Remove this Banner Ad

Dane Swan?

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

M

MarkT

Hall of Famer
Veteran 30k Posts 10k Posts
Oct 1, 2001
32,501
38
Melb
AFL Club
Collingwood
Any Good?

I really can't see him getting a game on merit. I've only seen him live a couple of times at Collingwood and on TV a couple of times for Williamstown. I haven't seen anything to excite me at all. I'll give him a chance this year but can anyone tell me what he has that makes him stand out in a deep midfield?
 
Don't think he's good enough. After a summer in the gym he might be a better prospect, but at the end of the day he is another midfield type player like many of our others.

Reasonable skill but prone to errors, no great depth in his kicking, one-paced, not especially good overhead, but a good football brain. In other words, no particular aspect of his game makes him stand out.

Might benefit from the tutelage of Guy McKenna.
 
Pretty much my thoughts Hotpie. Should we have dropped him and left room for another draft pick or a PSD pick? In hindsight we could have drafted Gayfer. Swan is not the worst player we carry on our list but I can;t see how or why he will make it. Granted it's early days.
 
He's alright but I can't see him getting a spot in our midfield, but I think he could quite easily slot in to our forward line as a crumbing forward. He is quite a flexible player, he has been used in defence, attack and midfield at Williamstown.
I'm more worried about Bo Nixon than Dane Swan.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

He's like Heath Scotland with more flexibility.

Have seen him play plenty and seems like he's got a good head for footy. Very composed. Neat.

Whilst a Scoots fan, he had market value and from our point of view, there was no point carrying both Swan and Scotland.

I think he can make it. Not in the midfield, but his capacity to play forward or back makes him a more enticing proposition. O'Bree's crumbing/goal sharking role could be an ideal position for him, especially with our number of tall forward options (Tarrant, Rocca, Morrison, Fraser, Davidson).

Didak shouldn't be our only option for small crumbing forward and Davis, well, I have more confidence in Swan.

I'm not overly concerned about Nixon. He's a first year player, who didn't look too shabby at VFL level. He kicked goals when forward and was servicable in his main position at HB. Over the next couple of years, he'll be bigger, stronger and more confident.

Most 191cm kids who play VFL look like a boy in a man's game. Niko at least looked like an adolescent. He'll come good over time.
 
Originally posted by MarkT
Pretty much my thoughts Hotpie. Should we have dropped him and left room for another draft pick or a PSD pick? In hindsight we could have drafted Gayfer. Swan is not the worst player we carry on our list but I can;t see how or why he will make it. Granted it's early days.
Click to expand...

I agree, we'd have to be better off with someone who's 192cm and 92kgs at 18 with some promise than someone who's 183 cm and 85kgs and will be 20 beofre the start of next season.

If we'd cut Swan we could have rookied him back, Can't image anyone else grabbing him, whereas I think we'll be lucky to get Gayfer
 
Figy I agree with your comments.

Swan will always be a fringe player, someone who gets a game if we have a deep injury list.
Nixon on the other hand looks like he will be a handy type. I think we will see him bought into the seniors later in the year.
Would be OK on a wing as he has a bit of pace.
 
Originally posted by dunno4
I agree, we'd have to be better off with someone who's 192cm and 92kgs at 18 with some promise than someone who's 183 cm and 85kgs and will be 20 beofre the start of next season.

If we'd cut Swan we could have rookied him back, Can't image anyone else grabbing him, whereas I think we'll be lucky to get Gayfer
Click to expand...
That's some pretty average logic you've got going there!

By that logic, you'd have cut Didak from the list at the start of last season to make way for a tall player with question marks!

As for Gayfer, we haven't made him any promises. Whilst it's likely that he'll be taken before our pick, who's to say he'd be our first selection anyway? I hope Noel goes for the best player available, whomever he thinks that is.

And all this "we should have delisted player X and we could have got Y", is a load of tripe and has happened to us in three consecutive seasons.

Firstly, everyone was upset that we didn't leave enough room to snare Jamar and that we should have pushed someone to get him in the PSD.

Last year we did just that, basically pushing Steiner out the door for Mullins.

Are we seriously suggesting we do the same again?? Talk about asking for trouble! We talk about loyalty when Nick Davis is mentioned, but pushing players out the door on a consistent basis is far worse than a homesick kid going home!

There were two obvious candidates for delisting and that was Kinnear and Davis. If Malthouse can somehow justify to Judkins that these two are better prospects than a Gayfer or a Surjan, then he's a better salesman than I am. But then again, everyone expected the likes of Gayfer and Surjan to be gone by the end of Round 3, so you can't think of it that way.

Fact is, we chose to select 5 kids at the table and we selected 5 kids. We didn't choose to take 6, as we were uncertain as to who would be left at round 6 or 7 or 8. There might always be "surprises", but what if those "surprises" are not rated by Judkins. He'd then be somewhat obliged to select a kid he had doubts over.

Eitherway, I can't see how Swanny's name came into this. There would be luckier players who are still on our list and even then, you can't really blame them for us not having a tall kid with queries over his game.
 
