Swans v Suns: Round 6.

[TheBloods]

The question had zero to do with your perennial criticism target. Was simply a genuine question of how you can claim to objectively measure 'talent' or 'capability' of a player - your the one claiming 'facts' about things that are purely subjective and opinion based, not I.

If you believe Rowbottom is on par with Chad, Jmac, Dawson, Gulden, Mcdonald etc for talent/ability then i cant help you sorry.

- - - Updated - - -

I think there are worse players. For example Hayward and Blakey. Both have had significant numbers of patient games to get going but have still failed to launch. Hayward's best game ever was two weeks ago, and it took him 70 to get there. Amazingly in 70 games he has never hit 100 in Fantasy points. I know they don't mean everything, but you would think in 70 games somewhere it would all fall into place.

I am with you on those two and im just as harsh on them. Difference being that Hayward plays in a fwd pocket/flank and Blakey is somewhat of a utility. RB is an inside mid, one of the most important areas on the ground and somewhere where we cant afford to be playing some one with a minimal impact

- - - Updated - - -

First, I don't get this obsession with 'elite' - not every player in the best 22 has to be - or can be - "elite". Otherwise they wouldn't be exceptional, they'd be like all the others. As far as I'm concerned, Rowbottom is in his 3rd season and doing more than enough to warrant his spot on the list and also in the best 22, especially last year. I am optimistic he can continue to improve and, as we previously discussed, best case scenario eventually be one of the best 40 players in the comp. That is enough for me. If he can do that, I'll be rapt. I love his character and personality and I'm very happy with what he brings to the team and the club for the time being.

Second, how do you justify jumping from pointing out that Rowbottom is not 'elite', to then saying "it is a wasted spot in the team"? That is not logical. There is a fair gap between those two things that you are ignoring. We don't have an elite player ready to fill that role in his place. As I said earlier, and as mcs has offered also, not everyone can be elite, and you need a strong team. To say he "doesn't offer many positives" is going too far and leads to others labelling your posts "vindictive" etc.

See my above comment. He isnt offering enough to be holding the important spot of inside mid. He is behind Jpk, Parker, Mills and Chad. He needs to be doing what they are doing and if he cant then he needs to be dropped or find a different role in the team. As i said becoming a tagger would suit him .

[rb4x]

Totally agree with MCS. A side is only as strong as its weakest link which a good side will ruthlessly exploit. This is where injuries can play a huge part as the replacements are likely to include your weak link if you have to make a number of replacements in one of your positions. e.g. Rampe, McCartin and Fox all missing from our defensive unit at present.

[Blood Fever]

1986, 1987 being examples of elite talent not getting us over the line. One of my favourite clichés - 'a champion team will always beat a team of champions.'

No home finals at that time didn't help in getting us over the line either.

[Blood Fever]

I've said it before but I'll say it again I don't read the Bloods comments because he just hangs @@@@ on RB to get a response I suggest you ignore him.

Ignore list function very under utilised it seems. Less suffering can be achieved.

[AnsweredPrayers]

Rohan has been a pretty good player, just not in finals!

I think a big problem with Blakey is that he doesn't really have a position. He was drafted as a key forward, then talked about as a wingman, then was tried as an inside midfielder and is now also pinch hitting in the ruck.

I would like him to settle down as either a forward or midfielder and learn his craft there.

There is a reason they keep moving Blakey around. Like Rohan, they can't find a place where he plays well. Pretty simple. He doesn't have clean skills so where do you put him?

[snajik]

No home finals at that time didn't help in getting us over the line either.

For sure, but a line-up that under-performed.

[RogueSwan]

... As far as I'm concerned, Rowbottom is in his 3rd season and doing more than enough to warrant his spot on the list and also in the best 22, especially last year. I am optimistic he can continue to improve and, as we previously discussed, best case scenario eventually be one of the best 40 players in the comp. That is enough for me. If he can do that, I'll be rapt. I love his character and personality and I'm very happy with what he brings to the team and the club for the time being...

It would be an interesting read to go back a find some posts (my fading memory is inclined to think there were a lot) about McVeigh in his first few seasons. I suggest using the search term "McHack"

[RogueSwan]

It would be an interesting read to go back a find some posts (my fading memory is inclined to think there were a lot) about McVeigh in his first few seasons. I suggest using the search term "McHack"

I couldn't help myself and found this on the first page of search results: McVeigh is useless Yep, we RWOer's certainly know what we are talking about

[snajik]

It would be an interesting read to go back a find some posts (my fading memory is inclined to think there were a lot) about McVeigh in his first few seasons. I suggest using the search term "McHack"

Brett Kirk was another

[Mountain Man]

Last time I looked, it took 22 players (maybe now 23) to make a team, and there is a preference for some positional attributes within that mix.

I find it a bit repetitive and boring to seem to be obsessed with a few players who may or may not be "elite", or not "AFL standard" with little recognition of who might replace them for more "elitism" or more positional/match up skills.

Only my opinion, of course

[Ralph Dawg]

My preference would be to draw a line in the sand on the Rowbottom debate and let the passage of time reveal who was correct.

[stevoswan]

I actually don't believe that elite players win premierships and mediocre ones don't. I actually think its much more nuanced then that. Elite players no doubt help teams win premierships, and in 99% of cases you need a reasonable proportion of 'elite' talent - whatever way you actually seek to define that in an objective measure.

But in a lot of grand finals (at least the close ones), while a moment here or there from an elite player may be what swings a contest (think Goodes on 1 leg in 2012), it is often the more 'run of the mill' players that have the key impact on the overall outcome and are the difference between the sides.

Because you are ultimately only as good as your weakest links out there - the old adage of the importance of the bottom 6. In a salary cap constrained sport, where you simply can't have a team full of elite players, I think it remains as important as ever. Elite players are an essential ingredient to success, sure. But having a balanced squad where the bottom end of the team (in terms of output/performance/whatever measure you want) is able to perform when it matters is just as important. Both our '05 and '12 premiership sides are great examples of that - I'd argue West Coast and Hawthorn both have plenty more established 'elite' talent then we did. But we had the better 'teams' on the day because our bottom ends of the 22 were better on the day.

I agree with you......my reply was to Captain who hinted that only 'elite' players win premierships. I was implying that that assertion is not entirely true, based on our 2012 GF winning team.

[stevoswan]

If you believe Rowbottom is on par with Chad, Jmac, Dawson, Gulden, Mcdonald etc for talent/ability then i cant help you sorry.

I don't anyone is asking for or wants your 'help'. I think all those that disagree with you own their opinions and believe in them. Many don't agree with you on RB and are not needing any 'help' to think differently. If we want help with how to think vindictively, maybe we'll come calling.

[Blood Fever]

For sure, but a line-up that under-performed.

True. Rumour had it that Tom Hafey flogged them at training. In 87 we had injuries during finals, notably Dennis Carroll. Unlike now, we were almost unbeatable at SCG. Reckon if we played finals there as we should have, we'd have played in one GF.

- - - Updated - - -

My preference would be to draw a line in the sand on the Rowbottom debate and let the passage of time reveal who was correct.

Stop being sane.

[Bexl]

My preference would be to draw a line in the sand on the Rowbottom debate and let the passage of time reveal who was correct.

I didn't know there was a debate. just the opinion of 99.9% of the posters and one person with a grudge that posts a lot and should be ignored
Hardly a debate.