#AFL Round 6 Swans v Giants Sat 27-Apr at SCG #AFLSwansGiants @sydneyswans

[The Big Cat]

Only 7 or 8 months ago we hosted a final against GWS where we went in as favourites. Since then GWS had their best midfielder and Ruckman poached.

There shouldn't be this big a gap between the sides.

Do some people on RWO have no football knowledge at all????? Half the team you are talking about making last years finals last year are not there (mostly due to injury)!! They have been replaced by KIDS!!

Let me spell it out for those who can find coaches, game style, Blood's Culture, UFO's or whatever to blame. 10 (that's T.E.N.) players from last night's team have played less than 50 (that's F.I.F.T.Y.) games. Only 6 (that's S.I.X.) in the team have played over a 100 (that's a H.U.N.D.R.E.D.) games.

And we don't have a sham academy like GWS in the aussie rules area of the Riverina where they get a steady stream of high draft pick players who are actually going to school in Melbourne and have played the game all their life.

I'm about to Spew up if I have to keep reading some of this uninformed dribble.

[Blood Fever]

Do some people on RWO have no football knowledge at all????? Half the team you are talking about making last years finals last year are not there (mostly due to injury)!! They have been replaced by KIDS!!

Let me spell it out for those who can find coaches, game style, Blood's Culture, UFO's or whatever to blame. 10 (that's T.E.N.) players from last night's team have played less than 50 (that's F.I.F.T.Y.) games. Only 6 (that's S.I.X.) in the team have played over a 100 (that's a H.U.N.D.R.E.D.) games.

And we don't have a sham academy like GWS in the aussie rules area of the Riverina where they get a steady stream of high draft pick players who are actually going to school in Melbourne and have played the game all their life.

I'm about to Spew up if I have to keep reading some of this uninformed dribble.

Unfortunately, too many love being negative for the sake of it or can't wait to lash out after a loss.

[0918330512]

Unfortunately, too many love being negative for the sake of it or can't wait to lash out after a loss.

Some don’t even until after

[dimelb]

Thanks for the common sense of Auntie Gerald, Big Cat and a few others.

I didn't expect to win the game, was pleasantly surprised at half time, and then reality imposed itself. We are not going to finish in the top eight, but if the kids keep on working and sharpening their weapons, the good times will roll again.

Having said that, I am puzzled by some of the selections. If Ronke needs more time in the Ressies, put him there for a while. Play COR in the middle and rotate him with e.g. Mills. And keep working hard on the accuracy of our field kicking; it varied between sublime (occasionally) and disastrous (unfortunately more often). As fans. our greatest asset will be patience.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

)the decisions for 2012/2013 have had a definite impact on the current ruck woes

Agreed, and not just the ruck woes.
The recruitment policy changes made back then were only ever going to lead to the current situation.

[Mel_C]

When we were finally in control and hit the front we just didn't have the luck. First the GWS player kicks it into our players leg and it goes out on the full...GWS kick a goal from the free. Then Kennedy kicks it into a GWS players leg and it goes in for a goal. It also felt like the bounce didn't go our way.

GWS were smart with the knock ons, soccers and taps. They were able to move the ball on to a teammate even when they didn't have possession.

We fell down going forward and kept picking out the GWS defenders.

We have been so lucky to follow a successful club and I hope the supporters can have some patience because I'm sure we will be back up there very soon.

[Ralph Dawg]

*draftees

[dejavoodoo44]

Since there has been a bit of discussion about the relative strength of Giants and Swans squads, I thought that I'd do some sort of analysis of the two. At first I considered averaging the original draft positions of the players who were on the ground last night, but I decided that would be impractical, because of variables like rookie listers and special picks, so instead, I used the draft points valuation system. Which I'm sure has some pros and cons, but hey.

giant picks.PNG

Before going on, I probably should point out a couple of inconsistencies. On that list, Heeney is a pick 18, but if he was drafted under the current rules, he probably would have been a top five pick. But I think that this is more than balanced by Cameron not being on that list, as he was taken as a 17 year old access pick. I forget the actual rules for those picks, but the overall quality of those taken, suggest that they would have attracted early picks in a normal draft. Others taken by the Giants in that way were; Treloar, Shiel, O'Meara, Hombsch, Hogan, etc. Also, Kennedy was a father/son pick at 40. If picked under the current system, I assume that he would have been taken earlier. But that also applies to Shaw, who was a F/S 48.
There were also those playing on Saturday, whose original draft position has no points value attached: we had 7 rookie elevations playing and the Giants 4.

