Best 22 2021

[Melbourne_Blood]

Hi all

A few weeks away from rd 1, new season, coaching changes, some fresh faces on the list I am feeling optimistic about our chances this year. Won't be winning the flag but i think with a good run with injuries we can push for the eight.

Here are a few of my thoughts on what i have heard and seen over the pre-season:

- Love Mills playing in the midfield. I was beginning to think we would never see it, but i now see John Longmire's grand plan.. adding Mills right when we need him in there. Kennedy not getting younger, Parker will be wasted in his prime years if he doesnt have more able support. I always had Hewett pegged as that next player, but hasnt come along as we'd hoped. Injuries at the wrong time haven't helped George.

- I am rapt to know the Lizard has been starring on the wing. 195cm, deceptively quick, I reckon he will pose a surprisingly tricky match-up on the wing. "Mills gets it out to Blakey" has a nice ring to it.

- Thrilled to see Hickey's performance. Seemed fit and mobile, good jump on him. 22 games from you this year thanks, Tom.

- The silly report that Lance could be an inclusion for rd 1. Why? Nothing to gain from rushing back one of our most important players. Would much prefer he miss the first month and we get the next 4 months after that out of him than he plays rd 1 and is injured again by rd 4. Unless i hear it from someone's lips affiliated with the club, i choose not to buy into any media reporting on Lance!

- Upsetting to hear Fox will have a delayed start to the season, I love a good battler. Upside is that this could mean more opportunities for... who? Matthew Ling? Or will Will Gould finally get his break?

- Quietly optimistic about what changes Don Pyke can ring in. What a formidable coaching line up. John Longmire. Dean Cox. Don Pyke. Brett Kirk. Jarrad McVeigh. They have seen some premierships between them. I hear Pyke was the brains behind Mills being moved into the midfield, but i have a sneaking suspicion Longmire was waiting for the right group of coaches and players to make such big changes, and we finally have it. Its so exciting - Mills as a midfielder, the Lizard on a wing, Tom McCartin as a true centre half back, Ling in the best 22. Academy boys everywhere. It might not all work but at least we wont die wondering!!

- Finally i'm amused by the discussions about James Rowbottom. He is an exceptional young kid and talent. Respect all are entitled to their opinions, but we dont know what's going on with these players. We are fans and spectators for a reason. I thought he was solid on the weekend and his second quarter was a ripper that helped turn the tide of the game. Anyone questioning his off-season commitment might be interested to know that over the summer he joined my son's track club in Toorak and put in hours on the track nearly every day. No tins or Big Macs in sight.

Excited for the weekend and the season ahead!

Cheer cheer !!

Welcome to the madhouse mate, hit the first post out of the park. Keep em coming !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Aprilbr]

Ludwig

With respect, I think that you are selectively re-writing history in the following statement:

"Looking back on 2016, we can see the thinking in trading Tom Mitchell. It was the imbalance between inside ball winning and outside speed that had to change."

From what I can recall, we were keen to keep Mitchell but could not pay him well enough due to salary cap issues. The Hawks pounced with a good offer and as he was out of contract we had to reluctantly trade him. Ironically, we received pick 14 for him which we used to select Ollie Florent.

[bloodspirit]

Ludwig

With respect, I think that you are selectively re-writing history in the following statement:

"Looking back on 2016, we can see the thinking in trading Tom Mitchell. It was the imbalance between inside ball winning and outside speed that had to change."

From what I can recall, we were keen to keep Mitchell but could not pay him well enough due to salary cap issues. The Hawks pounced with a good offer and as he was out of contract we had to reluctantly trade him. Ironically, we received pick 14 for him which we used to select Ollie Florent.

I think you're both right. We didn't want to lose Mitchell, but we didn't try that hard to keep him either. Ludwig has been saying that from his point of view we were better off without Mitchell for quite a long time (or something similar - apologies if I'm misquoting you, Ludwig). Not sure that the club ever made a similar view public, but it might have been there view behind closed doors.

