Player Watch #26 Luke Parker

[Kennedy Parker]

Luke Parker
Luke Parker

26

Luke Parker

Age

31

Ht

183cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

24.2

5star

K

12.6

5star

HB

11.6

5star

M

3.8

4star

T

5.6

5star

CL

5.8

5star

D

22.1

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

9.9

5star

M

3.9

4star

T

5.0

5star

CL

5.5

5star

D

21.2

5star

K

11.4

4star

HB

9.8

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

8.0

5star

CL

5.2

5star

has plenty of football ahead and has already compiled a resume packed with impressive achievements. Since landing at the Sydney Swans via the 2010 AFL Draft, he has won a 2012 premiership medal, earned All Australian selection and won two Bob Skilton medals. In 2015, he was added to the club’s leadership group at the age of just 22, and has led the team as a co-captain alongside Josh Kennedy and Dane Rampe

24

Dane Rampe

Age

34

Ht

187cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.0

4star

K

10.6

4star

HB

6.4

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

2.5

4star

MG

358.8

5star

D

14.1

3star

K

9.0

4star

HB

5.1

3star

M

3.4

3star

T

1.5

2star

MG

284.5

4star

D

10.6

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

2.4

3star

T

1.4

4star

since 2019. While Parker is among the league’s elite midfielders, his strong marking and expert game awareness make him a genuine threat when rotating through the forward line.

Luke Parker

26

Luke Parker

Age

31

Ht

183cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

24.2

5star

K

12.6

5star

HB

11.6

5star

M

3.8

4star

T

5.6

5star

CL

5.8

5star

D

22.1

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

9.9

5star

M

3.9

4star

T

5.0

5star

CL

5.5

5star

D

21.2

5star

K

11.4

4star

HB

9.8

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

8.0

5star

CL

5.2

5star

DOB: 25 October 1992
DEBUT: 2011
DRAFT: #40, 2010 National Draft
RECRUITED FROM: Langwarrin (Vic)/Dandenong U18

Luke Parker | AFL

Follow Luke Parker's progress through AFL

www.sydneyswans.com.au

 

[SSwans2011]

He may be available in 6 weeks, but that's a long time out of footy. It will take a couple of games to get match fitness back in the magoos.

The suspension might be 6 weeks, but realistically it's going to 8-9 week out of afl level footy.

Let's face it, he was made to play two's after he recovered from his injury so he's not a walk up start anymore, especially coming off the back of a lengthy suspension

He's not a walk-up start but if we have injruies/form issues, he might play a game in the reserves and then get selected. Doesn't need to play a full game if he does come in, he's a good option to sub out.

I don't think we need to be exploring these doomsday scenarios anyway. Que sera sera and all that.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

He's not a walk-up start but if we have injruies/form issues, he might play a game in the reserves and then get selected. Doesn't need to play a full game if he does come in, he's a good option to sub out.

I don't think we need to be exploring these doomsday scenarios anyway. Que sera sera and all that.

At worst in the back end, he's the ultimate luxury to have as depth. We may want to give Adams a game off or Rowbottom or whatever. Parker slots right in there. Hopefully by lets say round 20 ish we have earnt the right to rest players.

 

[SuperMal]

I went down in flames on the ‘other ‘ thread trying to get people to understand that it was no ‘picking off’, just a clumsy accident.

Unfortunately the VFL tribunal didn’t approach their decision from any degree of analysis, they used the convenient ‘duty of care’ BS to remove any reasonable argument.

It’s hardly Parker’s fault that Smith has the awareness if a blind man on a dark night- and simply crashed into the back of Parker’s head.

The tribunal has misinterpreted the duty of care here, it was clearly a footy accident…….of course the BF dufuses bought the Trib. view, hook, line and sinker.

