Round 9 vs Bombers @ SCG - match thread

[barry]

Have the swans become "flat track bullies"?
Big wins over the strugglers. Not so flash against quality.

[barracuda]

I think it means that we can discuss Bell in the regular match threads.

While we're on the point, I think Bell had one of his typical games. He works hard, but doesn't contribute much. I think we have better selection choices. I would prefer to see Clarke, Gould, Roberts, Ronke, COR or Stephens in the senior side before selecting Bell. I don't know why we can't wait until Bell strings together a few near BOG performances in the VFL before he gets another run in the seniors. I don't see ow this is helping his development, nor the players who might be selected in his stead.

The metrics Bell and Wicks are judged on by the coaches are: Pressure Acts, Tackles, and Getting to the right spot structurally. They are not judged on disposals or goals. Bell in particular is highly regarded by the players for his defensive efforts and hard body work. Wicks is a slightly better footballer. Both are simply filling a positional need in the team, necessary to keep the ball in the forward 50 providing repeat shots on goal, and allowing the mids and defense to get organised. It just so happens that by hard work and dedication these two are the best in the squad at filling this role. Are they the most gifted players, hell no, but they are the best at this required role. If Stephens, Ronke or Gouldy were better at this specific role they would be in the team and not Wicks or Bell. It is clear from things Longmire has said, and the fact that Wicks came back into the side the second he started playing ok in the VFL that Wicks is considered a best 22 player providing the defensive forward work. His 19 touches and 2 goals against Essendon is not going to happen every week and reflects how crap Essendon and Heppel were. However we should expect to see his 20 pressure acts a week.

I think there are some good footy brains on this forum but I can't understand why this is so hard to understand. I haven't heard rugby union lovers moaning that a forward prop doesn't get enough tries.

- - - Updated - - -

Have the swans become "flat track bullies"?
Big wins over the strugglers. Not so flash against quality.

We will find out over the next month!

[Goal Sneak]

I'd have thought that protecting players from injury - especially concussion - in instances where it is deemed to be avoidable (which, in a high pace, contact sport is only a subset of instances) comes before protecting the AFL from legal action.

Is this a chicken/egg situation? If it gets to the point where no one will insure the AFL due to the likelihood of huge payouts down the road, then there will be no league and no players to protect. This has to be playing into the top decision making when it comes to changing the rules surrounding concussion.

[Bangalore Swans]

The metrics Bell and Wicks are judged on by the coaches are: Pressure Acts, Tackles, and Getting to the right spot structurally. They are not judged on disposals or goals. Bell in particular is highly regarded by the players for his defensive efforts and hard body work. Wicks is a slightly better footballer. Both are simply filling a positional need in the team, necessary to keep the ball in the forward 50 providing repeat shots on goal, and allowing the mids and defense to get organised. It just so happens that by hard work and dedication these two are the best in the squad at filling this role. Are they the most gifted players, hell no, but they are the best at this required role. If Stephens, Ronke or Gouldy were better at this specific role they would be in the team and not Wicks or Bell. It is clear from things Longmire has said, and the fact that Wicks came back into the side the second he started playing ok in the VFL that Wicks is considered a best 22 player providing the defensive forward work. His 19 touches and 2 goals against Essendon is not going to happen every week and reflects how crap Essendon and Heppel were. However we should expect to see his 20 pressure acts a week.

I think there are some good footy brains on this forum but I can't understand why this is so hard to understand. I haven't heard rugby union lovers moaning that a forward prop doesn't get enough tries.

- - - Updated - - -



We will find out over the next month!

I have a theory Barracuda. I think your either a relative of Wicks or a club legend down at the Manly Bombers Club. You simply know too much about the small forward role. You know the KPI’s.

I also think that TB was a former South Melbourne player.

When knowledge is so good and so precise, there has to be more too it.

[liz]

Is this a chicken/egg situation? If it gets to the point where no one will insure the AFL due to the likelihood of huge payouts down the road, then there will be no league and no players to protect. This has to be playing into the top decision making when it comes to changing the rules surrounding concussion.

I'm not suggesting the AFL isn't concerned about legal action. Moreso that protecting the players is primary, protecting the AFL secondary. If the incidents of concussion can be reduced, so too will the legal risk to the AFL.

That doesn't make it a chicken/egg situation because it is clear which one comes first.

