Analysis 2019 List, Game Plan and Best 22?

[The King!]

When you draft blokes like thurlow and Clarke you are in trouble

No wonder berg , Moore and Langdon didn’t want to come

probably dont want to just chip the ball around backwards

 

[The King!]

Players who didnt play last night

Rose- starring in neafl
Menzel - Injured
Mcveigh - Injured
Clarke- Potato
Rowbottom- kid
Hayward- Injured
Foot- kid
Cameron- MIA/ have we seen him?
Ling - perpetually injured/kid
Maibaum- destined to never play?
Stoddart- kid
Naismith- injured but working on being next simon madden/dean cox apparently
COR- irish spud
Grundy- retired in 2018
Smith- see grundy
Fox- on the outer?
Melican- not the messiah just a naughty boy


Rookies
Tucker
Reynolds
Bell
Mclean
Wicks
Amartey
Pink



Cupboard is bare

Menzel and Hayward would be both be in if fit maybe naimsith

Mcveigh smith Grundy - old

the rest unproven in the slightest

 

[caesar88]

Players who didnt play last night

Rose- starring in neafl
Menzel - Injured
Mcveigh - Injured
Clarke- Potato
Rowbottom- kid
Hayward- Injured
Foot- kid
Cameron- MIA/ have we seen him?
Ling - perpetually injured/kid
Maibaum- destined to never play?
Stoddart- kid
Naismith- injured but working on being next simon madden/dean cox apparently
COR- irish spud
Grundy- retired in 2018
Smith- see grundy
Fox- on the outer?
Melican- not the messiah just a naughty boy


Rookies
Tucker
Reynolds
Bell
Mclean
Wicks
Amartey
Pink



Cupboard is bare

Menzel and Hayward would be both be in if fit maybe naimsith

Mcveigh smith Grundy - old

the rest unproven in the slightest

“not the messiah just a naughty boy”

I cackled

 

[momentbymoment]

How thurlow and Clarke we’re recruited is beyond me

Both would be average in the VFL

This.
We don’t need average.

 

[willym]

Can someone please explain to me why we let Swampboy (Harry Marsh) walk out the door? He's a much better version of Thurlow and similar age, also tries his guts out. I'm probably his biggest fan so I'll admit my bias, but I would love to have someone like him available to slot into the team. And I reckon we could definitely have signed him to a relatively cheap contract.

If it was literally just to free up space on the list then we're fools - because he is 25 (would presumably be going into his prime) and is better than a lot of players on that list.

 

[Jack2Jack]

I don't think the list is as bad as it plays....although we've somehow allowed it to get into a far more ordianry state than it should've been, looking at what was there in 2016.
Still, there's lots of talented players floundering and imo it's because they're being played in the wrong position. It's this current modern age versatility gone mad, there's times for flexibility within games, but most of the times just play blokes in the position they play the best and you'll get the best result from them.

Hewett - 6th year and still tagging, not sure why he should be. He's gone from a really good decision maker and nice user, to a guy who's very slow and timid with his decision making and a bit of a ball butcher. There was a play against Carlton, which sums up where he's at not... where he received a handball in a fair bit of space at 40m out but instead of taking a few steps and having a shot, he did a full circle and hand balled to a bloke under pressure.
Appears being pushed out of the centre square in preference for other players. He's a big bodied mid and one of the blokes who should be easing the burden on Kennedy's shoulders. Should be released.

Mills - Obvious one. Promising first year but now stagnating as a very vanilla HB. We can find and replace a vanilla HB. We probably have one in the reserves. If he's even a slightly above average mid, he's more use to us in there.

Lloyd - another obvious one. Plays a short kicking game and is a good runner. Perfectly suited to a wing, not as a designated deliver out of deep defence especially when you consider how average his defending is (how many did Ed friggin Curnow kick on him)

McCartin - actually going ok as a defender (and definitely not floundering at all), but still is being pushed out of his natural forward position to accommodate playing a skinny kid probably not physically ready to go with stronger defenders each week. If Blakey is not going to be dropped then he should be the one being played in a less physically demanding position (and one where he'll showcase his athletic ability) at HB/Wing to allow McCartin to develop where he should be playing imo.

