Past Swans past player movements

Remove this Banner Ad

cherub

All Australian
Aug 12, 2009
849
1,434
Shenton Park
AFL Club
Sydney
There's a big ad in the Australian Financial Review for BAE Systems, which is building Australian anti- submarine frigates. They are working with the Indigenous Defence Consortium to help indigenous businesses to build capability to contribute to the Australian defence materiel industry. It caught my eye because of the large photo of a very distinguished-looking Adam Goodes, Chief Executive of the Indigenous Defence Consortium. Talk about planning to make a difference and then doing it. So impressive.
 
There's a big ad in the Australian Financial Review for BAE Systems, which is building Australian anti- submarine frigates. They are working with the Indigenous Defence Consortium to help indigenous businesses to build capability to contribute to the Australian defence materiel industry. It caught my eye because of the large photo of a very distinguished-looking Adam Goodes, Chief Executive of the Indigenous Defence Consortium. Talk about planning to make a difference and then doing it. So impressive.

If they're building them to fight off the Collins class then that money would be better spent on ice cream.
 
There's a big ad in the Australian Financial Review for BAE Systems, which is building Australian anti- submarine frigates. They are working with the Indigenous Defence Consortium to help indigenous businesses to build capability to contribute to the Australian defence materiel industry. It caught my eye because of the large photo of a very distinguished-looking Adam Goodes, Chief Executive of the Indigenous Defence Consortium. Talk about planning to make a difference and then doing it. So impressive.
http://www.idefcon.com.au/adam-goodes/
 

Log in to remove this ad.

RW

Cancelled
10k Posts Sydney Forum Service Medal Sydney Swans - Jake Lloyd 2020 Player Sponsor BeanCoiNFT Investor Sydney Swans - Harry Cunningham 2019 Player Sponsor Ex-Moderator Sydney Swans - Gary Rohan Player Sponsor 2018 Sydney Swans - George Hewett Player Sponsor 2017 Sydney Swans - Callum Mills Player Sponsor 2016 Podcaster
Jan 11, 2003
16,283
19,091
AFL Club
Sydney

RW

Cancelled
10k Posts Sydney Forum Service Medal Sydney Swans - Jake Lloyd 2020 Player Sponsor BeanCoiNFT Investor Sydney Swans - Harry Cunningham 2019 Player Sponsor Ex-Moderator Sydney Swans - Gary Rohan Player Sponsor 2018 Sydney Swans - George Hewett Player Sponsor 2017 Sydney Swans - Callum Mills Player Sponsor 2016 Podcaster
Jan 11, 2003
16,283
19,091
AFL Club
Sydney
He is a butcher. He just slaps it on the boot willy nilly. He might get a lot of it but he doesn't really change a game with it and doesnt make you hurt as opposition.

I'll respond to this with one of swansfan51's fun facts posted last year:

Tom Mitchell's 25 votes in 2017 is:

more than Adam Goodes' Brownlow winning year in 2003
more than Paul Kelly's Brownlow winning year in 1995
more than Gerard Healy's Brownlow winning year in 1988
more than Greg Williams' Brownlow winning year in 1986

Not bad for a butcher!
 

CheapCharlie

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 12, 2015
6,416
7,985
AFL Club
Sydney
3 of the Unwanted Can't Play Swans Rejects have had good games this weekend...
Tommy Rack 'em Up Mitchell
Toby No Good For Sydney Nankervis
Tim Got the Goodes Membrey
 
I'll respond to this with one of swansfan51's fun facts posted last year:



Not bad for a butcher!

I'm impartial to Mitchell debate. I agree that sometimes stats are looked at too heavily when judging impact (midfielders especially), but saying he does nothing with it is also just crap imo.

As for Brownlow votes: vote inflation is a real thing I believe, winners across the board are getting as many as 10+ votes more than you would need to win even only 15 years ago. Runner ups these days can have more votes than previous year's winners.
 
Apparently we are the only ones who have never managed to keep a gun side of 20 or so players in-tact. I get the frustration. We shipped Mumford, our last true quality ruckman, off to accommodate Buddy after landing Tippett the year before. Getting Buddy was a great move, but getting Buddy as well as Tippett was not sound. That’s why I say all the more power to anyone who wants to complain about the Tippett deal.

But Mitchell was one of several gun players we had in our side throughout 2016. We had two brilliant key defenders (Grundy and Sir Dane) - they were invaluable. We had a top ten player of all time (Buddy) - he was invaluable. We had quality kids that could be even greater than our established stars (Heeney, Mills, Papley etc.) - they were invaluable. And then there’s our midfield. You have two triple All Australians (Kennedy and Hannebery, who in my opinion would rank first and second in our best midfielders of this century.) You have a dual club champion capable of amassing 30 touches and 5 goals in a game in between taking overhead marks and playing as a forward occasionally (Parker). And you had two captains who, while not our best players, are integral to the successful culture of our team (Jack and McVeigh.)

