Noughty Swans

[liz]

Okay, everyone knows the decade actually runs from 2001-2010, not 2000-2009. So I've made a new quiz, and just to make it a little harder I included everyone on a senior or rookie list in those years, irrespective of whether they've actually played a senior game or not.

How many of the 146 players can you name?!

Can you name the Sydney Swans players on the senior or rookie list for the seasons 2001-2010 (inclusive)? - sporcle

That's pretty tough - and not over generous on the time. I managed 126 but I think I would have got another 10 or so with more time. Most I missed were past rookies, though I missed at least one current senior player and another because I couldn't spell his name correctly. There were a few I could picture but their names escaped me! And a couple of names on the list that I have absolutely no recollection of.

BTW - I think you've missed (at least) one player.

[BeeEmmAre]

I'll do yours ugg, but the decade definitely ended after 2009.

[BSA5]

Okay, everyone knows the decade actually runs from 2001-2010, not 2000-2009. So I've made a new quiz, and just to make it a little harder I included everyone on a senior or rookie list in those years, irrespective of whether they've actually played a senior game or not.

How many of the 146 players can you name?!

Can you name the Sydney Swans players on the senior or rookie list for the seasons 2001-2010 (inclusive)? - sporcle

The decade is 2000-2009. "Decade" refers to any allotment of 10 years, so the fact that the millennium began at year 1 is completely irrelevant. Grouping 10 years together has nothing to do with it. If you were to say that a particular decade is "the nth decade", then yes, the absence of a year 0 would become significant, but people don't do that. Simply labelling it as the noughties or whatever is independent. So, following from that, the most logical allotment would be from 0-9. This is also simply conventional. Any allotment will be somewhat artbitrary, but it is the neatest way of doing it, and is the way it is done, so there is no need to change it.

Now that that's out of the way, I got 101. Missed some easy ones, and I ran out of time. Like Liz, I missed a current player (don't know how I managed that), and missed a lot of former rookies, but I also missed a lot of players from 2001-3, which is understandable since I only started paying attention to the Swans in mid-2002, and only started following them in as much depth as I currently do in 07-08.

[ugg]

That's pretty tough - and not over generous on the time. I managed 126 but I think I would have got another 10 or so with more time. Most I missed were past rookies, though I missed at least one current senior player and another because I couldn't spell his name correctly. There were a few I could picture but their names escaped me! And a couple of names on the list that I have absolutely no recollection of.

BTW - I think you've missed (at least) one player.

Can you please PM me the player's name?

I'll do yours ugg, but the decade definitely ended after 2009.

Oh alright, it was a flimsy excuse to submit the quiz.

The decade is 2000-2009. "Decade" refers to any allotment of 10 years, so the fact that the millenium began at year 1 is completely irrelevant. Grouping 10 years together has nothing to do with it. If you were to say that a particular decade is "the nth decade", then yes, the absence of a year 0 would become significant, but people don't do that. Simply labelling it as the noughties or whatever is independent. So, following from that, the most logical allotment would be from 0-9. This is also simply conventional. Any allotment will be somewhat artbitrary, but it is the neatest way of doing it, and is the way it is done, so there is no need to change it.

Now that that's out of the way, I got 101. Missed some easy ones, and I ran out of time. Like Liz, I missed a current player (don't know how I managed that), and missed a lot of former rookies, but I also missed a lot of players from 2001-3, which is understandable since I only started paying attention to the Swans in mid-2002, and only started following them in as much depth as I currently do in 07-08.

There's two n's in millennium.


I did just my own quiz and only got 137.

[ugg]

I just extended the time allocated from 15 minutes to 20 minutes (the maximum available)

[liz]

Oh alright, it was a flimsy excuse to submit the quiz.

Regardless of flimsiness of excuse and meanness of time, it was fun (if a little painful). Thanks for going to the effort of creating it. Doing it by jumper order rather than alphabetical made it a little easier (though less so for the obscure rookies), and of course there are a handful of "free hits" that one gets - players you get right without even having to remember them!

[BSA5]

Can you please PM me the player's name?

I noticed one you missed as well, but he's kind of a special case. Not sure if it's the same guy, will PM you just in case.

There's two n's in millennium.

Christ, and I thought I was pedantic.

[Xie Shan]

I got 105. The quiz reckoned I missed Kieren Jack - how the hell did that happen?! Must have forgotten to put it in.

Missed a lot of the rookies, but somehow remembered Declan O'Mahony, go figure.

I didn't even realise Nick Daffy wore No. 3! Can't believe I missed Luke Vogels, I really rated him back in '05...

Otherwise I think I scored pretty similarly to BSA5. Less than 100 would have been banning material though

[ugg]

Okay mystery player added. Thanks to liz and BSA5.

[top40]

Is checking the correst spelling cheating?