Nick Malceski - ACL

[lazy]

As I posted pre-Bomber blitz was that the 5pm ABC radio news said it was season over for Eski.

WTF!

I cant believe it - a change of direction, no body contact and season over???

What is the sports world coming too?


I dont remember any of these nothing season ending injuries 20 years ago...


Why oh Why do we have them now????

 

[Corpuscles]

WTF!

I cant believe it - a change of direction, no body contact and season over???

What is the sports world coming too?


I dont remember any of these nothing season ending injuries 20 years ago...


Why oh Why do we have them now????

Same reason you don't have to hammer in the footyboot studs anymore!

 

[MF]

You've blooded one player. Good for you. We played finals in 02, 03 ,04 and made the second week at least in each. Rebuild started in 04, but not as many kids were thrown in as we'd hope. How were we not a serious finals contender? We were in with a chance until the 2nd last round of the season. Do you bother to think when you post. The boys showed heart last year except the last game against Richmond. Much more life in the Bombers squad then the Swans.

LOL. Delusional!!

The bloods don't rebuild. We just renew.

I'll let you in on a secret: "Rebuilding" is a phrase used by coaches who have driven their club to the bottom of the ladder for prolonged periods and need a good excuse for the more gullible of their fans.

How many coaches come out at the peak of their teams powers and declare that starting next season they are going to enter a rebuilding phase spanning several years?

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

LOL. Delusional!!

The bloods don't rebuild. We just renew.

I'll let you in on a secret: "Rebuilding" is a phrase used by coaches who have driven their club to the bottom of the ladder for prolonged periods and need a good excuse for the more gullible of their fans.

How many coaches come out at the peak of their teams powers and declare that starting next season they are going to enter a rebuilding phase spanning several years?

Exactly, and clubs shouldn't have to rebuild, not completely. If a coach allows his list to become so old and so tired, to the point where he needs to rebuild most of the team, then it's bad coaching.

Obviously every club should blood 2-3 youngsters a year, to keep things fresh for the future, but the core group of players should remain the same for 5-7 years, unless they can't hold their place in the team.

 

[Blue Boulevard]

Teerible news for the young kid and the swans. Lets hope he makes a speedy recovery and gets back to his best.( which he has every chance of doing).


As a side note, it is great that the overwhelming posts have been very supportive of him and the club, as it should be, i just wonder if the same support would be given if it had been say......Chris Judd. Me thinks not.

 

[BIGBEZ]

Teerible news for the young kid and the swans. Lets hope he makes a speedy recovery and gets back to his best.( which he has every chance of doing).


As a side note, it is great that the overwhelming posts have been very supportive of him and the club, as it should be, i just wonder if the same support would be given if it had been say......Chris Judd. Me thinks not.

Judd out, isnt good for footy, doesnt matter who you support!

 

[rancidpants13]

Judd out, isnt good for footy, doesnt matter who you support!

too true
while there's obviously a lot of that "wow" factor when a player of judd's stature has an injury, and there's a LOT of anti-carlton sentiment linked to judd going to the blues, genuine footy fans want to see the likes of judd on the field
i know, from a swans supporter's view, i'd prefer to see sydney play and beat full-strength opposition
i definitely want to see judd up and playing as soon as possible

 

[THRILLHOU]

LOL. Delusional!!

The bloods don't rebuild. We just renew.

I'll let you in on a secret: "Rebuilding" is a phrase used by coaches who have driven their club to the bottom of the ladder for prolonged periods and need a good excuse for the more gullible of their fans.

How many coaches come out at the peak of their teams powers and declare that starting next season they are going to enter a rebuilding phase spanning several years?

You might come to regret posts like this when things are looking ominous mid year, a few players have been cut down by injury and suddenly the kids who looked 'impressive' in the NAB cup are struggling to hold down their position week in week out. Who knows what will happen to the swans, but 'rebuilding' is a pretty genuine theory. The whole system is designed to be cyclical. When you are up, you get lower picks, and when you are down, you get the creme of the crop.