[Ludwig]

The metrics Bell and Wicks are judged on by the coaches are: Pressure Acts, Tackles, and Getting to the right spot structurally. They are not judged on disposals or goals. Bell in particular is highly regarded by the players for his defensive efforts and hard body work. Wicks is a slightly better footballer. Both are simply filling a positional need in the team, necessary to keep the ball in the forward 50 providing repeat shots on goal, and allowing the mids and defense to get organised. It just so happens that by hard work and dedication these two are the best in the squad at filling this role. Are they the most gifted players, hell no, but they are the best at this required role. If Stephens, Ronke or Gouldy were better at this specific role they would be in the team and not Wicks or Bell. It is clear from things Longmire has said, and the fact that Wicks came back into the side the second he started playing ok in the VFL that Wicks is considered a best 22 player providing the defensive forward work. His 19 touches and 2 goals against Essendon is not going to happen every week and reflects how crap Essendon and Heppel were. However we should expect to see his 20 pressure acts a week.

I think there are some good footy brains on this forum but I can't understand why this is so hard to understand. I haven't heard rugby union lovers moaning that a forward prop doesn't get enough tries.

I've always been fine with Wicks as primarily a defensive forward. He had a few off weeks to kick off the season, but he was good on Saturday. All of our forwards are good defensively and apply pressure when they're on their game, including Bell. But I don't think Bell's defensive game is that much better than alternatives to make up for some of his other shortcomings.

[Goal Sneak]

I'm not suggesting the AFL isn't concerned about legal action. Moreso that protecting the players is primary, protecting the AFL secondary. If the incidents of concussion can be reduced, so too will the legal risk to the AFL.

That doesn't make it a chicken/egg situation because it is clear which one comes first.

Maybe more "one and the same" than Chicken/egg?. My original point was it's not just about making it more attractive to Mum's to get their kids involved, which is most definitely a big part of it. The AFL have a new perspective when it comes to duty of care based on all the information being released in regard to concussions and they are taking it very seriously, for very good reason.

[Ludwig]

Ridiculous . 5 pages spent on this topic . C grader might miss a week , big deal .

That's a pretty crude remark, even if we were talking about an opposition player, let alone a Swan.

[TheBloods]

That's a pretty crude remark, even if we were talking about an opposition player, let alone a Swan.

Not crude , its just the truth . Hes a bottom 4-6 player in the side at best , you would all agree . C grader might be harsh but its the truth , not meant as an insult .1 week without him is no tragedy

We are challenging the ban anyway , so you 'll all get to keep going on about it looks like

[Faunac8]

That's a pretty crude remark, even if we were talking about an opposition player, let alone a Swan.

But not entirely unexpected and as usual without basis in fact.
I also felt the comment that he was doing reckless stupid things when playing poor footy was totally lacking in class as well.

JR lives in his head and TB will never let it go.

[TheBloods]

But not entirely unexpected and as usual without basis in fact.
I also felt the comment that he was doing reckless stupid things when playing poor footy was totally lacking in class as well.

JR lives in his head and TB will never let it go.

As usual you think the worst of me . I was not insulting RB , i was saying the topic wasnt worth talking about . Chad missed rd 1 and you know what i said ? Its a big loss but others should be able to step up . I didnt dwell on it , whats the point .Dont you think if i wanted to have a go at him i would be participating in the debate about what he did ? I said he wasnt a dirty player , it was a stupid mistake , he copped a penalty so that was that .

[i'm-uninformed2]

From the coaches votes, and a pretty fair assessment (though I reckon Tom McCartin is stiff to only get 1 vote).

10 Callum Mills (SYD)
8 Chad Warner (SYD)
5 Tom Papley (SYD)
4 Errol Gulden (SYD)
2 Luke Parker (SYD)
1 Tom McCartin (SYD)

[stevoswan]

Coaches votes:

Sydney v Essendon

10 Callum Mills (SYD)
8 Chad Warner (SYD)
5 Tom Papley (SYD)
4 Errol Gulden (SYD)
2 Luke Parker (SYD)
1 Tom McCartin (SYD)

Edit: Oops, 2 minutes to late!

[stevoswan]

Ridiculous . 5 pages spent on this topic . C grader might miss a week , big deal . Its done now , what is there to discuss ? No one thinks RB is a dirty player and hes not the first and wont be the last to do reckless stupid things when playing poor footy . The club and RB will have already moved on , lets do the same.

Ahh, it's never ending. Sigh.

[0918330512]

As usual you think the worst of me. I was not insulting RB , i was saying the topic wasnt worth talking about . Chad missed rd 1 and you know what i said ? Its a big loss but others should be able to step up . I didnt dwell on it , whats the point .Dont you think if i wanted to have a go at him i would be participating in the debate about what he did ? I said he wasnt a dirty player , it was a stupid mistake , he copped a penalty so that was that .

I’m sorry, but how is calling someone a C grade player not insulting? It certainly isn’t a complement