Bradshaw a Swan

[dimelb]

I don't think there is an unwritten rule, per se. But if another club was interested in his services at the kind of $ and contract length that Sydney and Carlton were interested in him at, you'd think they would have spoken to his manager already.

True, not to mention housing, school for all the kids and other such fripperies.

[Robbo]

I can't fathom why anyone wouldn't want him.

- He's still a gun.
- We have a spot on the list to fill.
- We get him for nothing (salary aside)
- Will play a similar role to the one O'Loughlin played. O'Loughlin wasn't affecting anyone's development, so I can't see why Bradshaw will.
- Has shown throughout his career that can he work with multiple forward targets.
- Johnston may well need a year of reserves football. If he's not ready, throwing him into the seniors would do him more harm than good anyway in my opinion.
- He's not a midfielder, so there's no-one that he'll be keeping out of the side.

I don't buy the injury stuff, as you could say that about any player on the list. A number of people want to keep Playfair and he's a lot more injury-prone than Bradshaw is. And with about a tenth of the ability.

No logical reason not to take him.

If the club decides to play Goodesy up forward this year then we have 3 tall forwards in Goodes, Bradshaw and White. It looks as though a forward pocket was going to be the place Currie would start in but I can't see us playing him in the same forward line as the 3 talls I just mentioned because it would make our forward line top heavy. So Currie would miss out if this was the case, if Bradshaw wasn't with us, he would slot into a forward pocket while White would be at FF and Goodesy at CHF.

Can't see them playing Currie in the ruck over Seaby and Mumford so put a line through that aswell.

The only way I can see Currie getting a gig is if Goodes plays in the middle next year, allowing him to play up forward as the 3rd tall. Problem is, Goodes playing in the midfield means one of our young mids misses out.

Whatever happens, Bradshaw coming into the side will keep a young player out. There's no getting around that. And given he has been offered 3 years, when WILL Johnstone come in? He probably isn't ready right now fair enough but he isn't going to wait 3 years. Nor will Currie. These are talented kids and if they can get a game somewhere else then they are going to go somewhere else aren't they. I think we need to be very careful that we don't take them for granted.

[BSA5]

If the club decides to play Goodesy up forward this year then we have 3 tall forwards in Goodes, Bradshaw and White. It looks as though a forward pocket was going to be the place Currie would start in but I can't see us playing him in the same forward line as the 3 talls I just mentioned because it would make our forward line top heavy. So Currie would miss out if this was the case, if Bradshaw wasn't with us, he would slot into a forward pocket while White would be at FF and Goodesy at CHF.

Can't see them playing Currie in the ruck over Seaby and Mumford so put a line through that aswell.

The only way I can see Currie getting a gig is if Goodes plays in the middle next year, allowing him to play up forward as the 3rd tall. Problem is, Goodes playing in the midfield means one of our young mids misses out.

Whatever happens, Bradshaw coming into the side will keep a young player out. There's no getting around that. And given he has been offered 3 years, when WILL Johnstone come in? He probably isn't ready right now fair enough but he isn't going to wait 3 years. Nor will Currie. These are talented kids and if they can get a game somewhere else then they are going to go somewhere else aren't they. I think we need to be very careful that we don't take them for granted.

That's all well and good, and if Bradshaw was a fringe player I'd be tempted to agree with you. But he's not. The value Bradshaw will bring to our side will far outweigh the one spot left out. And let's face it, if the kids are good enough, they'll get a game. Who's to say that if Goodes moves into the midfield, it will be a kid that gets shown the door? Maybe it will be Jude? Perhaps Mattner will face the chop?

What you're doing here is turning being spoilt for choice, an annoying situation that we often see as a problem, but in fact isn't and is simply a symptom of having greater than usual depth, into a bad thing. Selectors talk about it being "a nice problem to have", but that's just a turn of phrase. It's nice, but it's not a problem. Selectors would be delighted having promising youngsters beating down the door, battling it out against experienced older players for a spot. You should too.

