Past Daniel Menzel - delisted 2019

Remove this Banner Ad

Rohan never finished top 10 is any of his 9 seasons. Can't be bothered checking exactly how low he finished

On a tangential note, didn't Jude Bolton finish in our top 10 remarkably few times over the course of his career too? I seem to recall that.

I just tried to look that up but top 10 lists for Skilton Medals from the Roos era but they are hard to locate online.
 
On a tangential note, didn't Jude Bolton finish in our top 10 remarkably few times over the course of his career too? I seem to recall that.

I just tried to look that up but top 10 lists for Skilton Medals from the Roos era but they are hard to locate online.
Club does a pretty poor job of that in my opinion. Not sure what other clubs do but it is hard to find stuff like that easliy
 
He played 19 senior games in 2015 and 26 senior games in 2016. He had well and truly broken into our best 22 by then. That old chestnut about languishing in the magoos doesn't stand up in my opinion. He left for better money (and why not in this day and age) and the opportunity to be the Hawks primary inside mid. Our loss but we didn't have the coin to keep him.
Have to disagree. Longmire has a penchant for keeping brilliant young players in the reserves as a Siberian gulag. I have already said far too much about Aliir but he did the same to Mitchell. There are only two kinds of coaches. Those who take out of players by demanding more discipline, greater effort etc and those that put things back into players by developing their natural skill and creativity. Longmire takes things out of players in the interest of iron compliance with the club system. The lack of dough with Mitchell doesn't wash. The money could have been found with some ruthless culling. I give you Jack and McVeigh. Basically Longmire wants company men. We lost a Brownlow Medallist as a result.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Clueless is sticking to your guns when there are other choices available that aren't quite so cold bloodedly calculating. Like playing Titch in the twos until he learned to run just as hard defensively as he did when on the offensive.
Sometimes we can't see the wood for the trees. We get so caught up in our own value system that we fail to see the bleeding obvious. And when it all goes to hell and back, "clueless" is quite apt.
 
Have to disagree. Longmire has a penchant for keeping brilliant young players in the reserves as a Siberian gulag. I have already said far too much about Aliir but he did the same to Mitchell. There are only two kinds of coaches. Those who take out of players by demanding more discipline, greater effort etc and those that put things back into players by developing their natural skill and creativity. Longmire takes things out of players in the interest of iron compliance with the club system. The lack of dough with Mitchell doesn't wash. The money could have been found with some ruthless culling. I give you Jack and McVeigh. Basically Longmire wants company men. We lost a Brownlow Medallist as a result.
Titch may have been too slow and his disposals inaccurate and his two way running deficient, but it don't really matter if he is the one with leather poisoning. Great problem to have when you become the greatest accumulater the game has ever seen. If you don't have the ball, it never matters how great a kick you are. I hate to say it, but your diagnosis has unfortunate layers of truth to it. We just didn't handle Mitchell well and clearly his signature was not seen as a priority, whereas the extensions to Tippett's contract and Hanner's were. We goosed it. Simples.
 
Titch may have been too slow and his disposals inaccurate and his two way running deficient, but it don't really matter if he is the one with leather poisoning. Great problem to have when you become the greatest accumulater the game has ever seen. If you don't have the ball, it never matters how great a kick you are. I hate to say it, but your diagnosis has unfortunate layers of truth to it. We just didn't handle Mitchell well and clearly his signature was not seen as a priority, whereas the extensions to Tippett's contract and Hanner's were. We goosed it. Simples.
As a decision iit's right up there with Decca Records that told Brian Epstien in 1961 that the Beatles wouldn't make it and that guitar bands were finished in music. They signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.
 
Have to disagree. Longmire has a penchant for keeping brilliant young players in the reserves as a Siberian gulag. I have already said far too much about Aliir but he did the same to Mitchell. There are only two kinds of coaches. Those who take out of players by demanding more discipline, greater effort etc and those that put things back into players by developing their natural skill and creativity. Longmire takes things out of players in the interest of iron compliance with the club system. The lack of dough with Mitchell doesn't wash. The money could have been found with some ruthless culling. I give you Jack and McVeigh. Basically Longmire wants company men. We lost a Brownlow Medallist as a result.

