Lets play the Kids Roosy !!

[573v30]

Roosy will have a new hairstyle before he plays the kids.

[UglyDuckling]

Lewis Johnson sounds like he is the massiah or something he's only played one good game give him a couple of weeks and if he is dominating the maggoo's then start bagging Roosey, its only round 1.

I do agree however that its time for Meredith to get a run and i would imagine he will come in for Cheese this week and if they insist on Ablett swap him for Crouch.

Roos likes the softly softly approach at least White and Grundy are in there Vez will come straight in when he's fit so thats another 3 young guys just like last year

[liz]

I am not agin playing the kids. I am agin a knee-jerk reaction after one game at a ground we don't play well against a decent opponent and I am agin to bringing in players who won't help the side structurally just for the sake of getting game time into them when they are not physically and probably not tactically ready for it.

And I am agin the whole concept of giving up on a season of being competitive for the sake of the fools gold of a few higher spots in the draft under any circumstances. When a team that has at least half-a dozen very high quality players (ie AA level or very clearly AA potential) in the prime of their careers - Goodes, McVeigh, Malceski, O'Keefe, Craig Bolton, Kirk (despite his age) and Jolly at least close to that level - I think it is just plain wasteful.

I like watching the future of the club. That's why I get up early on a Sunday morning, or drive down to Canberra a day early, and go and watch the reserves play. Come 1.10pm on a Sunday afternoon, however, I want to watch a contest. And to be fair to the current group of Bloods, it has been pretty rare over the past 6 years that they haven't at least provided that, even on afternoons or evenings when they have been outclassed.

If that competitiveness culminates in a 2005 - or even a 2006 or 1996 - fantastic. But if "all" it culminates in is one spirited finals outing on a Saturday evening in the teeming rain at Telstra, well, that ain't so bad. Is it? (If you're not sure, seek out a Tigers fan and compare their experiences of watching lots of bright shiny kids rotated through their senior team, culminating in a September holiday. Year, after year, after year.)

I am also bemused by the apparent contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in the numerous "play the kids" cries over the years and the often savage reactions come Monday morning. Last year some (I agree not all, but a fairly vocal number) wrote off MOD and Smith as "not up to AFL standard" after a couple of senior games. "Send them back to Canberra" some cried. "Bring in the next lot." Even this week, the one player whose card we seem to have collectively marked "Go straight to Canberra. Do not pass Go" is exactly one of that group of "kids" who people want to play. So after just one game, a game in which more than half the seasoned senior players gave up after half an hour, the second least experienced player in the team has not only been consigned to the recycling bin, but quite openly ridiculed.

Sure, Barlow had a very ordinary night on Saturday. But he's played just a dozen senior games and has been serviceable to good in probably at least half of those. And don't let's forget that our 2008 Bobby Skilton medallist played games just as soft and insipid as Barlow's while he was still a developing youngster.

This rant isn't ultimately about Barlow, or McVeigh, or Johnston, or Smith, or MOD though. The point I am trying to make in - and yes I know, an extremely long winded way - is that you can't scream "play the kids" in one breath and then turn around and completely write them off when they are played. Well you can. Clearly. But it is both short-sighted and unfair.

And if the collective dreams of RWO are realised and more of the "kids" are played this season, are we still going to get the tooth gnarling each week when the team gets beaten, and cries of "why can't we be more like Geelong?" Or "oh no, we are doomed to 10 years of mediocrity"? Or "Roos has passed his use by date, let's get Wallace. Or Sheedy. Or Matthews"?

OK, so I know I have (somewhat unfairly) combined a variety of cries to demonstrate the inconsistencies in what we all seem to want. But specifically in respect of wanting the younger players to get their chances and then how their performances are assessed, I don't think I am being unfair at all. That appalling thread ridiculing Barlow is case in point. I bet MOD and Brabazon and Currie and Laidlaw and Smith and Meredith can't wait for their turns.

Sorry. Rant over. Back into my hole.

