Seaby Sub

[Ruck'n'Roll]

It looked a strange decision at the time, and just as strange in hindsight. And I don't really want to highlight the folly or otherwise of the decision. I just thought I'd take the opportunity to make use of the word "disingenuous" ~ and apply it to the silly puff piece allegedly defending the decision on the clubs website.


Longmire defends sub decision - Official AFL Website of the Sydney Swans Football Club

You read the article and you can't disagree with Horse's answer. But . . .

The question that needed an answer was:
"Should Seaby have been made the substitute?"
The answer presented is:
"Seaby was needed in the team, because the Mummy was slightly injured and we didn't want to be without a 2nd ruckman against Jamar.

The problem is that his answer has bugger-all to do with the question. It's an approach taken constantly by politicians, if you're asked a question you do not wish to answer, then answer a completely different question. Is this also part of the Roos Legacy?





On a not completely unrelated topic:
Who do you think should have been selected as the substitute for the Melbourne game.
FWIW
And with the benefit of hindsight, I think Bevo.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

How is that last part completely unrelated? It's still about the sub.

It should have been Seaby, but for Mumford.

[Melbournehammer]

It looked a strange decision at the time, and just as strange in hindsight. And I don't really want to highlight the folly or otherwise of the decision. I just thought I'd take the opportunity to make use of the word "disingenuous" ~ and apply it to the silly puff piece allegedly defending the decision on the clubs website.


Longmire defends sub decision - Official AFL Website of the Sydney Swans Football Club

You read the article and you can't disagree with Horse's answer. But . . .

The question that needed an answer was:
"Should Seaby have been made the substitute?"
The answer presented is:
"Seaby was needed in the team, because the Mummy was slightly injured and we didn't want to be without a 2nd ruckman against Jamar.

The problem is that his answer has bugger-all to do with the question. It's an approach taken constantly by politicians, if you're asked a question you do not wish to answer, then answer a completely different question. Is this also part of the Roos Legacy?





On a not completely unrelated topic:
Who do you think should have been selected as the substitute for the Melbourne game.
FWIW
And with the benefit of hindsight, I think Bevo.

I disagree. I think he's right. I would not and do not have a difficulty with seaby being the substitute (as i have indicated elsewhere) against teams with dominant ruckmen. What happens to us if mummy is injured in minute 10 of first quarter ? Do we play reid in the ruck against last years most improved ruck ? (ps was he AA last year - I can't remember) Do we play goodes, do we play white ?

I think against those sides with really good rucks - freo, essendon maybe west coast in two weeks it would be wise to have a second ruck available because the alternatives are a real problem.

[RBS1]

I disagree. I think he's right. I would not and do not have a difficulty with seaby being the substitute (as i have indicated elsewhere) against teams with dominant ruckmen. What happens to us if mummy is injured in minute 10 of first quarter ? Do we play reid in the ruck against last years most improved ruck ? (ps was he AA last year - I can't remember) Do we play goodes, do we play white ?

I think against those sides with really good rucks - freo, essendon maybe west coast in two weeks it would be wise to have a second ruck available because the alternatives are a real problem.

While i didn't agree with bringing Seebs on i dont think its cost us the game ... you cant be wasteful in-front of goal & kick 3.9 .... we also didn't win the footy in the final term ....poses the question why did Goodes get left at Half forward for so long .... one of our best contested ball winners wasted up forward when we needed a lift in the middle

[Nico]

I disagree. I think he's right. I would not and do not have a difficulty with seaby being the substitute (as i have indicated elsewhere) against teams with dominant ruckmen. What happens to us if mummy is injured in minute 10 of first quarter ? Do we play reid in the ruck against last years most improved ruck ? (ps was he AA last year - I can't remember) Do we play goodes, do we play white ?

I think against those sides with really good rucks - freo, essendon maybe west coast in two weeks it would be wise to have a second ruck available because the alternatives are a real problem.

Goldstein for North withdrew before the match and they had midgets going up against Cox. The lack of a backup ruckman probably cost them the game.

[Matty10]

If Seaby was needed to back-up Mumford then he should not have been played as the sub (he should have just been part of the normal 21).

The problem that we have moving forward is whether we can find a ruckman who can play as a dangerous forward, or a forward who can play in the ruck when needed. Can Seaby or Pyke be dangerous options in our forward line? Can White, or Goodes (or even LRT when he gets back) provide our main ruckman with enough support, so that we don't need a second specialist ruckman?

I don't see how we can play a ruckman as the sub each and every week - it is not why it is there and it provides very limited options when not taken by a utility-type player.

[top40]

I agree with what Paul Roos said on "On the Couch"; there should be the old 4 interchanges, and then a 23rd man substitute. The current three man interchange bench is dangerously too short of numbers.