Now we’re all armchair experts, but I’m pretty certain no actual expert (ie any coach in the league) would ship any of those players off. We can complain about how Parker goes MIA in big games (still not totally proven), how Hannebery has been battling injuries (like that’s his fault?) or that Jack is now too old (which he wasn’t at the time.) But when the Tom Mitchell trade happened, he was, seems crazy to think, our most replaceable of all the guns. And he was the least experienced. Even Clarkson would have prioritised the CVs of the others over Mitchell’s.

So moving him on was not a **** up. It was an unfortunate inevitability. If Parker left we’d be lamenting the loss of our best-marking midfielder. If Hanners left, Kennedy’s impact on games would decrease significantly. If Jack left, we’d officially have the most stagnant midfield group in the game. The moral of the story here is that you can’t always get what you want, especially when you are spoilt with riches like we were at the time.

The **** up, though, was how easily we let Mitchell go. While he may have been fourth in line in terms of our midfield, it should have been fairly easy to see that he’d follow in Kennedy, Hannebery and Parker’s footsteps and start accumulating career honours. One of them had to go, so Horse & co should have made it clear that whoever the sacrificial lamb was was not being gifted as a bargain. Pick 14 was just not good enough and it was sloppy work that felt insulting to the fans who had just lost what they perceived to be an integral part of the side.

As for Mitchell’s current form, I wouldn’t buy too much into it. Yes he’s absolutely brilliant - I think a top ten player in the comp. But Hawthorn play a brand of footy that lends itself to players getting plenty of time and space. On the huge expanse of the MCG, Mitchell often had no opponent near him, and he padded his stats a fair bit. Compare that with Kennedy or Hannebery, who still frequently get big numbers (albeit not as big) on the SCG, but with two or three blokes hanging off them every single possession. Our style of footy is congested and they aren’t afforded the freedom Hawthorn players enjoy. As I’ve always said, Hawthorn have spent the last decade essentially playing A-grade kick to kick, it’s perfect for racking up numbers. So it’s with a lot of confidence that I say if any of our three best mids went to Hawthorn and became the leading mid there, they’d be getting 40+ every week too.

Long rant over.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Apparently we are the only ones who have never managed to keep a gun side of 20 or so players in-tact. I get the frustration. We shipped Mumford, our last true quality ruckman, off to accommodate Buddy after landing Tippett the year before. Getting Buddy was a great move, but getting Buddy as well as Tippett was not sound. That’s why I say all the more power to anyone who wants to complain about the Tippett deal.

But Mitchell was one of several gun players we had in our side throughout 2016. We had two brilliant key defenders (Grundy and Sir Dane) - they were invaluable. We had a top ten player of all time (Buddy) - he was invaluable. We had quality kids that could be even greater than our established stars (Heeney, Mills, Papley etc.) - they were invaluable. And then there’s our midfield. You have two triple All Australians (Kennedy and Hannebery, who in my opinion would rank first and second in our best midfielders of this century.) You have a dual club champion capable of amassing 30 touches and 5 goals in a game in between taking overhead marks and playing as a forward occasionally (Parker). And you had two captains who, while not our best players, are integral to the successful culture of our team (Jack and McVeigh.)

Now we’re all armchair experts, but I’m pretty certain no actual expert (ie any coach in the league) would ship any of those players off. We can complain about how Parker goes MIA in big games (still not totally proven), how Hannebery has been battling injuries (like that’s his fault?) or that Jack is now too old (which he wasn’t at the time.) But when the Tom Mitchell trade happened, he was, seems crazy to think, our most replaceable of all the guns. And he was the least experienced. Even Clarkson would have prioritised the CVs of the others over Mitchell’s.

So moving him on was not a **** up. It was an unfortunate inevitability. If Parker left we’d be lamenting the loss of our best-marking midfielder. If Hanners left, Kennedy’s impact on games would decrease significantly. If Jack left, we’d officially have the most stagnant midfield group in the game. The moral of the story here is that you can’t always get what you want, especially when you are spoilt with riches like we were at the time.

The **** up, though, was how easily we let Mitchell go. While he may have been fourth in line in terms of our midfield, it should have been fairly easy to see that he’d follow in Kennedy, Hannebery and Parker’s footsteps and start accumulating career honours. One of them had to go, so Horse & co should have made it clear that whoever the sacrificial lamb was was not being gifted as a bargain. Pick 14 was just not good enough and it was sloppy work that felt insulting to the fans who had just lost what they perceived to be an integral part of the side.

