did we let the wrong one go

[tlock]

We should of kept Mumford and not pursue Tippett. Mumford is on less coin and less injury-prone, gives greater value for money.

[BRISWAN]

very wise??.after the event !!!!!!

[Markwebbos]

Thought we let partly Mummy go because of his dodgy knees (as well as the $ issues).

Tippett wasn't recruited as a ruckman. He just didn't work out as a pure FWD

[mcs]

We should of kept Mumford and not pursue Tippett. Mumford is on less coin and less injury-prone, gives greater value for money.

Lets not rewrite history here. We couldn't afford to keep Mumford at the end of 2013 because of Buddy, not Tippett. When we recruited Tippett, we had no idea Buddy was about to come a knockin'. Without buddy i think we would of kept Mumford - but something had to give.

[Meg]

We should of kept Mumford and not pursue Tippett. Mumford is on less coin and less injury-prone, gives greater value for money.

As I've just posted on another thread, we recruited Tippett at end of 2012 and we let Mumford go at end of 2013. So linking the two events as if one caused the other is misleading.

I suspect there were a number of factors influencing the decision to let Mumford go.

1. Swans needed to make cap room to recruit Buddy.
2. Mumford's contract was at an end, and I expect a new contract would not have been cheap.
3. At the time the sub rule existed and it was the year that the number of interchanges started to be reduced, so the combination of the two factors meant having two specialist ruckmen became questionable.
4. And we had Tippett who could play as a forward ruck, with Pyke as the specialist ruck. (And at the time Pyke was arguably in better form than Mumford).

Many factors have changed since the list-management decisions surrounding Tippett, Buddy and Mumford were made.

[goswannies]

As I've just posted on another thread, we recruited Tippett at end of 2012 and we let Mumford go at end of 2013. So linking the two events as if one caused the other is misleading.

I suspect there were a number of factors influencing the decision to let Mumford go.

1. Swans needed to make cap room to recruit Buddy.
2. Mumford's contract was at an end, and I expect a new contract would not have been cheap.
3. At the time the sub rule existed and it was the year that the number of interchanges started to be reduced, so the combination of the two factors meant having two specialist ruckmen became questionable.
4. And we had Tippett who could play as a forward ruck, with Pyke as the specialist ruck. (And at the time Pyke was arguably in better form than Mumford).

Many factors have changed since the list-management decisions surrounding Tippett, Buddy and Mumford were made.

Arguably nothing! Pyke carried the ruck in the last quarter of the 05 grand final. Rucked better much of the season, and had fewer injuries than Mummy. The following year he booted 28 goals, was 2nd in the league for contested marks (looked like he & Tip could make the perfect ruck/forward tandem ... completely interchangeable). Pyle eas almost in the All Australian squad and would've been named in every position in the All Canadian team.

It was just a shame that Buddy came at such a huge cost, Mummy's contract was up and that 2013 was the best year of footy a Canuck is ever likely to play - as we had to make room for Bud, & it was at the expense of Mummy & by early 2014 the Canuck was knackered (like a supernova - shone bright, faded fast).

Our ruck talent has never quite been the same since. Replacements/backups for Pyke have been Derickx, Sinclair, Naismith, Nankervis, Cameron - none of whom are a patch on the 2013 Pyke (the same 2013 Pyke whom was part of the decision to not renew Mummy for 2014).
On paper, at the peak of their prowess, our forward line & mid field should pretty much comprise the All Australian side, but form currently says otherwise.

Really, if anyone is to blame for our current circumstances it's Pyke. He shouldn't have played so well in 2013. Then the Swans might have seen more necessity in retaining Mummy and we'd be lauding his thuggish behaviour, Tip & Bud would be permanent power forwards and perhaps the mids (with first ball use from those 62 hit outs) would be playing with confidence.

[Meg]

Agree with all that GS. I too had the fleeting thought this is all Pyke's fault. But I did love him as a Swan!

[Ludwig]

Just for the sake of comparison regarding injury, from 2009 through 2016, Mummy has played 148 games compared to Tippett's 150 games. So you would have to say they are about equal as far a durability goes.

[goswannies]

Agree with all that GS. I too had the fleeting thought this is all Pyke's fault. But I did love him as a Swan!

One of my favs !
I jut wish he smiled more in person & on the field. His post-goal celebration antics are stuff of legend!

[Meg]

One of my favs !
I jut wish he smiled more in person & on the field. His post-goal celebration antics are stuff of legend!

He's a serious, thinking man. Not a typical AFL larrikin!

[goswannies]

Just for the sake of comparison regarding injury, from 2009 through 2016, Mummy has played 148 games compared to Tippett's 150 games. So you would have to say they are about equal as far a durability goes.

Problem is when Tip plays, his asset is his ability. When Mummy plays his asset is his ability to pole drive an opposition player half/way to China when he tackles them. Form can be fleeting. Thuggery is forever.

[goswannies]

He's a serious, thinking man. Not a typical AFL larrikin!

I always said that. When I met him I always believed that his focus was on his career - he had to work so hard to get there he was leaving nothing at all to chance. Always game first. Despite not smiling (almost ever) he always struck me as a charming, intelligent gentleman. I always used to compare he & Mummy's tackling techniques ... both 100kg players ensured their opponents stayed tackled ... Pyke seemed to caress the opposition to the ground ... Mummy tried to maim them.

[goswannies]

Mike Pyke vying for the AFL Point of the Year (even back then, the umps were against us!). Let's see Mummy do this!

[neilfws]

Getting back to Nankervis, he was everywhere in the Dees game, admittedly versus a side who has lost all their rucks. One article says he may be "the recruit of the year". I always thought he was a good contributor for us with a good sense of how play was moving, seems like he's seized the second opportunity and gone up a notch.

[Mug Punter]

Getting back to Nankervis, he was everywhere in the Dees game, admittedly versus a side who has lost all their rucks. One article says he may be "the recruit of the year". I always thought he was a good contributor for us with a good sense of how play was moving, seems like he's seized the second opportunity and gone up a notch.

The Tiges fans absolutely love him.