Mitchell watch

[Faunac8]

He's a different type of player, with a different skill set, to those 2.

I reckon they would complement each other, when Heeney and Mills join the midfield, more so than they'll replace each other.

But yes I get your point, we are blessed with a plethora of quality mids right now...

I would still like us to keep Mitchell over Reid, if that's what it comes down to.

Call me stupid ( I actually answer to that at home ???? )
But why do they have to join the midfield?
I asked this question earlier in this post but no one had an answer
Is there some rule that says they have to because we got them through the academy ? What am I missing ?
If they are performing at the level they are where they are why move them?
Is a good midfielder better to have then the class defender that we have witnessed in Callum this year.
Is there another player who can cover the ground (vertically and horizontally )
and create such a match up problem for the opposition that Isaac does ?
Why change what apparently seems to work?

[liz]

Call me stupid ( I actually answer to that at home ?? )
But why do they have to join the midfield?
I asked this question earlier in this post but no one had an answer
Is there some rule that says they have to because we got them through the academy ? What am I missing ?
If they are performing at the level they are where they are why move them?
Is a good midfielder better to have then the class defender that we have witnessed in Callum this year.
Is there another player who can cover the ground (vertically and horizontally )
and create such a match up problem for the opposition that Isaac does ?
Why change what apparently seems to work?

My opinion is that the best players (other than those of KPP height) generally end up in the middle. That's where the action centres and where they have the most chance to be involved. ROK is a case in point. When he nearly left the club I believe it was as much about his oft stated desire to play in the midfield as it was about contract size. When he stayed he was allowed to play in the middle, and won a B&F and a Norm Smith that vindicated his belief he was good enough.

Having watched both Mills and Heeney at junior level, and seeing how they've adapted to the faster pace and fiercer contest of senior footy, I have close to no doubt that they will become strong contributors to the midfield when given the chance. I also think their arrays of skills will be of even greater benefit to the team than they are in their current positions. That's not to say they won't continue to contribute elsewhere on the ground, but you can manufacture defenders of the type of Mills far more easily than you can manufacture the kind of dominant midfielder I think he is every chance to become.

[Industrial Fan]

You can say that again.

[Faunac8]

My opinion is that the best players (other than those of KPP height) generally end up in the middle. That's where the action centres and where they have the most chance to be involved. ROK is a case in point. When he nearly left the club I believe it was as much about his oft stated desire to play in the midfield as it was about contract size. When he stayed he was allowed to play in the middle, and won a B&F and a Norm Smith that vindicated his belief he was good enough.

Having watched both Mills and Heeney at junior level, and seeing how they've adapted to the faster pace and fiercer contest of senior footy, I have close to no doubt that they will become strong contributors to the midfield when given the chance. I also think their arrays of skills will be of even greater benefit to the team than they are in their current positions. That's not to say they won't continue to contribute elsewhere on the ground, but you can manufacture defenders of the type of Mills far more easily than you can manufacture the kind of dominant midfielder I think he is every chance to become.

Great response thanks liz however I have some follow up questions
Who was the last defender we manufactured that matches the performance that Callum had put forward this year ? ( please exclude Ted from your answer)
How many midfielders can we actually play at once?
Isn't scoring and stopping the opposition scoring more important than possessing the ball?

[liz]

I'd say Dane Rampe is an obvious example. Nick Smith would possibly be an OK midfielder but has honed his craft to become an outstanding defender. Harry Marsh is an up and comer who I think could fill the role that Mills has been playing this year. He might not do it as spectacularly well but I think he could become pretty solid. Laidler could also fill that role, and Abe Davis is another possibility.

The question of "how many midfielders can we play" is a valid one, and partly what this thread is about. Mitchell is a high quality, young player and no club would want to lose such a player. But if he and the club can't come to terms, the Swans are possibly the one club for whom losing such a player wouldn't be a disaster, simply because we have the likes of Mills and Heeney (and maybe Hewett) who have the tools to step into his role.

Revisit this question in two or three years time, once Mills is established as an onballer. If you've been impressed with his contribution thus far, you ain't see nothin' yet!

"Aren't scoring and stopping the opposition scoring more important than possessing the ball?" For a team to score, it first has to win the ball and then deliver it forward with skill, picking the best options. That's what the great midfielders contribute. And if the midfield delivers on its main function, you don't really need a great defence because the ball rarely gets down there!

[Nico]

Also midfield pressure on the opposition ball carriers/midfield makes effective delivery to the opposition forward line more difficult.

[Ludwig]

If you take a 2 year list management prospective it becomes evident that we need to trade a few established players just to meet the minimum inflow to the senior list.

We will need to find a minimum of 9 senior spots over the next 2 years (assuming that AJ recovers this time and will remain on our senior list):

• 4 minimum picks in the national draft
• 5 rookie upgrades: Papley, Foote, Newman, O'Riordan and Marsh.

There may be additional spots required if a ND bid is made for Jake Brown this year or promising 2017 prospect James Bell is bid for next year.

