that was required for him to play in every game. Did people think about that before criticising him?

Criticism of players who continually put in poor performances, ie Matthews, McVeigh, and to a lesser extent Bevan(at least he is hard at it), is not over the top, it's reasonable criticism, born out of total frustration.

[Go Swannies]

Criticism of players who continually put in poor performances, ie Matthews, McVeigh, and to a lesser extent Bevan(at least he is hard at it), is not over the top, it's reasonable criticism, born out of total frustration.

However, the question must be asked as to why RWO judge them as playing badly when the coaches judge them as playing well? Are we so much better informed than the Swans' coaching team? And how weird is it that the coaches' favouritism is so pronounced that they even give them regular B&F votes yet the Swans' board choses to ignore this?

Now here's a scandal worthy of AFL investigation.

[Go Swannies]

Definitely. AFL coaches never get anything wrong.

But the Swans' match selectors consistently pick Mathews, McVeigh and Bevan. The only options are:

1. they are considered the best selections,
2. there are no other options,
3. they are being picked so the Swans will lose,
4. they have such influence over the selectors that they are being picked against the best interests of the club.

Which option do you pick?

[ROK Lobster]

7. there is no clear separation between then playing group and the selection committee.

[Go Swannies]

7. there is no clear separation between then playing group and the selection committee.

So you think players like Brett Kirk and Craig Bolton sit around at the meeting saying "Ben would be really upset if we didn't select him and it'd break my heart to tell him he's heading to Canberra this weekend. So let's play him again - who cares if we lose? Anyway, if we throw this game we can get back to the cool-down pool earlier and can go back to picking on Nick Davis. By the way, how's you investment portfolio going? I'm really sorry I went long on Macquarie Bank"?

[Zlatorog]

You'd have to actually attend a game to be within spitting distance. NARF!

No, he can still spit at his TV screen...

[Old Royboy]

I think what ROK is getting at is that fully paid up members of the Bloods brotherhood are cut an awful lot more slack at the selction table than the blokes who "play footy for fun". Schneider is gone, but he was in the latter group, along with Nick and Monty.

The message is that up to a point, our selectors (including the leadership group) prefer committed hacks rather than talented party boys. Other side of the coin is that this makes it much harder for newbies to break into the side.

[2005]

[QUOTE=TheGrimReaper;362048]Some of criticism especially towards Jude Bolton, Jarrad McVeigh, Ben Mathews and Paul Bevan here is over the top BS at times!!

I just shake my head and wonder at some people at times.



So true Grim !
I joined this forum not long ago, as I enjoy a debate and love to speculate and hear people differing opinions on the Swans.
The crap some people go on about the 3 above is boring & Bull@@@@!!

[Go Swannies]

I think what ROK is getting at is that fully paid up members of the Bloods brotherhood are cut an awful lot more slack at the selction table than the blokes who "play footy for fun". Schneider is gone, but he was in the latter group, along with Nick and Monty.

The message is that up to a point, our selectors (including the leadership group) prefer committed hacks rather than talented party boys. Other side of the coin is that this makes it much harder for newbies to break into the side.

I don't get that. First off, I think a lot of the reason that Roos doesn't play the kids is that he thinks that playing a kid too early can break them. That may be a hangover from his playing days "list" and it may be an error but he has always said that he takes it slow for their own good.

I do agree that talented party boys won't last at the Swans with Roos. Hence the team's harsh treatment of Davis, pulling wild Spida into the conforming brotherhood, and getting rid of bad apple Schneider. Then again, talent has probably only prevailed over discipline in two of the past seven premierships - and look what happened to the crap Cats when they got serious last year - so I'd go for discipline every time. And I reckon Monty isn't a footy for fun player - he's driven in the Kirk mold.

So we come to the "committed hacks". I heard an hour long interview with Leigh Matthews the other week where he made sense (as always) when he said that he has to avoid coaching as a fan: "as a coach I don't think any player is trying to do less than his best: as a fan I sometimes think a player isn't trying hard enough - and when that thought crosses my mind I have to go back to thinking like a coach."

Don't you think that a coach is a bit like a general or a chess player - using what he has to win the battle? I believe that when Roos picks Ben or McVeigh or Jude it's because he doesn't think he has another player available that will do the role as well as they do. That may be a boring shut-down role and he will build their likely error rate into the equation. But if I thought that, as I suggested earlier, the selection committee would pick a player because he's a mate even though that selection reduced the Swans' chance of victory, I'd stop watching footy.

How about you? Do you, as you suggest, think players are picked on favouritism rather than maximising the chances of winning?

There are two exclusions to that "reduced success" absolute. I don't have problems with playing a kid to give him experience, even though he'll possibly stuff up and others may not cover for his inexperience well enough to win the game. The counter to that is watching a kid's enthusiasm in his first game - and the ideal when he plays a blinder.

And then there's the time when chess master Roos is outcoached by chess master X. Roos thinks "I'll play pawn Ben on knight Y and hopefully he'll shut their star out of the game and won't give away too much." But instead the star remains a star and Ben gives away the winning goal - lose-lose and RWO is full of hatred on Monday. According to Leigh, Ben was still doing his best and the fault lies with Roos' game plan. It happens and you just have to sit back and wait for next week. I've got enough faith in the smarts of our coaches to expect to win more than we lose.

[swannymum]

I agree wholeheartedly with Go Swannies. Not much other logic going on on these pages.....

Went to see the Kangaroos/Demons match and some of our "supporters" sound suspiciously like a Demons supporter there. The only thing that came out of his mouth was negative!! I'd hate to live with the guy

[Go Swannies]

Yes, it's always the pro-Swans comments that are full of logic...

Thanks you. Unexpected praise indeed. But I shouldn't be surprised to find support for pro-Swans support on a Swans fansite, I guess.

[Go Swannies]

Au contraire. It seems more logical to expect to find "pro-Swans comments" on a Swans fan site than say, an Eagles fansite.

And I'm not trying to start an argument either. I really would like to know if people here think that the Swans coaches select the team without winning being the primary goal?

And if you do think that, why do you think they'd do it and why would you watch? It's not like the players selected are so spectacular that they can be there purely to entertain rather than contribute to victory. And you'd think that Roos and others would be thinking of their legacy and future and being losers won't look good on the resume.

Or do you think this is the key (from Pt 3 of the Roos interview):

"So you respect a hard working player more than a guy who?s a genius but doesn?t have that work ethic?

There?s no doubt about that. The most frustrating players you deal with, as a teammate and as a coach, are the ones that you know have enormous ability but that you know don?t put 100 per cent into it. It?s very hard for me to understand that and it?s hard for a lot of people to understand that. They are the ones that you get very frustrated with because you just can?t comprehend why you wouldn?t put everything into it because it?s such a good opportunity."

But that suggests he thinks everyone should want to win. Except RWO doesn't think he does. I'm confused.

[Margie]

Coaches may think they are choosing the side capable of winning, but their selection decisions may be coloured by favouritism or errors. Nothing hugely unusual in that.

When Chambers continued to get a game the other year, he was selected because they thought it would help the team - they were wrong.
Other players get chosen out of loyalty, when selecting them was a mistake (eg: Ricciuto for Adelaide in last year's final).

Yes, but you're talking about Bevan, Mathews, Bolton etc being chosen week after week, year after year.

Bevan holding sway over coaches, selection committees, the board, sponsors etc. does seem illogical.