The bolded just doesn’t stack up with reality.

Florent, Mills, Heeney, Hayward and Papley all played within the first week or two of their debut season.

Stoddart got a couple of games he probably didn’t deserve based on NEAFL performances. Jones made his debut in his first season.

18 debutants in the last 3 seasons should be enough to throw your broad conspiracy in the bin. Perhaps it was just circumstances specifically related to Mitchell and Aliir and not a broad conspiracy about Horse with youth. It just doesn’t stack up.
 
The bolded just doesn’t stack up with reality.

Florent, Mills, Heeney, Hayward and Papley all played within the first week or two of their debut season.

Stoddart got a couple of games he probably didn’t deserve based on NEAFL performances. Jones made his debut in his first season.

18 debutants in the last 3 seasons should be enough to throw your broad conspiracy in the bin. Perhaps it was just circumstances specifically related to Mitchell and Aliir and not a broad conspiracy about Horse with youth. It just doesn’t stack up.
With respect you didn't read what I said. Those young players who have styles or individual brilliance that doesn't fit the rigid system of coaching get consigned to the reserves until they comply. Longmire does not fashion his game plan to the players he has got. It either his way or the highway. Mitchell walked. You have constructed a straw man. Its not a conspiracy. Its the way Longmire coaches. He is a "systems" coach. Are you seriously suggesting he is a creative and innovative coach? I didn't say all young players. I said "brilliant" with styles that don't fit the system. . Most of your list are good. Not brilliant. Lest see how he uses Menzel. Or even plays him.
 
Last edited:
Don't be ridiculous. It's another Mitchell thread.
Its a thread about the recruitment of a player who plays with a style that Longmire does not employ on our forward line. A player with individuality like Mitchell and Aliir that did not fit with the coaches rigid system coaching. Will the most innovative coach since Len Smith introduced the flick pass at Fitzroy actually play Menzel in the firsts or simply have him as a spare parts reserves player to replace Jack when he suffers an injury. Are we relevant now champ?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Its a thread about the recruitment of a player who plays with a style that Longmire does not employ on our forward line. A player with individuality like Mitchell and Aliir that did not fit with the coaches rigid system coaching. Will the most innovative coach since Len Smith introduced the flick pass at Fitzroy actually play Menzel in the firsts or simply have him as a spare parts reserves player to replace Jack when he suffers an injury. Are we relevant now champ?
Sorry I got so personal to you.
 
Have to disagree. Longmire has a penchant for keeping brilliant young players in the reserves as a Siberian gulag. I have already said far too much about Aliir but he did the same to Mitchell. There are only two kinds of coaches. Those who take out of players by demanding more discipline, greater effort etc and those that put things back into players by developing their natural skill and creativity. Longmire takes things out of players in the interest of iron compliance with the club system. The lack of dough with Mitchell doesn't wash. The money could have been found with some ruthless culling. I give you Jack and McVeigh. Basically Longmire wants company men. We lost a Brownlow Medallist as a result.

I usually agree with you (especially regarding Aliir) but I think Horse actually made the right call playing Mitchell in the reserves a few times. It's easy to see how valuable Mitchell would be now, because Hanners is cooked/gone to St Kilda, Kennedy is finally showing a few signs of mortality, Jack's body said enough before he'd even turned 30, and Parker probably hasn't become the dominant sensation he showed signs of (at least not yet.) But cast your mind back to 2015/2016. We had three or four All Australians who were routinely dominating matches. None were super quick and none were super clean. Had we played Mitchell, it would've just been a fifth. For most of 2016, we did have five with Mitchell. And everyone on here was lamenting our slow, one-dimensional and unspectacular midfield that had just lost another grand final.

I think Horse played it well with his reluctance to bring in another plodder-ish mid like Mitchell, and then he also played it well when he decided to pull the trigger and play Mitchell anyway as part of our team rejuvenation in 2016. Like I said I get your frustrations with Aliir totally as I banged on about it more than anyone, but the comparison doesn't make sense to me. Aliir is a unique player, so it was a case IMO of Horse simply being too conservative and not willing to take a gamble on an unknown, daring entity like Aliir. But Mitchell was not a unique player. He was a lot like four other Swans who were in the best 22 at the time.
 