Sinclair - my former whipping boy has developed into the perfect 2nd ruck, but isn't anywhere near a no 1 ruck. This is a hard one because somehow we've let our once loaded ruck stocks deteriorate into a pile of shit. But hey, if Horse actually played Cameron (or someone) for a few games to try and find out if we actually have something to work with there or whether we need to find one - no one could say he wasn't at least having a go. It would also release Sinclair at least for a few weeks and allow Bud to be further up the ground more.

There's a few others as well.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Can someone please explain to me why we let Swampboy (Harry Marsh) walk out the door? He's a much better version of Thurlow and similar age, also tries his guts out. I'm probably his biggest fan so I'll admit my bias, but I would love to have someone like him available to slot into the team. And I reckon we could definitely have signed him to a relatively cheap contract.

If it was literally just to free up space on the list then we're fools - because he is 25 (would presumably be going into his prime) and is better than a lot of players on that list.

We umm have made quite a few bad list decisions the past few years to say the least.

 

[TheMase]

Sinclair - my former whipping boy has developed into the perfect 2nd ruck, but isn't anywhere near a no 1 ruck. This is a hard one because somehow we've let our once loaded ruck stocks deteriorate into a pile of shit. But hey, if Horse actually played Cameron (or someone) for a few games to try and find out if we actually have something to work with there or whether we need to find one - no one could say he wasn't at least having a go. It would also release Sinclair at least for a few weeks and allow Bud to be further up the ground more.

There's a few others as well.

To be fair Cameron has been injured and only played the last two NEAFL games after getting injured in JLT. Naismiths issues have been well documented. Tippett has been sent to pasture. McLean only just got on this list and didn’t get the benefit of preseason immersed in learning the gameplan.

So the options for ruck are almost solely limited to Sinclair.

 

[caesar88]

To be fair Cameron has been injured and only played the last two NEAFL games after getting injured in JLT. Naismiths issues have been well documented. Tippett has been sent to pasture. McLean only just got on this list and didn’t get the benefit of preseason immersed in learning the gameplan.

So the options for ruck are almost solely limited to Sinclair.

I don’t think Cameron will make it so you could even remove him from that list too

 

[RUNVS]

I don’t think Cameron will make it so you could even remove him from that list too

I don't think so either. He seems to do well in the NEAFL but whenever I have seen him in the AFL (or AFL preseason games) he looks out of his element.

 

[caesar88]

I don't think so either. He seems to do well in the NEAFL but whenever I have seen him in the AFL (or AFL preseason games) he looks out of his element.

To me it’s a work rate thing. Just picks and chooses when he wants to apply himself fully, which given he’s spent two whole seasons in reserves, should be all the time. For a big fella you don’t have to be exceptionally talented, just putting in the extra efforts will make up for that.

 

[TheMase]

I don’t think Cameron will make it so you could even remove him from that list too

Yep I am not convinced either.

 

[Jack2Jack]

We're not going to know about Cameron while he's allowed to waltz around and dominate smaller blokes in the reserves, the rucks stocks are dire and getting to the point where we just need find out whether we might have something to work with in him...and if he doesn't get rid of him, and move onto the next one. We need to find a real ruck, Naismith not the answer either imo (deadset average player).....but the ruck/Cameron debate is neither here nor there. We're stuck with what we have in that department personnel wise, at least until the mid season draft (I'd rather target the best HB available in that though).
There's no reason for some of these other guys not to be moving into positions they're seemingly better suited for. At least try moving some for a game here or there and see what they can do.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Cameron form in the JLT 2 seasons ago looked very promising and at the time we all thought he would be inframe for round 1 then got a Season? ending injury and that was that.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Cameron just seems too nice a fellow. He is taller and more skilled than most opponents he faces in the NEAFL, so invariably plays well. A question for Grimlock and others who attend Ressies games and are in a better place to judge is whether Darcy possesses the right level of aggression to really impose himself on the game.

Thinking about it, aside from Buddy, we do not have many players who back in their skills and have a bit of mongrel in them. Heeney, Papley and Jones have not had all their flair coached out of them and have some toughness to them.