[Alibi Monday]

I am not agin playing the kids. I am agin a knee-jerk reaction after one game at a ground we don't play well against a decent opponent and I am agin to bringing in players who won't help the side structurally just for the sake of getting game time into them when they are not physically and probably not tactically ready for it.

And I am agin the whole concept of giving up on a season of being competitive for the sake of the fools gold of a few higher spots in the draft under any circumstances. When a team that has at least half-a dozen very high quality players (ie AA level or very clearly AA potential) in the prime of their careers - Goodes, McVeigh, Malceski, O'Keefe, Craig Bolton, Kirk (despite his age) and Jolly at least close to that level - I think it is just plain wasteful.

I like watching the future of the club. That's why I get up early on a Sunday morning, or drive down to Canberra a day early, and go and watch the reserves play. Come 1.10pm on a Sunday afternoon, however, I want to watch a contest. And to be fair to the current group of Bloods, it has been pretty rare over the past 6 years that they haven't at least provided that, even on afternoons or evenings when they have been outclassed.

If that competitiveness culminates in a 2005 - or even a 2006 or 1996 - fantastic. But if "all" it culminates in is one spirited finals outing on a Saturday evening in the teeming rain at Telstra, well, that ain't so bad. Is it? (If you're not sure, seek out a Tigers fan and compare their experiences of watching lots of bright shiny kids rotated through their senior team, culminating in a September holiday. Year, after year, after year.)

I am also bemused by the apparent contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in the numerous "play the kids" cries over the years and the often savage reactions come Monday morning. Last year some (I agree not all, but a fairly vocal number) wrote off MOD and Smith as "not up to AFL standard" after a couple of senior games. "Send them back to Canberra" some cried. "Bring in the next lot." Even this week, the one player whose card we seem to have collectively marked "Go straight to Canberra. Do not pass Go" is exactly one of that group of "kids" who people want to play. So after just one game, a game in which more than half the seasoned senior players gave up after half an hour, the second least experienced player in the team has not only been consigned to the recycling bin, but quite openly ridiculed.

Sure, Barlow had a very ordinary night on Saturday. But he's played just a dozen senior games and has been serviceable to good in probably at least half of those. And don't let's forget that our 2008 Bobby Skilton medallist played games just as soft and insipid as Barlow's while he was still a developing youngster.

This rant isn't ultimately about Barlow, or McVeigh, or Johnston, or Smith, or MOD though. The point I am trying to make in - and yes I know, an extremely long winded way - is that you can't scream "play the kids" in one breath and then turn around and completely write them off when they are played. Well you can. Clearly. But it is both short-sighted and unfair.

And if the collective dreams of RWO are realised and more of the "kids" are played this season, are we still going to get the tooth gnarling each week when the team gets beaten, and cries of "why can't we be more like Geelong?" Or "oh no, we are doomed to 10 years of mediocrity"? Or "Roos has passed his use by date, let's get Wallace. Or Sheedy. Or Matthews"?

OK, so I know I have (somewhat unfairly) combined a variety of cries to demonstrate the inconsistencies in what we all seem to want. But specifically in respect of wanting the younger players to get their chances and then how their performances are assessed, I don't think I am being unfair at all. That appalling thread ridiculing Barlow is case in point. I bet MOD and Brabazon and Currie and Laidlaw and Smith and Meredith can't wait for their turns.

Sorry. Rant over. Back into my hole.

Terrific post as always Liz.

[Bas]

Frankin and Roughhead both debuted in their first years and were a couple of months older than Johnston is now - but they are very much the exceptions rather than the rule, and did so in a team that went nowhere that year. Have we already, after just one round, decided that the Swans are going nowhere in 2009?

I think the team has pretty much decided that for us. How else in 78 minutes of football could the saints score 73 points to our 4 behinds.

As someone in the media suggested today, they switched off for earth hour.

We will on that performance get smashed on Sat night by Hodge, Mitchell and Bateman. That's before they get the ball to Franklin and Ruffhead.

[liz]

I think the team has pretty much decided that for us. How else in 78 minutes of football could the saints score 73 points to our 4 behinds.

