Round 9 vs Bombers @ SCG - match thread

[TheBloods]

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

I think Bell is a C grader and he is one of my favourites !

[0918330512]

I think Bell is a C grader and he is one of my favourites !

True enough, except that - until the quoted post - I don’t recall you ever referring to Bell as a C Grade player. You might have thought it, but never expressed it that way.

You might not see it that way, I suppose

No big issue

[Bangalore Swans]

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

I have to step in here. On Fox Footy shows for years the panelists have been analysing different teams midfield capacity by grading the midfielders as A, B or C graders. If you look at Geelong they would say that Dangerfield and Selwood are A graders and then they work down. There are always plenty of players whom are C-Graders.

Rowbottom would be classified as a C grade midfielder if such an analysis occurred. Mills, Parker and Heeney would be A graders with Chad as a B grader. Florent is a C grader on current performance but good form would have him as a B grader.

TB analysis of Rowbottom being a C grader is exactly what a Fox Football panel analysing a Swans midfield would grade Rowbottom.

People on here must cease and desist the unmitigated attacks on TB.

[bandwagon]

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

Agree - he was outrageously good.
Also - Mills has almost as many votes as he scored ALL last season (41 vs 42).

[bandwagon]

Rating Rowbottom as a 'C' is reasonable. Personally I'd say C+, and he was good at the weekend. I have no doubt to will be back in the 22 after his suspension. Which is where he belongs.

[0918330512]

I have to step in here. On Fox Footy shows for years the panelists have been analysing different teams midfield capacity by grading the midfielders as A, B or C graders. If you look at Geelong they would say that Dangerfield and Selwood are A graders and then they work down. There are always plenty of players whom are C-Graders.

Rowbottom would be classified as a C grade midfielder if such an analysis occurred. Mills, Parker and Heeney would be A graders with Chad as a B grader. Florent is a C grader on current performance but good form would have him as a B grader.

TB analysis of Rowbottom being a C grader is exactly what a Fox Football panel analysing a Swans midfield would grade Rowbottom.

Ah there he is, right on cue. Amazing how you two are on at the same time, many times.

TB, you are lucky to have such a staunch defender.

In this instance, Bangongalore, you are right. Media outlets (Fox, a variety of newspaper outlets, AFL.com.au etc) do use a letter grading to assess players and teams. So I must retract my objection at TB’s use of the letter grade classification. Entirely appropriate and a very good point you make.

People on here must cease and desist the unmitigated attacks on TB.

And there it is! The irritating decree. I just can’t shake the mental image of Danny Devito and Arnold Schwarzenegger in Twins as I read posts such as this.

[Nico]

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.

Or the team. One thing about Clark is he gets where the ball is at. Massive tank and plenty of possessions.

[stevoswan]

I have to step in here. On Fox Footy shows for years the panelists have been analysing different teams midfield capacity by grading the midfielders as A, B or C graders. If you look at Geelong they would say that Dangerfield and Selwood are A graders and then they work down. There are always plenty of players whom are C-Graders.

Rowbottom would be classified as a C grade midfielder if such an analysis occurred. Mills, Parker and Heeney would be A graders with Chad as a B grader. Florent is a C grader on current performance but good form would have him as a B grader.

TB analysis of Rowbottom being a C grader is exactly what a Fox Football panel analysing a Swans midfield would grade Rowbottom.

People on here must cease and desist the unmitigated attacks on TB.

How about we wait until the FoxSports panelists actually rate the Swans?

NB: It's better to 'step in' with actual facts rather than 'opinion'.....you're getting into FoxNews territory doing that Banga.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Excellent.....the challenge I mean.

[Faunac8]

I have to step in here. On Fox Footy shows for years the panelists have been analysing different teams midfield capacity by grading the midfielders as A, B or C graders. If you look at Geelong they would say that Dangerfield and Selwood are A graders and then they work down. There are always plenty of players whom are C-Graders.

Rowbottom would be classified as a C grade midfielder if such an analysis occurred. Mills, Parker and Heeney would be A graders with Chad as a B grader. Florent is a C grader on current performance but good form would have him as a B grader.

TB analysis of Rowbottom being a C grader is exactly what a Fox Football panel analysing a Swans midfield would grade Rowbottom.

People on here must cease and desist the unmitigated attacks on TB.

Quite the long bow but well done for providing an out for your Master of course that was the context he was using.
And this comment is of course ok as well as it’s what you would regularly hear on Fox Footy

“he was doing reckless stupid things when playing poor footy”


Your sycophantic efforts to protect him at all costs are to be admired however he knows what he is doing when he slips in inflammatory comments like that and to expect no blowback is naive.
And your regular directives on how others should think and behave can be filed you know where.

