The Real Cost of Buddy?

[Flying South]

I believe that buddy is an influence. To what extent the members themselves would need to be asked. But I suspect it could be for several reasons. Perhaps better scheduling as an exampleBut beware, membership stats can be very misleading. There are so many tiers of membership and they count them all as a full membership for reporting purposes. I think some of the vic clubs even offer a pet membership

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Do you have any theory why we just reached record membership other than the opinion expressed by Matt!! and myself? I'd be interested as I'm all out of ideas...

We certainly have achieved a record membership number, however last time I checked that meant we were less than 3% up on last years membership. Well within the normal season by season variability in membership numbers.

[chalbilto]

Sorry Erica but I am also of the opinion/assumption that the Buddy factor is the reason for the increase in membership. Not only does he get coverage in the sports sections but also in the social media sections. I hope for his sake that this intense media scrutiny dies a quick death.

[Matt80]

Sorry Erica but I am also of the opinion/assumption that the Buddy factor is the reason for the increase in membership. Not only does he get coverage in the sports sections but also in the social media sections. I hope for his sake that this intense media scrutiny dies a quick death.

I want the media coverage on Buddy to keep on rolling, but I want the story to be altered.

How about "10 goal hero Buddy opens new Merivale (Justin Hemes) night club in Bondi called "Thirteen".

Or

High flying Swans enjoy special mid-year party at Buddy's based on the Swans 80s theme - Warrick made a special appearance.

We need the Buddy media momentum to keep going, but let's mix it in with some high flying on-field performances.

[Jewels]

We certainly have achieved a record membership number, however last time I checked that meant we were less than 3% up on last years membership. Well within the normal season by season variability in membership numbers.

From the Swans website - Swans break membership record - March 25, 2014 11:38 AM

The 36,370th member signed up with the Swans today, eclipsing the previous record which was set in 2013.
The milestone is even more significant given the club is also over 4,500 members ahead of where they were at the same time last season.

Maths is not my strong suit but by my reckoning that is an increase of about 12% over the same time last year.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Thanks for picking me up Jewells, correcting my typo, my post should have read:

". . . last time I checked that meant we were less than 13% up on last years membership. Well within the normal season by season variability in membership numbers."

Typo aside, the increase is most definitely within the recent variability in membership numbers. The Swans increased membership by 21% in 2011 for example - so while the new record is noteworthy, putting it down to the "Buddy factor" looks like an oversimplification.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Speaking of statistics, "Footy Classified" flashed up the following:

Sydney winning percentage since 2010
With the Mummy 65%
Without Mummy 45%
Hawthorn winning percentage since 2009
With big Buddy 65%
Without Buddy 80%

While I am very unsure about comparing the effect of a Ruckman and a Forward directly in this manner (particularly those two particularly). However the Mummy's %'s in particular only adds to my unease.

[aguy]

Speaking of statistics, "Footy Classified" flashed up the following:

Sydney winning percentage since 2010
With the Mummy 65%
Without Mummy 45%
Hawthorn winning percentage since 2009
With big Buddy 65%
Without Buddy 80%

While I am very unsure about comparing the effect of a Ruckman and a Forward directly in this manner (particularly those two particularly). However the Mummy's %'s in particular only adds to my unease.

I think you're right about Mumford. It is a concern that we don't win without him. But that was always going to happen by either injury retirement ( when his time comes) or transfer as has happened.

As it turns out it's happened a but earlier than we all thought because of transfer. The challenge is to move past our dependence on his rucking. That's one of the reasons I've been vocal in supporting the "blooding" of someone like Naismith. We are post Mumford now so we better start developing our next generation of ruck. Not sure there is anything to be gained by temporising it with derrickx ( and to be honest he wasn't very effective anyway ).

[giant]

Yeh we shouldn't have got Buddy so Everitt could do a tagging role on Pendlebury.