As someone in the media suggested today, they switched off for earth hour.

We will on that performance get smashed on Sat night by Hodge, Mitchell and Bateman. That's before they get the ball to Franklin and Ruffhead.

We played at least as bad football during the 2005 season. One game at Telstra Dome against - you've guessed it - the Saints springs to mind.

I am not predicting the team is going to rally this year to become premiership contenders. Not yet anyway - it is rash to make such judgements after just one match. But I ain't givin' up on them yet either.

[ScottH]

Where is Nick Smith at, then. He's had a couple of senior games, a terrific year in the 2's as captain.

Surely he would be ready for some more consistent senior action.

[Legs Akimbo]

I am not agin playing the kids. I am agin a knee-jerk reaction after one game at a ground we don't play well against a decent opponent and I am agin to bringing in players who won't help the side structurally just for the sake of getting game time into them when they are not physically and probably not tactically ready for it.

And I am agin the whole concept of giving up on a season of being competitive for the sake of the fools gold of a few higher spots in the draft under any circumstances. When a team that has at least half-a dozen very high quality players (ie AA level or very clearly AA potential) in the prime of their careers - Goodes, McVeigh, Malceski, O'Keefe, Craig Bolton, Kirk (despite his age) and Jolly at least close to that level - I think it is just plain wasteful.

I like watching the future of the club. That's why I get up early on a Sunday morning, or drive down to Canberra a day early, and go and watch the reserves play. Come 1.10pm on a Sunday afternoon, however, I want to watch a contest. And to be fair to the current group of Bloods, it has been pretty rare over the past 6 years that they haven't at least provided that, even on afternoons or evenings when they have been outclassed.

If that competitiveness culminates in a 2005 - or even a 2006 or 1996 - fantastic. But if "all" it culminates in is one spirited finals outing on a Saturday evening in the teeming rain at Telstra, well, that ain't so bad. Is it? (If you're not sure, seek out a Tigers fan and compare their experiences of watching lots of bright shiny kids rotated through their senior team, culminating in a September holiday. Year, after year, after year.)

I am also bemused by the apparent contradictions and inconsistencies inherent in the numerous "play the kids" cries over the years and the often savage reactions come Monday morning. Last year some (I agree not all, but a fairly vocal number) wrote off MOD and Smith as "not up to AFL standard" after a couple of senior games. "Send them back to Canberra" some cried. "Bring in the next lot." Even this week, the one player whose card we seem to have collectively marked "Go straight to Canberra. Do not pass Go" is exactly one of that group of "kids" who people want to play. So after just one game, a game in which more than half the seasoned senior players gave up after half an hour, the second least experienced player in the team has not only been consigned to the recycling bin, but quite openly ridiculed.

Sure, Barlow had a very ordinary night on Saturday. But he's played just a dozen senior games and has been serviceable to good in probably at least half of those. And don't let's forget that our 2008 Bobby Skilton medallist played games just as soft and insipid as Barlow's while he was still a developing youngster.

This rant isn't ultimately about Barlow, or McVeigh, or Johnston, or Smith, or MOD though. The point I am trying to make in - and yes I know, an extremely long winded way - is that you can't scream "play the kids" in one breath and then turn around and completely write them off when they are played. Well you can. Clearly. But it is both short-sighted and unfair.

And if the collective dreams of RWO are realised and more of the "kids" are played this season, are we still going to get the tooth gnarling each week when the team gets beaten, and cries of "why can't we be more like Geelong?" Or "oh no, we are doomed to 10 years of mediocrity"? Or "Roos has passed his use by date, let's get Wallace. Or Sheedy. Or Matthews"?

OK, so I know I have (somewhat unfairly) combined a variety of cries to demonstrate the inconsistencies in what we all seem to want. But specifically in respect of wanting the younger players to get their chances and then how their performances are assessed, I don't think I am being unfair at all. That appalling thread ridiculing Barlow is case in point. I bet MOD and Brabazon and Currie and Laidlaw and Smith and Meredith can't wait for their turns.

