Another thread about the Melbourne media having NFI about Sydney Footy...

[Conor_Dillon]

http://trib.al/0h3igzO

Derm has no idea...absolutely sick of his Sydney bashing. It's really tiresome

[rb4x]

I agree with Dermie on this one. Mummy was the player we most needed against Hawthorn last year. We have a heap of fringe players we could have traded out then to make salary space and we would not have needed Derickx. I know we let a few go but there were more and I would have been happy if our list was a couple short if we could have retained Mumford.

[Triple B]

Lazy article, typical Derm garbage.

He goes to great lengths to make sure everybody realises the monumental stuff-up by Hawthorn to let Josh Kennedy go was offset by getting Burgoyne, yet makes no mention of letting Mumford go was the direct result of getting Buddy.

It's almost got to the stage that I turn to another channel when Derm is hosting on Fox as I have done for many years when Eddie's head pops up. It's seriously not worth the blood pressure rise...

[Ampersand]

"The player is exactly what the Swans needed all last year and even with just four rounds into this season, exactly what they need if they are to win their way through to a grand final again."

Um... we were minor premiers last year and had a club-best winning streak.

Footy is a team game. The team lost. Mummy wouldn't have changed a thing. We could have put Gary Ablett Jr and Nat Fyfe in our midfield and still lost because the other 20 players didn't do their job.

As much as I miss Mummy sometimes, the guy is injury prone and I remember some terrible patches of form where his work rate and effort stank. With Tippett in the ruck, Pyke holding his own and Naismith developing well it's not my main area of concern (that would be our KPD stocks).

[liz]

Yep. Mummy was the closest thing we had to a passenger in the 2012 grand final. Not entirely his fault given he was clearly not fit. And it's hard to begrudge a player desperately wanting their chance to play in a GF (and win a premiership) when they've made a great contribution to getting the team there. The fact we won despite him playing makes it easier to accept. But it was Pyke who stood up that day and helped the team hold its own in the ruck.

When fit, Mumford is a great asset. But like most ruckmen he is injury prone. It's probably not surprising ruckmen are so injury prone, given what their large frames are expected to do athletically. Unless you stumble across a ruckman who is more durable than most, I don't think it is a position it makes sense to tie a huge amount of salary cap in, not if you're good enough to compensate elsewhere and can make do with a couple of workhorses. Truly great key forwards, on the other hand, are as rare as hens teeth, and we're fortunate enough to have landed the best going around. He's a freak. I am very confident that if you took Buddy out of the team and inserted Mumford, our chances of reaching a grand final would diminish considerably.

Dermot seemed to take the Hawks losing the 2012 GF particularly badly. The fact they've won the next two doesn't seem to have lessened the pain. Prior to that game he seemed to almost have a bit of a soft spot for the Swans - he did spend a few games up here, after all. Now he just seems bitter, and it doesn't help that he and Ed spend time together on Fox, frothing each other up.

[Conor_Dillon]

He hates us and barely even attempts to veil it anymore...I'll always respect him because of how undoubedtly tough/courageous he was on field but it's getting more and more difficult.

[Meg]

I agree with Dermie on this one. Mummy was the player we most needed against Hawthorn last year. We have a heap of fringe players we could have traded out then to make salary space and we would not have needed Derickx. I know we let a few go but there were more and I would have been happy if our list was a couple short if we could have retained Mumford.

The AFL rules on list numbers say that (apart from GWS and the Suns) a club must have a minimum of 38 players and a maximum of 40 on their senior lost. We dropped to the 38 minimum in 2013 as part of the package of measures to be able to afford Buddy.

[Plugger46]

He hasn't got over 2012. He declared the Hawks as certainties in GF week. When they didn't win, he banged on for a fortnight about how they should have won.

[ScottH]

Is the HS still around??

[Sandridge]

He hasn't got over 2012. He declared the Hawks as certainties in GF week. When they didn't win, he banged on for a fortnight about how they should have won.

Absolutely, positively 100% correct!
He just couldn't believe that we knocked them off in 2012 and this article is just a chance to remind everyone that Hawthorn "got their revenge" in last year's GF. He bags the Swans every chance he gets, especially Goodesy. (Have you noticed how McGuire's mates like to criticise Goodesy? Brereton, Sam Newman and Shane Warne love putting Goodesy down.)

[Untamed Snark]

Is the HS still around??

Like cockroaches, the hs will always be around.

[Mel_C]

I just groaned when I read Dermott's article. As others have already posted, we couldn't keep Mummy and get Buddy. Without Buddy we would not have won some of those games last year which allowed us to finish top and therefore gave us the chance to make the GF. An important factor that Derm failed to mention. And to say that having Mummy's aggression would have helped us in the GF...you still need the other 21 to step up!!

I change the channel whenever Derm or Eddie come on. It's the same verbal rubbish each time.

[DamY]

I just groaned when I read Dermott's article. As others have already posted, we couldn't keep Mummy and get Buddy. Without Buddy we would not have won some of those games last year which allowed us to finish top and therefore gave us the chance to make the GF. An important factor that Derm failed to mention. And to say that having Mummy's aggression would have helped us in the GF...you still need the other 21 to step up!!

I change the channel whenever Derm or Eddie come on. It's the same verbal rubbish each time.

Agreed, Sporty Spice

[Beerman]

I was dreading "Whistleblowers" on the AFL site this week - Swans have had a rough run on that show.

I was shocked to hear them defending the 50m given to Rohan and the "no call" on a 50m against Tippett for kicking the ball away after a free was paid against him for hands in the back. (The rightness or otherwise or the original decision was (un)fortunately not up for discussion.)

I'm a little surprised by the Rohan 50m - I thought it was a bit soft and while the panelists thought it was borderline they agreed that it was definitely there.

[mcs]

I was dreading "Whistleblowers" on the AFL site this week - Swans have had a rough run on that show.

I was shocked to hear them defending the 50m given to Rohan and the "no call" on a 50m against Tippett for kicking the ball away after a free was paid against him for hands in the back. (The rightness or otherwise or the original decision was (un)fortunately not up for discussion.)

I'm a little surprised by the Rohan 50m - I thought it was a bit soft and while the panelists thought it was borderline they agreed that it was definitely there.

I thought the Rohan 50 was definitely there - although a bit soft as you say. As for the Tippett incident, can't believe they looked at the 50m issue but didn't look at the original ridiculous decision given against him.