How Many Will Leave?

[liz]

I'm going to be lazy and respond/ reflect / add to ORB's comments rather than start from scratch.

On Brennan, what you said about him is correct, the problem is he cannot and seemingly never will be able to hit the back of a bus from 10 metres. Years ago, we could accommodate Dunks who had the same problem, but the game has moved on and Brenno is not quite as good as Dunks either. It hurts, because Brenno is one of those players who spills his guts every time he takes the field. But in today?s game I don?t think we can afford to carry somebody with disposal as poor as his.

Brennan is listed at the same height as Leo so I struggle with the idea of grooming him as our next FB, as some have suggested. Yes, I know Leo's been there, done that, but we've frequently bemoaned having such a short FB, especially with the rules changing to make the life of an outsized defender even harder than they've ever been.

If list sizes were bigger, Brennan is the type you'd definitely want as back up. But they aren't unlimited. And working on the basis that between 2 and 4 players, at least, will get cut shortly to make room for next year, I find it hard to find many names I'd have ahead of Brennan when considering what the overall needs of the list are.

Peter (Columbo) Faulks, I may be wrong, I think he is taller than Leo but still very skinny. He has all the tools required of a good defender ? good anticipation, safe hands, reliable disposal and speed. Bit of the old David Dench dash about him too. Others have doubts, but he is one I definitely expect to debut next year,

I am one of the "not totally convinced" brigade in terms of him becoming a long-term senior player. But his rate of improvement over last year was so staggering that he absoutely deserves to be retained.

Jesse ?Mocca? White: Big, fast, good motor and an accurate kick. Biggest shortcoming ATM is those Barry Hall style brittle hands. At CHF he plays very much like Richo. I have very good mail that the club is expecting big things fro him, so am I too. But he does need to work very hard on his marking skills.

I reckon it's as much a concentration thing for White. I've watched periods of games where he's one-grabbed everything in sight, and then half an hour later dropped uncontested sitters. He also has a tendancy to drift in and out of games. But overall I am as excited as ORB (not to mention Stella!) about his potential.

Reg Grundy: I see him as in the same position that Luke Vogels found himself in. Good, but not quite good enough. The Swans already have Playfair as a fringe forward ? without Henry, Reg would have a much better chance of surviving. A club can only afford to carry a limited number of fringe players and I?m afraid Reg?s number may come up.

If ROK goes I reckon he'll be safe, at least for another year. His fitness seemed to be much improved last year and with another big pre-season, hopefully it can get even better. I think he's the one on the list most able to play the role ROK currently does (not suggesting he'll do it anything like as well). Needs to play with more confidence though, get himself involved more.

If ROK stays (fingers and toes all crossed), he may be in danger.

Cheese Barlow: I think he had a big and very bad case of second year syndrome this year. I saw him play in Lonnie in the NAB cup, he thought he was King Kong but played like Goldilocks. The theme continued for the whole year. Injury did not help, but right through the season he did not work hard enough off the ball and his tackling was abysmal. I am unsure of his contract situation, if he is out of contract he?s on very thin ice.

Agree he may be on thin ice, though hard to tell what impact the injuries had. Read elsewhere that he was significantly restricted all year by tight hamstrings. Reckon he'll survive the chop - what he showed very early in 2008 and in those late 2007 games was too tantalising to begrudge him 2/3rds of a pretty ordinary year.

Nick Smith: Heir apparent to Jude, very similar in that he works like a demon at the base of packs but has dodgy disposal. The fact that they made him captain of the two?s says that the club sees a future for him. Elevation likely.

Can't agree with comments on his disposal. Nowhere close to Jude's league. I think his footskills are pretty good, and occasionally he'll do things in games that are so clever, so instinctive, that you rub your eyes wondering how he managed that. In the two senior games he played, it looked like he didn't believe he belonged out there. Once he gets a few more games under his belt and starts believing, could become a very sound player.

Ryan Brabazon: I thought he was very lucky to stay on the list this year. I see significance in that Nick Smith was preferred to Braba as the two?s captain. He is not good in the tough stuff at the bottom of the packs but neither is his speed or disposal good enough for hi to be an elite outside midfieder. I think gawn, but I did last year as well.

