Out with the Old - In with the New

[mcs]

I think we overstate Hawthorns management ability and culture. They have found themselves in this fortunate position largely because of the priority and high draft picks they obtained in the early to mid 00's. Think about it. Where would they be if they hadn't recruited; Hodge, Franklin, Roughead, Lewis, etc.

Im not talking about their playing stock quality SS Bleeder - I agree that it is often overstated due to a few very good years in the mid 00's in the draft. However, their ability to get younger players into the team, and to play a role, without the overall machine missing a cog, is a very strong point in their overall structure.

[Nico]

I have real concern that our experienced core is getting on. The Shaw, Richards, Grundy debate has been going on since last year, McVeigh is now 30 and Goodes we all acknowledge is in his twighlight. A few of us have debated that JK's effectiveness has dropped off but then he has started a few seasons off rather slowly. While we have Franklin and Tippett running around the forward line we will be a formidable opponent, however, if we don't soon rise to our consistent levels of 2014 by mid season, then surely we must start blooding some new players, and leaving those who acquit themselves well in the team. I don't wish to see us just hanging on throughout the season by relying on players who are either getting on, or others who offer little (Towers, Cunningham) but are rotated through based on so called match ups.

I have seen too many clubs do this over the years with dire consequences. Currently St Kilda and Carlton are good examples. Frankly it happens almost over night and fans say how in the hell did that happen.

Heeney is here, but surely some more youth must be injected sooner rather than later. What if a batch of our better young players in the 2's put their hands up at the end of the season to move. Rumours are already rife that Jones and Jetta are gone. It might help in drafting Mills and Dunkley, but we can't rely on two 18 year olds to resserect the club in 2016. Alex Johnson anyone!. Boy we need him down back.

[RogueSwan]

I have real concern that our experienced core is getting on.... I don't wish to see us just hanging on throughout the season by relying on players who are either getting on, or others who offer little (Towers, Cunningham) but are rotated through based on so called match ups.
...

I was thinking along similar lines but a quick look at this weekends team shows we have about eight players (approx. 1/3) under the age of 25. They include some of our better performers over recent times. Parker, Rohan, Hanners, Lloyd, Rampe, Reid, Mitchell and even Heeney. Not a bad group at all. Most of them will continue to get games and their experience will continue to build, and they have almost all played finals too. Of course more youngsters with experience would be good but I don't think the balance is too far off.
I might be a good time to pick a new captain though. It is highly unlikely to happen this year or even next but Hanners would be a good choice. He would lead from the front on the ground and I don't think the captainship would not negatively change how he plays.

[S.S. Bleeder]

You're being very generous there, Big Cat. A complete clean-out is what is required.

We need to focus on guys like Heeney, Lloyd and Mills who are going to be the cornerstone of our next tilt at the premiership. Trade guys like Franklin, McVeigh, Kennedy for some decent draft picks while they still have some value. Keep Hannebery and Parker to provide some leadership for the kids. The rest of the plodders clogging our list will have to go. Hopefully EK* will turn out to ok and we can pick him up in time to further boost our chances of a flag.

I know it's hard to say goodbye to some stalwarts of the club who are at the peak of their careers and playing well, but we have to be realistic about where the club is at.

*Emelio Kennedy

Shirley Yujest? I certainly agree with replacing the older guys with the youth to give them a chance but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

[ernie koala]

I might be a good time to pick a new captain though. It is highly unlikely to happen this year or even next but Hanners would be a good choice. He would lead from the front on the ground and I don't think the captainship would not negatively change how he plays.

I agree we could do with a more inspiring captain, or captains...

For me, only going on onfield evidence, Buddy looks a natural leader. He always competes hard , with and without the ball, and he has the ability to lift the team through his deeds.

I'd like to have co captains again, in which case I'd have Buddy and Hanners. They would make a dymanic duo ....with mandatory chauffeurs.

Parker, Smith and Kennedy as deputies.

[goswannies]

You're being very generous there, Big Cat. A complete clean-out is what is required.

We need to focus on guys like Heeney, Lloyd and Mills who are going to be the cornerstone of our next tilt at the premiership. Trade guys like Franklin, McVeigh, Kennedy for some decent draft picks while they still have some value. Keep Hannebery and Parker to provide some leadership for the kids. The rest of the plodders clogging our list will have to go. Hopefully EK* will turn out to ok and we can pick him up in time to further boost our chances of a flag.

I know it's hard to say goodbye to some stalwarts of the club who are at the peak of their careers and playing well, but we have to be realistic about where the club is at.

*Emelio Kennedy

HUH?! I think even if we traded out Buddy we would likely still have to include him in our cap. The AFL seemed pretty clear about that. And if we traded out Josh at this point do you really think Emelio will elect to be taken FS if he's any good? Why would he want to play for a club that shafts his dad?
At the moment many players have wanted to join the Swans because of the culture. What message does a mass clean out of our current top senior players send to prospective recruits?