[Molly dooker]

BSA5

What you're doing here is turning being spoilt for choice, an annoying situation that we often see as a problem, but in fact isn't and is simply a symptom of having greater than usual depth, into a bad thing. Selectors talk about it being "a nice problem to have", but that's just a turn of phrase. It's nice, but it's not a problem. Selectors would be delighted having promising youngsters beating down the door, battling it out against experienced older players for a spot. You should too.[/QUOTE]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have to agree with this. One of the things that we have excelled at in the past is the game of chess Roos plays with his players. There is no down side to having Bradshaw. Goodesy is just way too fit, fast and tall not to put in the midfield making him the most difficult player to match up. Curries body is still slight and will strengthen, he has very good hands and like qouted above, Roos and in the not too distant future JL will masterfully fit the younguns in to the other coaches confusion. You cannot complain about Bradshaw being in our team simply because he frees up Goodes to go wherever he's needed to break the other team.

It always feels great at the beginning of the Season to worry about these kinds of things and this is what the best coaches excel at. Massive balancing act to be sure.

[sharp9]

So basically, Robbo, you're complaining about us having too many talented players. Mmmm

[goswannie14]

If the club decides to play Goodesy up forward this year then we have 3 tall forwards in Goodes, Bradshaw and White. It looks as though a forward pocket was going to be the place Currie would start in but I can't see us playing him in the same forward line as the 3 talls I just mentioned because it would make our forward line top heavy. So Currie would miss out if this was the case, if Bradshaw wasn't with us, he would slot into a forward pocket while White would be at FF and Goodesy at CHF.

Can't see them playing Currie in the ruck over Seaby and Mumford so put a line through that aswell.

The only way I can see Currie getting a gig is if Goodes plays in the middle next year, allowing him to play up forward as the 3rd tall. Problem is, Goodes playing in the midfield means one of our young mids misses out.

Whatever happens, Bradshaw coming into the side will keep a young player out. There's no getting around that. And given he has been offered 3 years, when WILL Johnstone come in? He probably isn't ready right now fair enough but he isn't going to wait 3 years. Nor will Currie. These are talented kids and if they can get a game somewhere else then they are going to go somewhere else aren't they. I think we need to be very careful that we don't take them for granted.

What you're doing here is turning being spoilt for choice, an annoying situation that we often see as a problem, but in fact isn't and is simply a symptom of having greater than usual depth, into a bad thing. Selectors talk about it being "a nice problem to have", but that's just a turn of phrase. It's nice, but it's not a problem. Selectors would be delighted having promising youngsters beating down the door, battling it out against experienced older players for a spot. You should too.

So basically, Robbo, you're complaining about us having too many talented players. Mmmm

Don't you hate that moment in an argument when you realise that you are wrong.

[Legs Akimbo]

Don't you hate that moment in an argument when you realise that you are wrong.

Well, I think that is slightly simplistic. Underlying Robbo's point is that Bradshaw is old and he displaces a younger player from the team. The quickest way to develop younger players is to give them game time (particualrly when your seconds is the ACTFL). It could be argued that Bradshaw is a quick fix that will in fact hinder the development of a younger player he displaces. How will we all feel if King Louis or Mocca White walk at the end of the year because they feel they are not getting adequate game time, but we retain a 32 year Bradshaw? Is that a good outcome. It is certainly a possibility.

For what it is worth, I am glad we drafter Bradshaw, but it is not as cut and dried a benefit as many think because he is old at a time when we are refreshing our list. There are pros and cons. It has to be made to work.

[Cheer Squad]

Well, I think that is slightly simplistic. Underlying Robbo's point is that Bradshaw is old and he displaces a younger player from the team. The quickest way to develop younger players is to give them game time (particualrly when your seconds is the ACTFL). It could be argued that Bradshaw is a quick fix that will in fact hinder the development of a younger player he displaces. How will we all feel if King Louis or Mocca White walk at the end of the year because they feel they are not getting adequate game time, but we retain a 32 year Bradshaw? Is that a good outcome. It is certainly a possibility.

