Alarming stat

[bloods01]

It was interesting to read today that the Swans have only blooded one player (not including rookie list promotions) from both the '05 and '06 national drafts. That was Matthew Laidlaw this year. I was staggered to read this. We are way behind the other clubs in terms of giving kids a run. Yes we have been successful and have had a good run with injuries (except '07), but so have other teams like West Coast and Port Adelaide. We have to see where our kids are at and '08 is the year this has to be done. We don't want to be left in a situation where we have a core group of player's retire and then be forced to blood 4 or 5 player's at one time.

The time has come to freshen up the team and inject some youthful enthusiasm. Lets see our future.....

 

[ssfc0203]

I think we're going to advance in that field much more than we have in previous years. You just have to put together Roosy's 'hints' and the string of elevations and draftings to recognise that we are changing.
We have had a dream run in 2006 and 2007, and while most certainly not giving up our whole season, i think we are going to start rebuilding for when our core group of important players leaves us.

Incidentally, how many NSW born players are on our list?

 

[RUNVS]

Incidentally, how many NSW born players are on our list?

Nick Davis
Jarrad McVeigh
Craig Bolton
Leo Barry
Brett Kirk
Paul Bevan
Lewis Roberts-Thomson
Ben Mathews
Earl Shaw
Kieren Jack
Craig Bird

and last season we also had Adam Schneider.

 

[rancidpants13]

It was interesting to read today that the Swans have only blooded one player (not including rookie list promotions) from both the '05 and '06 national drafts. That was Matthew Laidlaw this year. I was staggered to read this. We are way behind the other clubs in terms of giving kids a run. Yes we have been successful and have had a good run with injuries (except '07), but so have other teams like West Coast and Port Adelaide. We have to see where our kids are at and '08 is the year this has to be done. We don't want to be left in a situation where we have a core group of player's retire and then be forced to blood 4 or 5 player's at one time.

The time has come to freshen up the team and inject some youthful enthusiasm. Lets see our future.....

what he said....

 

[ssfc0203]

Nick Davis
Jarrad McVeigh
Craig Bolton
Leo Barry
Brett Kirk
Paul Bevan
Lewis Roberts-Thomson
Ben Mathews
Earl Shaw
Kieren Jack
Craig Bird

and last season we also had Adam Schneider.

11?!

well at least its half of the starting 22

 

[bloods01]

Nick Davis
Jarrad McVeigh
Craig Bolton
Leo Barry
Brett Kirk
Paul Bevan
Lewis Roberts-Thomson
Ben Mathews
Earl Shaw
Kieren Jack
Craig Bird

and last season we also had Adam Schneider.

Shaw has been delisted

 

[scottwade]

It was interesting to read today that the Swans have only blooded one player (not including rookie list promotions) from both the '05 and '06 national drafts. That was Matthew Laidlaw this year. I was staggered to read this.

I agree we are hesitant in giving young guys their chance, but the stats for 2005 & 2006 are somewhat misleading.

Our first pick in the 2005 draft wasn't until pick 51 (Laidlaw). We traded away picks for Richards & Chambers. The guys taken after Laidlaw (Thornton & Brabazon) were always development players.

In 2006 we took O'Keefe (injured for much of the year) at 15 and then Currie (finishing school this year) and development players at pick 65 (Faulks) & 70 (White).

Therefore I think it is not unreasonable that we haven't blooded players from '05 & '06 , however more worrying is that it is indicative of our philosophy of trading away early picks (Jolly, Richards in for 1st rounders & Everitt for 2nd rounder).

The policy to date has been relatively successful, but we are the exception to the rule. The other successful clubs in recent years (Brisbane, Port, WCE) have collectively, since 2004, traded away only two 1st Rd picks.

 

[RUNVS]

Shaw has been delisted

Yes but isnt he one of the players that is still training with the Swans.

 

[scottwade]

Yes but isnt he one of the players that is still training with the Swans.

I believe of our delistings only Rowe & O'Dwyer are training with us.

 

[FM0226]

It's even more worrying if you look at the 2003 and 2004 draft as well. Not counting Buchanan and Heath James which we redrafted, we have yielded a combined 26 senior games between all the players we drafted in the past four years (Schmidt 16, Moore 9, Laidlaw 1).

