Round 17 - Sydney v Carlton

[davis_756]

You're saying Buddy didnt show just a little bit of class in the second half?

Buddy had done nothing when I turned off to watch some Stargate, the game was over by that stage so no he did nothing important.

 

[Syd]

It's nothing any side couldn't do with Sydney's handouts though.

Now the world has returned to normal.
Had me scared for a minute Jim-bob!

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

If you're a player under 30 and you're only being offered a one year contract it's very clear the club doesn't care if you stay or go. It's basically saying "We'll keep you if no one else wants you, but if someone wants to take you off our hands, great."

The revisionist history about Kennedy, McGlynn, Mumford, Richards, etc is ridiculous. Stop acting like your clubs really cared about keeping them, because it's not true. One day when I have the time and can be bothered I'm going to go and drag up all the articles and posts about those pick ups and I bet no one will act as if they were great pick ups.

Mummy was far from a reject, he was one the Cats couldn't actually keep. The season before they'd signed Mark Blake to a two year deal, Mummy's first at Sydney's was Blakes second year of the contract. iirc, he was an elevated rookie, unless he was prepared to accept $20 a win / $10 a loss plus a pie with sauce and can of coke each week. I don't think you'll find too many people who didn't want Mummy kept at Geelong but when your side is coming off two flags with about two thirds of your side being All Australian and taking unders as it was to stay together, then something has to give and unfortunately that was Mummy.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

They just picked Mark Blake ahead of him in the Grand Final!

Until they were basically wiped out by the sub rule, The old 'second ruckman wants to be first ruckman so he moves club' was the most common player movement in the league.

The thing about those pick ups, is I'm not even saying that it was not wrong to think that. No one expected Josh Kennedy to be as good as he is. McGlynn hit a wall at Hawthorn, Mark Blake was getting picked above Mumford. Ted Richards couldn't get a game at Essendon. Shaw was a whipping boy at Collingwood.

What annoys me is the revisionist history to try and create the narrative that the Swans had always been going out and poaching gun players thanks to our COLA. It's stupid and completely ignores history. I can't think of a single (at the time) gun recruit we got from say, getting Nick Davis in 2002 to Tippett in 2013. A 32 year old Spider Everitt? A behind Jeff White Darren Jolly?

I think you're the revisionist here. The reason Blake was picked ahead of Mumford wasn't on ability. It was Mumford's first full season, he'd played the first 3 games of the previous season and then was injured / unfit. In '09 he played the majority of h&a games before running out of steam late in the season. Nothing more, nothing less. They needed someone who could run out a full game in the finals, not that Blake was much chop. Fully fit, Mumford was miles in front of Blake, we all knew that.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Point being the "recruitment" process is integral to your current list as well, even FA recruitment

Glass houses and all

No FA recruitment as yet. And I think the complaints will continue from us until we benefit ie get a player via FA. Currently we get players by trade but have lost via FA for under compensation (ffs Thomas compo > buddy if that's not an anomalous result there never will be a case where that clause is invoked)

 

[legend166]

I think you're the revisionist here. The reason Blake was picked ahead of Mumford wasn't on ability. It was Mumford's first full season, he'd played the first 3 games of the previous season and then was injured / unfit. In '09 he played the majority of h&a games before running out of steam late in the season. Nothing more, nothing less. They needed someone who could run out a full game in the finals, not that Blake was much chop. Fully fit, Mumford was miles in front of Blake, we all knew that.

I get that, but it doesn't really go against the argument I'm making.

I'm arguing against the narrative that the Swans used their extra millions upon millions from the COLA (one disgruntled Carlton supporter in this thread acted as if it allowed us to get 7-8 extra players from it!) to go out and steal gun players from other clubs to build our team, even though those clubs desperately wanted to keep them and were only gazumped by our $$$$.

The fact is Mumford was a rookie listed player who had just been dropped for the finals series for Mark Blake. We came in, saw he was probably being undervalued, and decided to offer him a four year deal and promise of best 22 football. You said the Cats wanted to keep him but couldn't afford to pay him anywhere near his actual value. Which basically means that there were two dozen other players the Cats valued more highly than Mumford, otherwise they wouldn't have signed them up before signing him up. It's great to say "We wanted to keep Mumford! But only for very little money" and then act like he was stolen. It's like Swans fans going around saying Carlton stole Andrejs Everitt. The fact is, we would have kept him if we could afford it, but we couldn't, because we put getting Buddy, Tippett, and resigning our young midfielders as a priority ahead of Everitt. So he went and got a good contract and a guarantee of best 22 footy at Carlton, and he's making the best of it. Good on him.

The same thing happened with Kennedy and McGlynn. And now we've got the moronic HodgePodge acting as if we poached Ted Richards! The same Ted Richards who we ourselves were going to delist before he saved his career in the latter third of the 2010 season.

 

[legend166]

Paul Wiliams

He came up in 2001.

 

[Crankyhawk]

How about we just rename all game day threads involving Sydney to "Hawks supporters sook about everything". Barely any discussion on the game at all.

Not as if there's actually much of this particular game to discuss though

 

[Gongswan]

He came up in 2001.

I just thought he was left out of the whole players we got from other clubs thing. He and Goodes were the class in our mid 2000 sides

 

[Gongswan]

Not as if there's actually much of this particular game to discuss though

No, just the odd 10 goal to one point qtr, nothing to see here

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I get that, but it doesn't really go against the argument I'm making.