[Ludwig]

Ludwig

With respect, I think that you are selectively re-writing history in the following statement:

"Looking back on 2016, we can see the thinking in trading Tom Mitchell. It was the imbalance between inside ball winning and outside speed that had to change."

From what I can recall, we were keen to keep Mitchell but could not pay him well enough due to salary cap issues. The Hawks pounced with a good offer and as he was out of contract we had to reluctantly trade him. Ironically, we received pick 14 for him which we used to select Ollie Florent.

I know that was the official line on why we traded Mitchell, but if you want to do the research you will see that I was perhaps the only one on RWO that was supportive of the trade for the reasons that I have stated many times over. This was the beginning of the Swans' transition to a game plan with quicker leg speed and ball movement. I specifically said that if we kept Mitchell, it would suppress the development of George Hewett. I've been consistent on this theme for the past 5 years.

The squad we now have is a direct result of that strategy. Hopefully we see a positive outcome beginning this year.

[MattW]

Totally agree with the key forward issue and that being a weak point. Until Buddy is injury free and McDonald gets more experienced + bigger than we have to persist with Reid and Sinclair (who would also be a handy second ruck).

- - - Updated - - -



Can't disagree with this. Gulden probably has more long term upside but Wicks has more runs on the board. Reckon it's a coin toss between the two.

The coaches will pick the team they think is most likely to win, runs aside.

[MattW]

Ludwig

With respect, I think that you are selectively re-writing history in the following statement:

"Looking back on 2016, we can see the thinking in trading Tom Mitchell. It was the imbalance between inside ball winning and outside speed that had to change."

From what I can recall, we were keen to keep Mitchell but could not pay him well enough due to salary cap issues. The Hawks pounced with a good offer and as he was out of contract we had to reluctantly trade him. Ironically, we received pick 14 for him which we used to select Ollie Florent.

Agree with bloodspirit and Ludwig - I think you're overstating our reluctance to let him go. We offered him a contract, but didn't prioritise his retention.

[MattW]

I know that was the official line on why we traded Mitchell, but if you want to do the research you will see that I was perhaps the only one on RWO that was supportive of the trade for the reasons that I have stated many times over. This was the beginning of the Swans' transition to a game plan with quicker leg speed and ball movement. I specifically said that if we kept Mitchell, it would suppress the development of George Hewett. I've been consistent on this theme for the past 5 years.

The squad we now have is a direct result of that strategy. Hopefully we see a positive outcome beginning this year.

Here's some research: Mitchell watch - Page 86.

You firmly held your current view, but plenty of others were neutral at worst.

[Aprilbr]

I guess none of us will know for sure what the intentions of the Club leadership was in 2016 but I will recount a couple of things.

First, the Swans re-signed Hanners on a big contract just before this negotiation period for Mitchell which compounded salary cap issues on top of the Tippett and Buddy deals. History would show that was not a good idea! I think there is little doubt that we had limited cap room at the time as a result.

Second, I happened to speak at length to Mitchell's father, Barry, at the Queen's Birthday round (mid-season) that year. I had previously gotten to know him while participating in Daniher's Drive which is another story. I asked him about the re-signing negotiations. My recollection of that conversation almost 5 years later is that there had been 3 meetings between the Club and Mitchell's management to that point about his new contract. The Club kept saying that they would like to pay him more but did not have any cap room but were keen to do a back-ended, long-term deal to alleviate the cap issues. Apparently, Gold Coast were offering him a small fortune and several others were sniffing around. He did not specifically mention the Hawks to me. He sounded a little frustrated about it as he stated that Tom's preference was to stay at the Swans provided he received what he thought was market value. Clearly, that did not happen in Tom's eyes!

Anyway, the rest is history! He was arguably our best player in his final game for the Club (2016 GF) and went on to win the Brownlow elsewhere. I've got no doubt that we would have won more games in recent seasons if he had stayed but it should be recognised that at the Hawks he became better by improving his handball and getting even fitter.

