Horse

[Ruck'n'Roll]

What a team we had seven years ago!

Yep a champion team, not a single high priced superstar recruit to be seen.

[Meg]

Some different views to the horse whipping:

‘Even with the start Sydney have had this year, it speaks volumes about what John Longmire has achieved in his 202 games in charge that the chairman of his club wants him there for the long haul.’

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/pointy-end-of-elite-longmire-can-coach-swans-as-long-as-he-wants-20190503-p51jpx.html

[Hotpotato]

Thanks for sharing this. J. Longmire can stick around, he’s a good coach and a hellava good bloke.

[U.S. Swan]

I don't believe the issue is Longmire, but I do think there is a problem with the Swans...and it is upper management. If you look at the consistently excellent sports franchises, they have one thing in common...solid ownership (or management, depending on the structure of the league). And I do fear that there has been a change in the Swan's culture in the last five year or so. As I wrote once before, it seems there motto is "go along to get along." When I read about articles covering the Victorian and Perth teams, there is consistent coverage and analysis of the teams and the game....what is wrong with the team; how the team performed or underperformed; etc. And there is a huge amount of internal criticism. But when I read about the Swans, the vast majority is about non-football issues... how they are hosting another Pride game; angst about Eddie O's comments about a disabled supporter; etc. I am not saying those things aren't important...they are...but they must be secondary to football. I am left with the impression that the Swans are far more interested in social issues, inclusion and other issues of, let's face it, marketing, then the product. And I understand why...AFL is big business like other sports; the fans in NSW seem to be a lot less demanding and they want to make as much money as possible.

But it would be nice to have management stand up and call out the league when the umpires are incompetent. I will forever believe the 2016 Grand Final was deliberately tarnished. I don't believe the AFL had anything against the Swans, per se. But I DO believe that the story of the Bulldogs drought, coupled with an international superstar like Thor giving the sport worldwide exposure, made it a foregone conclusion the Bulldogs would win. The AFL had stars and dollar signs in their eyes and there is no way the three umpires selected performed as poorly as they did by a fluke. And apart from minor grumbling, our management did NOTHING and said NOTHING. They just took it for the "good and growth of the game" and meanwhile, they named a whole stadium after Marvel and got to dress up like Thor to play the Swans this year. Totally a coincidence, I am sure...

Nobody demanded a cup of coffee with Gil (or dared call out Gil for having a private cup o' joe with another team's coach during the season.) Commissioners have been fired for less (i.e. see the Canadian Football League). They take away COLA, the Swans take it. They give out a trade ban, the Swans take it. Where is our management making public statements to hold the AFL accountable? If I was the CEO (thank heavens for us all I am not), I would make a public statement that this is why the NRL is the dominant sport in NSW and how there is a vast market of millions of people they are throwing away.

The Swans are rebuilding, whether they want to admit it or not. This is natural and the way sports leagues should work. And I believe John has done a really good job at spotting talent and creating a system that was a winning one in the past. But now, like the NBA did years ago, the league has decided to change that system that forces teams to adapt and that is very hard to do when your personnel was created for the former system. This year and next will be tough but there are a lot of bright spots. I absolutely support the Buddy signing, even though it brought down the wrath of the AFL, and we would have that premiership but for the insane circumstances of 2016...is there anything Disney doesn't ruin? I understand the complaints Longmire is slow to evolve, but he was still using the players designed for the less free-flowing game. It is next to impossible to change to game-altering modifications quickly when you have players under contract based on the old system. For those who want a different coach, who would you truly replace him with? Who would really do a better job with the players on this team? After all, look at Clarkson and the Hawks...they are better than the Swans, but it isn't like they are setting the world on fire...

[Legs Akimbo]

I think this thread could be relabelled The Knackery

[barry]

Great post US swan. Add in the weak support of Goode's booing. Take a stand, march the team off. It's only 4 points.

[Blood Fever]

Great post US swan. Add in the weak support of Goode's booing. Take a stand, march the team off. It's only 4 points.

And the club would suffer even more punishment from a vindictive power hungry AFL. Club's reactions to all of US Swan's issues have been rational, given the massive power imbalance and the ensuing consequences. Very bitter pill to have to swallow but alternative much much worse.

[dejavoodoo44]

Some different views to the horse whipping:

‘Even with the start Sydney have had this year, it speaks volumes about what John Longmire has achieved in his 202 games in charge that the chairman of his club wants him there for the long haul.’

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/...03-p51jpx.html

Yes, there does seem to be a lack of recognition of John's great achievement, in breaking the Swans all time coaching record. And making the finals in all of those seasons. And it's interesting that the two coaches below him on the list, are Roos and Eade. Which emphasises to me, that we modern fans are living in a Swans golden era. Which makes some of the more over the top criticism, sound a touch spoilt and petulant, to me.