 

[kickthething]

Swans veteran Parker banned for six weeks

Veteran Sydney midfielder Luke Parker must serve a six-week ban for the heavy bump in a VFL game that hospitalised opponent Josh Smith.

www.espn.com.au

when mccartin went down, there were posters here proposing that the offending player be banned for as long as the injured player is out ...
according to this report, smith is likely to miss 10 games, so parker getting six is arguably getting off light
the problem, judging by a lot of comments, and very much in my thinking, is the inconsistency of the system regards any incident in which there's head contact
clearly, the maynard bump is the "benchmark" for a flaw in that system, and you could throw in a few others over the past year or so ... but the whole head contact/injury thing is now one of the most sensitive issues in the game, and in all football codes, and it's understandable the afl is now possibly "over-correcting" and hitting players with what might seem like quite shocking penalties

one comment referenced the hall-staker incident, and you could add gaff-brayshaw to that in more recent times ... it's pretty safe to say any such incident these days would demand an unprecedented penalty, anything up to an entire season, and even the possibility of police charges
don't laugh or sneer ... that's coming ... and as a few older fans would be well aware, such an outcome has an infamous precedent

Bruns reveals his unsuccessful attempts to reach out to Matthews

Neville Bruns says he has tried on numerous occasions to reach out to AFL legend Leigh Matthews after the infamous incident between the two.

www.sen.com.au

but the afl is now on notice as to penalties when the next bump/head contact incident occurs

What happens if a player makes a remarkable recovery and misses 6 weeks instead of 10….does the suspended player get a credit on the sanction? You can’t penalise based on the injured players outcome Inamgine if we did Maynard then was facing retirement), there are too many variables.

Who is to say a player has not carried an injury into a game, and it was been exacerbated by sn act in the game, we have all seen some players composition means they somehow avoid injury for a similar actvanother player gets injured…..so itbcomes down to not the act but who the act is against?

You can only consider the act and decide guilt on that.

The AFL / VFL do, as you say, seem to be over correcting on head high contact. Which is OK and should be tolerated by everyone imo, they shouldn’t over correct on the outcome.

 

[SuperMal]

What happens if a player makes a remarkable recovery and misses 6 weeks instead of 10….does the suspended player get a credit on the sanction? You can’t penalise based on the injured players outcome Inamgine if we did Maynard then was facing retirement), there are too many variables.

Who is to say a player has not carried an injury into a game, and it was been exacerbated by sn act in the game, we have all seen some players composition means they somehow avoid injury for a similar actvanother player gets injured…..so itbcomes down to not the act but who the act is against?

You can only consider the act and decide guilt on that.

The AFL / VFL do, as you say, seem to be over correcting on head high contact. Which is OK and should be tolerated by everyone imo, they shouldn’t over correct on the outcome.

Yes, if you lessen the degree of harm by the player recovering earlier, the sentence should be minimised accordingly - but that’s too smart for the AFL to get it’s head around.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Whether players like it or not potential to cause injury will always be a factor and if you cause injury it's going to be even worse. It is your responsibility if you choose to bump that you do it in a manner where no head contact occurs whether it be direct, whiplash or whatever. These players have lives after football we have to remember this.

 

[the hypnotoad]

What happens if a player makes a remarkable recovery and misses 6 weeks instead of 10….does the suspended player get a credit on the sanction? You can’t penalise based on the injured players outcome Inamgine if we did Maynard then was facing retirement), there are too many variables.

Who is to say a player has not carried an injury into a game, and it was been exacerbated by sn act in the game, we have all seen some players composition means they somehow avoid injury for a similar actvanother player gets injured…..so itbcomes down to not the act but who the act is against?

You can only consider the act and decide guilt on that.

The AFL / VFL do, as you say, seem to be over correcting on head high contact. Which is OK and should be tolerated by everyone imo, they shouldn’t over correct on the outcome.

i wasn't advocating it, just pointing out it has been suggested, with a swans player on the receiving end ...
now it's a swans player in the gun ... sort of asking: are those who advocate the length-of-injury suspension still of that opinion?

 

[SuperMal]

Whether players like it or not potential to cause injury will always be a factor and if you cause injury it's going to be even worse. It is your responsibility if you choose to bump that you do it in a manner where no head contact occurs whether it be direct, whiplash or whatever. These players have lives after football we have to remember this.

I know this is the current AFL positin - but I would argue Parker’s was a block, not a bump, and therefore had very little control of the outcome, when run into by a guy who was clearly out of his depth on the field.

I just reckon in this case, the AFL ’model’ on determining culpability doesn’t fit.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

I find some comments about Parker really interesting. There are obviously two distinct camps regarding Parker's future.

For those talking about Parker as our number 1 mid. Parker has never been a number 1 mid. He should always be a #2 or #3. It's just that we didn't have anyone over the last 3-4 years capable of taking that mantle.