[Ludwig]

I have to step in here. On Fox Footy shows for years the panelists have been analysing different teams midfield capacity by grading the midfielders as A, B or C graders. If you look at Geelong they would say that Dangerfield and Selwood are A graders and then they work down. There are always plenty of players whom are C-Graders.

Rowbottom would be classified as a C grade midfielder if such an analysis occurred. Mills, Parker and Heeney would be A graders with Chad as a B grader. Florent is a C grader on current performance but good form would have him as a B grader.

TB analysis of Rowbottom being a C grader is exactly what a Fox Football panel analysing a Swans midfield would grade Rowbottom.

People on here must cease and desist the unmitigated attacks on TB.

The point of my comment to TB was that the grade of the footballer is irrelevant when discussing whether a player should be suspended for an incident. Is he insinuating that if Buddy Franklin made high contact with a player it would be okay because he's an A grader? It was a gratuitous attack on Rowbottom unrelated to his performance.

Maybe we should leave RWO to A and B grade posters only, and let the trash contribute elsewhere.

[Roadrunner]

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 get where you’re coming from barracuda, but don’t agree with the Bell (and to a lesser degree) the Wicks selections.
We played a poor Bombers outfit so no real conclusions should be reached from that game.

The real proof will come over the next 3 weeks, when we play strong teams, and if one or both get selected.
I hope they contribute enough to allow our other forwards to score. I just don’t think they are good enough, but happy to be proved wrong!

[ugg]

Wicks already proved himself last year as one of the league’s best defensive forwards based on some of the stats floating around, yet most here are still trying to judge him purely on his offensive numbers.

Yes he could be better in his goal kicking and he’s still improving in that regard but I think we have enough firepower in that forward line with Buddy Heeney and Papley who all on their day can kick big bags. To a lesser extent Hayward and the other talls whether it be Ladhams McDonald McLean Amartey or Reid can also contribute

What Wicks does in his role is underappreciated except where it counts which is the coaches and his teammates. Do you think Hawthorn would have been sniffing around him last year when he was out of contract if he was just a below average fringe player

[MattW]

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

I agree this question arises - this Friday night will contribute to the answer.

- - - Updated - - -

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!

Great post - thanks.

[AB Swannie]

Wicks already proved himself last year as one of the league’s best defensive forwards based on some of the stats floating around, yet most here are still trying to judge him purely on his offensive numbers.

Yes he could be better in his goal kicking and he’s still improving in that regard but I think we have enough firepower in that forward line with Buddy Heeney and Papley who all on their day can kick big bags. To a lesser extent Hayward and the other talls whether it be Ladhams McDonald McLean Amartey or Reid can also contribute

What Wicks does in his role is underappreciated except where it counts which is the coaches and his teammates. Do you think Hawthorn would have been sniffing around him last year when he was out of contract if he was just a below average fringe player

I'm certainly guilty of being harsh on Wicks partly because of a few poor misses at goal and a tendency to be undisciplined at times. However, I do appreciate yours and Barracuda's posts and agree that the team is better with him in the 22 than out. He is also only 22 years old so has more development in him. I also see the effort that Bell makes but I just don't think he is as good overall. For example, Wicks had 20 pressure acts (3rd most for Swans behind Mills & Rowbottom) while Bell had 13 pressure acts.

[Roadrunner]

Wicks already proved himself last year as one of the league’s best defensive forwards based on some of the stats floating around, yet most here are still trying to judge him purely on his offensive numbers.

Yes he could be better in his goal kicking and he’s still improving in that regard but I think we have enough firepower in that forward line with Buddy Heeney and Papley who all on their day can kick big bags. To a lesser extent Hayward and the other talls whether it be Ladhams McDonald McLean Amartey or Reid can also contribute

What Wicks does in his role is underappreciated except where it counts which is the coaches and his teammates. Do you think Hawthorn would have been sniffing around him last year when he was out of contract if he was just a below average fringe player

To prove your point about Wicks being one of the best defensive forwards, can we look at the EFFECTIVE tackles, rather than just tackles where the defender manages a useful handball to a team mate, together with the frees awarded against the forward? To my mind Ugg, that would be a more accurate measure of the player’s contribution to his fellow forwards.
Agreed that coaches and team mates do appreciate the role. I will support this view as long as our forwards kick a winning score. When they don’t, I question the role of each and every forward.

If the Dawks were in for him, with due respect, it doesn’t mean much!