Tweet
Its interesting that none of our selections was more than six foot tall!
-
-
Quite a high strawberry blonde quotient this year too. Good to see!Comment
-
Yes we are in urgent need of a tall defender. Maybe they have someone else in mind?Comment
-
I wonder if part of it was the lack of footy for many over the last 2 years made this years talls harder to judge, so teams have been circumspect. I remember Beatson saying something a few weeks ago about a need for more information then normal about talls - i.e. not just that they performed well, but who they played on etc in individual games - reflecting a small evidence base. I'm sure that all is taken into account normally too, but it was interesting insight."You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."Comment
-
Rowbottom put out a self-promotional video of himself today: Rowbottom: I feel like I have much more to offer
He must have known that we would take 4 replacements for him in this draft alone. He says he has to do better since he's the worst player on our list. I noticed that he's done away with all the strapping on his knee and his shoulder. He may not be able to play, but give him credit for trying to look like he can play.Comment
-
So we've drafted 4 mids, can't really see us taking Angus Anderson anymore. Maybe a punt a tall defender in the rookie draft, either project or mature? Charlie Dean?Comment
-
I tend to agree with this. We had a chance to take JVR at 18 and Bazzo with our 2nd pick, but didn't, so evidently didn't think highly enough of the key defenders in this draft.
We certainly do have enough KPPs around. It's just a bit uncertain how they will go: Paddy and Reid with injury and Gould and O'Connor lacking any AFL experience.
But our KPP stocks are more than deep enough to give this lot a go and put off decisions in this area until next year. The 2 first rounders next year should put us in good stead to draft a good one or recruit someone from another club.
The expectations coming out of this draft are not too high, so any decent performances will be seen as a positive. We've gone with natural footballers with footy smarts and hard workers, rather than flash. I think we might be overflowing with flash right now, so probably an astute move.
I still think we will take Anderson as a Cat B rookie, plus our commitment to redraft Taylor. Our list size with go to 45, but Naismith really shouldn't be counted, so it's 44 who can play.Comment
-
So with 36 players now on our senior list, four on our Cat A rookie list (Fox, McLean, Wicks, McAndrew) and a promise to rookie Taylor, that leaves just one spot open on the list (with some flexibility on whether it's a senior or rookie list spot). We seem to have made a commitment to McCartin.
So does that mean we won't be participating in tomorrow's rookie draft? Or is there a plan to move Naismith to the inactive list, thus freeing up a spot for McCartin, and then to draft one rookie tomorrow?
I am still somewhat surprised that we retained Clarke on the list for another season. He was out of contract (I think) so there wasn't the same obligation as we had towards Taylor. I realise there are others who might have lost their spot (Ronke, Reid) but they play slightly different positions. It didn't appear that the coaches had much interest in playing Clarke in the senior team last year, and I'm not sure I see that changing.Comment
Comment