So, what does that mean? I'm not entirely sure, but under that valuation system, the Giants squad was worth 22,947 points, while ours was worth 12,510: a difference of 10,437. Which seems a lot? It probably means that the Giants coaching staff have had a huge advantage, in regards to teaching skills and having the ability to implement game plans, because those high draft picks have largely been identified as having an abundance of natural talent. I suspect that it also means, that if both sides put 100% effort into a game, then the Giants should win most of those games, due to their inherent advantage in natural talent.

[barry]

Do some people on RWO have no football knowledge at all????? Half the team you are talking about making last years finals last year are not there (mostly due to injury)!! They have been replaced by KIDS!!

Let me spell it out for those who can find coaches, game style, Blood's Culture, UFO's or whatever to blame. 10 (that's T.E.N.) players from last night's team have played less than 50 (that's F.I.F.T.Y.) games. Only 6 (that's S.I.X.) in the team have played over a 100 (that's a H.U.N.D.R.E.D.) games.

The selection committee is CHOOSING to play those kids. They deem the Blakey's, and ronkes to be better than more experienced players.

You can't seriously choose to play kids then use the kids excuse when you lose??

Are we talking or something. Please explain oh wise footy mastermind.

- - - Updated - - -

Talking=tanking

[liz]

The selection committee is CHOOSING to play those kids. They deem the Blakey's, and ronkes to be better than more experienced players.

You can't seriously choose to play kids then use the kids excuse when you lose??

Are we talking or something. Please explain oh wise footy mastermind.

- - - Updated - - -

Talking=tanking

Hang on. Which "more experienced players" were available for selection on Saturday? Grundy, McVeigh, Smith, Franklin, Jack - who combined have over 1000 games of experience - were all unavailable. The most experienced players who played for the NEAFL side included COR (4 senior games), Fox (13), Cameron (1), Stoddart (2) and McInerney (1), while 9 game Rose was the non-playing emergency. Unless you count not playing Fox as choosing to pick inexperienced players over available experience, there was literally no-one available at the weekend who could have provided more experience to the side.

When Jack and McVeigh were available, the coaches picked them (to the howls of disappointment, maybe even derision, from some posters on here who think they are has-beens that we need to move past). I am pretty sure a fit Smith would find a spot, and probably a fit Grundy too - if the coaches are allowed to have their way, that is. (I'm not going to include Franklin in this conversation, because I don't think even the most pessimistic Swans fan would advocate not picking him if he were available).

[stevoswan]

Since there has been a bit of discussion about the relative strength of Giants and Swans squads, I thought that I'd do some sort of analysis of the two. At first I considered averaging the original draft positions of the players who were on the ground last night, but I decided that would be impractical, because of variables like rookie listers and special picks, so instead, I used the draft points valuation system. Which I'm sure has some pros and cons, but hey.

[ATTACH]2234[/ATTACH]

Before going on, I probably should point out a couple of inconsistencies. On that list, Heeney is a pick 18, but if he was drafted under the current rules, he probably would have been a top five pick. But I think that this is more than balanced by Cameron not being on that list, as he was taken as a 17 year old access pick. I forget the actual rules for those picks, but the overall quality of those taken, suggest that they would have attracted early picks in a normal draft. Others taken by the Giants in that way were; Treloar, Shiel, O'Meara, Hombsch, Hogan, etc. Also, Kennedy was a father/son pick at 40. If picked under the current system, I assume that he would have been taken earlier. But that also applies to Shaw, who was a F/S 48.
There were also those playing on Saturday, whose original draft position has no points value attached: we had 7 rookie elevations playing and the Giants 4.

So, what does that mean? I'm not entirely sure, but under that valuation system, the Giants squad was worth 22,947 points, while ours was worth 12,510: a difference of 10,437. Which seems a lot? It probably means that the Giants coaching staff have had a huge advantage, in regards to teaching skills and having the ability to implement game plans, because those high draft picks have largely been identified as having an abundance of natural talent. I suspect that it also means, that if both sides put 100% effort into a game, then the Giants should win most of those games, due to their inherent advantage in natural talent.

