Are the Swans headed for the spoon in 2019?

[The Big Cat]

Wow, your marking assessment is aard, vark!

You milked that to the max, smart thinking tho.

[Agent 86]

So clearly "Ralphy" thinks this is a one-off off-season for the Swans, are we are destined to jump straight back up the ladder, bolstered by our "unfair" acquisition of a good young player by devious means.

What on earth he thinks he means by "a classic Sydney drafting manoeuvre" I have no idea. Can he point to the other instances when the Swans have done this? (I suggest he'll struggle given we haven't missed the finals in a decade, and only three times - I think - in two decades.)

BTW, can you provide a link to the article from which you take Ralph's comments so that we can read it in context?

Try this:

AFL draft 2019: Pick 1 Matthew Rowell, Sydney Swans finishing bottom of ladder | FOX SPORTS

[liz]

Try this:

AFL draft 2019: Pick 1 Matthew Rowell, Sydney Swans finishing bottom of ladder | FOX SPORTS

According to the audio that accompanies that article, we recruited Izak Rankine with pick 18. First I've heard about that. (Yes, I know who they mean, but it's hard to take these journos seriously when they can't even get the names of players right.)

I find the whole tenor and timing of this topic bizarre. For a start, it's still early in the season and I reckon most people expect the Swans will improve somewhat on what they've dished up so far. Not improve as we did two years ago, but enough to finish away from the foot of the table. But even if we do remain in the bottom couple, the suggestion that we somehow aren't as deserving of a top talent as other clubs who finish at the bottom is preposterous. I wonder what "journos" like Ralph think their end game is.

[KSAS]

According to the audio that accompanies that article, we recruited Izak Rankine with pick 18. First I've heard about that. (Yes, I know who they mean, but it's hard to take these journos seriously when they can't even get the names of players right.)

I find the whole tenor and timing of this topic bizarre. For a start, it's still early in the season and I reckon most people expect the Swans will improve somewhat on what they've dished up so far. Not improve as we did two years ago, but enough to finish away from the foot of the table. But even if we do remain in the bottom couple, the suggestion that we somehow aren't as deserving of a top talent as other clubs who finish at the bottom is preposterous. I wonder what "journos" like Ralph think their end game is.

My tea leaves reading of this article is that Ralph and his kind are trying to drum up propaganda that we're having unfair advantage by accessing a supposed generational No.1 pick (Rowell) AND our academy which has produced super stars in the ilk of Heeney, Mills and Blakey, if we finish bottom. He is permutating this alleged advantage will tempt us to tank as it will catapult us back up the ladder for another sustained period, rather than take our turn of struggling near the bottom. It reaks of jealousy and biased angst.

Of course no mention of Brisbane having many years access to early picks and their academy, which I bet he'll also highlight if they return as a power team. He also has coventiently failed to mention Collingwood's deliberate tanking in 2005 after playing in successive Grand Finals, to gain priority pick and draft both Pendelbury & Daisy Thomas as a result.

[liz]

My tea leaves reading of this article is that Ralph and his kind are trying to drum up propaganda that we're having unfair advantage by accessing a supposed generational No.1 pick (Rowell) AND our academy which has produced super stars in the ilk of Heeney, Mills and Blakey, if we finish bottom. He is permutating this alleged advantage will tempt us to tank as it will catapult us back up the ladder for another sustained period, rather than take our turn of struggling near the bottom. It reaks of jealousy and biased angst.

Of course no mention of Brisbane having many years access to early picks and their academy, which I bet he'll also highlight if they return as a power team. He also has coventiently failed to mention Collingwood's deliberate tanking in 2005 after playing in successive Grand Finals, to gain priority pick and draft both Pendelbury & Daisy Thomas as a result.

Or Geelong, who were developing into a consistent finalist in the first half of the naughties, only to have a one-off down year in 2006 - not quite to the foot of the ladder, but far enough down to secure Joel Selwood in that year's draft, the very same draft where they also had access to the top-3 rated Tom Hawkins under the FS rule. He cost them pick 41. We all know how they went from 2007 onwards.