I've made my thoughts on Brabazon known earlier in the season so have nothing really to add.

Matty O?Dwyer: We want speed, this kid has buckets of it. Disposal not great, but not terrible either, I want to see him elevated.

Me too. I thought his disposal improved significantly in 2008 and he also showed he's very very strong overhead for his size. Consistency within matches and off-ball intensity are probably the keys for him.

Dan ?Crusher? Currie and Jake ?Caravan? Orreal: The fact that the club flagged post season that they were NOT in the market for a ruckman says it all. Dan is ready to go and the ?Van?s improvement over the season was simply amazing. He played a wonderful game in the ressies Grand Final.

Exciting to have not just one, but two promising young rucks coming through. Orreal still has some way to go but showed more, IMO, in one year with no footy background than Erikson did in three years.

Nathan Gordon: I was not aware that he his now at drafting age (thanks Liz) Great contested mark, good kick, buckets of potential. If he is not picked up with the last draft pick this year, I reckon it will only be for list management purposes. He has a big future.

Given that Collingwood are rookieing Reed and Geelong trying to go down that route with Ranga, it's hard to see him refusing a rookie spot if that is what he is offered. He's far lower profile than either of those two so it's hard to see him rating his chances of being drafted in the main draft as high.

On a side note, if he is offered and accepts a rookie place for next year, the Swans could potentially have the most ginormous rookie list ever. NSW scholarships can count outside the main rookie list for their first year, Pyke can be counted outside the main rookie list as a non-Irish international recruit, I think the main rookie list is increasing from 6 to 8, plus we have the three additional NSW spots available. So that makes a potential rookie list of 6 +2 -2 (outside veterans)+1+1+3 - a whopping 11 places potentially available. Wonder if they'll use them all?

Mat ?Butcher? Beckmans: Kicking was a big problem early in the year, but improved as the season progressed. A terrific contested mark, and has that innate ability of knowing when and where to lead. A footballer!! He really stood up when it counted in the Grannie, and that will help his cause. I hope he gets another rookie year,

Agree he's a good mark but can't agree his kicking improved any. Doesn't look AFL likely to me. (And have read elsewhere that he's already been told he won't be retained - from someone who spoke to him at the B&F dinner.)

You haven't mentioned Bruce and I know you're agnostic / not overly keen. I reckon he had a super year and has every chance of playing senior football, maybe as early as next year. I'd keep him on the list way ahead of Beckmans.

Brendan ?Skull? Murphy: Primmy?s assessment was spot on. Definitely another rookie year, with elevation during the season a distinct chance. Off season, he needs to work on his kicking whilst running at speed, this year almost every time it was a shank or a helicopter. Big, strong, fast, fearless and so enthusiastic.

And please, please would someone point out to him that he doesn't have to bounce the ball within 5 steps of getting it. It slows him down, he's hopeless at it, and it almost always lands up with him HTB!!

There must be questions asked about our teams talented but injury prone kids ? Laidlaw and DOK. Laidlaw showed last year just how good he is, and personally I would be most unhappy if he was cut and Grundy was retained. DOK, we just do not know ? both his years have been train wrecks. I take it as a good omen that both DOK and Thornton were there and very much a part of the ressies team when they won this year, (see Sophie?s pic) In DOK?s case, much will depend on how the club has viewed his reaction and attitude to the two horrible years he has had ? or will they consider him just another Donkey Doyle and cut their losses? Who knows?

I can't see them cutting DOK this year. They must have been pretty keen two years ago.

I really hope Laidlaw, too, gets another year to get over his problems but I'd be less surprised if he got chopped than if DOK did. In the couple of reserves games I got to see him play this year, he looked physically very impressive. Here's hoping the hamstrings aren't James-like.

[hammo]

Thanks guys, great information.

[dimelb]

An embarrassment of riches - thanks everyone.

[connolly]

A good 10cm taller! Mayb Bevo can be our next FB (184cm, same as Leo - short, I know!!) or will that ruin our quarterbacking abilities?!

The kid can play tall or play short, go forward or go back, run or distribute. He gives us a plethora of options from the smorgasboard of skills laid out on the most versatile sideboard at the club. In short could he step into the Leo vacuum? No doubt. With the grease trap probably playing in defense we will see him off the chain next season in the mids and take to another level.