[Swanny40519]

Watched his interview after the game - he appeared to be very nervous and for the length of the interview really did not say much at all.

[MattW]

Any chance we can change the title of this thread?

[dimelb]

Watched his interview after the game - he appeared to be very nervous and for the length of the interview really did not say much at all.

I thought not nervous, rather subdued. And of course he has the job in front of him now.

[bloodspirit]

It seems ironic to me that what (relatively little) criticism of Horse has emerged in this thread has been measured and sensible. And this despite us being unexpectedly right at the bottom of the AFL ladder! RWO is perverse.

Re your comment's about the club U.S. Swan, I think the club does make a strong stand on these issues but they mostly don't do it publicly, and they don't do it publicly because they believe that is more effective that way. There were some muted public comments about the umpiring of the 2016 Grand Final I think. We did advocate fairly strongly for the COLA retention and not to get a trade ban (and we succeeded in having the trade ban diluted). I certainly don't agree that the club is more focused on marketing than football, especially not the football department.

Also I think the club has had quite a lot of stability in key management posts with smooth transitions of power from long time office bearers i.e. Colless to Pridham and Ireland to Harley. I think the Swans are regarded around the AFL as a particularly well run club. I am glad we don't have a Chairman/President like Eddie or Kochie who is constantly making headlines and (in my view) embarrassing the club. We once had Edelsten and pink helicopters and sports cars. While I am grateful to him for his substantial support of the club, I'm glad we don't have that any more.

[Markwebbos]

I'm taking it this is the appropriate thread to question what has gone wrong this year?

Looking from the outside in at decisions taken by the club, it's a bit like mind reading, or even a seance, trying to understand what's happened and why? We know that it's not working on field at the moment. People are blaming Longmire, "gameplan", players, coaches etc for that.

What I do know is:

Age profile
* We now have a very young list, on the basis of age alone, we should expect to be a bottom 4 club (I think our list is the 4th youngest and our side was the youngest in the game v GWS).
* Whether we are under-performing with the talent on our list, which is a current complaint, is hard to tell, but we are being out-performed by Brisbane who have a younger list than we do. The other 2 younger sides are Gold Coast and Carlton [source is AFL Club Lists for 2019 - Draftguru ] I would say we are performing on a par with those 2 sides.

List management
* Our list is not in good shape age-wise with a load of under 24s and a significant number of over 28s (including many over 30 who won't be around in 1-2 years).
* We've made a conscious decision to offload several players in the desired age bracket (Hanners, Rohan etc) which has exacerbated the problem.
* Over the last 4 years or so a number of players have left the Swans and performed better at their destination clubs (Rohan, Mitchell, Nankervis etc).
* Most of those departures were voluntary (as in the player left the Swans, we wanted to retain them). Rohan is a further step in the wrong direction as we pushed him out of the door (for a very low draft pick) and he's potentially the "recruit of the year"

Match Committee
This one is much harder to interpret as we never know what's going on behind the scenes, but I think we can at least say.

* Players are being selected whose on-field performance does not appear to merit selection (Jack in particular, Clarke to a lesser extent)
* Players are not being selected whose NEAFL performance would suggest they deserve a run in the AFL (Rose, COR, Cameron etc)
* Players are being played out of position (Mills in particular, who trained with the mids and is now still playing defence)
* Selection does not appear to reflect any change in strategy now that Horse has admitted we are rebuilding

Game Plan
As Liz points out, its really hard to judge when we are playing so badly.

* We have played well in patches in both of our last 2 games.
* As noted above, players that were barely getting a game at the Swans are flourishing in other systems, and gameplan is part of that.

CONCLUSION
My conclusion from all this is the club undeniably has problems with list management, player development and making the most of the talent of its players (of which our game plan is a part). And that all these aspects of the clubs operations need to be reviewed.

There was a huge turnover of coaches the year Dew left. Most of the replacements were inexperienced coaches and/or were ex-Swans. There's not one experienced coach on the panel that is an "outsider" to the club. And I think that's part of the problem too.

If we are going to finish in the bottom 3 (and I see no reason to think otherwise right now), then as well as a high draft pick I think the club's members are entitled to a full independent review.

[The Big Cat]

I'm taking it this is the appropriate thread to question what has gone wrong this year?

Looking from the outside in at decisions taken by the club, it's a bit like mind reading, or even a seance, trying to understand what's happened and why? We know that it's not working on field at the moment. People are blaming Longmire, "gameplan", players, coaches etc for that.

