Sam Mitchell v Dane Swan

[Mateyman]

Mitchell's best is far far better than Swan IMO

Have seen 5 Hawk games live against Collingwood and every time Swan gets a heap of ball but never hurts the Hawks.

Sam on the other hand cuts the Pies to ribbons, every time all I hear from the Collingwood people around me is "FFS Mitchell always kills us"

Mitchell by a fair way and the gap is getting bigger.

So on the basis of 5 games over about 5 years you judge Swan's ability. Makes sense

 

[Adam H]

Then why is Peter Yagmoor such a spud?

Ok Clinton Jones is a gun then.

 

[Mateyman]

Ok Clinton Jones is a gun then.

Did I say ball use was unimportant? You're the one who said it was "the be and end all". So do you stand by this comment? Or are you too busy putting words in my mouth?

 

[Adam H]

Did I say ball use was unimportant? You're the one who said it was "the be and end all". So do you stand by this comment? Or are you too busy putting words in my mouth?

Well if you get it 30 times a game and use it Im sure you understand thats far better than getting it 35 times and butchering it.

 

[Bardo State]

All I'll say is that I honestly don't see how anyone could rate Swan higher in anything other than the goals factor, which IMO doesn't even nearly account for Mitchell's vast superiority in ball use. When Mitchell has a 30, he'll have been in the best few players on the ground, with very few exceptions. I've seen Swan get 40s and not be that impressive. Having a player like Swan is fine if all of your players win their one on one's he will inevitably kick to, but failing that, you'd rather a player consistently hitting targets by hand and foot and a superior clearance player. There might have been a brief period for a year or so around 2010 when Swan was actually damaging on the scoreboard and winning enough explosive clearances to be considered the better player, but outside that, Mitchell has him fairly comfortably IMO. Better user of the ball, better clearance player and there really isn't much of a difference in terms of pure numbers of possessions over any period that would justify Swan being seen as the better player.

 

[Mateyman]

All I'll say is that I honestly don't see how anyone could rate Swan higher in anything other than the goals factor, which IMO doesn't even nearly account for Mitchell's vast superiority in ball use. When Mitchell has a 30, he'll have been in the best few players on the ground, with very few exceptions. I've seen Swan get 40s and not be that impressive. Having a player like Swan is fine if all of your players win their one on one's he will inevitably kick to, but failing that, you'd rather a player consistently hitting targets by hand and foot and a superior clearance player. There might have been a brief period for a year or so around 2010 when Swan was actually damaging on the scoreboard and winning enough explosive clearances to be considered the better player, but outside that, Mitchell has him fairly comfortably IMO. Better user of the ball, better clearance player and there really isn't much of a difference in terms of pure numbers of possessions over any period that would justify Swan being seen as the better player.

You wouldn't expect such a superior clearance player as Mitchell to average less clearances than Swan for the last 3 years would you - especially given that these are meant to be the years Mitchell has been at his best?
Oh, and you would also expect Mitchell not to average about 2-3 less effective disposals over the last 4 years would you, given that he is such a superior ball user?

 

[Adam H]

You wouldn't expect such a superior clearance player as Mitchell to average less clearances than Swan for the last 3 years would you - especially given that these are meant to be the years Mitchell has been at his best?
Oh, and you would also expect Mitchell not to average about 2-3 less effective disposals over the last 4 years would you, given that he is such a superior ball user?

Try watching and then argue Swans disposals are more effective than Mitchells.

 

[Mateyman]

Try watching and then argue Swans disposals are more effective than Mitchells.

I didn't argue they were. Learn comprehension please.

 

[Adam H]

I didn't argue they were. Learn comprehension please.

Posting rubbish stats in an attempt to say Swans disposals are more effective fools no one.

 

[Mateyman]

Posting rubbish stats in an attempt to say Swans disposals are more effective fools no one.

That's not what I've been saying, but anyway, I like your subjective opinions more than any stats. Especially as they seem so unbiased

 

[akneal]

I can never understand the 'Swan does

Mitchell's best is far far better than Swan IMO

Have seen 5 Hawk games live against Collingwood and every time Swan gets a heap of ball but never hurts the Hawks.

