Delistings

[BSA5]

I know it wasn't your main point, but I almost choked when I read this! What would Pyke be doing down back? Can't quite see him intercepting the incoming ball like Hodge and Maxwell...

I would have Pyke stone cold last in players who should play the loose man down back.

I don't think he would be our primary choice, but what better way to learn the game? Don't worry about an opponent, just watch what's happening upfield and play on instinct. Obviously I don't think he should be there Rd 1, I don't think he should be in the team Rd 1, barring another interrupted preseason for Currie/Orreal. But at times, I don't think it would be too bad a move to chuck him down back in patches and get him to fill up space, maybe just as a rest from rucking. He's big, strong, and very mobile. He could cover a lot of leading space.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't my idea of a master plan that will turn Pyke into a superstar overnight. His main role would still be ruckman. Thing is, Pyke seems to get caught between making attacking position and worrying about his opponent. Place him as a loose man in defence (when it is a viable strategy, that is), and just tell him to plonk himself about 40 metres out in the corridor. Perhaps do this for most of the game in the ressies, with relieving stints in the ruck, and do the opposite in senior games, if he earns them.

Remember that Pyke was a fullback in union. Positionally speaking, full back in union and loose-man in Aussie Rules are the closest analogous positions between the two codes. Both rely on judging the intentions of an opposition player upfield, on reading the ball off the boot, judging flight, aerial ball skills, fitness, and positioning. Union also requires good tackling skills and speed in that position, something useful but not necessary as a loose man in AR.

[Donners]

Going by Roos comments (am on phone so don't have the actual quote) it looks like Playfair if his hammy comes good will survive.

That's one hell of an "if". I remember they found some magic cure for Tingay when he was on our list, and we never saw him again.

[Plugger46]

3 years on the list, injury prone, has never amazed in the ressies and other young guys are picked ahead of him. I will be absolutely amazed if we DON'T delist him.

He barely played for the first two years. With all of the retirements and a couple of de-listings I can't see the club de-listing a first round draft pick when he's had an interrupted development - especially when this is apparently a shallow draft.

I'm not saying he'll make it but he deserves at least one more year to show what he's got. Brabazon's had 4 years and he's been fully fit throughout that time!

[Bloody Hell]

Remember that Pyke was a fullback in union. Positionally speaking, full back in union and loose-man in Aussie Rules are the closest analogous positions between the two codes. Both rely on judging the intentions of an opposition player upfield, on reading the ball off the boot, judging flight, aerial ball skills, fitness, and positioning. Union also requires good tackling skills and speed in that position, something useful but not necessary as a loose man in AR.

No...just no. Are you wearing a tin foil hat?

[caj23]

No...just no. Are you wearing a tin foil hat?

Agreed - would prefer it if Roosy pulled on the boots again and played that role

[BSA5]

No...just no. Are you wearing a tin foil hat?

Of course not. Aluminium foil is far more effective.

Honestly, I'm not expecting Pyke to become our Luke Hodge, or become an important cog in our side (in any position). I'm saying he should be trialled in the role in the ressies, and if he takes to it as well as he has ruckwork, and the opening is in the team for him as a ruckman as it has been this year (i.e. Currie gets injured/is @@@@, Orreal isn't ready, etc), then it may be worthwhile sticking him down there for patches rather than just benching him. I'd never trust him with a direct opponent down back, but it would be good for his development, good for our rotations, and would only happen if he had proven himself at reserves level first.

And I want to make it clear that I'm not saying full back in Union and loose man in defence in AR are essentially the same position. But in terms of the skills involved, they have the most in common. In order to make it as a full back in union, one must have a talent for reading play and judging the flight of balls, aerial skills, and consciousness of your positioning. While the way in which you utilise these skills are very different in AR (ball will travel through the air differently, and the positioning in relation to other players is completely different), he has shown aptitude for these things in one context; with a bit of experience he should be able to switch.

[Primmy]

Pyke is kind of like a retrograde player along the lines of Big Monkey. He will have his place. It will probably not be a major position, etc, but his size and his ability to learn will hold him in good stead for a place somewhere. His tap work is great, and getting better. Wait my children, wait and see what the enigmatic one has in store for us.

[Captain]

Wait my children, wait and see what the enigmatic one has in store for us.

Pyke as a player isn't the concern in this instance. It's the thought of him playing loose man in defense.

[Bloody Hell]

Of course not. Aluminium foil is far more effective.

Whatever keeps out the voices.