[liz]

Observations like the above one from FC have an implicit assumption that Mumford was sacrificed purely to get Buddy. It may not have been an either or. If you believe what you read in the papers (and it is important to be sceptical about most of it), he's moved to GSW on a 3 year deal worth around $650k a year. It is possible that the Swans weren't prepared to come close to that - maybe taking into account what they believe about his physical durability.

And does anyone think that the reason we didn't win on Saturday was largely attributable to the ruck? Pyke was fine - one of our best, I thought. A lack of run, possibly a lack of fitness (who knows?), a lack of anyone other than Buddy stationed in the forward line for most of the second half, and an inability to kick the ball to a team mate seem to me to be more obvious explanations.

[Matt80]

Pyke was superb! He is one of the only Swans who goes up a gear when the heat is on. If the Swans struggle in a game, look out for Pyke because he will lift. He has been doing that since 2012. When Mumford was struggling in the GF, Pyke got going.

[aguy]

Observations like the above one from FC have an implicit assumption that Mumford was sacrificed purely to get Buddy. It may not have been an either or. If you believe what you read in the papers (and it is important to be sceptical about most of it), he's moved to GSW on a 3 year deal worth around $650k a year. It is possible that the Swans weren't prepared to come close to that - maybe taking into account what they believe about his physical durability.

And does anyone think that the reason we didn't win on Saturday was largely attributable to the ruck? Pyke was fine - one of our best, I thought. A lack of run, possibly a lack of fitness (who knows?), a lack of anyone other than Buddy stationed in the forward line for most of the second half, and an inability to kick the ball to a team mate seem to me to be more obvious explanations.

Indirectly I think it is partly because if the ruck. As has been stated before on here mummy allowed pyke to effectively be a tall forward which is why he was second highest in contested marks last year. This year we have lost mummy in the ruck meaning pyke has had to do most of that which I agree he has been very good at stepping up but his workload has improved dramatically so he is tiring earlier and also he is less able to play as a forward which is exactly the problem you were alluding to with no forward target other than buddy

[Mr Magoo]

So all of a sudden - Pyke is crucial to our forward line??.

Dont get me wrong , hes more than handy but the lack of a resting ruckman was not the reason for our terrible forward movement on Saturday. It was woeful and inept delivery and lack of midfield composure to look for a shorter option until a forward option became available. To suggest that Mumford is the cure to that because our long bombs to no one may have found a fresher pyke is hopeful at best.

[aguy]

So all of a sudden - Pyke is crucial to our forward line??.

Dont get me wrong , hes more than handy but the lack of a resting ruckman was not the reason for our terrible forward movement on Saturday. It was woeful and inept delivery and lack of midfield composure to look for a shorter option until a forward option became available. To suggest that Mumford is the cure to that because our long bombs to no one may have found a fresher pyke is hopeful at best.

I don't think it was the root of all the problems but I do think it is contributing. Last year pyke was playing a different role and it was clearly effective was what my point was. For most of the season he was the highest contested mark and played a lot in the forward line. So yes i do think we've missed that as he has been more primary ruck. When you've got someone taking contested marks the bombing into the forward 50 works better. The midfield haven't adjusted to that. I think that having Reid down back a lot of the just exacerbated that. So obviously there are many factors but from my reading no mummy at the moment is having a ripple effect with a lot of the other positional play that our game plan hasn't adjusted to. That's horses problem more than anyone else's. But it's so easy being an armchair coach. I know they are doing better than if I was in the coaches chair

[Flying South]

So all of a sudden - Pyke is crucial to our forward line??.

Dont get me wrong , hes more than handy but the lack of a resting ruckman was not the reason for our terrible forward movement on Saturday. It was woeful and inept delivery and lack of midfield composure to look for a shorter option until a forward option became available. To suggest that Mumford is the cure to that because our long bombs to no one may have found a fresher pyke is hopeful at best.

This thread isn't about why we played badly on Saturday, but the 'costs' of gaining buddy. One of those costs was losing one of the leagues best contested marking forwards and accurate kick for goals to the no.1 ruck position. We have robbed Peter to pay Paul. We need to develop another no.1 ruckman and put Pyke back to the position that best suits him and the team.