I usually agree with you (especially regarding Aliir) but I think Horse actually made the right call playing Mitchell in the reserves a few times. It's easy to see how valuable Mitchell would be now, because Hanners is cooked/gone to St Kilda, Kennedy is finally showing a few signs of mortality, Jack's body said enough before he'd even turned 30, and Parker probably hasn't become the dominant sensation he showed signs of (at least not yet.) But cast your mind back to 2015/2016. We had three or four All Australians who were routinely dominating matches. None were super quick and none were super clean. Had we played Mitchell, it would've just been a fifth. For most of 2016, we did have five with Mitchell. And everyone on here was lamenting our slow, one-dimensional and unspectacular midfield that had just lost another grand final.

I think Horse played it well with his reluctance to bring in another plodder-ish mid like Mitchell, and then he also played it well when he decided to pull the trigger and play Mitchell anyway as part of our team rejuvenation in 2016. Like I said I get your frustrations with Aliir totally as I banged on about it more than anyone, but the comparison doesn't make sense to me. Aliir is a unique player, so it was a case IMO of Horse simply being too conservative and not willing to take a gamble on an unknown, daring entity like Aliir. But Mitchell was not a unique player. He was a lot like four other Swans who were in the best 22 at the time.
Well said. And why are you always so bloody rational? I am on the aged pension so I have a right to stick to a slightly irrational view. It comes with the travel concession pass.
 
I usually agree with you (especially regarding Aliir) but I think Horse actually made the right call playing Mitchell in the reserves a few times. It's easy to see how valuable Mitchell would be now, because Hanners is cooked/gone to St Kilda, Kennedy is finally showing a few signs of mortality, Jack's body said enough before he'd even turned 30, and Parker probably hasn't become the dominant sensation he showed signs of (at least not yet.) But cast your mind back to 2015/2016. We had three or four All Australians who were routinely dominating matches. None were super quick and none were super clean. Had we played Mitchell, it would've just been a fifth. For most of 2016, we did have five with Mitchell. And everyone on here was lamenting our slow, one-dimensional and unspectacular midfield that had just lost another grand final.

I think Horse played it well with his reluctance to bring in another plodder-ish mid like Mitchell, and then he also played it well when he decided to pull the trigger and play Mitchell anyway as part of our team rejuvenation in 2016. Like I said I get your frustrations with Aliir totally as I banged on about it more than anyone, but the comparison doesn't make sense to me. Aliir is a unique player, so it was a case IMO of Horse simply being too conservative and not willing to take a gamble on an unknown, daring entity like Aliir. But Mitchell was not a unique player. He was a lot like four other Swans who were in the best 22 at the time.
Connolly's points are fair and valid. Allir is a unique talent who is a great interceptor. Provided he he is able to leave his man and control the ball and play then he will become a champion. It becomes vital that the other backmen around him are alert enough to provide the cover so that he can do his stuff. Mitchell was not simply another plodder. Given his youth he gave every indication that he would become what he has become - the very best plodder running around. And that makes him unique because no-one else accumulates as well as he does. And Menzel ?? The point is well made by Connolly. Is horse astute enough to recognise his strengths and tweak the gameplan so that it allows his strengths a chance to shine? Or is the gameplan more important to Horse than the individuals who are asked to carry it out like mechanical automatoms? We shall see.
 
Connolly's points are fair and valid. Allir is a unique talent who is a great interceptor. Provided he he is able to leave his man and control the ball and play then he will become a champion. It becomes vital that the other backmen around him are alert enough to provide the cover so that he can do his stuff. Mitchell was not simply another plodder. Given his youth he gave every indication that he would become what he has become - the very best plodder running around. And that makes him unique because no-one else accumulates as well as he does. And Menzel ?? The point is well made by Connolly. Is horse astute enough to recognise his strengths and tweak the gameplan so that it allows his strengths a chance to shine? Or is the gameplan more important to Horse than the individuals who are asked to carry it out like mechanical automatoms? We shall see.

