Did Sydney make a mistake by passing on Josh Dunkley?

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

He looks like he could become a really good player and his game last night was fantastic. But even with the prospect of losing Mitchell we're still not exactly lacking his type of player. We still need more outside pace and skill.

Hope he has a great career with the Dogs.
 
Wonder how much influence his old man had in his decision, shame we have missed out on a few F/S Dunkley, Daniher and if Mitchell goes 3 good players that would be in our best 22.

Always wished we picked him up was touted as a first round pick then got injured and was shadowed by the Heeney/Mills hype.
 
May come to regret it as Kennedy slows down, but Dunks is readymade. I'm very happy to have him.
we would have been happy to have him, but as Kennedy slows down, Heeney and Mills will go into the middle and we will look for a small forward and a half back flanker
 
Agreed and his kicking still needs a little work. But it is ok at the moment.

Won't matter too much when he transitions into an inside mid.
 
Would he be in either sides best 22 with injuries?

This is a tough one because we have seen what he has become so far at the Bulldogs so you could say yes on both fronts but if you take the logical look at it and the major reason he was not keen on joining the Swans was because of our inside midfield depth at this point last season. So if he joined the Swans there would of been every chance he could of been stuck in the NEAFL for the year and we wouldn't be here debating this topic.

As Swans fans we know he is going to be a good player, thats not in question and yes we would love him at the club but at the end of the day we made a decision at the time that was best for the club in targeting players with good foot skills and let him go to the Bulldogs. This could be a decision where all three parties (the Swans, the Bulldogs and Josh himself) benefit in the long term as each gets want they want from the decision and at the end of the day I'm happy with that outcome.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

we would have been happy to have him, but as Kennedy slows down, Heeney and Mills will go into the middle and we will look for a small forward and a half back flanker
Heeney's situation is a bit like Stringer for us, in that his full potential lies in the midfield but it'd mean losing a deadly weapon closer to goal.

Good problem to have, though.
 
All those suggesting Sydney go back on their word and match the Dogs bid for him you must pretty untrustworthy people. No way the Swans were going to do that.
What's this rubbish about going back on their word? How about not giving him their word in the first place? How about saying "we're taking you whether you like it or not", just like every other player that's forced to move interstate? Something Sydney have done numerous times before.
 
Not sure why the Swans are copping all the heat here. Every club (just about) had the option to select him - why arent their recruitment teams in the spotlight?
Because Sydney were the ones with the discount deal. Other teams had to use a second rounder, they just had to downgrade two picks in the 50s.
 
Because Sydney were the ones with the discount deal. Other teams had to use a second rounder, they just had to downgrade two picks in the 50s.
Fair point, but the argument is made because (in true BF fashion) his last game was good and therefore they made a mistake not getting him. Well, isnt that true of all the clubs who had the chance and over looked him ?
 
#happywithpappy!!

How many goals did Dunks kick last night?
What's your point?

Papley was a rookie selection. Dunkley went in the national draft, following which the Swans drafted Tyrone Leonardis and Jordan Dawson (?). Recruiting one had nothing to do with the other.

Dunks kicked one FYI, amid carving up a final and dethroning the reigning premiers. Missed a couple of easy chances, that said.
 
What's your point?

Papley was a rookie selection. Dunkley went in the national draft, following which the Swans drafted Tyrone Leonardis and Jordan Dawson (?). Recruiting one had nothing to do with the other.

Had we matched your bid for Dunkley we would of had two picks at the end of the draft (71 and 72) and the club has said we wouldn't of gone to the Rookie Draft with an extra pick which we used to pick Papley. So it did have impact on how we approached the rookie draft. Maybe we would of taken Papley at 71/72 if we took Dunkley. But the point is that we got a good player and so did you out of it and the OP is salty about it
 
What's this rubbish about going back on their word? How about not giving him their word in the first place? How about saying "we're taking you whether you like it or not", just like every other player that's forced to move interstate? Something Sydney have done numerous times before.
So you don't understand the father son system.

It's not a mandated rule, it's a choice for the son. In this case the son didn't want to go to Sydney. Like Mark Murphy didn't want to go to Brisbane.

Dunkley agreed to be nominated as a father son on the provision that Sydney would only match the bid (assuming it came at a reasonable spot) if he was drafted interstate.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top