[NMWBloods]

The troll can play under the bridge or on top of it, or run out to the side. He has a plethora of options to take on the billy goats gruff or the hobbits as needed, and has great versatility as he can be a mantlepiece decoration or a keyboard warrior. In short he can exploit his place in Norse mythology and take it to another level in Hollywood, literature, the internet or wherever it's not needed.

[gossipcom]

Awesome info Oldboy and Liz, much appreciated.

[Industrial Fan]

The troll can play under the bridge or on top of it, or run out to the side. He has a plethora of options to take on the billy goats gruff or the hobbits as needed, and has great versatility as he can be a mantlepiece decoration or a keyboard warrior. In short he can exploit his place in Norse mythology and take it to another level in Hollywood, literature, the internet or wherever it's not needed.

That's not even based on reality.

[royboy42]

Royboy and Liz, you are both terrific at updating us. It is so sad they we see the reserves so infrequently and when we do, their game finishes so early, making it harder to catch them at the SCG.
Oh for the days at Brunswick Street where as the 2nds finished, the firsts ran onto the field. To say nothing of the mud, rain and beer...lol.

[dimelb]

The troll can play under the bridge or on top of it, or run out to the side. He has a plethora of options to take on the billy goats gruff or the hobbits as needed, and has great versatility as he can be a mantlepiece decoration or a keyboard warrior. In short he can exploit his place in Norse mythology and take it to another level in Hollywood, literature, the internet or wherever it's not needed.

[SimonH]

Okay, let's crunch some numbers:

Our baseline is a 40-player senior list. The standard 38 with MOL and Leo Barry as outside veterans (an interesting point that might have saved Leo is that he's not taking the spot of a youngster).

With the addition of Shaw and subtraction of Everitt, Mathews and Davis, we now have 38 players on our senior list. We need to take away one more to get to a minimum 37 to allow us to take our required 3 picks in the ND. (Although 'trading down' for Shaw has left open the possibility of the club using 4 picks.) I'm presuming for current purposes that we keep ROK (although the club certainly won't announce its delistings until that issue's been resolved for sure).

However, it gets worse with the potential rookie promotion of Smith and/or O'Dwyer. If both were promoted, 3 more players would need to be chopped; if just one, then 2 players. The promotion of Murphy and/or Orreal (hopefully we can make 'em wait until end '09) can't be ruled out, and would make the whole thing unreasonably tight.

I kind of think that one of Smith or O'Dwyer will be promoted (wet finger in the air: O'Dwyer). This will leave 2 further players to be cut. Of course, cutting rookies doesn't count towards the required number.

My complete list of those senior players who are any chance of getting the heave: Ablett, Barlow, Brabazon, Brennan, Crouch, Faulks, Fosdike, Grundy, Laidlaw, DOK, Schmidt, White*.

So, let's take a punt on 2 from the above list.

Those who I believe should go (if I ruled the world): Ablett, Brennan.

Those who I believe will go: Grundy and ... um... er... Brabazon. By a nose from Laidlaw and Brennan.

* Notable exclusions from the list are Meredith (some clubs cut players after one year, but Sydney has no history of doing so), Playfair (I think it's likely he came on a 2-year contract) and Thornton (the club has basically done a story indicating he'll be back in '09).

While I like Laidlaw a good deal, what I can say for sure is that the class of '05 can consider themselves very blessed if all 3 make it into a 4th year on the Swans' senior list in '09. All picked up in the 50s in the draft, none of them a body shape/style that we're desperately short on, and 3 years later, you could count on the fingers of one finger (!), the number of senior games the most successful of them have played.

[BSA5]

Okay, let's crunch some numbers:

Our baseline is a 40-player senior list. The standard 38 with MOL and Leo Barry as outside veterans (an interesting point that might have saved Leo is that he's not taking the spot of a youngster).

With the addition of Shaw and subtraction of Everitt, Mathews and Davis, we now have 38 players on our senior list. We need to take away one more to get to a minimum 37 to allow us to take our required 3 picks in the ND. (Although 'trading down' for Shaw has left open the possibility of the club using 4 picks.) I'm presuming for current purposes that we keep ROK (although the club certainly won't announce its delistings until that issue's been resolved for sure).