The swans were in the fortunate position the last four or so years to have very few injuries and suspensions. When you can keep your best 22 on the park week in week out it goes a long way towards finals appearances. But you best believe that if you find yourself losing games and forced to play kids, the catch cry of your supporters will be 'rebuilding'. If you think otherwise you are just naive.

**Edit. Just to add something, many of the teams who are dominant at the moment have spent some time at the bottom of the ladder. WC, Geelong, Hawthorn, St Kilda.. All of them. Im not saying you have to rebuild, there is an exception to every rule, but to say that you NEVER have to rebuild is just stupid.

 

[MF]

You might come to regret posts like this when things are looking ominous mid year, a few players have been cut down by injury and suddenly the kids who looked 'impressive' in the NAB cup are struggling to hold down their position week in week out.

This might be the case but even so it doesn't mean we have to enter a rebuilding phase. But anyway.... I think we both know that the most likely outcome is that by mid-season the bloods will be just hitting their straps for another September assault and I will be watching on in my smugness.

Who knows what will happen to the swans, but 'rebuilding' is a pretty genuine theory. The whole system is designed to be cyclical. When you are up, you get lower picks, and when you are down, you get the creme of the crop.

I agree to an extent however no team should need to start from scratch, a year or two at most out of the finals without completely bottoming out is all thats required.

The swans were in the fortunate position the last four or so years to have very few injuries and suspensions. When you can keep your best 22 on the park week in week out it goes a long way towards finals appearances. But you best believe that if you find yourself losing games and forced to play kids, the catch cry of your supporters will be 'rebuilding'. If you think otherwise you are just naive.

4 Years ago people were telling us we needed to rebuild.

**Edit. Just to add something, many of the teams who are dominant at the moment have spent some time at the bottom of the ladder. WC, Geelong, Hawthorn, St Kilda.. All of them. Im not saying you have to rebuild, there is an exception to every rule, but to say that you NEVER have to rebuild is just stupid.

You accidently typed in Hawthorn and St. Kilda.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Lol at Hawthorn being dominant, and how long has it taken for them to become competitive? Just because a rebuild works after 6 years, that doesn't make it right.

That's like Sydney winning a flag in 25 years, but never rebuilding, and me saying "Ha ha, we won a flag didn't we? So I was right!" I wouldn't be right, because it took 25 years. Yes the Hawks look like a good side now, but it's about time.

The football world will be suprised by the talent of Sydney's young players, over the next 2 years.

 

[liz]

**Edit. Just to add something, many of the teams who are dominant at the moment have spent some time at the bottom of the ladder. WC, Geelong, Hawthorn, St Kilda.. All of them. Im not saying you have to rebuild, there is an exception to every rule, but to say that you NEVER have to rebuild is just stupid.

But no team that has spent significant time at the bottom accumulating top 5 draft picks has won a premiership - or even really come close. St Kilda looked like they might, and admittedly were very unlucky with injury, but right now they're just one of a dozen challengers, rather than looking to be a genuine frontrunner.

Geelong have never done anything remotely close to rebuilding.

Port didn't. Brisbane had one dreadful year in 1998 that netted them Headland but it's hard to argue that had any significant impact on their three-peat. And even after both these teams fell from their peak of 2001-2004, both remained competitive and didn't fall too far before starting to climb back up again.

West Coast had one dreadful year and were fortunate enough that it resulted in them getting Judd. But they weren't systematically dreadful for year after year as some clubs have been.

Adelaide is another club that hasn't won a premiership in the past 7 or 8 years but has had its time as the best team going around for parts of a season. They didn't rebuild either.

Maybe one day some club will demonstrate that a multi-year rebuild is a viable way to winning a premiership but it certainly ain't happened yet.

 

[rancidpants13]

You might come to regret posts like this when things are looking ominous mid year, a few players have been cut down by injury and suddenly the kids who looked 'impressive' in the NAB cup are struggling to hold down their position week in week out. Who knows what will happen to the swans, but 'rebuilding' is a pretty genuine theory. The whole system is designed to be cyclical. When you are up, you get lower picks, and when you are down, you get the creme of the crop.

