Changes for Rnd 3 V GWS

[Ludwig]

Woah. Easy tiger.

I was going to say something about how I agree with you about Rohan's lack of production, but decided to leave that part out. I do think you and others have a right to question what Gary has produced so far and there has to be a point where we pull the plug.

I do think he is still in our best 22, even with his current output, but he is closing in on #22. He does show from time to time just how talented he is. The big complaint is that he goes missing. He could be one of the big improvers this year, but I think it will be same thing again if he's left in a forward line that includes Buddy and Reid going for the high ball coming in and so many others rotating through the forward line. I don't think we need him as a pressure forward. We have enough of those. He might get lost on the wing as well, that's why I think he needs to be given someone to play on, so he's got something to do every play and just can't get lost.

There's been a serious improvement in Dean Towers this year. He's playing with confidence. I liked the way he took that mark in the 4th qtr (I think) from Buddy's great fend off and kick and then he kicked the goal in a pressure situation. Putting him in the ruck has changed him as a player. He puts himself in the game now; not standing back and letting others do the work. Rohan never had a problem with commitment to a given play, but it's more about working himself into the game. We need to do the same for Gary that we did for Dean. Force them to play to their potential. Also, with Towers now playing as a 3rd forward who has similar skills as Rohan, a move to the backline or somewhere outside the forward line seems a move asking to be made.

[Blood Fever]

That is pretty damning list management stats right there.

Mitchell we couldn't afford, Nankervis was accurately ranked 3rd or 4th best ruckman and Membrey is a useful mark and kick player. Nothing damning when Florent, Hayward etc were brought in. Kennedy, Parker and Mitchell would have meant 3 one paced players in the midfield long term. Unfortunate that Naismith got injured as he is clearly our best ruck option. To a lesser extent Tippett was a loss but he proved to be a dead loss injury wise.

[Markwebbos]

Ludwig, I concur completely re: Towers. Playing him on the ball / in-the-ruck has got him more involved, allowed him to play instinctively, think less and grow in confidence.

Rohan looked completely at sea against Port: Towers_v1.0 esque.

But I do have a fond memory of the last Swans v GWS game at the SCG: Swans winning the first 4 centre clearances, Gaz playing off the back of the square, and us kicking the first 4 goals of the game. It was downhill after that.

[Hotpotato]

Dean Towers is up and about.
Doesn?t shimmy very well but has improved heaps in many skills.

[mcs]

Like many others I wonder about Rohan's progress. Yes, the injury was horrific, but I think he is past that. And I've thought about the resemblance he bears with Dangerfield. My guess is that Dangerfield is an imaginative player in any position. He also seems to have a capacity to read the game as well as the best of his era, and I suspect this is what Rohan lacks, comparatively speaking. Playing on a wing could be a way of using him to link the backs with the forwards; his speed and marking ability would be was useful in this role as they are up forward. He has the chance to be a more productive player, and I hope he can grab it with both hands - so to speak.

I have a bad feeling that Rohan will never fulfill the potential his junior footy suggested. I want to see him take those final steps to become the high quality, dominant player we know is potentially lurking in there - but I wonder if when we look back on his career we will say 'if only'.

[Cheer_Cheer]

It is looking like this seasons official whipping boy has been announced.

[mcs]

Mitchell we couldn't afford, Nankervis was accurately ranked 3rd or 4th best ruckman and Membrey is a useful mark and kick player. Nothing damning when Florent, Hayward etc were brought in. Kennedy, Parker and Mitchell would have meant 3 one paced players in the midfield long term. Unfortunate that Naismith got injured as he is clearly our best ruck option. To a lesser extent Tippett was a loss but he proved to be a dead loss injury wise.

Membrey has done nothing yet to suggest to me he will ever be anymore than a slightly upgraded version of Jesse White - I want to see him doing good against the best teams before I'll consider him anything but a peripheral loss.

Nankervis going was a disappointment but these things happen.

[MattW]

Yeah, this burgeoning rote criticism of Rohan is a real drag.

[AnnieH]

Get off Rohan's back... he's got an awful lot on his mind and he has a very stressful time ahead of him. Leave him where he is for now.. a) we need him; and b) more importantly, he needs us.
How about Faulty Towers!!! Loving his work at the moment.

Did they name Ruthless?

[mcs]

Yeah, this burgeoning rote criticism of Rohan is a real drag.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion at the end of the day.

Noting as Annie says there are other, far more important issues going on for Rohan in his life at the moment (hence his footy form is far from the most important thing), it isn't unreasonable to consider more broadly whether Rohan has ultimately been able to deliver what would be expect of a player that was taken at #6 in the draft. I know injuries have blighted his career, but its a reasonable question to ask surely.

As for towers, I've been a long term doubter of him, but his form in the back end of last year and the start of this year has been very good - the coaches deserve high praise for their willingness to persist despite many a 'so so' performance early on in his career. Long may his good improvement and form continue.