[Flying South]

But the question remains if we are good enough to beat Hawthorn with our current defensive setup. Why do we struggle in the rain so much? When I compare the difficulty we have moving the ball out of defence to the ease that Hawthorn have, I can't see us defeating them with our current setup. I think we could well be good enough for 2nd or 3rd, but not the premiership. So I am looking for weaknesses where we might be able to improve

Sadly for me, the answer is no we can't beat Hawthorn with our current team and structures.

I generally agree with your sentiment Ludwig. Though i definitely think McGlynn has more to offeronce he builds fitness. But i would like to see Jones, Robinson and Naismith come in for Shaw, Goodes and Pyke. At least give them to the byes to see what they can bring to the team.

Myself and a couple of others have long been calling for say a squad of 26-28 players who are regularly rotated in order to get experience into some of our promising younger players. I would like to see players like Hewett, Nankervis, Newman, Marsh, Allir get 2-4 games each under there belts before the finals. I've said it before, the only time we have to worry about best 22 are the finals.

IMO the other problem we have is our structures. It appears to me as though we don't play with half back lines or half forward lines. We play with 5 defenders, 3 forwards and 10 midfielders around the ball. When we win the ball we swarm forward in numbers. The problem with this game plan is if all midfielders don't run hard forward to provide options, then the ball carrier who is usually under pressure has no option but to bomb it long. That kick would neither be effective or because we haven't pushed forward in numbers it is kicked to a 2 on 1 contest. This game plan leaves us more exposed on the turn over as it requires all players to run hard back into defence. And I'm not sure we are working that hard at the moment.

We need to get less numbers around the ball and get players spread into spaces and play more one on one football. Like Hawthorn do. lt would enable players to set up from the half back line with options to kick to. It would also enable us to hit up players in the half forward lines rather than just bombing it ineffectively deep into the forward 50. Heeney is giving us that half forward option, but I remember when a resting Kennedy, Jack or Parker used to provide us that as well. Our current structures and game plan relies on a defence that has served us well for so long but is feeling the effects of father time. A midfield that requires hard two way running and predictable forward entries that have no margin for error. Teams are working us out. And right now I'm not sure if that will stack up against the big boys during finals.

[mocaholic]

It appears to me as though we don't play with half back lines or half forward lines. We play with 5 defenders, 3 forwards and 10 midfielders around the ball. When we win the ball we swarm forward in numbers. The problem with this game plan is if all midfielders don't run hard forward to provide options, then the ball carrier who is usually under pressure has no option but to bomb it long. That kick would neither be effective or because we haven't pushed forward in numbers it is kicked to a 2 on 1 contest. This game plan leaves us more exposed on the turn over as it requires all players to run hard back into defence. And I'm not sure we are working that hard at the moment.

We need to get less numbers around the ball and get players spread into spaces and play more one on one football. Like Hawthorn do. lt would enable players to set up from the half back line with options to kick to. It would also enable us to hit up players in the half forward lines rather than just bombing it ineffectively deep into the forward 50. Heeney is giving us that half forward option, but I remember when a resting Kennedy, Jack or Parker used to provide us that as well. Our current structures and game plan relies on a defence that has served us well for so long but is feeling the effects of father time. A midfield that requires hard two way running and predictable forward entries that have no margin for error. Teams are working us out. And right now I'm not sure if that will stack up against the big boys during finals.

Great post. Agree. Dominating the clearances last week and being unable to score showed this up clearly. Yes we made mistakes down back (which score-board wise cost us) but we shouldn't have been in that position in the forward line. We cannot play that hard running game all season, we need to be cleverer about this. That includes not kicking to Buddy when he's got two (or more) on him. I do think however having Reid and McGlynn back in this week will give us additional options - and having Mitchell in allows us to use Kizza, Nosey or JPK as a flanker (and what's happened to JPK and his goal kicking? He used to be a dead-eye). I also think Zak Jones has got great potential and is a natural 1:1 for Shaw. Not having seen the magoos at all I can't comment on some of the younger blokes in the discussion but willing to give them a crack. Also have concerns about our key backs - Teddy has been superb and Reg has got the absolute best out of himself (dare I say from a limited skill set but his dedication is impossible to question) but we need some natural replacements sooner rather than later. I also echo the AJ where are you comment. He would provide his own run, is solid 1:1 and has composure; plus this would allow Rohan / Jetta / Rampe to get up the ground for the get-out disposal and kick into 50. I hope he can come back and have an impact.

[Conor_Dillon]

You're being very generous there, Big Cat. A complete clean-out is what is required.

We need to focus on guys like Heeney, Lloyd and Mills who are going to be the cornerstone of our next tilt at the premiership. Trade guys like Franklin, McVeigh, Kennedy for some decent draft picks while they still have some value. Keep Hannebery and Parker to provide some leadership for the kids. The rest of the plodders clogging our list will have to go. Hopefully EK* will turn out to ok and we can pick him up in time to further boost our chances of a flag.