 

[bloods01]

It's even more worrying if you look at the 2003 and 2004 draft as well. Not counting Buchanan and Heath James which we redrafted, we have yielded a combined 26 senior games between all the players we drafted in the past four years (Schmidt 16, Moore 9, Laidlaw 1).

We can't just look at '05 and '06 in isolation. The last Swans to play senior football the year after being drafted were Ryan O'Keefe and Stephen Doyle, who played in 2000 after being draft picks 56 and 26 respectively.

You're right, our recent record isn't great but this looks like changing. John Blakey has hinted that we could break the trend by playing our early picks next year. He said that "at 11 we might be able to pick one up someone who can play some football for us next year." Lets hope so...

 

[FM0226]

You're right, our recent record isn't great but this looks like changing. John Blakey has hinted that we could break the trend by playing our early picks next year. He said that "at 11 we might be able to pick one up someone who can play some football for us next year." Lets hope so...

I'll rather that not happen actually - I'll rather let our current younger players with potential (Barlow, Schmidt, Laidlaw, Moore, Jack, White etc.) play a lot more senior games next year rather than throw in a 2007 player to compete with them and getting a place over them.

It will be better for us if the 2007 picks have great potential, but say takes two years to develop - that will hope us a lot better two/three years down the track.

What I fear the most is that we will end up using #11 on a ready but very average player that can play right away, but not better than of the younger players we have right now.

 

[bloods01]

I'll rather that not happen actually - I'll rather let our current younger players with potential (Barlow, Schmidt, Laidlaw, Moore, Jack, White etc.) play a lot more senior games next year rather than throw in a 2007 player to compete with them and getting a place over them.

It will be better for us if the 2007 picks have great potential, but say takes two years to develop - that will hope us a lot better two/three years down the track.

What I fear the most is that we will end up using #11 on a ready but very average player that can play right away, but not better than of the younger players we have right now.

After picking two smallish player's today then my theory goes right out of the window. I was expecting us to draft a KP player today and was hoping we could give him a run next year. But I guess that wont be happening now.

 

[FM0226]

After picking two smallish player's today then my theory goes right out of the window. I was expecting us to draft a KP player today and was hoping we could give him a run next year. But I guess that wont be happening now.

Agree. While this might not affect in the short-run, I can't help to think that Roos and the recruitment team doesn't have much vision on the longer run. KP players takes a long time to develop and if we need to replace the likes of Hall, Magic and Leo Barry, they really should be looking at the situation this year, and even last year. They seem to have this thinking that it's better to recycle the KP rejects from other clubs than to try to develop our own.

I just hope this doesn't backfire on us.

 

[bloods01]

Agree. While this might not affect in the short-run, I can't help to think that Roos and the recruitment team doesn't have much vision on the longer run. KP players takes a long time to develop and if we need to replace the likes of Hall, Magic and Leo Barry, they really should be looking at the situation this year, and even last year. They seem to have this thinking that it's better to recycle the KP rejects from other clubs than to try to develop our own.

I just hope this doesn't backfire on us.

We have no KP prospects on our list at all, with the exception of Jesse White that is. Other clubs have up to five, six or even more. We are going to be screwed in 2011 and beyond. Teams don't give up established KP player's, you have to draft them and develop them yourself.

 

[FM0226]

We have no KP prospects on our list at all, with the exception of Jesse White that is. Other clubs have up to five, six or even more. We are going to be screwed in 2011 and beyond. Teams don't give up established KP player's, you have to draft them and develop them yourself.

Exactly. And given the fact that KP prospects has a much bigger rate not not cutting it at AFL level, we really need to make sure we have even prospects so that at the very least one or two is good enough come 2009 or 2010.

With our current strategy in recycling the likes of Richards or Mayfair is not going to get us a KP that's anywhere near AA level.

We got lucky with C.Bolton, but we didn't recruit him as a KP player, same with Hall, there was no guarrantee that he was going to turn to be such a great player (and injury-free for so long), we aren't going to get lucky every single time.