Sam on the other hand cuts the Pies to ribbons, every time all I hear from the Collingwood people around me is "FFS Mitchell always kills us"

Mitchell by a fair way and the gap is getting bigger.

Yes. Mitchell does kill us.
Yes. Swan does often have games against you guys where he gets 40+ and doesn't do much with it.
But there are more games than just the Pies vs Hawks. IMO Swan's best is better than anyones i have seen besides Ablett and maybe Judd(am 18 so never saw Bucks, Voss, Hird or any other past greats at their best).
I do agree that Mitchell has had a more consistent career where he has been good for a longer period.

Ultimately, I think Mitchell has probably had the slightly better career due to his durability, but Swan is the better player when he is on(and 40+ disposals is NOT and indicator to whether he is on).
My opinion.

 

[Bardo State]

You wouldn't expect such a superior clearance player as Mitchell to average less clearances than Swan for the last 3 years would you - especially given that these are meant to be the years Mitchell has been at his best?
Oh, and you would also expect Mitchell not to average about 2-3 less effective disposals over the last 4 years would you, given that he is such a superior ball user?

Well a kick to a contest in counted as an effective disposal, which is Swan's speciality and even then Mitch has a higher disposal efficiency. So basically a kick to a 50/50 contest or worse is still counted as an effective disposal, which is what I said Swan will give you. If you could find retention rates then I'm sure it would be quite a different story. Similar thing with clearances, so many times I see Swan get the ball and just bomb it forward. Gains metres but vulnerable to turning it over, whereas Mitchell will usually give a handball to a team mate or pick out a target.

 

[Bardo State]

I can never understand the 'Swan does

Yes. Mitchell does kill us.
Yes. Swan does often have games against you guys where he gets 40+ and doesn't do much with it.
But there are more games than just the Pies vs Hawks. IMO Swan's best is better than anyones i have seen besides Ablett and maybe Judd(am 18 so never saw Bucks, Voss, Hird or any other past greats at their best).
I do agree that Mitchell has had a more consistent career where he has been good for a longer period.

Ultimately, I think Mitchell has probably had the slightly better career due to his durability, but Swan is the better player when he is on(and 40+ disposals is NOT and indicator to whether he is on).
My opinion.

The 2011 prelim, now that's a game where Swan did some real damage. I just don't think he's done it consistently enough outside 2010.

 

[akneal]

The 2011 prelim, now that's a game where Swan did some real damage. I just don't think he's done it consistently enough outside 2010.

Yes consistent is the word that separates the two. I personally think ANZAC day 2011 was his best, still a superstar.

 

[Mateyman]

Well a kick to a contest in counted as an effective disposal, which is Swan's speciality and even then Mitch has a higher disposal efficiency. So basically a kick to a 50/50 contest or worse is still counted as an effective disposal, which is what I said Swan will give you. If you could find retention rates then I'm sure it would be quite a different story. Similar thing with clearances, so many times I see Swan get the ball and just bomb it forward. Gains metres but vulnerable to turning it over, whereas Mitchell will usually give a handball to a team mate or pick out a target.

Conversely, Mitchell handballs a lot more, so you would expect a higher DE. Would be interested to see retention rates. i think you undersell Swan personally. His explosiveness is also very important to his play, and that doesn't show up in DE etc. It means he can dominate a game in a way Mitchell can't IMO. I get the feeling we will never agree.

 

[Mateyman]

Yes consistent is the word that separates the two. I personally think ANZAC day 2011 was his best, still a superstar.

Swan has been pretty consistent IMO.

 

[akneal]

Swan has been pretty consistent IMO.

Yeh but not for nearly as long as mitch has

 

[Mateyman]

Yeh but not for nearly as long as mitch has

I don't understand this argument. When did Mitchell become "elite"?
Say 2005/6 at the earliest. Swan was at this level by 2007, and is a year younger. Swan was 2 votes off a Brownlow last year, so was still doing pretty well at that point, as Mitchell is. Nothing to stop Swan keeping on going if he can get over (as he looks to be doing) his early poor form.

