Top 8 for 08

[Undisputed_King]

I really don’t know why there is so much hype surrounding hawthorn. I for one can see many teams beating the hawks. When teams man up, the hawks have trouble winning games but every second thread I read on the main forum seems to declare the hawks as favourites for the flag. Is it just me or are there a lot of overly-optimistic hawk supporters out there?

My top 8 for 08 would be:
1.Port Adelaide (okay stop laughing, I know they stank in the GF, but call me stupid, I just can’t go past a team with the likes of the Burgoyne brothers, Corne brothers, Lade/Brogan as ruckmen, and emerging talents in Danyle Pearce and Westoff)

2.Geelong (a safe punter would have had them as #1, but because they are now the hunted 08 won’t be smooth sailing like 07. Every club would be gunning for them, some clubs may even try emulating their style of play or pay particular attention to players that stood out in 07)

3.WCE (still a dangerous side even without Judd and cousins)

4.Collingwood (I’m still not totally convinced though. I believe the games in which they belted us were, in the main, won in the coaching box. Also the margin between the cats and the pies in the prelim was not an accurate reflection of the game. The cats were particularly inaccurate on that night)

5.Sydney (yes I believe we can still be a force in 08. Think about it… with no Kennelly, Goodes poor form for half the season, an undersized defence and a dysfunctional forward line we were still able to make the eight with relative ease. Surely we can’t be that bad if we can make the finals against all this adversity)
6.St Kilda (can’t see them having two lean years in a row)

7.Kangaroos (Massively underrated team, much like our Swannies. No really big names but a team full of players who are willing to have a go. Whether they overachieved in 07 is arguable but with Thompson back in the side, they are still a team to watch out for in 08)

8.Up for grabs between Fremantle, Brisbane, Hawthorn, and Adelaide.

 

[RUNVS]

Id agree with most of that though i would swap Port and Geelong. Its really amazing to go on the main board and see how underrated the Swans are. A huge percentage of people have the Swans coming 10th or even worse and for some reason they dont realise that the Swans made the 8 in 2007 despite the fact that Hall and Kennelly were consitantly injurred and that had a HUGE effect as both players are incredible important to our squad.

Also when you look at last seasons statistics you would see that the Swans had the 2nd best defence in the competition which is very iimpressive considering that we were missing LRT for most of the season.

I think the Swans are in very good shape for a very strong 2008 season.

 

[Fat Tony]

I really don’t know why there is so much hype surrounding hawthorn. I for one can see many teams beating the hawks. When teams man up, the hawks have trouble winning games but every second thread I read on the main forum seems to declare the hawks as favourites for the flag. Is it just me or are there a lot of overly-optimistic hawk supporters out there?

My top 8 for 08 would be:
1.Port Adelaide (okay stop laughing, I know they stank in the GF, but call me stupid, I just can’t go past a team with the likes of the Burgoyne brothers, Corne brothers, Lade/Brogan as ruckmen, and emerging talents in Danyle Pearce and Westoff)

2.Geelong (a safe punter would have had them as #1, but because they are now the hunted 08 won’t be smooth sailing like 07. Every club would be gunning for them, some clubs may even try emulating their style of play or pay particular attention to players that stood out in 07)

3.WCE (still a dangerous side even without Judd and cousins)

4.Collingwood (I’m still not totally convinced though. I believe the games in which they belted us were, in the main, won in the coaching box. Also the margin between the cats and the pies in the prelim was not an accurate reflection of the game. The cats were particularly inaccurate on that night)

5.Sydney (yes I believe we can still be a force in 08. Think about it… with no Kennelly, Goodes poor form for half the season, an undersized defence and a dysfunctional forward line we were still able to make the eight with relative ease. Surely we can’t be that bad if we can make the finals against all this adversity)
6.St Kilda (can’t see them having two lean years in a row)

7.Kangaroos (Massively underrated team, much like our Swannies. No really big names but a team full of players who are willing to have a go. Whether they overachieved in 07 is arguable but with Thompson back in the side, they are still a team to watch out for in 08)

8.Up for grabs between Fremantle, Brisbane, Hawthorn, and Adelaide.