[Captain]

Mitchell we couldn't afford, Nankervis was accurately ranked 3rd or 4th best ruckman and Membrey is a useful mark and kick player. Nothing damning when Florent, Hayward etc were brought in. Kennedy, Parker and Mitchell would have meant 3 one paced players in the midfield long term. Unfortunate that Naismith got injured as he is clearly our best ruck option. To a lesser extent Tippett was a loss but he proved to be a dead loss injury wise.

This view either smacks of accepting mediocrity or not putting your hand up to say we might have got it wrong.

Fact is, the club rated Kennedy, Parker, Hannerbery, Mills and Heeney all ahead of Mitchell. Hence there was no money left for him. They got this massively wrong.

Nankervis was also rated behind Naismith and Sinclair. This is a tougher one but he showed more in two games than the others IMO. Injuries aside, Naismith has never shown much.

[ernie koala]

This view either smacks of accepting mediocrity or not putting your hand up to say we might have got it wrong.

Fact is, the club rated Kennedy, Parker, Hannerbery, Mills and Heeney all ahead of Mitchell. Hence there was no money left for him. They got this massively wrong.

Nankervis was also rated behind Naismith and Sinclair. This is a tougher one but he showed more in two games than the others IMO. Injuries aside, Naismith has never shown much.

Agree with this. Also noting there isn't a team in the land that hasn't made a blue, when it comes to trading players in and out.

But Nankervis wasn't asking for the farm, and was a pivotal player in both the 2016 finals...He should of played in the GF and been kept on the list...But as always ,it's easy in hindsight.

We could really do with a bash and crash ruckman right now.

[Billericay]

This view either smacks of accepting mediocrity or not putting your hand up to say we might have got it wrong.

Fact is, the club rated Kennedy, Parker, Hannerbery, Mills and Heeney all ahead of Mitchell. Hence there was no money left for him. They got this massively wrong.

Nankervis was also rated behind Naismith and Sinclair. This is a tougher one but he showed more in two games than the others IMO. Injuries aside, Naismith has never shown much.

I agree Swans made a mistake letting Mitchell go. But it's not as simple as you make out. The core of the midfield is/was largely slow - Kennedy, Parker, Hannebery and they couldn't get rid of those players. They had to work out whether to add another slow accumulator to the mix. I'm sure they'd have loved to kept him if they could to take over from Kennedy. The knock on our midfield is not winning the ball, but speed / explosiveness, so the decision makes sense of a sort on a "needs" basis. I'd much rather have Mitchell running around instead of Hewett in the team but they clearly couldn't afford that.

BTW Damian Barrett's sliding doors today: Sliding Doors: round three - AFL.com.au

"If Tom Mitchell was still a Swan... Then this club would be premiership favourite." (We also have a slower midfield)

Nankervis v Naismith epitomises the ruck dilemma. Is a ruckman's job to win hit-outs or do things around the ground. You really want one that can do both. We don't have that ruckman and went for the former. I'm sure we're hoping Naismith will become better around the ground. He's a pretty big unit, so should be able to throw his weight around. Nankervis got badly beaten by Jacobs on the weekend and I think was a major factor in their midfield being thrashed (although clearances are almost identical). Again, if we'd had the opportunity to push one ruckman of our choosing out, it might not have been Nankervis. This was all before Tippett turned into a disaster and 2 ruckmen became unsustainable.

[Swansongster]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion at the end of the day.

Noting as Annie says there are other, far more important issues going on for Rohan in his life at the moment (hence his footy form is far from the most important thing), it isn't unreasonable to consider more broadly whether Rohan has ultimately been able to deliver what would be expect of a player that was taken at #6 in the draft. I know injuries have blighted his career, but its a reasonable question to ask surely.

As for towers, I've been a long term doubter of him, but his form in the back end of last year and the start of this year has been very good - the coaches deserve high praise for their willingness to persist despite many a 'so so' performance early on in his career. Long may his good improvement and form continue.

2009 AFL draft - Wikipedia

Not trying to troll here. Genuinely interested in who you (and other RWOers) think would have been a better option from the 2009 draft (which, with the benefit of hindsight, looks a bit like a dud to me). There were a few beauties before Rohan but not much after - aside from Nathan Fyfe at 20).

[AnnieH]

This view either smacks of accepting mediocrity or not putting your hand up to say we might have got it wrong.

Fact is, the club rated Kennedy, Parker, Hannerbery, Mills and Heeney all ahead of Mitchell. Hence there was no money left for him. They got this massively wrong.

Nankervis was also rated behind Naismith and Sinclair. This is a tougher one but he showed more in two games than the others IMO. Injuries aside, Naismith has never shown much.

Mitchell is the best player in a mediocre team.