Or West Coast, who have been a strong team throughout most of their history and very frequent finalists and genuine contenders, who managed to tank all the way down to the bottom in 1996, picking up Michael Gardiner as the first pick in that year's draft. That was just two years after winning their second premiership. They rebounded immediately to play finals from 1997-2000, had two down years in 2001-2, before rebounding to play finals for the next six years straight, including one premiership and another GF appearance (as I know we all know). That low finish in 2001 netted them Chris Judd plus they were also sufficiently bad to "earn" a priority pick (at pick 6) for winning fewer than 5 games.

Or how about Brisbane in the late 1990s, who were already on a steeply climbing trajectory, boosted by the Fitzroy "merger", had a single down season in 1998, finishing last and picking up Des Headland. (OK, maybe not a great example of a generational player...) They qualified for the finals in 2000, before going on to their three-peat from 2001-2003.

And funny you should mention Collingwood. Not only did they spectacularly tank in 2004 to pick up Thomas and Pendlebury (one a priority selection for being really crap), after 10 straight seasons playing finals from 2005 onwards, they "tanked" (from an 8-3 start to the season) well enough to draft de Goey in the same year they also had access to Darcy Moore. Just a few spots higher up the ladder and they'd have had to use that first pick to secure Moore.

In fact, AFL recent history is littered with examples of clubs who've been continuously amongst the better teams for an extended period having a single dud year that has rewarded them richly at the draft table. And while I don't deny we have had the benefit of three strong academy players at discounted rates, that pales into insignificance besides the highly rated FS players the Pies and Cats, in particular, have netted over the past decade or two, and who also now have their own (no-effort-required) academy to provide them with discounted talent to match that available to us.

[707]

These types of articles are coming out whilst the VFL is conducting a review of the Academies. More than just coincidence methinks, Vic media pushing barrows for the Victorian clubs.

I just hope we do finish bottom two now!

[barry]

liz, I dont think WC, Collingwood, etc tanked.

Deliberate tanking has only been done three times:
Hawthorn for the Buddy/Hodge combo.
Melbourne for Scully, etc
Carlton for... ?

Only 1 has been sucessful, and ironically both players now play for other clubs.
Tanking breeds a terrible culture, and culture wins flags.

[liz]

liz, I dont think WC, Collingwood, etc tanked.

Deliberate tanking has only been done three times:
Hawthorn for the Buddy/Hodge combo.
Melbourne for Scully, etc
Carlton for... ?

Only 1 has been sucessful, and ironically both players now play for other clubs.
Tanking breeds a terrible culture, and culture wins flags.

On the whole I agree with you. I was using the word "tank" somewhat facetiously. (Though I am not convinced Collingwood made winning that high a priority during either of their two dips down the ladder.)

I was just trying to demonstrate that Ralph's implication that there's something whiffy about the prospect of the Swans getting a very high draft pick this year (and I have no idea if he is trying to suggest the club might be tanking) is way off the mark. Hell, Essendon were gifted with the number one pick for being crap due to having half their players suspended for participating in a systematic, non-compliant, club-wide supplements programme.

As an aside, Hodge was drafted in a different year to Franklin and the Hawks' access to him had nothing to do with their ladder position - they received that pick (2001 draft) for trading McPharlin and Croad to the Dockers. You may be thinking of the Roughead/Franklin combination (2004 draft).

[KSAS]

And funny you should mention Collingwood. Not only did they spectacularly tank in 2004 to pick up Thomas and Pendlebury (one a priority selection for being really crap), after 10 straight seasons playing finals from 2005 onwards, they "tanked" (from an 8-3 start to the season) well enough to draft de Goey in the same year they also had access to Darcy Moore. Just a few spots higher up the ladder and they'd have had to use that first pick to secure Moore.