I know it's hard to say goodbye to some stalwarts of the club who are at the peak of their careers and playing well, but we have to be realistic about where the club is at.

*Emelio Kennedy

[RogueSwan]

HUH?! I think even if we traded out Buddy we would likely still have to include him in our cap. The AFL seemed pretty clear about that. And if we traded out Josh at this point do you really think Emelio will elect to be taken FS if he's any good? Why would he want to play for a club that shafts his dad?
At the moment many players have wanted to join the Swans because of the culture. What message does a mass clean out of our current top senior players send to prospective recruits?

I think Beerman is having a bit of fun.

[sprite]

HUH?! I think even if we traded out Buddy we would likely still have to include him in our cap. The AFL seemed pretty clear about that. And if we traded out Josh at this point do you really think Emelio will elect to be taken FS if he's any good? Why would he want to play for a club that shafts his dad?
At the moment many players have wanted to join the Swans because of the culture. What message does a mass clean out of our current top senior players send to prospective recruits?

I think Beerman has been kidnapped by M**T ( he who shall not be named) and was forced to post under threat of being forced to read the Tea Party policy document

[Ludwig]

Dumbest OP ever.

I generally agree with your sentiment Ludwig.

Thanks FS, I needed that.


One of the points of discussion I wanted to make was how to decide when we transition from an established player coming to the end of his career to a younger player trying to break into the senior side.

Despite having a poor game last Saturday, I think Rhyce Shaw has played surprisingly well this year. It seems that opinion is split on whether the time has come to bring in Jones for Shaw. I think when these selection decisions get ever closer to toss-up decisions it's probably time to make the change when an opportunity arises. It's coming to the point when we don't think it will make much difference whether it's Shaw or Jones. In such a case why not go with the younger player, see how he performs at senior level and work on his development. One is going up the other is going down. One opinion says if you've been a star in the past you have the right to call the shots when time is up. Another says we should look to the future and get development into our promising young players.

Perhaps it's unfortunate that the demands for football success is such that it leaves little room for sentiment. I think the scale tips on the side of looking to the future.

For those lamenting that we have little experience in our depth. Think how much depth we would have if we had players like Shaw and Goodes running around in the reserves.

We probably picked our strongest team this week. I think Horse is desperate for a victory after 2 losses after being in a winning position. Fair enough. But the bigger picture will have to come into play soon enough.

[Conor_Dillon]

One opinion says if you've been a star in the past you have the right to call the shots when time is up. Another says we should look to the future and get development into our promising young players.

Perhaps it's unfortunate that the demands for football success is such that it leaves little room for sentiment. I think the scale tips on the side of looking to the future.

Another opinion says that the kid was a first round draft pick who performed well in every senior opportunity he was given...so pick him?!

[rojo]

Damian Barrett on afl.com today is also questioning whether we are playing like a premiership contender at the moment.

Aside from current personnel, are the problems to do with our game plan, as raised by Flying South? As I have said before, we have Buddy and KT in our team but for whatever reason, and despite the expectations of all, we are unable to make the most of them being there. Is it a matter of opposition teams being a step ahead of us, in that they have worked out what we are trying to do and are able to effectively counter it? Are our players trying to play to a plan that they are not able to execute well enough? Are we trying to play a style of play, eg, like Hawthorn, in that we don't have so many positional players, but are trying to make our players versatile enough to throw around anywhere as needed, that is not working - yet? Something is not quite working!!!

Interesting stat. also on afl.com re contested marks. Our team is 17th, on the list, only the Lions are below us. We have taken 37 over the first 5 games, 7-8 per match average, which works out at about 2 per quarter. The Hawks are on top with 70 and Freo is next. KT is our best contested marker with 7. Nat Fyfe is top of the list with 12. Obviously not a highly valued skill in our team!

[Conor_Dillon]

Damian Barrett on afl.com today is also questioning whether we are playing like a premiership contender at the moment.

Aside from current personnel, are the problems to do with our game plan, as raised by Flying South? As I have said before, we have Buddy and KT in our team but for whatever reason, and despite the expectations of all, we are unable to make the most of them being there. Is it a matter of opposition teams being a step ahead of us, in that they have worked out what we are trying to do and are able to effectively counter it? Are our players trying to play to a plan that they are not able to execute well enough? Are we trying to play a style of play, eg, like Hawthorn, in that we don't have so many positional players, but are trying to make our players versatile enough to throw around anywhere as needed, that is not working - yet? Something is not quite working!!!

Interesting stat. also on afl.com re contested marks. Our team is 17th, on the list, only the Lions are below us. We have taken 37 over the first 5 games, 7-8 per match average, which works out at about 2 per quarter. The Hawks are on top with 70 and Freo is next. KT is our best contested marker with 7. Nat Fyfe is top of the list with 12. Obviously not a highly valued skill in our team!

I think this is a lot more to do with conditions...we've played a couple of very wet games which makes it hard to take contested marks.