We do now.

Parker could slot straight into this midfield and would perform the #3 mid role as we need him to.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I know this is the current AFL positin - but I would argue Parker’s was a block, not a bump, and therefore had very little control of the outcome, when run into by a guy who was clearly out of his depth on the field.

I just reckon in this case, the AFL ’model’ on determining culpability doesn’t fit.

It’s a bump it’s way off the ball and he could have aborted might have been “fine” a decade ago it isn’t now. You bump you need to protect the opponent otherwise don’t bump which is by far and away the smarter decision.

Parker is at fault if a player goes onto the field they have every right to be protected from having facial surgeries. I’m not saying it was deliberate no player goes onto the field and says you know what I’m taking this bloke out, but it was highly careless. Was 6wks the right outcome it’s about right had it as a 5-6 weeker. Tend to use the relevant ones this year Webster hit 7, and you have Wright/SPP, etc copping 4.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

I find some comments about Parker really interesting. There are obviously two distinct camps regarding Parker's future.

For those talking about Parker as our number 1 mid. Parker has never been a number 1 mid. He should always be a #2 or #3. It's just that we didn't have anyone over the last 3-4 years capable of taking that mantle.

We do now.

Parker could slot straight into this midfield and would perform the #3 mid role as we need him to.

Hasn't Parker been our main mid post JPK? so ~2020 onwards

 

[the hypnotoad]

I know this is the current AFL positin - but I would argue Parker’s was a block, not a bump, and therefore had very little control of the outcome, when run into by a guy who was clearly out of his depth on the field.

I just reckon in this case, the AFL ’model’ on determining culpability doesn’t fit.

block, bump, call it whatever ... it was after the ball, and it hit the head, and put a guy in hospital, so a whack of a penalty was inevitable
on that same point, what was going through parker's mind at the time, malice or otherwise, is irrelevant ... certainly from what i saw, it was in no way malicious

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I find some comments about Parker really interesting. There are obviously two distinct camps regarding Parker's future.

For those talking about Parker as our number 1 mid. Parker has never been a number 1 mid. He should always be a #2 or #3. It's just that we didn't have anyone over the last 3-4 years capable of taking that mantle.

We do now.

Parker could slot straight into this midfield and would perform the #3 mid role as we need him to.

The issue is, would he be better than Rowbottom who is in career best form playing that role? He'd basically be the so called like for like. I want Adams in the side, him and Grundy have an elite relationship and it works. I do feel Parker gets games but it may just be when we rest Grundy/Adams/Rowbottom at the back end. At worst he's depth, and having Parker as a 'reserve' is a luxury.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

block, bump, call it whatever ... it was after the ball, and it hit the head, and put a guy in hospital, so a whack of a penalty was inevitable
on that same point, what was going through parker's mind at the time, malice or otherwise, is irrelevant ... certainly from what i saw, it was in no way malicious

yep, honestly 5 was probably the 'best case' outcome we could have hoped for. Was always going more than 4 and less than 7. I still have no idea why even go for a bump it's such a low percentage play these days. I'm fine with none of our players bumping to be honest, you run extreme rish and you only need ANY high contact and it's not a week it's multiple weeks.

 

[the hypnotoad]

I find some comments about Parker really interesting. There are obviously two distinct camps regarding Parker's future.

For those talking about Parker as our number 1 mid. Parker has never been a number 1 mid. He should always be a #2 or #3. It's just that we didn't have anyone over the last 3-4 years capable of taking that mantle.

We do now.

Parker could slot straight into this midfield and would perform the #3 mid role as we need him to.

yeah, i agree ... as long as he's fit and healthy, parker would slot straight back into the seniors and play an effective role, there is no doubt of that, he is far from finished in that regard
but there's also no doubt, to me at least, that parker in this team for whatever reason, would change it ...

 

[LukeParkerno1]

yeah, i agree ... as long as he's fit and healthy, parker would slot straight back into the seniors and play an effective role, there is no doubt of that, he is far from finished in that regard
but there's also no doubt, to me at least, that parker in this team for whatever reason, would change it ...

