2016 Team

[wolftone57]

Who did you play for & at what level? 11-17 is pretty much junior footy. And to be honest, who really cares? Even people who haven't played any football at all are entitled to an opinion.

That's true and I never said any different but this guy made the assertion I didn't play footy at all. I played district footy. Never made it to the Astral levels of the VFL, SANFL etc but I did play. That is why I answered him. I don't care if a person has never played it is a free forum and you can voice your opinion all you like. I have never said any different but this other bloke did.

Why not have a look at what he said before having a go at me please.

As to the topic. As I have asserted over and again I don't believe in the principal of a best 22. You have to have at least 28 players who can slot into your side and not lose a beat. Having at least 28 that are match hardened is what has won Hawks three in a row. I'm sure Clarkson does not believe in a Best 22. Damned certain he believes in horses for courses. Match ups are so important today get it wrong and you lose big time.

[aguy]

Wolf tone I think I agree with you about the 28 or so players. The best 22 will change depending on the opposition. It's still an interesting topic I think though to ponder the make up of the team and what combinations may work better than others.

[0918330512]

Why not have a look at what he said before having a go at me please

My post wasn't directed at you Wolftone57. Please see the PM I sent you for an explanation.

Back to the topic & Mods/Liz, please feel free to delete this off topic post.

Oh, but I also have to agree with the last bit of your post about a best 28. Certain players may have specific roles under unique match day circumstances depending on match ups, weather etc - regardless of injuries necessitating selection changes. A team is only as strong as its weakest player, and improvement of lower ranked players will encourage improvement in players above them.

[Scottee]

You have to have at least 28 players who can slot into your side and not lose a beat.

Interesting number when you look at the list. Exactly 30 who have played at least one game (not counting Johnson). But four of those with 8 games between them.

[jono2707]

Not sure if we can pay Buddy and Tippett, retain our other guns (Hanners, Parker et al) AND maintain a deep enough list of at least 28 match hardened players...

[ernie koala]

Now that the list is settled I'm gonna have a go at my best 22.
B: Talia, Laidler, Smith
HB: Jones, Grundy, Rampe
C: Hannebery, Kennedy, Mcviegh
HF: Heeney, Reid, Parker
F: Franklin, Tippett, Towers
FOLL: Sinclair, Mitchell, K Jack
INT: Cunningham, Lloyd, Mills, Rohan
I will return to this post through the season and see if my team ever makes it to the field in the exact combination or not

My team..
B: Smith Richards Laidler
HB: McVeigh Grundy Rampe
C: Jack Kennedy Hannebery
HF: Franklin Reid Rohan
FF: Heeney Tippett McGlynn
FOL: Sinclair Parker Mitchell
INTER : Jones, Cunningham, Mills, Talia
EMG : Lloyd, Towers, B Jack

[Auntie.Gerald]

The big question for me is how much Heeney and Mills may dominate?

These two guys are serious footballers and are the style of players that could impose themselves on the selection committee right before our eyes

ie rd 6, 2016 and we maybe all laughing at just how well we are set up for the season.....and Heeney and Mills could quite frankly be talked about at a level beyond all our expectations

These two kids are just so determined and technically proficient beyond so many of our snr guys at the same age

........A midfield of Parker, Mitchell, Hannes, BJ, Mills and Heeney is simply a luxury of riches for many years to come.........6 young guns and i know people are not sold on BJ bur we all will be after 2016 !!!!!

[707]

The Swans have been known for their stinginess in recent years and were ranked fifth this season for points scored against. They were clear leaders when it came to applying pressure to their opposition's forwards and were also best at ensuring the other team struggled to take marks inside their forward 50. Their opponents also only goaled 20.9 per cent of the time they took the ball inside 50; again, the Swans were the best in the League in that area but fell down when it came to winning defensive one-on-one contests, where they were ranked in the bottom four.

Wow, what a damning stat!

[Scottee]

The Swans have been known for their stinginess in recent years and were ranked fifth this season for points scored against. They were clear leaders when it came to applying pressure to their opposition's forwards and were also best at ensuring the other team struggled to take marks inside their forward 50. Their opponents also only goaled 20.9 per cent of the time they took the ball inside 50; again, the Swans were the best in the League in that area but fell down when it came to winning defensive one-on-one contests, where they were ranked in the bottom four.

Wow, what a damning stat!

It would be interesting to know who the main culprits were.

[RogueSwan]

It would be interesting to know who the main culprits were.

Shaw, Rampe, Richards, Smooch? All of them had poor one-on-one's at various times through the season. From my less than stellar memory Reg had one of his best season's and was rarely beaten.

[707]

Bottom four though, that's hardly believable. One assumes that this key stat is not lost on the coaching panel and becomes an area of focus.

As I watch a few replays over summer I'll be watching the backline one on ones with piqued interest to verify who indeed are the weak links.

[liz]

Like most statistics, I think it is dangerous to look at it in isolation. Indeed, the fact that the team measures poorly on this measure yet is amongst the best in terms of conceding scores from forward 50 entries suggests there is something else going on. I think that, assisting by the (usually) good midfield pressure, the team probably finds itself in true one-on-one contests relatively infrequently. Those that do occur will often be from a poor turnover that has left the defence exposed because it is easy for the opposition to kick to their player's advantage. Even if a defender makes some kind of contest, he will usually lose it. Most teams will lose these one-on-one contests. However, other teams probably have more one-on-one contests where the ball is coming in slightly less perfectly, and their defenders are able to win, or at least halve, many of these. In contrast, I suspect the Swans manage to avoid many of these being one on one contests at all. Therefore, if you measure the number of one on one contests lost as a percentage of one on one contests conceded, the Swans will likely score poorly.

That said, I am not surprised it is a measure the team is relatively weak at. Ted's not big for a key defender and Reg isn't exactly a monster either, compared to many of today's forwards. With Laidler and Rampe often asked to play taller than they really are, it is to be expected they will often be outpointed. The reason the team works hard to cover for each other and minimise the number of one on one contests to start with is probably for this precise reason.

[707]

As always, good analysis Liz. Will be interesting to see if Talia can become a regular, if so that will leave Ted to be the third/floating tall, maybe relegating Laidler or using Rampe in a different role.

In fact it wouldn't surprise to see a fresh approach to team structure, maybe Rampe more midfield, McVeigh back more than mid, Heeney given another year as a damaging forward, a better structured forward half ...... then again this is the Swans :-)

[barry]

My team..
B: Smith Richards Laidler
HB: McVeigh Grundy Rampe
C: Jack Kennedy Hannebery
HF: Franklin Reid Rohan
FF: Heeney Tippett McGlynn
FOL: Sinclair Parker Mitchell
INTER : Jones, Cunningham, Mills, Talia
EMG : Lloyd, Towers, B Jack

The backline is the key for me. Forward line sorts itself out.

We need three "talls". Grundy, Richards and Talia. Hopefully Talia turns out alright, and Teddy can play the 3rd tall as he transitions out.
We need 3 nuggety types: Smith, Laidler and Rampe.

And we need some rotation, which is McHack and Jones.

Jones could easily become a permanent member. Smith seemed to have a poor 2015, maybe time has caught up with him. McHacks days are numbered I'm afraid. Like any limited skilled player, there time at the top is brief.

[Nico]

Pretty clear to me why this stat is so poor; we lose the centre clearances too easily, hence the ball comes in quickly to one on one contests.