So who are the 9 or more senior players that could make way over the next 2 years? Here's a list of possibilities:

1. Ted Richards
2. Tom Derickx
3. Jack Hiscox
4. Ben McGlynn
5. Dean Towers
6. Brandon Jack
7. Sam Reid
8. Sinclair or Nankervis (take another ruckman in the rookie draft)
9. Tom Mitchell
10. Leonardis (looks a good prospect and a hard call for next year)
11. Cunningham (possible trade, but unlikely)
12. Robinson or Foote (simply due to lack of opportunity)

Starting from 7, all are difficult calls and are players we would like to keep. This is what our list managers are faced with. We haven't made a commitment to Nic Newman, but he looks such a good prospect that I would find it hard not to upgrade him to the senior list. He looks a clear AFL quality player.

This analysis doesn't leave any room for trading players into the side, which would be unlike the Swans.

This is why I think we actually need to trade Mitchell. And given Sam Reid is a free agent next year, he is likely to be traded or not offered a new contract unless AJ doesn't make it. I think we have one ruckman too many and would like to send Sinclair back to WC and keep Nankervis.

I would like to hear other options for solving this list management dilemma.

[rojo]

I'd say Dane Rampe is an obvious example. Nick Smith would possibly be an OK midfielder but has honed his craft to become an outstanding defender. Harry Marsh is an up and comer who I think could fill the role that Mills has been playing this year. He might not do it as spectacularly well but I think he could become pretty solid. Laidler could also fill that role, and Abe Davis is another possibility.

The question of "how many midfielders can we play" is a valid one, and partly what this thread is about. Mitchell is a high quality, young player and no club would want to lose such a player. But if he and the club can't come to terms, the Swans are possibly the one club for whom losing such a player wouldn't be a disaster, simply because we have the likes of Mills and Heeney (and maybe Hewett) who have the tools to step into his role.

Revisit this question in two or three years time, once Mills is established as an onballer. If you've been impressed with his contribution thus far, you ain't see nothin' yet!

"Aren't scoring and stopping the opposition scoring more important than possessing the ball?" For a team to score, it first has to win the ball and then deliver it forward with skill, picking the best options. That's what the great midfielders contribute. And if the midfield delivers on its main function, you don't really need a great defence because the ball rarely gets down there!

I agree with what you say but with Mills doing the same thing as a mid, from the half-back line, it saves the actual mids from some of that famous Swans two way running which must be so taxing on the mids players both short term and long term. It amazes me how the mids cope week in week out having to patch up an at times a dysfunctional forward line as well as an at times dysfunctional back line. Having players like Heeney in the forward line and Mills in the back-half must lighten their load a lot. As you say, a Marsh or a Laidler, a Cunningham, a Towers or even a Lloyd gets the job done but having a Heeney or a Mills in those spots is even better - especially while we currently have a super midfield group.

[The Big Cat]

Just can't understand why Sam Reid's name keeps surfacing. I would say that if you asked the Swans coaching/list management team to list the value of their players in order of importance, Reid would come at least in the top ten, if not higher. Throw in the All Australians, plus Heeney and Mills, and Grundy, I suspect Reid would be next.

You don't get guys that size who are as quick as lightning.

Looking at your list in the above post (and more importantly those not on it), Ludwig, Reid would rank much higher than Cunningham, Lloyd, Papley, Smith, Jones, Laidlaw, Rose, Davis, Nankervis, Sinclair, Robinson, Hewitt, Marsh, Dawson, X Richards and probably K Jack and McVeigh..

I know this is the silly season, but surely not the insane season!

[Nico]

If you take a 2 year list management prospective it becomes evident that we need to trade a few established players just to meet the minimum inflow to the senior list.

We will need to find a minimum of 9 senior spots over the next 2 years (assuming that AJ recovers this time and will remain on our senior list):

• 4 minimum picks in the national draft
• 5 rookie upgrades: Papley, Foote, Newman, O'Riordan and Marsh.

There may be additional spots required if a ND bid is made for Jake Brown this year or promising 2017 prospect James Bell is bid for next year.

So who are the 9 or more senior players that could make way over the next 2 years? Here's a list of possibilities:

1. Ted Richards
2. Tom Derickx
3. Jack Hiscox
4. Ben McGlynn
5. Dean Towers
6. Brandon Jack
7. Sam Reid
8. Sinclair or Nankervis (take another ruckman in the rookie draft)
9. Tom Mitchell
10. Leonardis (looks a good prospect and a hard call for next year)
11. Cunningham (possible trade, but unlikely)
12. Robinson or Foote (simply due to lack of opportunity)

Starting from 7, all are difficult calls and are players we would like to keep. This is what our list managers are faced with. We haven't made a commitment to Nic Newman, but he looks such a good prospect that I would find it hard not to upgrade him to the senior list. He looks a clear AFL quality player.

This analysis doesn't leave any room for trading players into the side, which would be unlike the Swans.

