Where have all the fans gone!!!!
Collapse
X
-
You said that the club should have realised at the end of 2007 that "it needed to take its medicine". The only interpretation I can think of of that phrase is that it had a number of choices to make between
- propping up the short term competitiveness of the team (ie staying mid-table) versus
- taking some short term pain in terms of competitiveness for the chance of longer term improvement.
How they implemented the decisions once made (ie actual players picked) is to some extent irrelevant in identifying what choices there were to be made. And had they taken the longer term option (your implication is that they didn't) it would be far too soon to assess success in any case.
So no, I am not asking you to apply hindsight at all. Just what choices you believe they had (within the constraints of contracts, injuries and other information available at the time) between long term vs short term.
If that is not what you meant by "taking their medicine", what did you mean?
Let me ask you some questions...
Do you think the Swans are well placed re..............
1. The average age of the list going into a period of compromised drafts?
2. The number of experienced players who will either retire or be delisted just prior to the period of compromised drafts (ie next 15 months)?
3. How effective the Swans gamestyle is against quality opposition (ie probable finalists)
4. The number of games the Swans win in wet conditions recently?
5. The number of away games the Swans have won in 08/09?
6. The overall depth of the Swans list at present?
7. The number of games played by players recruited over the past 4 years compared to other clubs?
1 I think average age of the list is mostly an irrelevant stat. For a start, a single point measure rarely tells you much of interest about the make-up of a population. More significantly, if the Swans had recruited an extra x youngsters each year for the past few years at the expense of delisting older players, they would have a younger average age. But pretty much everyone of those players would have been taken at the back end of the draft and/or rookie draft, from which history tells us the hit rate is low. Even if they'd found a couple of gems, most of the players would never have made much of a contribution to the club's senior fortunes. It really doesn't matter one iota if a player is young if he is not much chop by the standards of the elite level competition.
2 I don't think the number of players due to retire is as much of an issue as some make out. It was said in 2003 that the Swans would struggle with the losses of Kelly, Dunkley, Schwass (and Cressa a year later). History tells us otherwise. Over the next few seasons others stepped up and turned themselves into bona fide stars of the competition. Sure, just because it happened then doesn't mean it is guaranteed to happen again. But on the other hand, it doesn't mean it won't.
It's also worth pointing out that we've lost two players this season who by conventional wisdom weren't yet in the age bracket of imminent retirement. West Coast went from supposedly dynasty builders to table proppers in the space of one off season when they lost two players they weren't expecting to.
On the other hand, the media was trying to pension off Robert Harvey from around the time he hit the 30 years mark. In the following 7 seasons, while he continued to play magnificent football, how many highly touted youngsters came and went with barely a whimper?
I acknowledge Harvey is an exceptional case but plenty of others have continued playing excellent football well into their 33rd, 34th, 35th years. Players that reach that age still playing good to great football do so because they are darned good players. My view is that if you have a gem of a player on your list you hold on to them for as long as they have the drive to keep playing, and you relish every moment that you are privileged to keep watching them play.
3 I doubt many of us believe the team is currently a world beater, or even a serious contender. Personally I think that has very little to do with game style and more to do with the skills of the players and their ability to consistently implement it. In 2005-6 they were able to do so more consistently (and yet were still outplayed on many occasions by other teams).
I don't think that is anything inherently good or bad about any game style. Basically teams win if they win more of the ball than the opponent, kick it to team mates more often than they kick it to the opposition, and are able to kick it through the big sticks rather than the little'uns.
I also don't think any team's game style is a static creature. I have watched the Swans' game style evolve significantly from 2003 to now (ie just looking at the Roos years). It is still evolving. I reckon what they are trying to do in 2009 is more different to 2008 than any change between other consecutive seasons apart from maybe the change from 2003-2004.
Are we watching the same team play?
4 Every since I started watching the Swans I can recall maybe half a dozen wet games we've won and I think most of those were against the same team (ironically the Wet Toasters). I can't provide any rational explanation why over 15 seasons, three coaches, numerous changes in player personnel we are still so hideously bad in the rain. But I've just come to accept it alongside death and taxes as one of life's few certainties. Fortunately, we don't actually play that many games in the wet so I reckon it's a pretty irrelevant factor in the overall scheme of things.
5 Not sure of the relevance of that question unless you are asking me to justify why I think the Swans will be premiers in 2009.