Honestly, I'm not expecting Pyke to become our Luke Hodge, or become an important cog in our side (in any position). I'm saying he should be trialled in the role in the ressies, and if he takes to it as well as he has ruckwork, and the opening is in the team for him as a ruckman as it has been this year (i.e. Currie gets injured/is @@@@, Orreal isn't ready, etc), then it may be worthwhile sticking him down there for patches rather than just benching him. I'd never trust him with a direct opponent down back, but it would be good for his development, good for our rotations, and would only happen if he had proven himself at reserves level first.

Loose man isn't a position. It is something that is agreed between opposition coaches. If I were an opposition coach and Pyke was loose - he'd be manned up, quick and exploited. I have no problem with Pyke moving into defense or up forward - and have suggested as much to develop his game. Will never have the skills to play as a loose man.

And I want to make it clear that I'm not saying full back in Union and loose man in defence in AR are essentially the same position. But in terms of the skills involved, they have the most in common. In order to make it as a full back in union, one must have a talent for reading play and judging the flight of balls, aerial skills, and consciousness of your positioning. While the way in which you utilise these skills are very different in AR (ball will travel through the air differently, and the positioning in relation to other players is completely different), he has shown aptitude for these things in one context; with a bit of experience he should be able to switch.

To me this is the real whacky part of your posts. I've played alot of union at fullback, and a few of games of AR at CHB. Completely different.

It's like saying that being an opening bowler in cricket is closest to playing CHF in AR - therefore the skills translate. The only similarities are fitness, coordination and a funny shaped ball - though not the same shape.

[BSA5]

Loose man isn't a position. It is something that is agreed between opposition coaches. If I were an opposition coach and Pyke was loose - he'd be manned up, quick and exploited. I have no problem with Pyke moving into defense or up forward - and have suggested as much to develop his game. Will never have the skills to play as a loose man.

Of course it's not a set position. It is a role at times though. I said only when the game called for it.

To me this is the real whacky part of your posts. I've played alot of union at fullback, and a few of games of AR at CHB. Completely different.

It's like saying that being an opening bowler in cricket is closest to playing CHF in AR - therefore the skills translate. The only similarities are fitness, coordination and a funny shaped ball - though not the same shape.

Hardly. Is it that difficult to say that a particular role/position in one sport will have greater than typical similarities to a particular role/position in another sport? To play fullback effectively, one must be a good judge of ball flight, have a knack for being able to see and interpret a lot of information at once (reading the play), and maintain a regular awareness of where you are in relation to others. Pyke has proven that he has these particular qualities to the extent that he could utilise them at an international level, though in a different context. Rather than just "fitness, co-ordination and a funny-shaped ball", these are quite particular characteristics that not every professional athlete would consider a strength. Aside from which, fitness, co-ordination and a funny-shaped ball is pretty much required for every position in Aussie Rules, and every role in cricket, and every position in rugby, and..... you get the point.

[SimonH]

Back to the topic: a very, very good year to be a Swans-lister approaching his mid-20s who still hasn't made an impact. Salad days.

There is zero record of out-of-contract rookies getting poached by other clubs, so we can safely delist and re-rookie Orreal in my view (if we have to). Certainly no point in upgrading him as the only way he'd be played is if we had gross long-term injuries to a number of talls... which would create the LTIL space for him to be upgraded and played in 2010 anyway.

So minus 6 retirees, plus 2 (Thornton and Pyke) and then minus how many others? We don't want to look at adding more than 6 senior listers in one year, and can't trust we'll accumulate anyone by trading. For mine, that says only 2 other players to be dropped.

I have nothing against Tim Schmidt, who looks like a solid player when up and going. But 2010 for a 2003 draft player would be pushing it beyond generous, and starting to get into the realms of absurd. With Freo dumping Adam Campbell today, 17-gamer Schmidt is now the only player out of 80-odd taken in the 2003 ND to have played fewer than 20 games and remain on an AFL list... the second least successful, Mr 2009 Renaissance Zac Dawson, has played exactly twice as many on 34. Schmidt offers nothing that we can't get from one or several of about a dozen midfielders or midfield prospects, most of them younger than him.

Doubtless we'll keep Playfair if tests reveal his hamstring will be 100% in time for a full pre-season. But doubtless we'd keep a 19yo Plugger Lockett if he dropped into our laps via a NSW local rookie listing. Both are roughly the same chance of happening.

Braba could be generously described as a 'depth player'; doesn't do that much wrong but doesn't do anywhere near enough to really hurt an opponent. Perhaps keep him for one more year if we lose both of the above. Maybe. Thornton's still marginal as a long-term prospect; and Thornton's well ahead of Braba.

Laidlaw shouldn't even be seriously considered for dumping in my view. He offers something a little different from other candidates, and appears to be very likely to be AFL standard if up and going. If not able to get on the park and push for selection in 2010, he'll pick himself for delisting.

[Legs Akimbo]

Of course it's not a set position. It is a role at times though. I said only when the game called for it.