This is why I think we actually need to trade Mitchell. And given Sam Reid is a free agent next year, he is likely to be traded or not offered a new contract unless AJ doesn't make it. I think we have one ruckman too many and would like to send Sinclair back to WC and keep Nankervis.

I would like to hear other options for solving this list management dilemma.

I reckon the top 6 are a given to not be with us after 2017. Nankervis today was a cut above. We have to keep him because he gets better every game and has been proven over the last few years you need a decent back up ruckman. I think he is red hot for a top season in 2017. Can't let him go to another club. One ruckman goes down and we are up the proverbial creek without a paddle. Sam Reid - he has trade value for the type of player he is. Offer him up this year.

I am not a fan of Cunningham and would happy to let him explore other opportunities. I also see Robinson as a short term proposition. He is like Cunningham; very outside and not strong at the contest. He is also an ordinary deliverer of the footy.

We seem to be not shy at making hard decisions so be prepared for a surprise or two in the trade period.

Ludwig, I know Newman is your love child but he may be superfluous to our needs.

[Ludwig]

J

Looking at your list in the above post (and more importantly those not on it), Ludwig, Reid would rank much higher than Cunningham, Lloyd, Papley, Smith, Jones, Laidlaw, Rose, Davis, Nankervis, Sinclair, Robinson, Hewitt, Marsh, Dawson, X Richards and probably K Jack and McVeigh..

I'm a big fan of Sam Reid, but it's not always about how high a player ranks in the pecking order. The same would hold true for Tom Mitchell. Because of the draft and rookie list rules there is a continual need to create spots for new players. There is also the pressure of the salary cap. Mitchell has been in the news about this matter, but the same holds true for Reid. His contract comes up next year and he is likely to get better offers than we are able to give him. And then there is the matter of his proneness to injury.

There is also the question of who Reid keeps out of the side if he plays. Richards is the obvious one. Then there are promising young players in Abe Davis and Jordan Dawson. And in a team with Buddy, Tippett and Rohan in the forward line, how much more value does someone like Reid add. He's probably better suited as the key forward target at a club. As a 4th option tall, Richards probably fills the role as well as Reid.

We just gave Richards another 2 years on his contract. He'll be 24 next year and he's just one year younger than Reid. It's not like the Swans to offer a player in this demographic a new contract to play reserves football.

Sometimes you have to let good players go when you can get the best trade value for them. I would try to work ourselves into a few high draft picks in the coming years in view of replacing a few star players in 4 or 5 years time. We don't want to be in the position of the Giants where we have a lot of senior grade players playing in the reserves. Obviously, they'll want to leave.

Ludwig, I know Newman is your love child but he may be superfluous to our needs.

You may be right, but it would be a shame to lose him. He has all the qualities you look for in a half back flank. He's a smart player with good vision. I would really like to fit him into the side. I don't know if he'd take a 3rd year on the rookie list, and what would be the point anyway. He's ready to play AFL now. I would much rather trade Cunningham and keep Newman.

[CureTheSane]

Just can't understand why Sam Reid's name keeps surfacing.

Because people have their own opinions which may be different to yours and/or the majority. Nothing wrong with that.

I would say that if you asked the Swans coaching/list management team to list the value of their players in order of importance, Reid would come at least in the top ten, if not higher.

Not so sure about this. I'd say they find themselves between a rock and a hard place with Reid.
Not worth much, yet hasn't performed and grown as expected in the team.
But who knows, maybe they see something more long term and less injury ridden in him...

[Industrial Fan]

Nothing wrong with differing opinions. Was just thinking what a positive it is that one of the biggest issues we have is whether or not to keep a young premiership player and whether he'll improve the current team.

[Maltopia]

If you take a 2 year list management prospective it becomes evident that we need to trade a few established players just to meet the minimum inflow to the senior list.

We will need to find a minimum of 9 senior spots over the next 2 years (assuming that AJ recovers this time and will remain on our senior list):

• 4 minimum picks in the national draft
• 5 rookie upgrades: Papley, Foote, Newman, O'Riordan and Marsh.

There may be additional spots required if a ND bid is made for Jake Brown this year or promising 2017 prospect James Bell is bid for next year.

With the 5 rookie upgrades, can we get around all five by delisting one of them and then taking them again in the PSD as a rookie again (hoping no one else takes them ahead of us)?

[The Big Cat]

Nothing wrong with differing opinions. But I can't fathom the reasoning that Reid will be keeping others out of the team. If he's fit he's one of the first players picked. No arguments. As to freeing salary cap space, you don't cut your cream to make way for somebody who may turn out half as good. If we need room for new talent, there'd be fifteen blokes you'd send packing before Sam.

BTW We are not cutting Mitchell. If he leaves it will be because he gets more money elsewhere which we don't want to or can't match since we have elite mid fielders coming out our ears. Reid is a fish of a different color. We don't have a plethora of elite tall talent. You wouldn't let him go to keep XR in a million years.