The swans were in the fortunate position the last four or so years to have very few injuries and suspensions. When you can keep your best 22 on the park week in week out it goes a long way towards finals appearances. But you best believe that if you find yourself losing games and forced to play kids, the catch cry of your supporters will be 'rebuilding'. If you think otherwise you are just naive.

**Edit. Just to add something, many of the teams who are dominant at the moment have spent some time at the bottom of the ladder. WC, Geelong, Hawthorn, St Kilda.. All of them. Im not saying you have to rebuild, there is an exception to every rule, but to say that you NEVER have to rebuild is just stupid.

hawthorn and st kilda "dominant"??? i'd have thought at the very least, to fit the term "dominant" you have to the best at something, for some time
and that's not been the case for those two teams

 

[THRILLHOU]

Lol at Hawthorn being dominant, and how long has it taken for them to become competitive? Just because a rebuild works after 6 years, that doesn't make it right.

That's like Sydney winning a flag in 25 years, but never rebuilding, and me saying "Ha ha, we won a flag didn't we? So I was right!" I wouldn't be right, because it took 25 years. Yes the Hawks look like a good side now, but it's about time.

The football world will be suprised by the talent of Sydney's young players, over the next 2 years.

Based on what? Their dominance in the canberra league? The majority of their young players are untried, so in the same way i cant say they are bad you can't tell me with any degree of certainty at all that we will be surprised over the next 2 years.

 

[THRILLHOU]

hawthorn and st kilda "dominant"??? i'd have thought at the very least, to fit the term "dominant" you have to the best at something, for some time
and that's not been the case for those two teams

St kilda were no good last year but they have been the most injury ravaged side the last half decade. In saying that they have a very strong list and have played in and won finals. Does your memory only span one season? Do you not remember their purple patch when they fobbed off training to go to the movies?

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

But no team that has spent significant time at the bottom accumulating top 5 draft picks has won a premiership - or even really come close. St Kilda looked like they might, and admittedly were very unlucky with injury, but right now they're just one of a dozen challengers, rather than looking to be a genuine frontrunner.

Geelong have never done anything remotely close to rebuilding.

Port didn't. Brisbane had one dreadful year in 1998 that netted them Headland but it's hard to argue that had any significant impact on their three-peat. And even after both these teams fell from their peak of 2001-2004, both remained competitive and didn't fall too far before starting to climb back up again.

West Coast had one dreadful year and were fortunate enough that it resulted in them getting Judd. But they weren't systematically dreadful for year after year as some clubs have been.

Adelaide is another club that hasn't won a premiership in the past 7 or 8 years but has had its time as the best team going around for parts of a season. They didn't rebuild either.

Maybe one day some club will demonstrate that a multi-year rebuild is a viable way to winning a premiership but it certainly ain't happened yet.

We need a kudos system, like the myspace blogs. I'd suggest Liz would have gathered a few by now Insightful post, and 100% accurate!

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Based on what? Their dominance in the canberra league? The majority of their young players are untried, so in the same way i cant say they are bad you can't tell me with any degree of certainty at all that we will be surprised over the next 2 years.

Based on me knowing more about our youngsters than you do. I'm not a mind reader, but I'm very confident that atleast 4-5 of them will make a lot of people look silly. Is it just Hawthorn and Carlton fans who are allowed to get excited about their rookies? We won a flag recently, which is half the reason no one has seen our younger talent.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

St kilda were no good last year but they have been the most injury ravaged side the last half decade. In saying that they have a very strong list and have played in and won finals. Does your memory only span one season? Do you not remember their purple patch when they fobbed off training to go to the movies?

Does yours span 10 weeks? They had a purple patch, then got pawned by Sydney. Hardly dominant

 

[THRILLHOU]

So what you guys are saying is that rebuilding is definately not the way to go? The pendulum swings both ways. Clubs like North, Freo, Melbourne, and even Essendon haven't really bottomed out, but they certainly haven't looked like challenging for a flag. Does this mean that not rebuilding is definately an unsuccessful strategy?

Why can't we agree to disagree. Like i said there are exceptions to every rule. In this great game of ours, there are so many variables which can shape the way a season pans out. You can have the best list on paper (st kilda) and then find yourself ravaged by injury. Alternatively, you can have a pretty workhorse like team with only a few big stars like sydney and wind up with a flag. And alternatively again, you can have a whole host of stars in your team and wind up with a flag like west coast.