That was the 2014 draft in which the build up to was furore (Eddie leading the charge) of us picking up Heeney with just our first pick (18) as he was rated a top 5. Our first genuine quality academy prospect after many years we spent running it, as Brandon Jack was our only return prior to that. As a result there was a push to introduce the matching bid points system that same year only for it to be delayed by another year, which almost certainly would've prevented the Pies securing both Moore & DeGoey (just 3 years after they played back to back GF's winning in 2010). The following year we were forced to match bid by Melbourne (Roos) at pick 3 for Mills.

[liz]

That was the 2014 draft in which the build up to was furore (Eddie leading the charge) of us picking up Heeney with just our first pick (18) as he was rated a top 5. Our first genuine quality academy prospect after many years we spent running it, as Brandon Jack was our only return prior to that. As a result there was a push to introduce the matching bid points system that same year only for it to be delayed by another year, which almost certainly would've prevented the Pies securing both Moore & DeGoey (just 3 years after they played back to back GF's winning in 2010). The following year we were forced to match bid by Melbourne (Roos) at pick 3 for Mills.

Yeah, you're right on that. I had temporarily forgotten the matching rules were different then - or hadn't focused on which draft I was talking about. I actually can't remember exactly what the rules were that year. Did you have to use your next pick? In other words, had Moore been bid on earlier than the Pies first pick, would they have had to use that to match the bid?

(I realise we can't really gripe about the bidding/matching rules that year, given we had to give up just pick 18 for Heeney. That would be on the same level as Ralph whinging that we might get a very early pick this year...)

[KSAS]

Yeah, you're right on that. I had temporarily forgotten the matching rules were different then - or hadn't focused on which draft I was talking about. I actually can't remember exactly what the rules were that year. Did you have to use your next pick? In other words, had Moore been bid on earlier than the Pies first pick, would they have had to use that to match the bid?

(I realise we can't really gripe about the bidding/matching rules that year, given we had to give up just pick 18 for Heeney. That would be on the same level as Ralph whinging that we might get a very early pick this year...)

Correct. My recollection for 2014 was you had to use your first available pick to match bid. The draft points was introduced the following year in 2015 when we had to match pick 3 to get Mills. AFL allowed Northern Clubs to use future picks if the points required needed to spill over to the following year. Of course the Melb Clubs (again headed up by Eddie) thought this was an unfair advantage and hence the future picks system was introduced. You were only allowed to trade your future 1st round picks no more than 2 years in succession, but remember AFL allowing Geelong to break that to trade in a high quality player (can't remember who, but suspect it was Josh Caddy from GC?).

But when Eddie spewed tripe the northern academies were going to ruin the competition, the AFL introduced rule whereby Northen Clubs who finished top 4 were only allowed to draft 1 top 10 academy prospect in same year. Of course the F/S was excluded from this. Not even sure if the recent Melb based future academies are also exempt from this rule?

[bloodspirit]

I can't remember if someone posted a link to Chris Doerre aka Knightmare's draft rankings already: AFL Draft Power Rankings Noah Anderson a new No. 1. Interestingly he rates Matt Rowell as the third best player behind Noah Anderson and GWS Academy prospect Thomas Green.

To answer liz's question about "what "journos" like Ralph think their end game is" I would suggest it is flogging copies of the Hun. Ralph may not have any personal bias towards the Swans and Sydney but he and his editors know their audience and what sells. Anything that stirs outrage attracts clicks.

[Velour&Ruffles]

I recently remarked in another thread that Ralphy is a perfect example of the kind of nuff nuff journo who depends on sycophancy rather than analysis to make a living. This story typifies that. Ralphy frankly doesn't have the brains to think of it, and it's so far off and has so many contingencies attached it would be a strange story for a journo to run with even if they did have the intellectual grunt to think of it. He has clearly been fed an angle by one of the Melbourne power clubs who hates us and is running with it. There are two obvious possibilities - no prizes for guessing which.

[Roadrunner]

You mean starting with a C and an H?

[bloodspirit]

Definitely the C but I would have thought perhaps another C ahead of the Hs. Although I suspect you're right and that V&R may have meant the C & H.