Tweet
Roos used to do a weekly chat a few years ago, he was funny as usual. I don't think Rogers is actually part of the Swans although he did give the impression of being a big fan.
-
Great article, I agree with just about every word of it. I was already optimistic about next year, now looking at the entire list together gets me very excited. We have quality veteran leaders (Goodes, Boltons etc), a future Brownlow contender (Jack), a handful of emerging stars (Hannebery, Jetta, Rohan etc). And the most important thing when looking at your list is depth, almost all of our fringe players have first 22 potential. Add to that any improvements we make this off season and 2011 is looking very good.Comment
-
I was struck by this in reply to Hammo's Q about Gary Rohan:
Another 3-4 inches in height translates to 7.5 to 10 cm. He would be 195 to 198 cm. If MR meant cm and not inches, Grohan (an appropriate title!) would still be 192-193 cm - still a very big boy, strong and very fast. Now there's something to drool over during the off season.Michael Rogers: Hammo - no idea. He's put on three or four inches in height this year, plenty of weight and still leaves Rhyce Shaw and Lewis Jetta for dead in the sprints. He's a bit like St Kilda's Brendon Goddard, in that he will be able to play pretty much anywhere. I think he'll be of most value from wing to the forward 50, though.Last edited by dimelb; 14 September 2010, 04:24 PM.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
-
I found his comments about Ed Barlow, Matt O'Dwyer, Kristin Thornton & Taylor Gilchrist very interesting though not surprising. Along with Kirky & Playfair we could have 6 player turnover. With the concessions to Gold Coast resulting in a compromised draft, could the club get rid of anymore players and recruit with confidence? Would they be better of retaining their current squad including the rookies (minus these players mentioned)?Comment
-
I agree with Liz..up close to him the other day I'm sure he hasn't put on 3 or 4 inches. But I love the way he covers the ground..for a guy with an awkward looking walk, he simply glides over the grass when running. I've seen a couple of references to a Goddard style reflecting in him. Wouldn't that be something?? Not out of the question either!Comment
-
But only a 4 player turnover in the senior list (Playfair was and Gilchrist is a rookie), and with Pyke's inevitable permanent promotion to senior list, that list of changes would leave us only the 'bare minimum' 3 ND picks (I don't know whether they've now nixed the minimum 3-pick rule, but for long-term list balance you generally need to add at least 3 fresh players a year anyway).
Not that we have any need to cut deeper. Even with only one 30+ retirement, we lost so many end '09 that our list profile is hardly too old any more.
Make no mistake: Rogers is well and truly embedded-- his 2009 edition was even officially co-authored with Horse. So his picks as to who's staying and who's going, are pretty well from the inside.
Sydney don't trade players like Veszpremi and Johnston. Which makes sense, because their potential value to us is well in excess of their market value. When Rogers says in the article that the upcoming off-season is a huge one for Vespa (basically make or break), he means it. Which means the club means it too. If you get my meaning.
Chat comments, whether by accident or design, indicate that we'd be quite happy to take offers for Bevan. Which makes perfect sense as well-- when you add in Rohan, Campbell Heath, Meredith and Bird as an eclectic mix of midfielders and defenders who will push for selection in 2011 (or in Bird's case, automatically be selected when fit), in addition to the 21 ongoing players in front of Bevan from the SF team, he would objectively be better off going to a club that sees him in its best 22, rather than hanging around here basically hoping for injuries. Hardly be a trade of note, unless part of a deal that brings a player here in return. Our experience with Saddington, Schneider, Dempster, Buchanan and BBBH says that we're perfectly happy to take virtually nominal value, just to help players get to where they want to go. Mark Powell on the other hand: now there was a trade!
The main other 'natural' tradee in Ted Richards, I think won't be put up for a variety of reasons: players traded for the second time have diminished value, did solidly in LRT's absence, can plug gaps elsewhere if required, writes funny articles for Swans website, etc.
Rogers more or less throws his hands in the air about Currie. "... it's been made clear what he needs to do" (a line from his chat) rather amuses me. Sure: get a gun and shoot both Seaby and Pyke! In the back half of 2010 he was in the best players in the 2s almost every week, yet when Mummie was out, we preferred to have Jesse White pinch-hit in the ruck and Currie's name never even came up as a possibility from Roos at the selection table. And he's turning 22 yoa in the off-season. I'm betting that the club is now really really wishing that it accepted the offer it allegedly received from Collingwood a couple of years ago, for a draft pick near #10 plus a first-22 player, for Currie. When you look at some of the marginal talents (to put it kindly) who get a run in 2nd ruck for various outfits, there's little doubt that Currie could still be a 150-game AFL player. It's just almost impossible to see that it could be for us.
McKaigue and Orreal (the latter of whom must be on track to break some kind of all-time record for longest period spent on a rookie list) can't be feeling good that their efforts didn't actually result in Rogers remembering that they're Swans players!Last edited by SimonH; 15 September 2010, 12:14 AM.Comment
-
I think Currie was hurt this year by the permanent absence of Orreal and the long-term Seaby injury that elevated Pyke to the senior team. When fit, he has generally rucked all game long for the reserves, meaning he's had little opportunity (or energy) to show what he can do around the ground. In contrast, in years gone by he's been able to show how good a mark he is (or was) around the midfield and in front of goal. This year his sticky hands weren't as evident, but he was far less in a position to take useful marks.
On the plus side, as the season wore on he seemed to have become Mummified - in a good way. Previously the kind of ruck who would tap it to his midfielders and then stand and watch them take it away, he has started showing far more propensity to get down and dirty and try and generate clearances himself when the ball has hit the deck and is in dispute.Comment
-
Didn't mention Jake and he's gone, nor McKaigue, and I would be surprised if he was gorn - I rate him, so that's all that counts.If you've never jumped from one couch to the other to save yourself from lava then you didn't have a childhoodComment
-
Two guys that I think we really need to see the best of again next year if we're to play with the big boys are Bird and O'Keefe. Those two back playing their best footy in the midfield and continued improvement from Hanners, Jack and Kennedy and we're all of a sudden a contender.Comment
Comment