Depth question.

[CureTheSane]

Remember at the start of the year, up to about 10 rounds in?
Everyone was talking about how the Swans had more depth than we have had in ages.

In hindsight, what was it?

Being able to witness a few new players come into a winning side?
Current senior players in top form and giving the feeling that we were one big unit full of aspiring talent?
Or was it genuine depth and now our regular players are getting tired at the end of the season and there's simply a wave of negativity?

[Mike_B]

I think our older players have fallen away over the 2nd half of the season. This has turned the situation from one of depth (we have extra options in new players while the older players are going OK) to one where we now see that the decline has truly set in, as you don't often season players turning around form slumps once they hit 30.

So we were right with our perceptions in May, based on the evidence at hand, but now that we've seen the way the following few months panned out, we've been proven wrong...

[reigning premier]

Plenty of depth... It's just not used....

[hammo]

It was a combination of the new players we'd introduced going extremely well and the good form of the older group which gave a false impression.

Unfortunately almost all of our depth players have been injured so a proper appraisal is very hard. These injuries coincided with the drop in form, so we missed out on a golden opportunity to try more youngsters in the seniors.

Of those we've seen only Bird, Veszpremi and Jack look like having long AFL careers to me. White, Brabazon and Smith have a lot of work to do.

[liz]

At the start of the year, I'd have said our most immediate depth was Thornton, Schmidt, Laidlaw, Barlow (together with Jack and Moore who've played more this year than they've missed). Unfortunately, three of those have had their seasons completely trashed by injury, while Barlow's had less serious interruptions but interruptions nonetheless.

[dimelb]

At the start of the year, I'd have said our most immediate depth was Thornton, Schmidt, Laidlaw, Barlow (together with Jack and Moore who've played more this year than they've missed). Unfortunately, three of those have had their seasons completely trashed by injury, while Barlow's had less serious interruptions but interruptions nonetheless.

Exactly - the depth got injured.

[Nico]

Remember at the start of the year, up to about 10 rounds in?
Everyone was talking about how the Swans had more depth than we have had in ages.

In hindsight, what was it?

Being able to witness a few new players come into a winning side?
Current senior players in top form and giving the feeling that we were one big unit full of aspiring talent?
Or was it genuine depth and now our regular players are getting tired at the end of the season and there's simply a wave of negativity?

I think it is fair to say we are getting slower as the season draws to a close.

This week we added to that slowness by bringing back the second slowest player in Ablett (and by the look of it the fattest). We played Crouch (I want to go another year the pays good) in the guts last week with disastrous results on clearances, Everitt lost to the tortoise last week, LRT has lost what pace he had, Ted Richards has lost all but first gear, Leo (I want to go another year, the pays good) is from another planet and has plain "lost it" and Grundy couldn't run out of site on a dark night.

The bloke who should be filthy is Mathews because he hasn't put his hand up to play next year as far as I know. Perhaps we should cut the bloke some slack for being the only one honest not to say I can go another year.

[dendol]

In hindsight, what was it?

we beat some bottom 8 teams and werent able to keep a lid on it. Mickey injured, Goodes and Hall MIA, slow midfield, Leo & LRT woeful...

[sharp9]

Actually we beat ALL the bottom 8 teams

There was no illusion in the first half of the year. The older players were playing well, the new young players were playing well....all the next available were injured, though.

Since then....Barry Hall really, really cost us. we were the real deal to that moment (IMHO). It didn't just cost us 'cos we lost him, it threw the whole team into chaos.

We lost Leo........at least he was a constant!!

Goodsey's groin went....

Then we lost Mick and it really was all over.

It was a two-fold thing. As soon as the older players were out/injured/playing poorly, then all of a sudden the young players could not handle it. This is the way it should be, remember....talented baby players only show what they can do when the mature players are playing well.

Don't forget that Buddy Franklin's first year was very patchy and that in 2005 Amon Buchanan was a better player than Gary Ablett. Only superstars carry a side in their first season where the senior players are no good (Buckley, Palmer, Judd...can't think of any others, actually).

For that reason I think it is very unfair to judge a new player unless he has played in a side where the seniors are playing well. Laidlaw, White, Brabazon, Smith, O'Dwyer and Vezspremi have never done so.

Of recent memory only Vesper and Schmidt strike me as plyers who have been new yet still looked good even when the seniors were down. For the others the jury must remain out.

I know Malthouse says stuff like "it's your turn, no excuses you are there to do a job, etc, etc" but that's baloney, IMO. If a team is playing poorly and a a new player doesn't manage to contribute anything, you would be nuts to cut him under those circumstances.

On the other hand, when a team is playing badly and a new plyer comes in who actually makes a difference (Vezspremi) then he is clearly gold.

For the reasons outlined above, only an idiot would rate Rioli as the rising star over Palmer. How on earth did he get to number 7????? Fremantle repeatedly stated they would have picked him with number 1.