What I do know is:

Age profile
* We now have a very young list, on the basis of age alone, we should expect to be a bottom 4 club (I think our list is the 4th youngest and our side was the youngest in the game v GWS).
* Whether we are under-performing with the talent on our list, which is a current complaint, is hard to tell, but we are being out-performed by Brisbane who have a younger list than we do. The other 2 younger sides are Gold Coast and Carlton [source is AFL Club Lists for 2019 - Draftguru ] I would say we are performing on a par with those 2 sides.

List management
* Our list is not in good shape age-wise with a load of under 24s and a significant number of over 28s (including many over 30 who won't be around in 1-2 years).
* We've made a conscious decision to offload several players in the desired age bracket (Hanners, Rohan etc) which has exacerbated the problem.
* Over the last 4 years or so a number of players have left the Swans and performed better at their destination clubs (Rohan, Mitchell, Nankervis etc).
* Most of those departures were voluntary (as in the player left the Swans, we wanted to retain them). Rohan is a further step in the wrong direction as we pushed him out of the door (for a very low draft pick) and he's potentially the "recruit of the year"

Match Committee
This one is much harder to interpret as we never know what's going on behind the scenes, but I think we can at least say.

* Players are being selected whose on-field performance does not appear to merit selection (Jack in particular, Clarke to a lesser extent)
* Players are not being selected whose NEAFL performance would suggest they deserve a run in the AFL (Rose, COR, Cameron etc)
* Players are being played out of position (Mills in particular, who trained with the mids and is now still playing defence)
* Selection does not appear to reflect any change in strategy now that Horse has admitted we are rebuilding

Game Plan
As Liz points out, its really hard to judge when we are playing so badly.

* We have played well in patches in both of our last 2 games.
* As noted above, players that were barely getting a game at the Swans are flourishing in other systems, and gameplan is part of that.

CONCLUSION
My conclusion from all this is the club undeniably has problems with list management, player development and making the most of the talent of its players (of which our game plan is a part). And that all these aspects of the clubs operations need to be reviewed.

There was a huge turnover of coaches the year Dew left. Most of the replacements were inexperienced coaches and/or were ex-Swans. There's not one experienced coach on the panel that is an "outsider" to the club. And I think that's part of the problem too.

If we are going to finish in the bottom 3 (and I see no reason to think otherwise right now), then as well as a high draft pick I think the club's members are entitled to a full independent review.

Agree with some of what you say, but most is from the 20/20 position of hindsight.

*Narkervis wanted to go because he was way down the pecking order. Who was to know Tippett was finished, Naismith would do a knee etc. If he had gone to any other club other than Richmond he wouldn't be in the side. They had zero ruckmen. He's there to make a contest for their swarming attack on the ball and he fulfilled that role.
*Newman is getting a game for Carlton, the worst performing team over the last decade, don't overrate it.
*Mitchell was always going to go. We paid him heaps when he was perpetually injured, we paid him heaps when he was in the reserves, then when we can't match Hawthorn without jeopardising other contracts he just chases the money. Hardly a coincidence that his mentor is Greg Williams and his father did the same and left us in the lurch.
*Let's wait for the season to unfold before we start crowning Rohan recruit of the year. Things are flowing so well for the Cats at the moment I reckon I could kick a goal or two. 8 or 9 possessions a game won't cut it if the Cats start getting more heat on their ball movement and the delivery is not lace-out.
*Trading Hannebery can hardly be blamed for the present situation. People on RWO were saying he was finished and he's nowhere near ready to play for the Saints and we're a third of the way into the season.
*Just because Brisbane's list is younger than ours doesn't mean the Swans have buggered up. The Lions have got a suite of top 10 picks you'd expect them to be playing better.
*We can't assume that players in the twos are not being rewarded for their performances when we don't know what is being asked of them. Obviously Rose knows where the goals are, but what else is he being asked to do? We don't know. Same with COR, possessions don't necessarily mean you're playing your role. Last year Little Gary had a million possessions for the Cats but the consensus was they were not hurtful to the opposition.
*People have wanted a change in gameplan. It's happening, but then the same people are complaining that we're turning the ball over! Turning it over is a product of trying to move it quickly.

As far a review goes! I have never read anything so absolutely ridiculous. Honestly, sometimes I read this forum and think I have somehow clicked a link to the Carlton site in the 1990's. The swans have had a great run over two decades and my greatest wish is that this run continues for ever. But it is not our God-given right to play finals every year. We don't need a review to destabilise the most admired club in the competition just because we couldn't sustain our run, which most critics believe should have finished years ago.

[stevoswan]

I thought all clubs review everything at season's end whether they are successful or not. It's called Quality Assurance.

If they're don't do a review, how about a player survey to find out if all the players are on board with the direction the administration is taking the club and if they are fully invested in Horse's gameplan?

If there is player unrest, as some have suggested and that I suspect could be an issue, the club need to be aware and act accordingly or we are going to have a walkout.....and undo all the great work of the last 20 years.