It seems every year we recruit talented nice boys - often ex-private school types - who have learnt to obey orders and will be tractable to a rigid game plan. Maybe this is a peculiar consequence of the no dickheads policy. (of course there are plenty of dickheads who have gone to private schools)

Today I watched a little bit of the Tigers win over Port. Sydney Stack was not their best but in his second game showed he could handle himself and was not afraid to have real crack. In his debut Jack Ross looked like a veteran. He took the game on and was aggressive. They both seem to have a bit of mongrel.

Two years ago I watched one of our worst H&A defeats against the CarlCrims. During the game the Crims infamously targeted Mills. Our nice guy seniors just passively sat back and let it happen for most of the game. Their passivity was abject.

I am not saying our blokes are anything less than brave. However few throw their weight around (within the rules) and few back their skills in.

I would like our next coach to re-assess the personality types we recruit. As well as needing quality mid fielders, we need blokes who take the game on and bring some serious but controlled aggression to the game.

 

[RUNVS]

Cameron just seems too nice a fellow. He is taller and more skilled than most opponents he faces in the NEAFL, so invariably plays well. A question for Grimlock and others who attend Ressies games and are in a better place to judge is whether Darcy possesses the right level of aggression to really impose himself on the game.

Thinking about it, aside from Buddy, we do not have many players who back in their skills and have a bit of mongrel in them. Heeney, Papley and Jones have not had all their flair coached out of them and have some toughness to them.

It seems every year we recruit talented nice boys - often ex-private school types - who have learnt to obey orders and will be tractable to a rigid game plan. Maybe this is a peculiar consequence of the no dickheads policy. (of course there are plenty of dickheads who have gone to private schools)

Today I watched a little bit of the Tigers win over Port. Sydney Stack was not their best but in his second game showed he could handle himself and was not afraid to have real crack. In his debut Jack Ross looked like a veteran. He took the game on and was aggressive. They both seem to have a bit of mongrel.

Two years ago I watched one of our worst H&A defeats against the CarlCrims. During the game the Crims infamously targeted Mills. Our nice guy seniors just passively sat back and let it happen for most of the game. Their passivity was abject.

I am not saying our blokes are anything less than brave. However few throw their weight around (within the rules) and few back their skills in.

I would like our next coach to re-assess the personality types we recruit. As well as needing quality mid fielders, we need blokes who take the game on and bring some serious but controlled aggression to the game.

I think it is more a case of our players playing within themselves as Longmire does not encourage attacking play that is also risky. Longmire has tried to coach the risk out of players, not doing anything that could result in the opposition getting the ball and scoring a goal, but the problem is that with no risk we rarely score.

I go back to it, but that game where Florent took the game on in the dying seconds and kicked the winning goal was telling. Most coaches would have loved it, loved that Florent backed himself. Longmire though, he pubically said he would have preferred it if Florent didn't back himself.

 

[robbieando]

I think it is more a case of our players playing within themselves as Longmire does not encourage attacking play that is also risky. Longmire has tried to coach the risk out of players, not doing anything that could result in the opposition getting the ball and scoring a goal, but the problem is that with no risk we rarely score.

I go back to it, but that game where Florent took the game on in the dying seconds and kicked the winning goal was telling. Most coaches would have loved it, loved that Florent backed himself. Longmire though, he pubically said he would have preferred it if Florent didn't back himself.

Most coaches would of hated it for very good reasons, as explained by Paul Roos (who hardly can be accused of coaching risk out of players)

https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/pa...s/news-story/baa2660dfa8d65aadbc3b3aa3658558e

Using this one event, which has been taken out of context time and again as a smoking gun doesn't prove Horse coaches risk out of players. You're basically saying it's better to take risks and lose matches than securing a win. If this play wasn't in the last minute of a game we were winning by less than a goal, then you would have a point. But it wasn't and in saying Longmire preferred Florent didn't back himself you leave out the part were he also said he liked to see him back himself. Hardly the words of a coach angered by what he saw that day.