However, it gets worse with the potential rookie promotion of Smith and/or O'Dwyer. If both were promoted, 3 more players would need to be chopped; if just one, then 2 players. The promotion of Murphy and/or Orreal (hopefully we can make 'em wait until end '09) can't be ruled out, and would make the whole thing unreasonably tight.

I kind of think that one of Smith or O'Dwyer will be promoted (wet finger in the air: O'Dwyer). This will leave 2 further players to be cut. Of course, cutting rookies doesn't count towards the required number.

My complete list of those senior players who are any chance of getting the heave: Ablett, Barlow, Brabazon, Brennan, Crouch, Faulks, Fosdike, Grundy, Laidlaw, DOK, Schmidt, White*.

So, let's take a punt on 2 from the above list.

Those who I believe should go (if I ruled the world): Ablett, Brennan.

Those who I believe will go: Grundy and ... um... er... Brabazon. By a nose from Laidlaw and Brennan.

* Notable exclusions from the list are Meredith (some clubs cut players after one year, but Sydney has no history of doing so), Playfair (I think it's likely he came on a 2-year contract) and Thornton (the club has basically done a story indicating he'll be back in '09).

While I like Laidlaw a good deal, what I can say for sure is that the class of '05 can consider themselves very blessed if all 3 make it into a 4th year on the Swans' senior list in '09. All picked up in the 50s in the draft, none of them a body shape/style that we're desperately short on, and 3 years later, you could count on the fingers of one finger (!), the number of senior games the most successful of them have played.

Actually, we CAN just use 2 draft picks, with a rookie promotion serving as the "third pick". So with Everitt and Matthews retiring, and Shaw replacing Davis, it is only absolutely necessary to delist one player.

[SimonH]

Actually, we CAN just use 2 draft picks, with a rookie promotion serving as the "third pick". So with Everitt and Matthews retiring, and Shaw replacing Davis, it is only absolutely necessary to delist one player.

From forever through to '07 that certainly wasn't the rule (each club had to take 3 'live' picks, the idea being to prevent hoarding of talent, so even if you already have the perfect senior list, you need to give the market a crack at 3 of 'em). The AFL hates publishing the rules under which the competition is run, but the easiest way of seeing that that's the case, is just to look at the records for each ND: for many, many years now, every club has used a minimum of 3 ND picks regardless of whether it has (or hasn't) promoted rookies in the same year.

Can't exclude the possibility that they've changed the rules this year, though. Got any kinda source?

[liz]

Okay, let's crunch some numbers:

Our baseline is a 40-player senior list. The standard 38 with MOL and Leo Barry as outside veterans (an interesting point that might have saved Leo is that he's not taking the spot of a youngster).

That's not quite true. Kirk would be eligible to become an outside veteran for 2009 if the club wasn't already maxed out in that department. So Leo is effectively taking up a spot on the list that could be occupied by a youngster.

Can't exclude the possibility that they've changed the rules this year, though. Got any kinda source?

They have changed this rule for the upcoming draft. Though given this draft is puported to run pretty deep, a club would have to be pretty happy with the overall quality of its younger brigade to stop after just two picks.

When "crunching the numbers" it is also worth noting that - based on past years' rules; this too might have been changed for the current year - a club could only retain 3 rookies on its list without delisting and redrafting. This affects the number you have to promote if you want to retain 4 or more in some capacity. My personal opinion is that there are as many as 5 on the current list who have an extremely strong case for retention. Two of those - Murphy and Orreal can be considered dead-set certs to be retained.

[hammo]

I would be shocked if we didn't take a minimum of 3 picks in this draft given our deficiencies in some key areas - KP players (forward and back) and speed.

If Grundy's papers have been marked then I would be almost certain we'd take 3 as he is one on the list who could be a KPP.

There should be some quality left by pick 60 to make using it worthwhile.

[BSA5]

Can't exclude the possibility that they've changed the rules this year, though. Got any kinda source?

I did.... I can't remember where it was.

Anybody care to help me out? I'm sure I've read a few people saying that on here.