Hardly. Is it that difficult to say that a particular role/position in one sport will have greater than typical similarities to a particular role/position in another sport? To play fullback effectively, one must be a good judge of ball flight, have a knack for being able to see and interpret a lot of information at once (reading the play), and maintain a regular awareness of where you are in relation to others. Pyke has proven that he has these particular qualities to the extent that he could utilise them at an international level, though in a different context. Rather than just "fitness, co-ordination and a funny-shaped ball", these are quite particular characteristics that not every professional athlete would consider a strength. Aside from which, fitness, co-ordination and a funny-shaped ball is pretty much required for every position in Aussie Rules, and every role in cricket, and every position in rugby, and..... you get the point.

Bsa5 - for what it is worth, I think you logic sound but your conclusion is incorrect. I think Pyke is a ruckman and will become a really good one (i.e. not a backman). That will happen when learns the game and plays on instinct. give two years. Ruckman take time and he has the physical kit, but it is really obvious that at present he is just trying to get the technique right. The quality of some of his ruckwork is really impressive. let him be a ruckman.

[Bloody Hell]

Of course it's not a set position. It is a role at times though. I said only when the game called for it.



Hardly. Is it that difficult to say that a particular role/position in one sport will have greater than typical similarities to a particular role/position in another sport? To play fullback effectively, one must be a good judge of ball flight, have a knack for being able to see and interpret a lot of information at once (reading the play), and maintain a regular awareness of where you are in relation to others. Pyke has proven that he has these particular qualities to the extent that he could utilise them at an international level, though in a different context. Rather than just "fitness, co-ordination and a funny-shaped ball", these are quite particular characteristics that not every professional athlete would consider a strength. Aside from which, fitness, co-ordination and a funny-shaped ball is pretty much required for every position in Aussie Rules, and every role in cricket, and every position in rugby, and..... you get the point.

I do get the point.

You're saying it doesn't matter what sport you play whether union, volleyball, basketball etc, if you can play Aussie Rules - you can play Aussie Rules...as long as you're fit and coordinated...and can deal with a funny shaped ball...which was my point -

I don't think you can draw parallels with other sports. It's the individuals abilities and AR is a very different sport, which you seem to get.

Karmichel Hunt.

[Bloodmaniac]

I would like to see Nathan Gordon on the books. Very good solid player. The kid has a great future.

[Plugger46]

Back to the topic: a very, very good year to be a Swans-lister approaching his mid-20s who still hasn't made an impact. Salad days.

There is zero record of out-of-contract rookies getting poached by other clubs, so we can safely delist and re-rookie Orreal in my view (if we have to). Certainly no point in upgrading him as the only way he'd be played is if we had gross long-term injuries to a number of talls... which would create the LTIL space for him to be upgraded and played in 2010 anyway.

So minus 6 retirees, plus 2 (Thornton and Pyke) and then minus how many others? We don't want to look at adding more than 6 senior listers in one year, and can't trust we'll accumulate anyone by trading. For mine, that says only 2 other players to be dropped.

I have nothing against Tim Schmidt, who looks like a solid player when up and going. But 2010 for a 2003 draft player would be pushing it beyond generous, and starting to get into the realms of absurd. With Freo dumping Adam Campbell today, 17-gamer Schmidt is now the only player out of 80-odd taken in the 2003 ND to have played fewer than 20 games and remain on an AFL list... the second least successful, Mr 2009 Renaissance Zac Dawson, has played exactly twice as many on 34. Schmidt offers nothing that we can't get from one or several of about a dozen midfielders or midfield prospects, most of them younger than him.

Doubtless we'll keep Playfair if tests reveal his hamstring will be 100% in time for a full pre-season. But doubtless we'd keep a 19yo Plugger Lockett if he dropped into our laps via a NSW local rookie listing. Both are roughly the same chance of happening.

Braba could be generously described as a 'depth player'; doesn't do that much wrong but doesn't do anywhere near enough to really hurt an opponent. Perhaps keep him for one more year if we lose both of the above. Maybe. Thornton's still marginal as a long-term prospect; and Thornton's well ahead of Braba.

Laidlaw shouldn't even be seriously considered for dumping in my view. He offers something a little different from other candidates, and appears to be very likely to be AFL standard if up and going. If not able to get on the park and push for selection in 2010, he'll pick himself for delisting.

Why would you de-list a player who has shown that he's up to the level when fully fit (Schmidt) but keep a player who has clearly shown that he isn't (Brabazon).
With the amount of senior players leaving, we need players in Schmidt's age bracket who are capable footballers, so I see absolutely no point in de-listing him, unless his body is shot.

As for Playfair. One of the worst pick-ups of all time, surely he will go.