For what it is worth, I am glad we drafter Bradshaw, but it is not as cut and dried a benefit as many think because he is old at a time when we are refreshing our list. There are pros and cons. It has to be made to work.

My sentiments exactly. It's remarkable how so many people are investing so much hope in Bradshaw.

On the balance of probabilities, we won't even get three full years service from him.

[goswannie14]

Well, I think that is slightly simplistic. Underlying Robbo's point is that Bradshaw is old and he displaces a younger player from the team. The quickest way to develop younger players is to give them game time (particualrly when your seconds is the ACTFL). It could be argued that Bradshaw is a quick fix that will in fact hinder the development of a younger player he displaces. How will we all feel if King Louis or Mocca White walk at the end of the year because they feel they are not getting adequate game time, but we retain a 32 year Bradshaw? Is that a good outcome. It is certainly a possibility.

For what it is worth, I am glad we drafter Bradshaw, but it is not as cut and dried a benefit as many think because he is old at a time when we are refreshing our list. There are pros and cons. It has to be made to work.

I guess the biggest problem with Robbos argument is that he believes he (and cheer Squad) are the only people that have a valid point of view on this subject.

I can see Robbos POV, but disagree with it. On the other hand, Robbo denies that taking the pressure off White by Bradshaw taking the top defender, and the positives of playing alongside a player of Bradshaws ability have any bearing in this argument at all.

People, IMO, would allow Robbo to voice his opinion unchallenged if he at least acknowledged that there are up sides to recruiting Bradshaw, but he refuses to do so.

[Go Swannies]

My sentiments exactly. It's remarkable how so many people are investing so much hope in Bradshaw.

On the balance of probabilities, we won't even get three full years service from him.

Isn't that perfect then - he'll break down at the time when White and Johnson are ready to take over FF duties? You should be happy about that?

Meanwhile he fills the significant hole left by Baz - and the kids learn how to play as the complete forward that Bradshaw certainly is.

[Cheer Squad]

Isn't that perfect then - he'll break down at the time when White and Johnson are ready to take over FF duties? You should be happy about that?

Meanwhile he fills the significant hole left by Baz - and the kids learn how to play as the complete forward that Bradshaw certainly is.

Why would I be happy about Bradshaw - or anyone else for that matter - breaking down? Who would wish that on a player?

[liz]

I guess the biggest problem with Robbos argument is that he believes he (and cheer Squad) are the only people that have a valid point of view on this subject.

I don't agree with Robbo or CS on the Bradshaw issue, but I think the comment above is grossly unfair on both.

They have been arguing their point of view consistently and with reasons. At no time have they said those that don't agree with them are clueless. They have not denied the reasonableness of the alternative point of view any more than those arguing in favour of Bradshaw. Indeed, if any have been guilty of dismissing the alternative point of view as invalid, it has been some of those arguing in favour of Bradshaw.

[desredandwhite]

I think to save precious bandwidth, one of the world's last great resources, we should all simply come back and three years and find out who "won".

Simply put, there are arguments both for and against the signing of Bradshaw. We have taken a calculated risk and no one will know for 3 years whether that gamble was worth it.

[johnno]

I've said this before in another thread and I will say it again here. To be a force in the AFL, i.e. in contention for a top 4 position, you need at least 4 power forward options. remember back to 2003-2006. We had Hall, O'Loughlin, Davis and O'keefe. The real wild card in this quartet was O'keefe, because once the oposition used up its best 3 defenders on the other 3 forwards, it meant that the 4th best defender would pick up O'keefe, and we all know that ROK would make mince meat out of any teams 4th best defender. My question is why cant we do this again in 2010? Lets play Bradshaw and White out of the Square, Goodes at CHF and play O'Keefe back into his 2003-06 position on the half forward flank. We would absolutely terrorize teams if we did this in my opinion.

[AnnieH]

If he comes to Sydney, do you think they'll release Goodesy from forward duties?
I want to see Goodesy getting a better run around the paddock (if his body is up to it).

I thought his was only playing up forward to give his body a break (ok, and to plug a hole).