 

[caesar88]

Cameron just seems too nice a fellow. He is taller and more skilled than most opponents he faces in the NEAFL, so invariably plays well. A question for Grimlock and others who attend Ressies games and are in a better place to judge is whether Darcy possesses the right level of aggression to really impose himself on the game.

Thinking about it, aside from Buddy, we do not have many players who back in their skills and have a bit of mongrel in them. Heeney, Papley and Jones have not had all their flair coached out of them and have some toughness to them.

It seems every year we recruit talented nice boys - often ex-private school types - who have learnt to obey orders and will be tractable to a rigid game plan. Maybe this is a peculiar consequence of the no dickheads policy. (of course there are plenty of dickheads who have gone to private schools)

Today I watched a little bit of the Tigers win over Port. Sydney Stack was not their best but in his second game showed he could handle himself and was not afraid to have real crack. In his debut Jack Ross looked like a veteran. He took the game on and was aggressive. They both seem to have a bit of mongrel.

Two years ago I watched one of our worst H&A defeats against the CarlCrims. During the game the Crims infamously targeted Mills. Our nice guy seniors just passively sat back and let it happen for most of the game. Their passivity was abject.

I am not saying our blokes are anything less than brave. However few throw their weight around (within the rules) and few back their skills in.

I would like our next coach to re-assess the personality types we recruit. As well as needing quality mid fielders, we need blokes who take the game on and bring some serious but controlled aggression to the game.

Mongrel is not that important IMO, but I do agree that we lack players with swagger that can come to the fray in matches. There’s plenty of young guys on our list that possess that self-confidence in their game - Heeney, Aliir, Florent, Jones, Papley - but they are all too young and inexperienced to really grab a match by the horns and dominate with their play.

I don’t think Horse is intending for our boys to not back themselves in and be risky by playing with their natural flair. I think it’s more just a byproduct of the way we play. At the SCG, Horse seems genuinely convinced the route to victory is by creating congestion and stifling the opposition. This is all very clear by the way our players all lead to the one spot to make more of a contest rather than a one on one, the way we lead to the boundary and down the line in lieu of the more-risky corridor, the way our players don’t lead away from the rolling scrum to open the game up but instead use back-and-forth handpasses in the traffic that don’t really progress us but hey, at least we still have possession!

All of it combines to make it incredibly difficult for a player with attacking qualities to do their thing naturally. When you think of great attacking players, what comes to mind is hard running, using space, and pressing forward. Most of our boys are too young to do the first thing, and our game plan simply doesn’t allow us to do much of the other two.

So I think it has more to do with game plan than the types of players we recruit and whether their personalities are the right fit.

 

[Kirkswan]

Cameron just seems too nice a fellow. He is taller and more skilled than most opponents he faces in the NEAFL, so invariably plays well. A question for Grimlock and others who attend Ressies games and are in a better place to judge is whether Darcy possesses the right level of aggression to really impose himself on the game.

Thinking about it, aside from Buddy, we do not have many players who back in their skills and have a bit of mongrel in them. Heeney, Papley and Jones have not had all their flair coached out of them and have some toughness to them.

It seems every year we recruit talented nice boys - often ex-private school types - who have learnt to obey orders and will be tractable to a rigid game plan. Maybe this is a peculiar consequence of the no dickheads policy. (of course there are plenty of dickheads who have gone to private schools)

Today I watched a little bit of the Tigers win over Port. Sydney Stack was not their best but in his second game showed he could handle himself and was not afraid to have real crack. In his debut Jack Ross looked like a veteran. He took the game on and was aggressive. They both seem to have a bit of mongrel.

Two years ago I watched one of our worst H&A defeats against the CarlCrims. During the game the Crims infamously targeted Mills. Our nice guy seniors just passively sat back and let it happen for most of the game. Their passivity was abject.

I am not saying our blokes are anything less than brave. However few throw their weight around (within the rules) and few back their skills in.

I would like our next coach to re-assess the personality types we recruit. As well as needing quality mid fielders, we need blokes who take the game on and bring some serious but controlled aggression to the game.

Hey mate, if you asking someone a question, then put an @ sign before their name, like grimlock and it will 'tag' them in alerts, so they know they have been asked. Like this Bloodied52

EDIT: This sounds like an instruction when it was meant to be a helpful hint... sorry about that!