There is no right or wrong answer. People just want to feel like they earned it more. But there is nothing 'easy' about finishing at the bottom of the ladder for several years. Not for the fans, the coaches or the players.

 

[THRILLHOU]

Does yours span 10 weeks? They had a purple patch, then got pawned by Sydney. Hardly dominant

So does the one loss make their purple patch irrelevant? Can i now argue that Geelong were not dominant last year because we beat them? Great argument

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

So what you guys are saying is that rebuilding is definately not the way to go?

It's not black & white like that, there's a middle ground. Rebuilding is a must, but bottoming out for half a decade, isn't. As Liz has kindly proven, not one team that bottomed out for years, has actually won a flag yet.

One of them will, one day, but that's just the law of averages. It doesn't mean that their way is the right way to go, it just means it had to work eventually.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

So does the one loss make their purple patch irrelevant? Can i now argue that Geelong were not dominant last year because we beat them? Great argument

Are you now comparing Geelong of 2007, to the St Kilda team that won 10 matches, then imploded? Interesting path to take, but do continue.

 

[THRILLHOU]

It's not black & white like that, there's a middle ground. Rebuilding is a must, but bottoming out for half a decade, isn't. As Liz has kindly proven, not one team that bottomed out for years, has actually won a flag yet.

One of them will, one day, but that's just the law of averages. It doesn't mean that their way is the right way to go, it just means it had to work eventually.

We are arguing the same point. There is no RIGHT way to do it. Clubs who 'bottom out' dont necessarily do so by choice. They are at the bottom of the ladder for a reason. Carlton were stripped of draft picks for two years, which has a ripple effect in that they just lacked those 22-24 year old 50-100 game players. Clarko inherrited a list which had quite a few passengers and made some tough choices. Nobody plans to finish on the bottom of the ladder, but someone HAS to. And with 16 clubs all vying for the one thing, i dont think there is a right or wrong way to go about it. As i said, far too many variables throughout the year that can shape who wins the flag.

 

[THRILLHOU]

Are you now comparing Geelong of 2007, to the St Kilda team that won 10 matches, then imploded? Interesting path to take, but do continue.

Not at all, i thought you were inferring that if my team beat a dominant team they should no longer be considered dominant. If that was not the point of your original post, please, explain what the point was.

All of the stupid banter aside, the term 'dominant' isn't indefinate. No team is dominant forever, they are dominant for a period. You asked why i included st kilda, thats why i included st kilda. If you want to throw out stupid comments like 'they werent dominant cos we beat them' then you can expect an equally childish response. I included hawthorn, yes because i am biased, but also because we are a team on the rise and looking like a force, on paper at least.

 

[HappyHawk]

It's not black & white like that, there's a middle ground. Rebuilding is a must, but bottoming out for half a decade, isn't. As Liz has kindly proven, not one team that bottomed out for years, has actually won a flag yet.

One of them will, one day, but that's just the law of averages. It doesn't mean that their way is the right way to go, it just means it had to work eventually.

I think you know who that's gonna be....

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Not at all, i thought you were inferring that if my team beat a dominant team they should no longer be considered dominant. If that was not the point of your original post, please, explain what the point was.

All of the stupid banter aside, the term 'dominant' isn't indefinate. No team is dominant forever, they are dominant for a period. You asked why i included st kilda, thats why i included st kilda. If you want to throw out stupid comments like 'they werent dominant cos we beat them' then you can expect an equally childish response. I included hawthorn, yes because i am biased, but also because we are a team on the rise and looking like a force, on paper at least.

There was nothing childish about my response. You claimed the Saints were dominant, and I've explained why they weren't. Yes they won 10 games in a row, but did little after that, so in the end they were not a dominant team. I'm not sure which part of this you're struggling with.

Using your logic, the Tigers were a dominant team in 2005. They won 7 out of their first 9 games. Pretty dominant, but only for a short period of time. Winning streaks, don't equal dominance.