I'm arguing against the narrative that the Swans used their extra millions upon millions from the COLA (one disgruntled Carlton supporter in this thread acted as if it allowed us to get 7-8 extra players from it!) to go out and steal gun players from other clubs to build our team, even though those clubs desperately wanted to keep them and were only gazumped by our $$$$.

The fact is Mumford was a rookie listed player who had just been dropped for the finals series for Mark Blake. We came in, saw he was probably being undervalued, and decided to offer him a four year deal and promise of best 22 football. You said the Cats wanted to keep him but couldn't afford to pay him anywhere near his actual value. Which basically means that there were two dozen other players the Cats valued more highly than Mumford, otherwise they wouldn't have signed them up before signing him up. It's great to say "We wanted to keep Mumford! But only for very little money" and then act like he was stolen. It's like Swans fans going around saying Carlton stole Andrejs Everitt. The fact is, we would have kept him if we could afford it, but we couldn't, because we put getting Buddy, Tippett, and resigning our young midfielders as a priority ahead of Everitt. So he went and got a good contract and a guarantee of best 22 footy at Carlton, and he's making the best of it. Good on him.

The same thing happened with Kennedy and McGlynn. And now we've got the moronic HodgePodge acting as if we poached Ted Richards! The same Ted Richards who we ourselves were going to delist before he saved his career in the latter third of the 2010 season.

Who has said that he was stolen? I don't think I've ever read anywhere that a Geelong supporter thought he was stolen. I don't think it was Sydney guaranteeing him games, I'd be surprised if that was it. They just had the ability to offer him stability with length of tenure and a modest monetary contract, certainly nothing outrageous in dollar terms.

It was just bad timing for both parties. He hadn't even played by the time Geelong had resigned all of their premiership players to better contracts, it was reported that a lot of them had clauses for pay increases for things like being named All Australian which after '07 and '08 was about half the senior side.

They had no cap space and Blake still had a year left on his contract (he played hardball with the club after being left out of the '07 GF side) before Mumford was even on the radar. As I said, just bad timing. Bad for the Cats, good for the Swans.

 

[Crankyhawk]

swans vs st kilda SCG, any guess on how many points swans will beat them by? 150+?

Which round is it? If close to finals swans may be resting a few so 150 is about right but if all firing we could see geelongs high score record fall.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I know it's being picky, but I wish we wouldn't always take the foot off the pedal. That should've been 100 points and 10 goals to Buddy. I'll take it, though.

You don't want to risk injury to get an extra 30 point margin though.

 

[Crankyhawk]

No, just the odd 10 goal to one point qtr, nothing to see here

It's a lot to see but not much to discuss beyond Sydney excellent and Carlton witches hats.

 

[SterlingArcher]

s**t ******* night. Not only do the Blues cop a caning, Buddy destroyed us and is now a goal ahead of Hawkins and a goal behind Schulz. I have money on Hawkins and Schulz for the Coleman. Oh, and JPK was BOG and I have money on Pendlebury for the Brownlow.

Couldn't have gone much worse for my own reasons.

On the flip side, Gibbs went all in for a valiant effort, having a fantastic season undeniably.

 

[Hodgepodge]

I know you're a dumb troll but some people actually believe this rubbish so I'll answer some of it.

If you thought Kennedy would be this good you must be absolutely furious that Hawthorn let him go by only offering a one year deal considering he's now better than any other midfielder at your club

No, I'm just furious that we let him go, and if you look back to posts from 2009 on the matter, you would see that.

Offering a one - year deal to a player under 30, as discussed, is not tantamount to throwing that player away. This is true even of our captain who accepted one-year deals well prior to his 30th birthday. It's a strategy to manage the salary cap at a club, not a player snub. Sydney are under less salary cap pressure than other clubs so they are often able to offer exorbitant deals that other clubs cannot match, and this was the case again with Kennedy.

You might want to say that Kennedy was a virtual discard, but arguing that the one-year deal proves it just shows your lack of knowledge or wishful thinking in this regard, given the numerous examples to the contrary.

Your opinions on Mumford are also off the mark, and you've been called up on those, too.

I said it earlier, you just don't know what you're talking about.

 

[legend166]

Who has said that he was stolen? I don't think I've ever read anywhere that a Geelong supporter thought he was stolen. I don't think it was Sydney guaranteeing him games, I'd be surprised if that was it. They just had the ability to offer him stability with length of tenure and a modest monetary contract, certainly nothing outrageous in dollar terms.

It was just bad timing for both parties. He hadn't even played by the time Geelong had resigned all of their premiership players to better contracts, it was reported that a lot of them had clauses for pay increases for things like being named All Australian which after '07 and '08 was about half the senior side.

They had no cap space and Blake still had a year left on his contract (he played hardball with the club after being left out of the '07 GF side) before Mumford was even on the radar. As I said, just bad timing. Bad for the Cats, good for the Swans.

I completely agree with you. 100%.

 

[Damon_3388]

Paul Wiliams

Geez, that was like 15 years ago...

 

[smithey2012swannies]

Which round is it? If close to finals swans may be resting a few so 150 is about right but if all firing we could see geelongs high score record fall.

rnd21, the round after port game. I reckon swans will go hard to get that percentage booster.

 

[vonn]

How about we just rename all game day threads involving Sydney to "Hawks supporters sook about everything". Barely any discussion on the game at all.

I like to reread GDTs because I don't have a chance to read them at the game and I like opinions from neutrals because they are harsher and pick up things I don't see.

You have no idea how little sense they make now because half of the posters in this thread are on 'ignore.' I don't even need to bother hovering over 'Show Ignored Content' to know who it is.