Sorry. Rant over. Back into my hole.

Definitional issue: Barlow is aged 22 years. He is not a 'kid'. I suspect he should have been well and trully scrutinised, sorted, categorised by now, but he has not. He's been in the system for 4 years and perhaps due to spending most of his development playing against part-timers old-timers and school kids in Canberra, has some shocking habits. Basically, he's soft. 22 years should be the start of his peak years, but instead he's just starting out and looks timid and uncertain.

The thrust of the OP is not about the behaviour or otherwise of the RWO posters, but rather a seeming unwillingness of our coaching panel to make selections based on merits.

Re comparisons with Richmond, I think you are creating a false dichotomy. It's not an either or approach. All that is being argued is a need to set a threshold for entry to the senior team which is purely performance based and is blind to age*, experience, premiership credits etc. The performance of Richmond, Hawthorn etc is irrelevant. If the senior players perform, they will be selected. A performance based culture where players are motivated by equal opportunity and recognition of merit.

(* note - it shouldn't be entirely age based, as the value of a player is higher at a younger age due to their future potential, so if anything, there should be a slight younger age bias IF the club accepts it is not in the premiership window).

How Buchanan and Crouch continue to get selected astounds me. Mathews is another who was kept too long. At various times, it is clear we have carried so called 'senior' players. One wonders if this is somehow related to the 'leadership group' exercising its prerogatives at the selection table. Equally, there is a cohort of players headed by Brabazon who must wonder what they need to do to get a game. If they are capable, get them in. If they are not, then in my book 4 years is plenty of time to make a call to move them on.

I think a similar mistake as made by the ACB with regards to some of the senior cricket players. A policy that creates a tight knit and consistent team works wonders in a strong team but in a weak team is counter productive. I wonder what Phil Hughes would have achieved in the lost season against South Africa had Haydn been tapped on the shoulder as he should have been. Ditto Symonds vs. McDonald North.

As for your list of AA players, I think you are being charitable to a couple of names there, good as they have been over the last half decade. And maybe that's the point - we now need to look ahead, not to the past if we are going to continue to enjoy success.

[liz]

Definitional issue: Barlow is aged 22 years. He is not a 'kid'.

In football terms, Barlow is very much a kid. He's played 12 games of senior footy.

And if he doesn't qualify, exactly which kids are we debating on here? Because if you discount Barlow, you have to discount Laidlaw, Thornton and Brabazon too. White and Bird played at the weekend. So we're really just talking about Vez (injured), Currie (injured until recently), Murphy (injured until recently and now apparently reinjured, Heath (injured), Hannebury (at school), DOK (two solid years of debilitating injuries), Smith (injured), plus Johnston, Meredith, Orreal and MOD (who was close to selection last week.

As for your list of AA players, I think you are being charitable to a couple of names there, good as they have been over the last half decade. And maybe that's the point - we now need to look ahead, not to the past if we are going to continue to enjoy success.

Which ones am I being charitable about? ROK, Kirk and Bolton all made the AA top 40 list last season. McVeigh and Malceski are hardly "past it". Jolly has been getting better each year. Are you willing to label Goodes as "past it"?

[Legs Akimbo]

In football terms, Barlow is very much a kid. He's played 12 games of senior footy.

And if he doesn't qualify, exactly which kids are we debating on here? Because if you discount Barlow, you have to discount Laidlaw, Thornton and Brabazon too. White and Bird played at the weekend. So we're really just talking about Vez (injured), Currie (injured until recently), Murphy (injured until recently and now apparently reinjured, Heath (injured), Hannebury (at school), DOK (two solid years of debilitating injuries), Smith (injured), plus Johnston, Meredith, Orreal and MOD (who was close to selection last week.




Which ones am I being charitable about? ROK, Kirk and Bolton all made the AA top 40 list last season. McVeigh and Malceski are hardly "past it". Jolly has been getting better each year. Are you willing to label Goodes as "past it"?

(1) I will bet that for different reasons, ROK, Kirk and Malceski will not be AA this year.