Yes but at the time, Mitchell was just another plodder who, like Hannebery, Kennedy, Jack, Parker, could wrack up 30 touches a game. But unlike Kennedy he was not a hulk in the contest. Unlike Parker, he wasn't a strong mark who could play forward. Unlike Hannebery, he didn't have great gut-running ability. That's what I'm referring to, then not now, because connolly was referring to Horse playing Mitchell in the reserves.

As for your last point, i'm not so sure Horse is astute enough. I don't believe he is the kind of coach who plays to his players' strengths, but instead he demands that they toe the line to his brand that doesn't necessarily suit them. Just my observations based on the last 7 years with him as coach. Who knows, he might have an epiphany and realise this group of young Swans could do things no group of Swans have done before. We could play fast, attacking, dangerous footy and cut teams open with decisive plays and flashes of brilliance. We don't have to be the stoppage-based work-horses we've had to be over the last 15 years. I guess we'll wait and see.
 
Yes but at the time, Mitchell was just another plodder who, like Hannebery, Kennedy, Jack, Parker, could wrack up 30 touches a game. But unlike Kennedy he was not a hulk in the contest. Unlike Parker, he wasn't a strong mark who could play forward. Unlike Hannebery, he didn't have great gut-running ability. That's what I'm referring to, then not now, because connolly was referring to Horse playing Mitchell in the reserves.

As for your last point, i'm not so sure Horse is astute enough. I don't believe he is the kind of coach who plays to his players' strengths, but instead he demands that they toe the line to his brand that doesn't necessarily suit them. Just my observations based on the last 7 years with him as coach. Who knows, he might have an epiphany and realise this group of young Swans could do things no group of Swans have done before. We could play fast, attacking, dangerous footy and cut teams open with decisive plays and flashes of brilliance. We don't have to be the stoppage-based work-horses we've had to be over the last 15 years. I guess we'll wait and see.
He needs that epiphany or he’ll be running defensive structures at St Kilda.
 
Since the Menzel thread ghas become the Mitchell thread I'll put this out there.
I mentioned a few years back that I had run into a fellow who took care of this kind of stuff.
http://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2018-11-16/gps-technology

He said back then that a player can't hide their lack of fitness or effort when they have these devices in the back of their jumper.
As supporters we often question why a player isn't playing senior footy etc, etc, but we fail to understand that apart from a great intercept or ball winning ability, a player needs to be able to run out a full game at the standard required & that he had set himself at an earlier period when he was playing. Now that player could be playing hurt & not at his best but what other role can they do to help the team. This is very much what Kizza has been able to do when not at full fitness over the years though I think it got the better of him in 2017 when he was rested for 6 weeks or so. But Kizza can play very defensive roles well for the team. It doesn't get the wraps from supporters but the coaches & team mates know what he has done or not done during a game.

I think this was Aliir's issue as he seriously looked putrid when he was playing twos & not fit at all. I just remember this fellow pretty much say that these devices are fantastic for the clubs because it tells them plenty about a player & where they are at.
There are a lot of unknowns with players throughout a season but we are never to know the full story with why a player may be kept out of the seniors even though they make great intercepts or accumulate 75 disposals in a NEAFL game.

Just some random thought regarding the GPS & which of our players perhaps don't like them.
 
He played 19 senior games in 2015 and 26 senior games in 2016. He had well and truly broken into our best 22 by then. That old chestnut about languishing in the magoos doesn't stand up in my opinion. He left for better money (and why not in this day and age) and the opportunity to be the Hawks primary inside mid. Our loss but we didn't have the coin to keep him.

Confused. Are you suggesting Hanners was selfish. For not agreeing to drop 300k pa and Rohan 300k. Both could have stayed had they not been such Kurt Moneyballers
 
Lets not forget Mitchell has massive tickets on himself. I think he went because he wanted to be no 1 option, and less about money. Yeah, he won a Charlie getting cheapies, but I dont care for him at all.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top