 

[Kirkswan]

Cameron just seems too nice a fellow. He is taller and more skilled than most opponents he faces in the NEAFL, so invariably plays well. A question for Grimlock and others who attend Ressies games and are in a better place to judge is whether Darcy possesses the right level of aggression to really impose himself on the game.

Thinking about it, aside from Buddy, we do not have many players who back in their skills and have a bit of mongrel in them. Heeney, Papley and Jones have not had all their flair coached out of them and have some toughness to them.

It seems every year we recruit talented nice boys - often ex-private school types - who have learnt to obey orders and will be tractable to a rigid game plan. Maybe this is a peculiar consequence of the no dickheads policy. (of course there are plenty of dickheads who have gone to private schools)

Today I watched a little bit of the Tigers win over Port. Sydney Stack was not their best but in his second game showed he could handle himself and was not afraid to have real crack. In his debut Jack Ross looked like a veteran. He took the game on and was aggressive. They both seem to have a bit of mongrel.

Two years ago I watched one of our worst H&A defeats against the CarlCrims. During the game the Crims infamously targeted Mills. Our nice guy seniors just passively sat back and let it happen for most of the game. Their passivity was abject.

I am not saying our blokes are anything less than brave. However few throw their weight around (within the rules) and few back their skills in.

I would like our next coach to re-assess the personality types we recruit. As well as needing quality mid fielders, we need blokes who take the game on and bring some serious but controlled aggression to the game.

I don't think the issue is that we don't have players with the skills, I think its that they can't execute them at the speeds required. Consequence of picks in the 30s and 40s perhaps?

 

[Kirkswan]

I think it is more a case of our players playing within themselves as Longmire does not encourage attacking play that is also risky. Longmire has tried to coach the risk out of players, not doing anything that could result in the opposition getting the ball and scoring a goal, but the problem is that with no risk we rarely score.

I go back to it, but that game where Florent took the game on in the dying seconds and kicked the winning goal was telling. Most coaches would have loved it, loved that Florent backed himself. Longmire though, he publically said he would have preferred it if Florent didn't back himself.

You keep going back to this, and it's just wrong! There is absolutely NO evidence to support that Longmire wants players to play within themselves, including this circumstance! What he wants is for them to play as a team, subjugate the individual for the good of the team. And that's probably where he loses most of your support.

In that particular situation, holding the ball for the maximum time and/or passing to a team-mate would have won us the game, playing on put that in jeopardy. It came off and was brilliant, but it put us at risk of a Rohan v the Bomber (2017), which would have been disaster!

 

[caesar88]

You keep going back to this, and it's just wrong! There is absolutely NO evidence to support that Longmire wants players to play within themselves, including this circumstance! What he wants is for them to play as a team, subjugate the individual for the good of the team. And that's probably where he loses most of your support.

In that particular situation, holding the ball for the maximum time and/or passing to a team-mate would have won us the game, playing on put that in jeopardy. It came off and was brilliant, but it put us at risk of a Rohan v the Bomber (2017), which would have been disaster!

That’s fine and all, but if your game plan doesn’t encourage attacking qualities, you can’t expect your team to perform consistently and your players to thrive. Had we spent more of that Bulldogs game playing with some daring and bold passages, we probably would have been so far in front we wouldn’t have needed Florent’s risky match-winner.

That’s not me thinking selfishly or irrationally just wanting a fancy attacking game style because it’s good to watch. That’s me thinking logically about it. We drafted/recruited a lot of these players. We rated/needed their qualities. But they are qualities that will be squandered if they are kept on such a tight leash as they currently are. If Horse likes the game plan he’s used so far in his career (and why not, it’s served him well), we might as well get rid of guys like Plapley, Jones, Florent, Aliir and replace them with some good old-fashioned foot soldiers who have limited talent but will do their ugly role well. That would actually increase our chances of success, because right now it feels like there are some bloody talented Swans out there, playing in a team whose own style actually stifles their capacity to do what they do best.