As for Mitchell’s current form, I wouldn’t buy too much into it. Yes he’s absolutely brilliant - I think a top ten player in the comp. But Hawthorn play a brand of footy that lends itself to players getting plenty of time and space. On the huge expanse of the MCG, Mitchell often had no opponent near him, and he padded his stats a fair bit. Compare that with Kennedy or Hannebery, who still frequently get big numbers (albeit not as big) on the SCG, but with two or three blokes hanging off them every single possession. Our style of footy is congested and they aren’t afforded the freedom Hawthorn players enjoy. As I’ve always said, Hawthorn have spent the last decade essentially playing A-grade kick to kick, it’s perfect for racking up numbers. So it’s with a lot of confidence that I say if any of our three best mids went to Hawthorn and became the leading mid there, they’d be getting 40+ every week too.

Long rant over.
:thumbsu: Great rant :thumbsu:
 
Apparently we are the only ones who have never managed to keep a gun side of 20 or so players in-tact. I get the frustration. We shipped Mumford, our last true quality ruckman, off to accommodate Buddy after landing Tippett the year before. Getting Buddy was a great move, but getting Buddy as well as Tippett was not sound. That’s why I say all the more power to anyone who wants to complain about the Tippett deal.

But Mitchell was one of several gun players we had in our side throughout 2016. We had two brilliant key defenders (Grundy and Sir Dane) - they were invaluable. We had a top ten player of all time (Buddy) - he was invaluable. We had quality kids that could be even greater than our established stars (Heeney, Mills, Papley etc.) - they were invaluable. And then there’s our midfield. You have two triple All Australians (Kennedy and Hannebery, who in my opinion would rank first and second in our best midfielders of this century.) You have a dual club champion capable of amassing 30 touches and 5 goals in a game in between taking overhead marks and playing as a forward occasionally (Parker). And you had two captains who, while not our best players, are integral to the successful culture of our team (Jack and McVeigh.)

Now we’re all armchair experts, but I’m pretty certain no actual expert (ie any coach in the league) would ship any of those players off. We can complain about how Parker goes MIA in big games (still not totally proven), how Hannebery has been battling injuries (like that’s his fault?) or that Jack is now too old (which he wasn’t at the time.) But when the Tom Mitchell trade happened, he was, seems crazy to think, our most replaceable of all the guns. And he was the least experienced. Even Clarkson would have prioritised the CVs of the others over Mitchell’s.

So moving him on was not a **** up. It was an unfortunate inevitability. If Parker left we’d be lamenting the loss of our best-marking midfielder. If Hanners left, Kennedy’s impact on games would decrease significantly. If Jack left, we’d officially have the most stagnant midfield group in the game. The moral of the story here is that you can’t always get what you want, especially when you are spoilt with riches like we were at the time.

The **** up, though, was how easily we let Mitchell go. While he may have been fourth in line in terms of our midfield, it should have been fairly easy to see that he’d follow in Kennedy, Hannebery and Parker’s footsteps and start accumulating career honours. One of them had to go, so Horse & co should have made it clear that whoever the sacrificial lamb was was not being gifted as a bargain. Pick 14 was just not good enough and it was sloppy work that felt insulting to the fans who had just lost what they perceived to be an integral part of the side.

As for Mitchell’s current form, I wouldn’t buy too much into it. Yes he’s absolutely brilliant - I think a top ten player in the comp. But Hawthorn play a brand of footy that lends itself to players getting plenty of time and space. On the huge expanse of the MCG, Mitchell often had no opponent near him, and he padded his stats a fair bit. Compare that with Kennedy or Hannebery, who still frequently get big numbers (albeit not as big) on the SCG, but with two or three blokes hanging off them every single possession. Our style of footy is congested and they aren’t afforded the freedom Hawthorn players enjoy. As I’ve always said, Hawthorn have spent the last decade essentially playing A-grade kick to kick, it’s perfect for racking up numbers. So it’s with a lot of confidence that I say if any of our three best mids went to Hawthorn and became the leading mid there, they’d be getting 40+ every week too.

Long rant over.
What exactly did you want us to do? Go back and have a look and you'll see their was no choice in the matter
 

Olian

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 12, 2013
8,473
13,868
Between the Bridges
AFL Club
Sydney
He is a butcher. He just slaps it on the boot willy nilly. He might get a lot of it but he doesn't really change a game with it and doesnt make you hurt as opposition.
Last night 70% disposal efficiency would suggest not a butcher but not elite either. His real impact is who gets the ball to. Hawks have plenty of far better skilled players than him.
 

zyzzbruh

Premiership Player
Mar 27, 2017
3,765
6,000
Mnt Olympus
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Manchester United
If he didn't get as many disposals as he does then someone else would get them, he's an accumulator, But unless no one else in the team is capable of winning the ball then lots of possessions doesn't necessarily mean the team is getting an extra boost, it just means one player is getting most the possies instead of sharing the load. We have players that can win the ball and our spread is a healthy thing. And yes he does blaze away and has a relatively shite disposal efficiency, so in perspective the loss isn't as big as it looks he'll never win a game off his own boot.