6 How does one measure depth? We are two senior players short and most of our most promising youngsters are either injured or are only recently returning from injury. So no, we don't currently have the depth of some other teams. But it is also kinda irrelevant unless my answer to 5 is really your question. Had we recruited 3,4 or even 5 extra youngsters last year our current depth wouldn't be any better. (Actually it would probably be worse.)
7 No. I am really frustrated that we haven't seen Vez out there yet this season. I had hoped Murphy and Currie would have made their debuts by now. I want to see if I am right in my belief Laidlaw could become a Matty Nicks type forward. I really liked what we saw of Meredith in his few games this year and I wish we'd seen more. I think Smith has the potential to be a quality player but we've had to wait until this week to see it. But the fact that none of those things has happened yet in 2009 has absolutely nothing to do with decisions at the selection table.
A similar picture could be drawn of last year. Schmidt, Meredith, Laidlaw, Thornton all had their seasons decimated by injury. Vez came in as soon as he was even close to ready. Smith got a couple of chances but realistically needed a bit more development (physical as much as anything). Murphy wasn't ready until the very end of the year (if even then) and then got himself injured. White might have got a few more chances but reckon he probably benefitted from spending the year in the magoos. Do you want me to go on?
There were some times during 2007 when there were some youngsters playing good enough football in the reserves to warrant a senior game or two, I thought, and yes I was a bit frustrated that they didn't. But I think the club was justified in believing it was a realistic contender in 2007 given what transpired the previous couple of years so the decision to stick with the most developed team was an understandable one.
Other clubs? Don't really care that much. But while there are some players in other teams who have come in and made an solid contribution, I reckon there are an awful lot getting games who aren't really ready, either due to injuries to senior players or because clubs are trying to sell the hype of youngsters to their impatient fans.
Now that I have answered your questions, are you game enough to answer mine?
Boy, that was a long, long-winded post, even by my impressive record of long, long-winded posts. BTW did I ever mention that I am really a Collingwood supporter? Go Pies!Comment
-
You have completely missed my point.I'm talking about the "no bottoming out" policy, and the effect it has on public interest/ bums on seats.( ie; not what diehard fans think, but what casual come and go sports fans think ).
On the issue of marketing and membership changes, I agree with others here that both have been lamentable and has added to the diminishing interest. But if what your selling is a slow slide down the ladder with a predictable conservative approach....then your pushing @@@@ up hill.
Paul Roos for PMComment
-
So far off you couldn't shoot me with a long range missile. I am married. I have five kids. They all have gone to Uni while I was a member of the Swans. I worked a full time job all my working life (as a teacher, so pretty ordinary pay) until I retired a couple of years ago only to see my super get obliterated by the financial crisis. I was born with a sheep dog in my face on a small unprofitable farm and would not have had tertiary education except for the studentships of the late sixties and seventies.
I see supporting my team as a priority. Oh, by the way, I don't drink or smoke which no doubt many failed members put before the club. But fair enough, each to their own. I know that some Swans supporters would have to choose between necessities and buying a membership and obviously they can't afford it.
But don't cry poor if you put alcohol and cigarettes before other choices such as supporting your club. Certainly don't cite poor form as an excuse. Or not being able to buy the odd ticket. Or the ticketing "Fiasco". All membership money goes directly to the club. Buy a ticket at the gate and the Swans get bugger-all!
In my opinion of course.Bevo bandwagon driverComment
-
I'll be brief...The point of my questions to you was to show, with all delusions aside, the Swans presently have an old list, that's treading water, as they slide down the ladder. And the timing of their demise coincides with years of compromised drafts, which will make the rebuild/ recovery longer and harder.
This situation could of, and should of, been avoided. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but the signs aren't good. Roos comments about the possible catastrophy of 2 Sydney teams at the bottom of the ladder, makes me think, he too sees the writing on the wall.Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect... MTComment
-
I agree with one thing, your post was long winded.
I'll be brief...The point of my questions to you was to show, with all delusions aside, the Swans presently have an old list, that's treading water, as they slide down the ladder. And the timing of their demise coincides with years of compromised drafts, which will make the rebuild/ recovery longer and harder.
This situation could of, and should of, been avoided. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but the signs aren't good. Roos comments about the possible catastrophy of 2 Sydney teams at the bottom of the ladder, makes me think, he too sees the writing on the wall.