I have seen Swann play a few times. He gets the ball ok but is prone to making skill errors. To my mind if he continues to do this during 2004 then we would have to look at delisting him. However if he can improve in this area then I believe he can make it as a crumbing forward or half back.
 
Originally posted by MarkT
Should we have dropped him and left room for another draft pick or a PSD pick? In hindsight we could have drafted Gayfer.
Click to expand...

He needs to be given a chance - probably needs 2 more years. We didn't even take Gayfer in the rookie draft so obviously he was not in our sights.
 
Originally posted by dunno4
OK, Figjam do you believe Swanny will "make it" and play say 50 games over the next 3-4 years?
Click to expand...
I can't be certain, but MM likes him and I think he will get a better run than say Scotland.

One thing's for sure, now that Gayfer hasn't been touched by a fifth round rookie draft pick, this thread's looking a bit daft.

Swan's competition is with O'Bree, Davis, Lokan, Rhyce, Mullins and maybe Heath Shaw.

Outside of the newbies in Mullins and Heath (haven't seen enough/anything), I'd keep Swan on my list if forced to pick one out of him, Davis, Lokan and Rhyce Shaw. I think Swan will improve and take it up to those guys this year.

All players are fighting hard for limited opportunities. Hopefully that will bring out the best in everyone, but some will fall by the wayside.

I reiterate that it is stupid trying to correct list management in hindsight. "We shoulda opened up an extra draft pick by dumping Swan for Gayfer". We just had four and didn't pick Gayfer!!

Let Swanny do his thing and if he ain't cutting it at season's end, then consider his future.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Originally posted by jabso
I'm more worried about Bo Nixon than Dane Swan.
Click to expand...
Nill all draw as far as I'm concerned. In saying that IMO Collingwood are now passed needing run of the mill servicable players.
 
Seems there are a few Swan fans but no devotees. fair enough. I look at our midfield and I just can't see a spot for him until Buckley and Burns go. If we take midfielders on then they'd wanna be quick ones with our list. Raw pace is what we could add to a very good midfield and not much more. A potential Akamanis would be the ideal type. I just don't see Swan fitting the bill for us and with the Shaw boys now on the list I can't even see many opportunities coming his way.

I am more than happy for him to replace O'Bree in his role but I'm hoping Didak, Lockyer, Holland and Davis make 2 forward/midfield roles between the 4 of them. The jury is out on Davis and he clearl has 1 year to prove plenty. I don't rate O'Bree as highly as some.

As I see it the best thing for Collingwood over the next 2 years would be to get a tall forward or 2 and a tall backman (Davidson/Morrison/Walker/Cloke/Hall) move Tarrant up the ground, have Woewey and Lonie fight for a wing and squeeze out an existing midfielder for Brayden Shaw. In all of that I just can't see Swan playing a part when we also have King and maybe the keg to play some part in the mix. I am not confident on that fat bloke Shak FWIW.

Anyway, we have our list for 2004 and timke will tell. The one thing I am sure about is that I would rather have a probably won't make it Gayfer on the list than a definately won't make it Kinnear.
 
He's more likely to fill a role at half back and replace Shaw Lonie or Lokan. Problem is there are two more Shaws coming through as well as Cole and others, but he's got more chance getting a game in defence than anywhere else.
 
Originally posted by hotpie
Problem is there are two more Shaws coming through as well as Cole and others, but he's got more chance getting a game in defence than anywhere else.
Click to expand...
Ahhh, the problems of having a decent side!

Makes me reflect on the squad of '99 (which is funny until I become nauseous).
 
I think Didak could easily become that Akermanis type player for our midfield. He has very good speed and excellent accelleration (watch those games where he's has a run in the midfield and he scoops up a ball hitting the deck and runs away with it) and he knows how to kick a goal. He is also quite detirmined and puts in alot of 2nd and 3rd efforts so he won't be found out on his defensive game. He probably just needs to learn how to play the contested ball a bit better.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Originally posted by hotpie
He's more likely to fill a role at half back and replace Shaw Lonie or Lokan. Problem is there are two more Shaws coming through as well as Cole and others, but he's got more chance getting a game in defence than anywhere else.
Click to expand...
And Johnson, Lonie, Lockyer, King etc? The question I have is how much can he add. What I want is a bit less mid range and more potential top end.
 
jabso, Didak is a poor man's Daicos. That doesn't mean he's not very good but he aint Aka unfortunately. He's not nearly as quick or explosive.
 
Mark I have got to disagree with you on Kinnear.
Until Olympic park is completely redeveloped and ready for use we will need someone to stand at one end with their hands in the air to act as goal posts.
Kinnear fits the profile perfectly
ie He is Tall,
He Has Two Arms
He Won't move at all.
and the rest of team won't miss him
 
MarkT said:
Any Good?

I really can't see him getting a game on merit. I've only seen him live a couple of times at Collingwood and on TV a couple of times for Williamstown. I haven't seen anything to excite me at all. I'll give him a chance this year but can anyone tell me what he has that makes him stand out in a deep midfield?
Click to expand...

Well came along way since then mate;)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Dane Swan?

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top