 

[akneal]

I don't understand this argument. When did Mitchell become "elite"?
Say 2005/6 at the earliest. Swan was at this level by 2007, and is a year younger. Swan was 2 votes off a Brownlow last year, so was still doing pretty well at that point, as Mitchell is. Nothing to stop Swan keeping on going if he can get over (as he looks to be doing) his early poor form.

yes fair point, agree.

 

[HawkHeaven]

The people have spoken, although I thought Sammy would win the poll by more.

 

[Phantasm]

Would it be safe to say Mitchell was the better player prier to 2007 and then again post 2011?
I mean were fighting over miller-meters here both have had great careers, but mikes top 50 just shows how underrated Mitch is.

2002 - Mitchell
2003 - Mitchell
2004 - Mitchell
2005 - Mitchell
2006 - Mitchell
2007 - Swan
2008 - Swan
2009 - Swan
2010 - Swan
2011 - Equal (maybe Swan just)
2012 - Mitchell
2013 - Mitchell

you could also say Swan has been a top 5 mid longer, but Mitchell has been a top 10 mid longer.

I cant beleive anyone would use mikes top fifty to support an argument....

 

[Guardian Hawk]

I have to say I don't get the argument that Mitchell's argument strengthens that much outside the 2007-11 period.

I don't understand this argument. When did Mitchell become "elite"? (In response to the argument that Mitchell has probably been better for longer (i.e. prior to 2007))

Mateyman, I agree with many of your points and believe Swan has been a magnificent player for a long time. However, I'm not sure why you keep saying you "can't understand" how Mitchell may have been better than Swan prior to 2007. It seems pretty clear to me:

Both players were part of the 2001 draft:

In 2002, Mitchell played 9 AFL games (and won the Liston (VFL Brownlow) in just 11 games). Swan struggled at VFL level and was not even named an emergency for any AFL game.

In 2003, Mitchell burst onto the scene, became the No 1 clearance player in the AFL and won the Rising Star in a canter. Swan played 3 games, averaged 9 disposals and was dropped in Round 4 for the remainder of the season.

In 2004, Mitchell started the season with a bang (averaging 28 disposals) and became the target of the No 1 tag at Hawthorn (from Crawford). Excluding the games he went off injured, he still averaged more than 20 disposals and averaged the most clearances of any player in the league. Dane Swan played 13 games, averaged 13 disposals (1 clearance) and was dropped multiple times.

In 2005, Mitchell missed 8 games (basically 9), suffering a season ending injury in the first minute of round 15. At that point, Mitchell was in the top 5 possession winners in the AFL, was far and away the leading clearance player in the comp and had been dubbed the 'new Diesel' by all and sundry after breaking the known clearance record (18) in a 39 possession romp of Collingwood. He had 9 Brownlow votes in a side that had won just 3 games and was leading the Hawthorn B&F at that point (still finishing top 5). Swan played 14 games, averaged 16 disposals and did not pick up a Brownlow vote or a top 15 place n the B&F.

In 2006, Mitchell played every game, averaging 27 disposals and at the end of H&A, was 4th in disposals and 2nd in clearances. He easily won the Hawthorn B&F and there was controversy surrounding his AA omission. Swan improved significantly, playing 21 games, averaging 24 disposals and finishing 6th in the B&F.

Whilst the above is not the be all and end all, I think it highlights that it is not hard to understand why some (or more accurately, everyone else) would have Mitchell ahead pre 2007.

 

[Mateyman]

Whilst the above is not the be all and end all, I think it highlights that it is not hard to understand why some (or more accurately, everyone else) would have Mitchell ahead pre 2007.

That is fair enough.
However, from a "how many years have they been in the top 10 mids?" standpoint, I would still say that given Swan is 1 1/2 years younger, the argument that Mitchell has been "a top 10 midfielder for longer" is not really true.

 

[HeHateMe]

I cant beleive anyone would use mikes top fifty to support an argument....

Its a perfectly fine example of someone underrateing Mitchell so I have no clue what your trying to get at? Plz explain.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Dom PC]

The last 3 years has made this one tougher IMO. Swan fell off a cliff at the end of his career while Mitchell played some of his best football as a 33 year old.

I'd probably take Mitchell considering he was the Hawks best player during their 3-peat.