Changes for Round 15 - GWS

[Meg]

Is anyone able to tell us definitively whether we could upgrade another rookie if we wanted to do so? My understanding (as below) is that we could but I have noted others have thought not.

We started the season with 38 players on senior list (minimum requirement) with six Cat. A rookies + one Cat.B (International) rookie. The maximum number allowed on senior list is 40.

AJ subsequently went on LTI list and Lloyd was temporarily upgraded in April. So I think this still allows us one further possible upgrade mid-term, as per the CBA 2012 - 2016 Clause 18:

"From the commencement of the 2013 AFL Season, ......... An AFL Club is eligible to nominate a further Rookie Player as being eligible for senior selection mid-season in accordance with the AFL Rules and if it otherwise satisfies the requirements ...."

I think the rules and requirements are that the upgrade would not take senior list to more than 40 (ok for us) and club has salary cap space (Swans cap space must be tight but the upgrade cost would be small).

My reading is consistent with the conclusion James Dampney came to on 11 June (before our latest injuries):

"The Swans are able to elevate a rookie if required, with Robinson probably the most likely, ahead of Biggs and Richards. But at this stage they have no intention of doing so and only would on a needs basis, such as in the case of an injury."

Upgrade? Retain? Delist? AFL.com.au's rookie watch - AFL.com.au

[Meg]

It's looking like a dry day

True but it is a night match and the grass at the SCG always seems to be slippery for night matches.

[Melb Blood Bro]

Is anyone able to tell us definitively whether we could upgrade another rookie if we wanted to do so? My understanding (as below) is that we could but I have noted others have thought not.

We started the season with 38 players on senior list (minimum requirement) with six Cat. A rookies + one Cat.B (International) rookie. The maximum number allowed on senior list is 40.

AJ subsequently went on LTI list and Lloyd was temporarily upgraded in April. So I think this still allows us one further possible upgrade mid-term, as per the CBA 2012 - 2016 Clause 18:

"From the commencement of the 2013 AFL Season, ......... An AFL Club is eligible to nominate a further Rookie Player as being eligible for senior selection mid-season in accordance with the AFL Rules and if it otherwise satisfies the requirements ...."

I think the rules and requirements are that the upgrade would not take senior list to more than 40 (ok for us) and club has salary cap space (Swans cap space must be tight but the upgrade cost would be small).

My reading is consistent with the conclusion James Dampney came to on 11 June (before our latest injuries):

"The Swans are able to elevate a rookie if required, with Robinson probably the most likely, ahead of Biggs and Richards. But at this stage they have no intention of doing so and only would on a needs basis, such as in the case of an injury."

Upgrade? Retain? Delist? AFL.com.au's rookie watch - AFL.com.au

I spoke to John Longmire directly on Thursday last week and the answer is no unless someone gets injured and will be out for eight weeks or more.

[Ludwig]

Plus GWS will need an extra tall in their backline...

Yesterday they played Patton and Boyd forward and Tomlinson as another tall wingman who can go forward or back. They rotated 4 tall defenders in Mohr, Davis, Frost and Jaksch against a not so tall Carlton forward line. My guess is they will drop Jaksch for Cameron and if they need a 4th tall backman, use Tomlinson there. He's got the speed and height to cover Goodes or Reid and so does Frost. I think they used both Patton and Boyd in the ruck at times to backup Mummy.

[Meg]

I spoke to John Longmire directly on Thursday last week and the answer is no unless someone gets injured and will be out for eight weeks or more.

Thanks. I wonder if that is because of salary cap space rather than the rules. I think the salary of a temporary rookie upgrade due to a LTI is not included under the salary cap. Not that Longmire is likely to be that specific in his explanation as that might tell us how tight our salary cap is!

[ugg]

Yesterday they played Patton and Boyd forward and Tomlinson as another tall wingman who can go forward or back. They rotated 4 tall defenders in Mohr, Davis, Frost and Jaksch against a not so tall Carlton forward line. My guess is they will drop Jaksch for Cameron and if they need a 4th tall backman, use Tomlinson there. He's got the speed and height to cover Goodes or Reid and so does Frost. I think they used both Patton and Boyd in the ruck at times to backup Mummy.

Would be a terrible idea to use Tomlinson as a defender. He has the height and speed but none of the defensive skills. His best place is where he is currently playing - on the wing.

Frost spent a lot of time on Carlton's smalls yesterday so they wouldn't be out of place if they kept Jaksch in along with the other 3 talls.

[Ludwig]

Would be a terrible idea to use Tomlinson as a defender. He has the height and speed but none of the defensive skills. His best place is where he is currently playing - on the wing.

Frost spent a lot of time on Carlton's smalls yesterday so they wouldn't be out of place if they kept Jaksch in along with the other 3 talls.

Frost is quite capable of taking a smaller player with his speed. If Cameron comes in they will have to drop a tall and I figure that will be Jaksch. I would love to have him in the Giant side, since I think would could put him under pressure and exploit his inexperience.

A lot will be dictated by Giants' selections. I think it would be a tough matchup for Laidler on any of their talls. Hoskin-Elliot would be better, but may be troubled by his speed, in which case we may have to put Rampe on him. H-S is a dangerous player.

[ShockOfHair]

I had a ball on the Lloyd bandwagon for those crazy two weeks - thanks Jakey!

Now I don't give a Zak. Jonesy has cojones.

[aguy]

Thanks. I wonder if that is because of salary cap space rather than the rules. I think the salary of a temporary rookie upgrade due to a LTI is not included under the salary cap. Not that Longmire is likely to be that specific in his explanation as that might tell us how tight our salary cap is!

I suspect you're right about the salary cap being the reason for no more rookie upgrades

[barry]

I suspect you're right about the salary cap being the reason for no more rookie upgrades

I dont see a reason to promote a rookie when youve got the likes of rohan, mitchell, BJ, etc struggling to get a game. The 2's are top of the table. We have good depth without a rookie.

[aguy]

I dont see a reason to promote a rookie when youve got the likes of rohan, mitchell, BJ, etc struggling to get a game. The 2's are top of the table. We have good depth without a rookie.

It depends on positional factors. I wasn't suggesting any upgrades but many people have ( including myself previously ). I was responding to a question about whether we were ABLE to upgrade anyone. The players in question currently are most likely Shane Biggs because it is thought e provides very similar characteristics to Reece shaw. Previously I had been proposing Naismith upgraded when pyke was injured. It's a like for like issue. But a moot point as I don't think we can afford to upgrade anyone

[barry]

If biggs was next in line as a running half back, hed be on the list already.

I think some of you have a romantic view of our list. We are here to win a flag, not promote rookies to get experience. Flags are won by teams who usually have stable team lists using a minimum of players through the season.

[Meg]

If biggs was next in line as a running half back, hed be on the list already.

I think some of you have a romantic view of our list. We are here to win a flag, not promote rookies to get experience. Flags are won by teams who usually have stable team lists using a minimum of players through the season.

Nothing romantic about it. We were simply discussing whether we were able to upgrade a rookie if we wanted/needed to because of short-term injuries.

[Flying South]

Another NEAFL player of the week and another 5 goals for Tim Membrey. What more does he have to do to get a run in the top grade. Clubs like Richmond, Saints, Bulldogs and Carlton who are crying out for goal kicking forwards will be circling. If Goodes plays next year, I don't think Membrey will.

[churry]

Unfortunately Membrey seems to be below Brandon and Rohan for seniors selection. I hope he gets a go this week but I remain doubtful. With Tippett and Mcglynn in the frame it will be unlikely to see him get a go this week.