Tweet
He's recovering well now. Had kicked four goals as captain of the side in another impressive showing as an U17.
— Callum Twomey (@CalTwomey) April 24, 2017
-
-
How about the protected zone rule. I saw it paid in one game but completely ignored in others. It so blatant by sides that they seem to know they will get away with it. GWS did it many times. Maybe we are still playing to the old rules. It is almost as if umpires are making it up as the game moves on. There were a couple of frees in the St Kilda/Geelong game that no one seemed to know what they were for.Comment
-
Nankervis close to BOG. Always said he was better than Naismith. Had all the skills with us and it was only a matter of maturity and more work. He had 52 hit outs tonight, not bad for a "short" ruckman.Comment
-
Yes Nankervis was good but Melbourne had to use makeshift ruckmen for half the match. So he didn't have much opposition.
But what about that run Jayden Hunt did to put a block on to protect his teammate with the ball? I can't think of a single Swans player who could do that. Hayward perhaps.Comment
-
We lost Nankervis because we stupidly traded Jetta for Sinclair (we should have taken any draft pick they offered), a player we didn't need and has turned out to be totally useless. Without Sinclair on our list Nankervis would have never left. With all the injuries we have to Tippett and Naismith, Nanka would have been playing every week. That said, I'm hopeful that his replacement, Darcy Cameron will turn out to be at least as good as Nankervis.
Melbourne ran out of legs in the 2nd half, but their midfield looked fantastic in the first half. I kept thinking that we couldn't possibly complete with this team the way we're playing. I wonder what would have happened if they hadn't been 2 men down.Comment
-
2017 trading, drafting, list management
I think we lost Nankervis because he knew Naismith was ahead of him as the first choice ruckman with Tippett the forward/ruck. That was clear when Naismith was brought back for the GF displacing Nankervis who had filled the position when Naismith was injured. I don't think the Sinclair recruitment had anything to do with it.
With the Richmond offer of being their No. 1 ruckman every week, Nankervis was no longer prepared to stay at the Swans to be called up only when there were injuries - and as you say, the other two do seem to get plenty of those.
I don't think anyone would criticise Nankervis for that. Indeed the club seemed regretful but understanding. It is frustrating though to see a ruckman the Swans drafted as a teenager, and put a lot of development work into, leave just as he started to reach ruck maturity and now flourish for another club.
And I agree with your comments re Melbourne - in fact I can't see us beating either of those two teams unless we have a sudden resurgence in form. I think Melbourne would have won if they weren't two players down. Losing the ruckman was particularly hard (and now Melbourne are bereft of rucks, a situation with which we are familiar).Comment
-
You are right in that he was behind Naismith by the end of last year and that was the direct cause of his leaving. However, I feel that being in 3rd position instead of 4th in the ruck pecking order also was a big contributing factor.
A few days ago I was reviewing the 2016 trade period, mainly to check on the crazt deal that Carlton did with Hawthorn to get that 2nd round draft pick needed to complete the O'Meara trade. In following throw on all the draft pick movements I realised that the Nankervis trade actually got us the pick we used to take Maibaum and it was the swap of picks 52 and 57 Hawthorn gave us along with pick 14 for Tom Mitchell that ended up getting us Cameron. Pick 52 turned into pick 48 which we used to get Cameron. West Coast had a pick 4 picks later, which would have been before our pick had we not moved up 5 places with the Mitchell trade, and they may well have taken the local ruckman given their dire ruck situation losing NicNat. I have heard many comment at the surprise that West Coast did not take Cameron in the draft.
I'm not surprised Nankervis is doing well, but he's still has a long way to go to be an accomplished ruckman. I wish him the best of luck. I don't think we did badly in trading Nankervis and Mitchell and it will all pay off in the long run.
Melbourne are now out of ruckmen. It will be interesting to see what transpires. I think the ruckman was a position created by doctors, for doctors.Last edited by Ludwig; 25 April 2017, 01:25 AM.Comment
-
The better Melb go and the worse we go has me more worried about keeping Zac Jones.
Maybe other teams will have a go at Zac but I hope we keep him.
Sam Reid comes out and says he is happy in Sydney and wants to stay, but we have heard nothing from Zac. Not sure if that is good or bad.Comment
-
We've had a pretty good record of player retention but there have been notable exceptions: Jolly, Mummy, Malceski, Mitchell, Jetta
Mummy was effectively pushed out by Buddy. Jolly was allowed to go as was Jetta for personal / family reasons. Malceski was a better offer we couldn't afford to match.
Hopefully Mitchell was "the player we had to lose" so we have space in our cap for the others. I feel confident about Reid, less so Jones, but he's not a free agent.Comment
-
I reckon if Jones sees a spot for himself in the mids he'll stay. If we keep playing him out of the back pocket he'll go.Comment
-
I was at the UNSW vs USYD game.
UNSW averaged 19.5 years of age for the whole team. Men against boys. A few older guys but not many.
Hardman was good, come in hard for the ball, take a speccy, but did the Swans 1m handpass twice under minimal pressure. Get creamed twice, once with a knee in the back, from Murphy, and come back on each time, so his name is perfect
Bell, spent most of the time, sheep dogging, running around packs and didnt impress me.
Reinhard picked up X most of the game and bit good for Reinhard, undersized.
Lower was solid and a couple of goals
David Murphy's son was playing for USYD and was close to BOG.
UNSW appears to be the Sydney Academy team with kids everywhere.Comment
Comment