1 year from now

[Chilcott]

Armstrong couldn't even make the Crows best 22 most weeks.
What makes so many on here assume he'll be in our best 22?
Same goes for Morton and Walsh.
At this stage these guys add depth, and have plenty to prove before getting a gig in the 1's.

You may be correct Ernie. Time will tell.

However, going by the success rate with the trades in the last 3 years, you would think 2 of the 3 players will play consistent senior footballl in 2012.

[jono2707]

You may be correct Ernie. Time will tell.

However, going by the success rate with the trades in the last 3 years, you would think 2 of the 3 players will play consistent senior footballl in 2012.

I can't see Morton or Armstrong being permanent members of the best 22 in 2012. Of course I'd like to be proven wrong if one or both develop into bona fide stars but I dont hold out too much hope - they'll come in handy if injuries hit though. Armstrong probably has more upside but I dont see how Morton could offer much more than he's offered two previous clubs.

I would like to see Walsh in the team as often as possible as he needs to get proper matches under his belt - NEAFL games would count for little for a guy at his stage coming off 2 years of VFL - he could develop into anything if his International Rules matches are anything to go by.

[R-1]

I think Pyke is athletic enough, and has shown enough, to justify including him as a second ruck. I'm not sure whether I like him more forward or back, but he just has to play, for mine.

[wolftone57]

Your probably right about CHB - I tossed Mattner, LRT & Reg around for the last position in the back 6 as they all have good and bad points, but hopefully one of them will do the job or get rotated depending on form.
With the 2 ruckmen option, would you drop White out of the foward line and play Seaby or Pyke in his position?

Reg is definitely our CHB or at least one of the tall options in the back half.

[wolftone57]

I think Pyke is athletic enough, and has shown enough, to justify including him as a second ruck. I'm not sure whether I like him more forward or back, but he just has to play, for mine.

I definitely agree with this. I think the selection panel was sucked in a bit by all the "you can't play a second ruck with this new interchange" hype on tele. Either Pyke or Seaby would have been very handy in a few games we lost.

[Big Al]

I definitely agree with this. I think the selection panel was sucked in a bit by all the "you can't play a second ruck with this new interchange" hype on tele. Either Pyke or Seaby would have been very handy in a few games we lost.

I don't think we got sucked in at all. You need the 3 interchanges for the midfield rotations and not for the resting ruckman. So the 2nd ruckman needs to be able to play forward. Seaby isn't great up forward so wasn't used. Our best option in Pyke was injured a lot of the season. I think you'll find a fit Pyke will be in our best 22 as the 2nd ruckman.

Having said that this sub rule sucks the big one. Seaby is a classy ruckman and would be great with Mummy under the old rule. I wish the AFL would stop screwing around with the rules.

[caj23]

Seaby has never been tried forward at the Swans, which was puzzling given our issues in that area this season. His record of 68 goals from from 105 games is actually pretty good for a ruckman.

[Big Al]

Seaby has never been tried forward at the Swans, which was puzzling given our issues in that area this season. His record of 68 goals from from 105 games is actually pretty good for a ruckman.

Seabs was tried many times up forward in the NEAFL this year and wasn't very good in that role. If he couldn't do it consistently at that level then it was unlikely he'd do it at AFL level.

[stellation]

1 year from now I think we'll have switched from Gatorade to Powerade to avoid confusion... or is it Powerade to Gatorade?

[Big Al]

1 year from now I think we'll have switched from Gatorade to Powerade to avoid confusion... or is it Powerade to Gatorade?

Triple B always knew which one. I was more focused on other things.

[aardvark]

Triple B always knew which one. I was more focused on other things.

Wow that nose must be getting really really long now.........

[wolftone57]

Armstrong couldn't even make the Crows best 22 most weeks.
What makes so many on here assume he'll be in our best 22?
Same goes for Morton and Walsh.
At this stage these guys add depth, and have plenty to prove before getting a gig in the 1's.

Walsh has only played our game for two years and was developing well. He would have been in their top 22 next year. Armstrong had a few injuries and a few probs off field in an unsettled time at the Crows. From what I heard he hated it there and I know Port were keen until they knew Sydney were in the mix. Morton did have a disappointing season by his standards last year and even though he had injuries his season was not good. He would be the first to admit that & has on Swans TV. He wants a fresh start & we haven't got a bad record of fresh starts. I think he was a bit of a star at Richmond in '09. I think he was a bit of a star in '09 & it may have gone to his head (assumption/non-evidential). Let's wait & see I think they may all bring something great to us but if nothing else they provide depth.

[wolftone57]

I think Pyke is athletic enough, and has shown enough, to justify including him as a second ruck. I'm not sure whether I like him more forward or back, but he just has to play, for mine.

I agree he has to play but definitely forward as he actually knows how to find a goal. He isn't a bad kick either and he can also give it a roost.

[wolftone57]

I don't think we got sucked in at all. You need the 3 interchanges for the midfield rotations and not for the resting ruckman. So the 2nd ruckman needs to be able to play forward. Seaby isn't great up forward so wasn't used. Our best option in Pyke was injured a lot of the season. I think you'll find a fit Pyke will be in our best 22 as the 2nd ruckman.

Having said that this sub rule sucks the big one. Seaby is a classy ruckman and would be great with Mummy under the old rule. I wish the AFL would stop screwing around with the rules.

I'm sorry Al but I think you are wrong a couple of times when we should have played an extra ruck we didn't because of this stupid rule. I remember a game in which Everitt played even though he was crap the week before simply because of his height. He had another bad one & got dropped a week later but the game was lost already, beaten by a team with two rucks who killed LRT

[penga]

Walsh has only played our game for two years and was developing well.

No doubt he is developing well, but it is a little concerning that the Swans site has a photo of his kicking technique, claiming that it is worthy of note. Little bit nit-picking, but if you compare his technique to the most fluent of them all, Andrew McLeod, he's not bringing his left hand up near high enough to give the ball a good roost. He is still too concerned with the drop. Same goes for Pykey, and as a result the Canuck also likes quite ungainly. Get them both out there, get them to kick it to each other a 1,000 times, let them not hit the target a 1,000 times, but watch them grow with confidence with a better technique, and the 1,001st will be a beautiful sight. Stewy Dew should be all over this.

Have a look at McLeod's drop, and compare:
Andrew-McLeod-5306195.jpg

That's not the greatest pic, they are a little hard to find, but look at this one too:

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/gallery_images/photos/000/362/698/GYI0060318128_crop_450x500.jpg?1273034439