(2) I think you missed my point re age and by defining 'kid' as person with limited senior experience your logic becomes circular. I think the term you are looking for is 'person of limited senior experience', but that is not what the OP is about.

(3) Not sure what you mean by 'discounting' and what made you think I was 'discounting' anyone. Your word.

[liz]

(1) I will bet that for different reasons, ROK, Kirk and Malceski will not be AA this year.

(2) I think you missed my point re age and by defining 'kid' as person with limited senior experience your logic becomes circular. I think the term you are looking for is 'person of limited senior experience', but that is not what the OP is about.

(3) Not sure what you mean by 'discounting' and what made you think I was 'discounting' anyone. Your word.

What is your point re age, then? I really have no idea.

In terms of 'discounting' you say Barlow doesn't count as a "kid". Hence the use of the word "discount", derived from "count".

[Captain]

Do people realise just how young Johnston is? He turned 18 less than a month ago.

So what? Give him game time in the seniors to develop. He doesn't have to play key position.

Canberra will teach him nothing.

[Legs Akimbo]

What is your point re age, then? I really have no idea.

In terms of 'discounting' you say Barlow doesn't count as a "kid". Hence the use of the word "discount", derived from "count".

You are defining a 'kid' in terms of games played. If you define it in this way, it's a moving target. reduction absurdum, if all our list could not play until they were 25 years then they would still be defined by you as 'kids'. Practically, this means that you are allowing Barlow grace because he wasn't given opportunities when younger. If he was, he would either be a better player for it now or not on our list. Hence, it is circular - you can't complain about not playing kids when you define the term 'kid' as a person who has not played games.

You have framed your argument around experience when the OP was about age. Although not independent, age and experience are different constructs. QED.

Regarding 'discounting', I think you are confusing 'not counting' with 'discounting'. Discounting, according to my Oxford English Dictionary means 'taking value from or reducing a number or amount', which in formal terms is obviously different to not counting at all.

With regards to the other players you mention, whether I refer to them as 'kids' is age related. My personal definition of 'kid' is someone who young, let's say 21 or younger. Someone who is 22 is technically a third of the way through their career if they are a good player and can play to 30. I'll ignore the injury thing as confounding .

[Mr Magoo]

Ive got a tough little five year old who more than holds himself and at times is dominant against the six and seven year olds. I can make him available as he is quite talented (well he is in my opinion ) and has a desire to play for the swans. He sounds like he fits the bill

In all seriousness, I agree with liz. You cant bleat about "playing the kids" and then crucify them after a couple of trial games and one main round. Barlow wasnt the reason we lost on Saturday night. If you want to play kids you have to understand that they will have good games and they will have some pretty ordinary ones. Its just that in winning sides its easy to hide those ordinary games but in losing sides they become the hope which at times seems hopeless.

Even Grundy is only 22 and its absolute rubbish to say a 22 year old is not a kid. Most premiership teams have a core of 27 year old type players (yes , i know Hawthorn didnt but they are the exception and not the rule) who have played senior footy for at least five to seven years. Its that premiership window that we all talk off. If you look historically, Richmond didnt have a recruitment philosophy that was much different to Hawthorn , its just that Hawthorn made the right choices (eg roughhead, hodge, franklin) and richmond has made some ordinary to fair ones (ie oakley nicholls, tambling, polo ).

If barlow, grundy, brabazon et al get more than a season of games and they get game time and then they dont live up to expectations , then start analysing their worth but if they are more than capable at reserves level then dont start relagating them back their until they have had a chance.

As for playing on form, i think if you used this system , the same guys we currently have would be the 22 every week as from all reports these "has beens" (and I use that term very loosely and sarcastically) pretty much dominate at reserve level and therefore under the "in form" rule would be straight back playing in firsts.

[Legs Akimbo]

Ive got a tough little five year old who more than holds himself and at times is dominant against the six and seven year olds. I can make him available as he is quite talented (well he is in my opinion ) and has a desire to play for the swans. He sounds like he fits the bill

Does he play in the Canberra League?