 

[Kirkswan]

That’s fine and all, but if your game plan doesn’t encourage attacking qualities, you can’t expect your team to perform consistently and your players to thrive. Had we spent more of that Bulldogs game playing with some daring and bold passages, we probably would have been so far in front we wouldn’t have needed Florent’s risky match-winner.

That’s not me thinking selfishly or irrationally just wanting a fancy attacking game style because it’s good to watch. That’s me thinking logically about it. We drafted/recruited a lot of these players. We rated/needed their qualities. But they are qualities that will be squandered if they are kept on such a tight leash as they currently are. If Horse likes the game plan he’s used so far in his career (and why not, it’s served him well), we might as well get rid of guys like Plapley, Jones, Florent, Aliir and replace them with some good old-fashioned foot soldiers who have limited talent but will do their ugly role well. That would actually increase our chances of success, because right now it feels like there are some bloody talented Swans out there, playing in a team whose own style actually stifles their capacity to do what they do best.

This is where your logic breaks down.

You're assuming you know the reasons they were recruited for, and what they bring to the team.
You're assuming that they were recruited to play their stated or similar roles.
You're assuming nothing has changed since they were recruited, and that they are not need elsewhere.
You're assuming that doing things your way would bring success.

You're assuming that enabling and encouraging individual success will bring team success... based on no evidence at all, except that you believe the current plan is failing. And you've added adjectives and adverbs such as squandered, ugly and stifles to make it sound good.

I don't know enough about it to know whether or not it is time for Longmire to move on. What I do know is that neither do you and most others on here! You make up all these arguments to suit your outcome and then you state them as fact.

Last Thursday debunked the stance that 'if only we were playing some attacking football, we wouldn't care if we weren't winning' in a very big way. If we were winning 15-16 games per season, this conversation would not be happening. You want him moved on because we're not winning...

 

[Kirkswan]

Mongrel is not that important IMO, but I do agree that we lack players with swagger that can come to the fray in matches. There’s plenty of young guys on our list that possess that self-confidence in their game - Heeney, Aliir, Florent, Jones, Papley - but they are all too young and inexperienced to really grab a match by the horns and dominate with their play.

I don’t think Horse is intending for our boys to not back themselves in and be risky by playing with their natural flair. I think it’s more just a byproduct of the way we play. At the SCG, Horse seems genuinely convinced the route to victory is by creating congestion and stifling the opposition. This is all very clear by the way our players all lead to the one spot to make more of a contest rather than a one on one, the way we lead to the boundary and down the line in lieu of the more-risky corridor, the way our players don’t lead away from the rolling scrum to open the game up but instead use back-and-forth handpasses in the traffic that don’t really progress us but hey, at least we still have possession!

All of it combines to make it incredibly difficult for a player with attacking qualities to do their thing naturally. When you think of great attacking players, what comes to mind is hard running, using space, and pressing forward. Most of our boys are too young to do the first thing, and our game plan simply doesn’t allow us to do much of the other two.

So I think it has more to do with game plan than the types of players we recruit and whether their personalities are the right fit.

Serious question:

Given the Swans' Board's stance that we should not ever again spend years at the bottom of the table to rebuild, do you think the game plan might have to do with keeping us relevant while our youngsters gain experience? Making sure that we don't end up like Carlton who seem to have forgotten how to win?

 

[zyzzbruh]

I think it is more a case of our players playing within themselves as Longmire does not encourage attacking play that is also risky. Longmire has tried to coach the risk out of players, not doing anything that could result in the opposition getting the ball and scoring a goal, but the problem is that with no risk we rarely score.

I go back to it, but that game where Florent took the game on in the dying seconds and kicked the winning goal was telling. Most coaches would have loved it, loved that Florent backed himself. Longmire though, he pubically said he would have preferred it if Florent didn't back himself.

You're taking that florent situation totally out of context. Horse said that due to the particular moment and time on the game, and rightly so. If theres a few seconds left on the clock, you hold up play and keep posession which will guarantee a win. If you had asked horse the same question where florent had done the same thing at any other point in the game, he would've been more than happy with it. By no means can the last minutes of a tight game be used as a benchmark to determine what our game style is.