 

[liz]

Firstly that article was factually incorrect. Moore was the last player to debut the season after being drafted - he played a couple of games in 2005. Admittedly he hasn't gone on with it much since at senior level (or hasn't been given the chance to) but he did debut in year 1.

Phillips was another to play a senior game in his first year. The fact he is no longer with us indicates that playing early is not the be-all-and-end-all.

It is also silly to ignore rookie promotions from the analysis. Their debuts count just as much as anyone taken in the main draft. Thus Barlow and Jack were also "blooded" last year, albeit in a limited way.

 

[bloods01]

Firstly that article was factually incorrect. Moore was the last player to debut the season after being drafted - he played a couple of games in 2005. Admittedly he hasn't gone on with it much since at senior level (or hasn't been given the chance to) but he did debut in year 1.

Phillips was another to play a senior game in his first year. The fact he is no longer with us indicates that playing early is not the be-all-and-end-all.

It is also silly to ignore rookie promotions from the analysis. Their debuts count just as much as anyone taken in the main draft. Thus Barlow and Jack were also "blooded" last year, albeit in a limited way.

You can't expect to build a team around rookie list promotions. In my eyes rookie list promotions are a bonus and we have done well in this area. But you build your team around the draft able. We got Hall, Jolly, Ball, Davis, Richards, C. Bolton, Spider from other clubs. I think the time has come to build a team from within. Our recent record at the draft able is poor to say the least. You have to go back to '02 where Malceski was seleected at 64 to find a decent pick.

 

[liz]

You can't expect to build a team around rookie list promotions. In my eyes rookie list promotions are a bonus and we have done well in this area. But you build your team around the draft able. We got Hall, Jolly, Ball, Davis, Richards, C. Bolton, Spider from other clubs. I think the time has come to build a team from within. Our recent record at the draft able is poor to say the least. You have to go back to '02 where Malceski was seleected at 64 to find a decent pick.

I think this is rubbish. There is no one way to build a list. You do it any way you can with judicious use of trading, drafting (main and rookie list) and player development.

When Malceski was taken in 2002 he was just another late speculative pick on a skinny kid. How many back then were extolling him as a future captain of the club? It is only with hindsight that we now say he was a great pick. Ditto with ROK and Monty, both of whom took their time to develop into what they now are.

There is a long way to go to find out how the rest of the untried youngsters will turn out. And it won't make one iota of difference if our next 200 game players to establish themselves are Currie or Orreal, White or Murphy, Laidlaw or Barlow, Faulks or Rowe, Thornton or Smith, Brabazon or Jack. As far as the last 3 pairs go, I'd put money on Rowe (I am assuming he'll be re-rookied) and Jack ahead of Faulks and Brabazon, and would probably lean slightly towards Smith over Thorton (but line ball call).

 

[FM0226]

Firstly that article was factually incorrect. Moore was the last player to debut the season after being drafted - he played a couple of games in 2005. Admittedly he hasn't gone on with it much since at senior level (or hasn't been given the chance to) but he did debut in year 1.

Phillips was another to play a senior game in his first year. The fact he is no longer with us indicates that playing early is not the be-all-and-end-all.

It is also silly to ignore rookie promotions from the analysis. Their debuts count just as much as anyone taken in the main draft. Thus Barlow and Jack were also "blooded" last year, albeit in a limited way.

Liz, I don't think bloods01 is referring to the article in today's SMH (which was dead wrong as you pointed out). But you've highlighted the problem that we seem to do much better (or with the same level of success) with our rookie-listed players then our picks in the national draft. With the likes of Willougby, Matt Davis and Eriksen already out of the AFL without a senior game, we recycled two players (Spriggs and our own Heath James) which are also out of the AFL. Chambers is also gone.

The recruitment of two small/mediums in this draft, probably suggests that the class of '05 is unlikely to make the cut (Though to be fair, the likes of Thornton, Brabazon and Laidlaw were drafted in such late picks which make them practically rookie-draft prospects - with Thornton the exception because he was too young to be rookie-listed, I think).