I’d like him playing as a genuine forward in the VFL, like to see whether a forward for Parker could be realistic

 

[the hypnotoad]

The issue is, would he be better than Rowbottom who is in career best form playing that role? He'd basically be the so called like for like. I want Adams in the side, him and Grundy have an elite relationship and it works. I do feel Parker gets games but it may just be when we rest Grundy/Adams/Rowbottom at the back end. At worst he's depth, and having Parker as a 'reserve' is a luxury.

i think adams is showing better disposal than i expected, and that's part of why he's ahead of parker ...
also, i believe it's a more significant cultural shift
parker has been acknowledged for a while as the swans' "top dog" of our midfield, taking up that mantle from kennedy
but largely through circumstances, he missed starting the season in seniors, while adams comes in with seniority as a player but not at sydney
so we start the season with the "handover" of the parker era not to adams, but to our next generation ... heeney, rowbottom, warner, gulden, with adams the stuart maxfield/paul williams/marty mattner type, the experienced midfield type brought in from another club not necessarily to lead but definitely to help steer
so, parker returning to seniors creates not just a positional shift but potentially a cultural one, and it's possible longmire is wary of how that might affect the team

 

[rustycrate]

I’d like him playing as a genuine forward in the VFL, like to see whether a forward for Parker could be realistic

He has played 282 games. There is no tryout needed. He has played forward. No audition needed.
He needs to get back. Train. Play VFL. Earn his spot. Play like he wants to keep his spot. Like all other players.

 

[the hypnotoad]

I’d like him playing as a genuine forward in the VFL, like to see whether a forward for Parker could be realistic

that's worth a look but it'd need to be good to see him picked in seniors specifically as a forward ... who knows, he could be a revelation
but again, there's whether that improves a team going this well is the point ... not that we're going to get a chance to assess it for a while

 

[Adnico26Parker]

What role do we think he'll play for the next 6 weeks? On the bench on game days again? Helping with the VFL (eg. coaching, runner (if allowed), etc.)? Something else?

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

What role do we think he'll play for the next 6 weeks? On the bench on game days again? Helping with the VFL (eg. coaching, runner (if allowed), etc.)? Something else?

Longmire suggested he has already been doing that in the VFL with mentoring young players so i suggest he will continue that role but on the bench

 

[the hypnotoad]

Longmire suggested he has already been doing that in the VFL with mentoring young players so i suggest he will continue that role but on the bench

yeah, he's a champion clubman, he'll be a big part of the season in or out of the senior side, no doubt at all

 

[SuperMal]

It’s a bump it’s way off the ball and he could have aborted might have been “fine” a decade ago it isn’t now. You bump you need to protect the opponent otherwise don’t bump which is by far and away the smarter decision.

Parker is at fault if a player goes onto the field they have every right to be protected from having facial surgeries. I’m not saying it was deliberate no player goes onto the field and says you know what I’m taking this bloke out, but it was highly careless. Was 6wks the right outcome it’s about right had it as a 5-6 weeker. Tend to use the relevant ones this year Webster hit 7, and you have Wright/SPP, etc copping 4.

Have you ever played footy? A shepherd is when you obstruct the other player using your body and sometimes arms to prevent the opponent from advancing - this is what Parker did. The other knucklehead ran into him!

A bump is a ‘body check’ - its forceful impact of one players body into another - there is no attempted obstruction…it’s a collision - this does NOT describe Parkers actions.

If you don’t understand the difference, you should refrain from commenting.

Your holier than thou attitude to Parker’s actions cuts no ice with me- sure there are a bunch of fools out there that think he ‘bumped’ Smith - and think that one head cladh is the same as another - the reality is different enough not to claim it falls under the same duty of care model.

 

[SuperMal]

block, bump, call it whatever ... it was after the ball, and it hit the head, and put a guy in hospital, so a whack of a penalty was inevitable
on that same point, what was going through parker's mind at the time, malice or otherwise, is irrelevant ... certainly from what i saw, it was in no way malicious

My point being there SHOULD. be a recognition of this being an accidental head knock by the tribunal - instead of lumping everything in together.

ATM Maynards calculated deliberately mistimed jump into Brayshaw is seen as less culpable than Parker’ block.

 

[Donza]

My point being there SHOULD. be a recognition of this being an accidental head knock by the tribunal - instead of lumping everything in together.

ATM Maynards calculated deliberately mistimed jump into Brayshaw is seen as less culpable than Parker’ block.

Maynard would get six weeks plus this season.

The optics and the "vibe" has changed.