That's not to say that Ludwig's thesis that we already have enough slowish midfielders and don't need another is incorrect. I think that Florent has been a promising pick up in return for Mitchell although whether his career will ever reach the heights of Mitchell's is problematic. It still hurts me to watch him play well elsewhere and I suspect he will play many more good games for the Hawks going forward, injury permitting.

[liz]

He was arguably our best player in his final game for the Club (2016 GF)

I reckon that would be a challenging argument to mount convincingly. Second best player, maybe.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

I specifically said that if we kept Mitchell, it would suppress the development of George Hewett. I've been consistent on this theme for the past 5 years.

So faced with a choice of George or Tom, the Swans chose George?
It doesn't sound likely to me, and I'm both a long time supporter of George and willing to look at both the pro's and con's of any deal as objectively as I can.

I'd particularly wish to thank Aprilbr for that contribution to the Mitchell mystery. It is incredibly rare to be provided with such an extraordinary insight.

[Markwebbos]

I wonder if Tom M thinks he made the right call?

[Captain]

We choose Parker, JPK, Hanners and Heeney to keep ahead of Mitchell. Tough call at the time but would have been equally tough to lose one of the others.

In hindsight, getting rid of Hanners earlier would have been the best bet but no one could have forecast his dramatic decline.

[Ludwig]

So faced with a choice of George or Tom, the Swans chose George?
It doesn't sound likely to me, and I'm both a long time supporter of George and willing to look at both the pro's and con's of any deal as objectively as I can.

I'd particularly wish to thank Aprilbr for that contribution to the Mitchell mystery. It is incredibly rare to be provided with such an extraordinary insight.

The Official Story of the Mitchell trade was known at the time, IMO, to create a narrative as a cover for why we would trade such a talented player, and a FS, no less. I believe the trade was made to kick start the player acquisitions needed to transition our game plan to what we see today, 5 seasons later. The trade made space for Hewett to develop along with the crafting of 2 first round picks, which we used for Florent and Hayward. And whatever we might think about their development, Florent and Hayward were the right selections at the time.

Like with the Joe Daniher saga, there were, and still are, several competing narratives about what the circumstances were regarding the player movement. It seems to be typical of high profile trades.

My narrative is looking the more likely based on what has transpired since the Mitchell trade. The Swans have in fact transitioned in the way that I projected 5 yeas ago. The football department has followed through in a manner that makes the Mitchell trade logical in retrospect. The Swans have continue to draft players with a focus on speed and kicking skills. And space was created for Hewett to develop as a midfielder.

The question is whether the Mitchel trade was forced upon us or was part of a long-term plan to change the way the team plays, which would have been more difficult if we had to carry another big salary for an inside midfielder that wasn't needed, despite the quality of the player. I believe the evidence of what has transpired since the trade supports my point of view. As they say, 'the proof is in the pudding'.

[Bloods05]

As they say, 'the proof is in the pudding'.

Actually they say "The proof of the pudding is in the eating". Minor point I know, but a pet peeve.

[stevoswan]

I know that was the official line on why we traded Mitchell, but if you want to do the research you will see that I was perhaps the only one on RWO that was supportive of the trade for the reasons that I have stated many times over. This was the beginning of the Swans' transition to a game plan with quicker leg speed and ball movement. I specifically said that if we kept Mitchell, it would suppress the development of George Hewett. I've been consistent on this theme for the past 5 years.

The squad we now have is a direct result of that strategy. Hopefully we see a positive outcome beginning this year.

.....and let's face it, for all his possessions, Mitchell has not transformed Hawthorn into world beaters. Sure, they're rebuilding to an extent and he did miss a season......but the bottom line is that he rarely gets tagged which says a lot. It says that most AFL coaches now see what the Swans saw and concluded in 2016.