We don't have a lot of F/S selections (and all three of them failed), nor do we get much hidden gems like Cox that we can find from the local leagues. The national draft remains our best chance in getting AFL calibre talent, but the 'talent' we have harvest thus far in the national draft from 2003 - 2005, is either not good enough at this level or not given a chance to shine (i.e. Schmidt, Laidlaw and Jack). And that's a problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later for the future of the club's sake.

I'm just hoping that we will get really, really, really lucky and somehow grab a few KP prospects in the rookie that might somehow will turn out to be an AFL-calibre level player.

 

[FM0226]

I think this is rubbish. There is no one way to build a list. You do it any way you can with judicious use of trading, drafting (main and rookie list) and player development.

When Malceski was taken in 2002 he was just another late speculative pick on a skinny kid. How many back then were extolling him as a future captain of the club? It is only with hindsight that we now say he was a great pick. Ditto with ROK and Monty, both of whom took their time to develop into what they now are.

There is a long way to go to find out how the rest of the untried youngsters will turn out. And it won't make one iota of difference if our next 200 game players to establish themselves are Currie or Orreal, White or Murphy, Laidlaw or Barlow, Faulks or Rowe, Thornton or Smith, Brabazon or Jack. As far as the last 3 pairs go, I'd put money on Rowe (I am assuming he'll be re-rookied) and Jack ahead of Faulks and Brabazon, and would probably lean slightly towards Smith over Thorton (but line ball call).

I agree with you about how useful the rookie list has been for us, but if a pick 10 in the national draft only averages 30 games in the AFL, the chances of getting AFL-calibre players from the rookie draft must be significantly lower.

In my view, we have been extremely lucky in getting the list we have today. Almost all of our better players in the list right now are either lower picks (Goodes, Malceski, O'Keefe, Magic), rejects/discards we got from other clubs (Hall, C.Bolton, Jolly) or from the rookie list (Kirk, Kennelly).

But we won't get lucky all the time, we already burned our hands a bit with the failures of Chambers and Spriggs, the injuries that forced both Heath James and Doyle to retire (both of which would have been extremely useful to us). Richards is servicable, but not outstanding. We got good contribution from our rookie list last year with games from Brennan, Jack, Barlow, Grundy but only less than a handful of games from players in the 2004 and 2005 draft.

Moore is unlucky, but mediums/midfielders generally develop quicker than the taller players and should be breaking into the senior side by the latter parts of the second year. And not doing so means that either they are not good enough or that someone is holding them back - and that needs to be fixed.

We need to make sure we have a consistent method of getting and nuturing AFL-calibre level players rather than hoping we get lucky every single time. The AFL draft is a lottery. The rookie draft is even more so.

 

[bloods01]

Liz, I don't think bloods01 is referring to the article in today's SMH (which was dead wrong as you pointed out). But you've highlighted the problem that we seem to do much better (or with the same level of success) with our rookie-listed players then our picks in the national draft. With the likes of Willougby, Matt Davis and Eriksen already out of the AFL without a senior game, we recycled two players (Spriggs and our own Heath James) which are also out of the AFL. Chambers is also gone.

The recruitment of two small/mediums in this draft, probably suggests that the class of '05 is unlikely to make the cut (Though to be fair, the likes of Thornton, Brabazon and Laidlaw were drafted in such late picks which make them practically rookie-draft prospects - with Thornton the exception because he was too young to be rookie-listed, I think).

We don't have a lot of F/S selections (and all three of them failed), nor do we get much hidden gems like Cox that we can find from the local leagues. The national draft remains our best chance in getting AFL calibre talent, but the 'talent' we have harvest thus far in the national draft from 2003 - 2005, is either not good enough at this level or not given a chance to shine (i.e. Schmidt, Laidlaw and Jack). And that's a problem that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later for the future of the club's sake.

I'm just hoping that we will get really, really, really lucky and somehow grab a few KP prospects in the rookie that might somehow will turn out to be an AFL-calibre level player.

Well said on my behalf FM0226. I haven't even seen the SMH article for that matter.

Geelong have proven this year what you can do at the draft table. In '99 Corey, Chapman, Ling, and Enright were taken in the national draft. Bartel, Kelly, and S. Johnson were all taken in the '01. Mackie in '02. You cant continually give up draft picks and trade for player's. We have been the most successful in doing this but you cant do it forever. You have to back yourself and build a team from within.