I think we're talking about the wrong player here. Last season we were all crying out for a running back and formulating possible trades to get one in when lone behold we had one right under our own nose in sam murray. How we barely heard of him is beyond me. His speed, decision making and efficiency for an inexperienced kid is top notch, he backs himself and looks comfortable playing afl. If I could pick a player to bring back it would be him.
 

DavyRed

Club Legend
Nov 5, 2009
1,782
2,836
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
If he didn't get as many disposals as he does then someone else would get them, he's an accumulator, But unless no one else in the team is capable of winning the ball then lots of possessions doesn't necessarily mean the team is getting an extra boost, it just means one player is getting most the possies instead of sharing the load. We have players that can win the ball and our spread is a healthy thing. And yes he does blaze away and has a relatively shite disposal efficiency, so in perspective the loss isn't as big as it looks he'll never win a game off his own boot.

I think we're talking about the wrong player here. Last season we were all crying out for a running back and formulating possible trades to get one in when lone behold we had one right under our own nose in sam murray. How we barely heard of him is beyond me. His speed, decision making and efficiency for an inexperienced kid is top notch, he backs himself and looks comfortable playing afl. If I could pick a player to bring back it would be him.
But he does get so many disposals! Also his efficiency is not "shite" - he's averaging a shade over 70% as an inside mid and that's better than Kennedy, Parker or Hanners. He's a bloody elite machine and if he were still playing for us racking up those numbers we'd be bloody wetting ourselves with excitement.
 
If he didn't get as many disposals as he does then someone else would get them, he's an accumulator, But unless no one else in the team is capable of winning the ball then lots of possessions doesn't necessarily mean the team is getting an extra boost, it just means one player is getting most the possies instead of sharing the load. We have players that can win the ball and our spread is a healthy thing. And yes he does blaze away and has a relatively shite disposal efficiency, so in perspective the loss isn't as big as it looks he'll never win a game off his own boot.

I think we're talking about the wrong player here. Last season we were all crying out for a running back and formulating possible trades to get one in when lone behold we had one right under our own nose in sam murray. How we barely heard of him is beyond me. His speed, decision making and efficiency for an inexperienced kid is top notch, he backs himself and looks comfortable playing afl. If I could pick a player to bring back it would be him.
Tell me who else would get 50+ ?
 

zyzzbruh

Premiership Player
Mar 27, 2017
3,765
6,000
Mnt Olympus
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Manchester United
But he does get so many disposals! Also his efficiency is not "shite" - he's averaging a shade over 70% as an inside mid and that's better than Kennedy, Parker or Hanners. He's a bloody elite machine and if he were still playing for us racking up those numbers we'd be bloody wetting ourselves with excitement.
Only one player can win the ball at a time, Mitchell having more disposals means his team mates are going to have less. If no one else in the team is capable of winning ball then fair enough he's doing everyones job for them. But if you have a midfield sharing the load youre essentially getting the same amount of disposals but split between players. That's why kennedy, parker, hanners, jack, okeefe etc could never win a brownlow, they could only win so much of the ball and would take votes from eachother. Mitchell is taking all the load at hawthorn that's why he's being jerked off. No doubt he's an elite mid but id bet my life he wouldn't get as many disposals playing in a team that actually has other elite mids in it.
 

zyzzbruh

Premiership Player
Mar 27, 2017
3,765
6,000
Mnt Olympus
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Manchester United
Tell me who else would get 50+ ?
no one, but those extra disposals would be shared amongst other mids if theyre half decent. Mitchell would get no where near the amount of disposals playing for us as what he is getting now. Capable of getting the odd 40 but he wouldn't be dominating as much as he is if he had other elite mids playing with him
 

HighReeve

Anything will grow in Wessex
Sep 27, 2003
3,871
761
the north. (/melb)
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Brotherhood Without Banners
(Kennedy and Hannebery, who in my opinion would rank first and second in our best midfielders of this century.)

Oh my sweet, summer child.
b70d26790dadd090061ef5138072c72f--adam-goodes-sports-stars.jpg



 
On the huge expanse of the MCG, Mitchell often had no opponent near him, and he padded his stats a fair bit.
It is quite a remarkable achievement to be 2 off the all-time record for contested possessions in a game, despite having no opponent near him.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back