[ernie koala]

It looked a strange decision at the time, and just as strange in hindsight. And I don't really want to highlight the folly or otherwise of the decision. I just thought I'd take the opportunity to make use of the word "disingenuous" ~ and apply it to the silly puff piece allegedly defending the decision on the clubs website.


Longmire defends sub decision - Official AFL Website of the Sydney Swans Football Club

You read the article and you can't disagree with Horse's answer. But . . .

The question that needed an answer was:
"Should Seaby have been made the substitute?"
The answer presented is:
"Seaby was needed in the team, because the Mummy was slightly injured and we didn't want to be without a 2nd ruckman against Jamar.

The problem is that his answer has bugger-all to do with the question. It's an approach taken constantly by politicians, if you're asked a question you do not wish to answer, then answer a completely different question. Is this also part of the Roos Legacy?





On a not completely unrelated topic:
Who do you think should have been selected as the substitute for the Melbourne game.
FWIW
And with the benefit of hindsight, I think Bevo.

Agree with your thoughts RnR...with hindsight, Seaby should of played so he and Mummy could tag team Jamar, while the other went forward. This would of cost White his spot, which is a shame, I like the way he plays, but he's just not involved enough when it counts.
As for a sub, I'd think Meredith could fill that role well, he is fairly versatile, and is a good user of the ball.
As for Bevo, he's got to go, he played a typical Bevo game, a few good moments mixed with costly blunders.

[aardvark]

How is that last part completely unrelated? It's still about the sub.

It should have been Seaby, but for Mumford.

I'd want my best ruckman on the ground at the end, when the games there to be won, which is why we need 2 ruckmen. Mummy was stuffed in the last quarter and we got smashed at the clearances.

[jono2707]

I think its pretty clear that we'll have a different sub in this weeks game and that we'll have Seaby on the bench. With hindsight, last week's sub should have been able to provide more run and also having utility value in a sub is probably worthwhile. So from our team last week it would have come down to perhaps Sumner, Bevan, Rohan or perhaps Jetta. I think having Mummy rucking without a suitable backup was a bit of a mistake.

All that said, I'm reasonably ok with taking 2 points out of the weekend. I certainly can't blame kicking alone as Melbourne also kicked 11.18....

[tasswan]

If we had kicked straight I dont think this would be such a topic, I actually liked the idea of Seaby as a sub as i meant rotations of the midfielders was for the whole game not just the last quarter.

I too was suprised it was Reid and not White but maybe he was buggered?

[chalbilto]

I agree with what Paul Roos said on "On the Couch"; there should be the old 4 interchanges, and then a 23rd man substitute. The current three man interchange bench is dangerously too short of numbers.

I totally agree with Roos's comments. Malthouse said the same thing viz; extend the number of subs. When Healy tried to justify the new rule with statistics his arguement was torn to shreds by Malthouse and what he said made so much sense. The rule was supposed to be introduced so that teams are not disadvantaged by losing player to injuries. Roos's idea adressess this without diluting the flexabilty that clubs have on the bench.
If heirarchy want to limit the number of interchanges, then place a ceiling on the number of interchanges as is done with the NRL who have I think 12 per game.

[Mountain Man]

Sort of related, as I have just looked at the Time on Ground percentages. Mumford played 76% and Searby 16%.

No surprise that the 4 key position defence players had TOG %'s in the 90's. (Richards, Grundy, Everitt and Mattner)

Reid and White in the forward line had 73% and 76% respectively, while the other 2 (notional) forward key men Goodes and O'Keefe had 98% and 91%. TOG

What was surprising was that McGlynn and Jetta were on the ground for 97% and 92% respectively. Not surprisingly there was a 'buggered' factor by the end of the game. I would have thought White and Reid could have done with more game time, and this would have given the 2 youngsters some rest similar to the Hanneberry, Jack, Kennedy, Rohan who played some 70% and McVeigh and Bolton who were in the 80's.

[Auntie.Gerald]

Mummy on the swans website today admitted he is not a the fitness he wants to be just yet with a limited pre season............and TDL as we heard rolled his ankle and out for two weeks.........so maybe that explains seaby in the 22 and also no TDL ?

[Auntie.Gerald]

Sort of related, as I have just looked at the Time on Ground percentages. Mumford played 76% and Searby 16%.

No surprise that the 4 key position defence players had TOG %'s in the 90's. (Richards, Grundy, Everitt and Mattner)

Reid and White in the forward line had 73% and 76% respectively, while the other 2 (notional) forward key men Goodes and O'Keefe had 98% and 91%. TOG

What was surprising was that McGlynn and Jetta were on the ground for 97% and 92% respectively. Not surprisingly there was a 'buggered' factor by the end of the game. I would have thought White and Reid could have done with more game time, and this would have given the 2 youngsters some rest similar to the Hanneberry, Jack, Kennedy, Rohan who played some 70% and McVeigh and Bolton who were in the 80's.

it didnt seem like Rohan was out their for 70% of the game..............I believe you though