Quite frankly, looking at out list right now, I am not excited by anything. Who will be the next Adam Goodes? Who will take over from Hall at CHF? Who will take the key defensive post once Barry retires? We have to be thinking about this now and not when the time comes for them to retire.

 

[liz]

Geelong have proven this year what you can do at the draft table. In '99 Corey, Chapman, Ling, and Enright were taken in the national draft. Bartel, Kelly, and S. Johnson were all taken in the '01. Mackie in '02. You cant continually give up draft picks and trade for player's. We have been the most successful in doing this but you cant do it forever. You have to back yourself and build a team from within.

Geelong have won one premiership in the last few years (and have, on average, performed worse than the Swans over the last decade). The Swans have won one premiership in the last few years.

Which all goes to show, there is not one way of building a list. QED.

Besides which, what were Geelong doing when they recruited Ottens? They gave up the equivalent of what we gave up for Hall. So while they have traded far less than the Swans, they've not been afraid to dip their toe in too. Plus they got their Craig Bolton equivalent in Tom Harley - ie a didn't quite make it from another club who came cheap and turned into a gem.

Quite frankly, looking at out list right now, I am not excited by anything. Who will be the next Adam Goodes? Who will take over from Hall at CHF? Who will take the key defensive post once Barry retires? We have to be thinking about this now and not when the time comes for them to retire.

Your choice.

I am genuinely excited by Barlow, Jack and White. Can't wait to see DOK after a decent pre-season, and the Ves sounds exciting to watch. Three raw big blokes - how quickly are Murphy, Orreal and Currie going to come along? Will Bird prove to be the next tackling-machine replacement for Kirky? What's going to happen when Schmidt finally gets extended time in the midfield rotations. Do we have a Sam Mitchell clone on the books? Will we get to see Matty Laidlaw play a Nicksy type forward role - watching this guy take some of his marks is truly exhilerating.

Yes, there are gaps. Yes, these are of some concern. But I feel for you if you can find nothing to get excited about.

 

[bloods01]

Geelong have won one premiership in the last few years (and have, on average, performed worse than the Swans over the last decade). The Swans have won one premiership in the last few years.

Which all goes to show, there is not one way of building a list. QED.

Besides which, what were Geelong doing when they recruited Ottens? They gave up the equivalent of what we gave up for Hall. So while they have traded far less than the Swans, they've not been afraid to dip their toe in too. Plus they got their Craig Bolton equivalent in Tom Harley - ie a didn't quite make it from another club who came cheap and turned into a gem.

Your choice.

I am genuinely excited by Barlow, Jack and White. Can't wait to see DOK after a decent pre-season, and the Ves sounds exciting to watch. Three raw big blokes - how quickly are Murphy, Orreal and Currie going to come along? Will Bird prove to be the next tackling-machine replacement for Kirky? What's going to happen when Schmidt finally gets extended time in the midfield rotations. Do we have a Sam Mitchell clone on the books? Will we get to see Matty Laidlaw play a Nicksy type forward role - watching this guy take some of his marks is truly exhilerating.

Yes, there are gaps. Yes, these are of some concern. But I feel for you if you can find nothing to get excited about.

Your talking about possibles and probabales. I'm talking about hard facts. Yes everything you said may turn out to be correct, but as of right now, it's only natural to be a little concerned. Maybe in a years time it may be different. These guys actually have to get out there and play, and not spent it playing for the reserves in the Canberra league. Give them all a game and see who can cut it.

 

[liz]

Your talking about possibles and probabales. I'm talking about hard facts. Yes everything you said may turn out to be correct, but as of right now, it's only natural to be a little concerned.

What "hard facts"? The only hard fact of any consequence was that Geelong won this year's premiership. Which is no harder a fact than the Swans have won a premiership under Roos' reign and with a consistent recruitment policy to that they look to be continuing with.

As for my comments about the players, that was in response to your comment that you can't find anything to get excited about. That may well be a hard fact too, but it doesn't mean we all feel the same way.