Who did we miss that we should have got?He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)Comment
-
All you've done is whinge about the state of our list, without giving one single example of what you would have done differently.
It is easy to point out problems, but unless you can give a even single example of what might have been done differently to significantly change how you perceive the state of the list, within the constraints of drafting, trading, injuries, contracts, salary caps etc it is really just all hot air.Comment
-
And they wonder why people (including members) are unimpressed - they have monkeys running the show (cf the membership card debacle).
I'm on the Chandwagon!!!
If you cannot compete for the premiership, it's better to be young and exciting than middle-aged and dowdy.
Comment
-
I think you may have shot yourself in the foot! Everyone's criticising our drafting and the need to get high picks. BUT:
Kirk - Rookie List
O'Keefe - Pick 56
OI'Loughlin - Pick 40
Hall - Trade
Bolton - (Craig? - Preseason draft) On your list, only Jude Bolton (if he's the Bolton you mean) was a high draft pick - 8
My point wasn't where they came from, it's where are the people who are going to step up and fill the void when these guys retire/leave.
I don't care where they come from.
And my point ISN'T that we muffed up picks/trades/draft etc. It's that where we are now is a direct result of being competitive 3-6 years ago. I'm just glad we got 2 GF's and a Premiership out of that time. Other teams go throught the "window" with far less.
Where we are now is nothing compared with where we are going. We may even play finals this year.
I'll say it again - dark days ahead... I'll be there.Last edited by Bloody Hell; 20 June 2009, 12:19 AM.The eternal connundrum "what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object" was finally solved when David Hasselhoff punched himself in the face.Comment
-
This is just a thought.
Has it been since Steven Brassel left that the positive spin for the Swans tapered off? That whoever is selling the Swans at present has no idea?
Mind you it only took my first game Palm Sunday 1996 to sell it to me, but I am special.
Discuss. Not the special bit.If you've never jumped from one couch to the other to save yourself from lava then you didn't have a childhoodComment
-
And I want to add another thing which may or may not be well received.
How on earth are they going to maintain a solid Sydney fan base when they shift the huge event the Hall of Fame to Melbourne. I feel totally alienated by this.
We must be the laughing stock of Melbourne having a major event for the Sydney Swans held in another state 1000 ks away!
I thought we were the Sydney Swans. Have been for over 25 years. We are no longer the South Melbourne Swans. Are they thinking of shifting the club back down to Melbourne? I guess we just don't count any more.
I constantly complain about my perceived alienation of us Melbourne based supporters by both the club and the AFL.
But I agree 100% with your statement.
Should be in Sydney.
The club seems to flip flop as it sees fit.The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.Comment
-
This is definetley my last year after being a member for 14 years
Many factors - the renewal farce
The economy/cost
Sat afternoon games - should have been Friday night instead
Do not wan't to be committed to every game to get my money's worth
If I want I will just go on line and get a ticket whenever I want to go
There is a severe lack of promotion and marketing than in previous yearsThe difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.Comment
-
Your argument would imply that you aren't a real supporter as you don't attend every game because of distance.The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.Comment
-
I'd suggest that the creation of passionate and loyal supporters is something that begins at school level.
Maybe the Swans have missed the mark here?
In 1925 I'm sure all the original clubs had a fairly large and decent following over their first 25 years.
People will complain about rugby etc, but then they will express their POV that AFL is easily the most exciting brand of football.
For whatever reason, success in the game hasn't brought a successful supporter base.
Maybe we won the flag 10 years too early, and that hunger hadn't fully developed within the Sydney market?
Maybe there is some kind of pent up resentment that the club originated in Melbourne?
Maybe NSW people are just generally a bit mentally challenged, and don't get the game?
Whatever the reason, seems changes need to be made in amny many areas.
I constantly lose faith in those who are in place to make the correct decisions - simply because they are not getting results.The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.Comment
-
And I want to add another thing which may or may not be well received.
How on earth are they going to maintain a solid Sydney fan base when they shift the huge event the Hall of Fame to Melbourne. I feel totally alienated by this.
We must be the laughing stock of Melbourne having a major event for the Sydney Swans held in another state 1000 ks away!
I thought we were the Sydney Swans. Have been for over 25 years. We are no longer the South Melbourne Swans. Are they thinking of shifting the club back down to Melbourne? I guess we just don't count any more.Comment
Comment