Great post Deja. Our side of that chart is indicative of our constantly high ladder position and draft equlisation. GWS's list is indicative of the league's 'here you are, have a premiership to justify your existence and vindicate our decision to create you' agenda.

Couple that with certain Victorian teams plundering high draft picks cheaply from the fledgling northern clubs (because the league had been over generous to them in the first place) by exploiting the 'go home' factor and free agency.....then add to all that our trading ban now biting and it's little wonder we are drifting back into the pack a bit.

We've done well to hang in there for so long frankly. Hopefully we aren't down for too long. I'm pretty confident we won't be.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

.then add to all that our trading ban now biting and it's little wonder we are drifting back into the pack a bit.

Sure, the trade ban was absolutely unfair, but claiming ithat it's had any actual effect on our recruiting efforts is complete nonsense.
The lack of recruits from other clubs (and the loss of good players) has nothing to do with anything other than Tippett and Franklins absurd pay packets.

[dejavoodoo44]

Great post Deja. Our side of that chart is indicative of our constantly high ladder position and draft equlisation. GWS's list is indicative of the league's 'here you are, have a premiership to justify your existence and vindicate our decision to create you' agenda.

Couple that with certain Victorian teams plundering high draft picks cheaply from the fledgling northern clubs (because the league had been over generous to them in the first place) by exploiting the 'go home' factor and free agency.....then add to all that our trading ban now biting and it's little wonder we are drifting back into the pack a bit.

We've done well to hang in there for so long frankly. Hopefully we aren't down for too long. I'm pretty confident we won't be.

Yes, I didn't mention equalisation, but I would assume that the AFL would want something of a continually equalising system, in which teams of roughly equal talent play each other. But it seems that the Giants are a bit outside of this and that it will take a while to catch up, through draft picks and the salary cap. For instance, say that this season the Giants finish third and we finish third last. Without bids, that we would get a pick worth 2234 points and the Giants pick would be worth 1067. Which means a difference of 1,167. Adding the difference between the respective second and third round picks, we end with picks worth roughly 1,800 more in value. Which doesn't go far, in making up the difference of over 10,000 points in Saturday night's teams. While with the salary cap, if they have to unload a high profile player, they tend to get a high pick in return.

I also didn't mention that Saturday's difference, wasn't a result of us having more stars sitting out the game. The difference actually would be more, if those not playing were included. The Giants had two number one picks and a number ten not playing. They also had six players taken in the teens not playing. Whereas, our high picks not playing were Franklin, McVeigh (both taken at 5), Ling (14) and Menzel (17).

[Hotpotato]

The Tippett and Franklin trades are often bracketed together to carry the blame for the Swans descent towards the bottom.
The Tippett trade floundered (injuries prevailed), the Franklin trade has been very successful (not unfortunately for a Premiership).
Buddy has been so influential in winning many games for the club and been an amazing investment.
He was sorely mistaken missed, Haine wouldn’t have taken all those intercept marks if Buddy was there.

[Auntie.Gerald]

Just to Share a little more perspective Re the difference of the amount of elite players in a team and how we hung in there well for the first half on the wknd.

The gws team had 11 first round draft players playing on the wknd vs our 6

Mills
Heeney
Blakey
Jones
Florent
Thurlow

Thurlow I wouldn’t really put in the category of the 11 gws first round players but anyway statistically he counts

——-

I coach the First 11 soccer team for a private school

The First 11 teams in the competition have teenagers that also play in representative state league or premier league players for other teams as well as play for their private school ie similar to AFL in Victoria playing for your school and then playing for the Canons / falcons etc

If we have 3 rep players in our school team vs say 6 rep players in the opposition team we usually loose 1-5

If we have 3 rep players to 3 rep players we generally are evenly matched

The difference a few extra rep / elite level players make is massive tipping point and especially the last 1/3 of the game when the relentless speed of the game catches up to our team with a smaller amount of rep players

We might be losing only 1-2 with 20 minutes to go , but then loose 1-5 vs a team stacked with elite rep players

I thought the swans did well on the wknd vs who we played Ie gws stacked with talent and gws absolutely played to their max

We held them till the 3rd which is very difficult to do

I saw small improvements in some emerging players tested against a team that is as good as any in the Comp