We have Franklin and we beat 14 sides in 07 including Geelong and West coast. Yes we didn't beat sydney (deserved to in the first match) but im sure we will demolish your aging list with ease next season
Oh and in case you forgot we have the 3rd youngest list so improvement on every level is almost a certainty for 08.

 

[Undisputed_King]

We have Franklin and we beat 14 sides in 07 including Geelong and West coast. Yes we didn't beat sydney (deserved to in the first match) but im sure we will demolish your aging list with ease next season
Oh and in case you forgot we have the 3rd youngest list so improvement on every level is almost a certainty for 08.

Every team has a 'franklin' in their side... he is no better than a brown for brisbane, a lloyd for essendon, a fevola for carlton, a richardson for richmond.

Yes you did beat Geelong and WC but I'm not going to hold my breath for the hawks to beat them again in 08

North Melbourne also beat you quite comprehensively so deserves to be placed ahead of you.

Swans have also in recent times had the upper hand.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm not saying teams which didn't make my top 8 are crap. It's just that I think there are better sides on offer

 

[Undisputed_King]

I really don’t know why there is so much hype surrounding hawthorn. I for one can see many teams beating the hawks. When teams man up, the hawks have trouble winning games but every second thread I read on the main forum seems to declare the hawks as favourites for the flag. Is it just me or are there a lot of overly-optimistic hawk supporters out there?

My top 8 for 08 would be:
1.Port Adelaide (okay stop laughing, I know they stank in the GF, but call me stupid, I just can’t go past a team with the likes of the Burgoyne brothers, Corne brothers, Lade/Brogan as ruckmen, and emerging talents in Danyle Pearce and Westoff)

2.Geelong (a safe punter would have had them as #1, but because they are now the hunted 08 won’t be smooth sailing like 07. Every club would be gunning for them, some clubs may even try emulating their style of play or pay particular attention to players that stood out in 07)

3.WCE (still a dangerous side even without Judd and cousins)

4.Collingwood (I’m still not totally convinced though. I believe the games in which they belted us were, in the main, won in the coaching box. Also the margin between the cats and the pies in the prelim was not an accurate reflection of the game. The cats were particularly inaccurate on that night)

5.Sydney (yes I believe we can still be a force in 08. Think about it… with no Kennelly, Goodes poor form for half the season, an undersized defence and a dysfunctional forward line we were still able to make the eight with relative ease. Surely we can’t be that bad if we can make the finals against all this adversity)
6.St Kilda (can’t see them having two lean years in a row)

7.Kangaroos (Massively underrated team, much like our Swannies. No really big names but a team full of players who are willing to have a go. Whether they overachieved in 07 is arguable but with Thompson back in the side, they are still a team to watch out for in 08)

8.Up for grabs between Fremantle, Brisbane, Hawthorn, and Adelaide.

I'll also like to add that my top 8 prediction is NOT to be used as an indication of those teams which I think are crap. . It's just that only 8 teams can make the top 8 and so there'll be some good sides that will miss out. 08 will be one of those years where percentages will mean the difference between a finals campaign or not.

 

[.Shotties.]

Yes we didn't beat sydney (deserved to in the first match)

Explain.

 

[Undisputed_King]

Explain.

I think Fat Tony has a point there...from memory the Hawks were on top until the last quarter where they played defensively.

But if you look at the games between Swans and Hawks over the last couple of seasons, then it is not unreasonable to have the swans beating the hawks in 08

 

[liz]

I think Fat Tony has a point there...from memory the Hawks were on top until the last quarter where they played defensively.

I think your memory might be playing tricks on you. The Hawks were well on top for the first 20 minutes of the first quarter and looked like running all over the Swans. Sydney managed to clamp down on the game for the rest of that quarter and the second, and sneak a couple of goals in the process, though scoring was hard.

They were generally in control of the flow of the game for most of the second half, and it was only a late flourish of goals from the Hawks that gave them a sniff of stealing the match right at the end.

To say that the Hawks were in any way unlucky to lose that game is a re-writing of fact IMO. The Swans weren't pretty that afternoon and played far from their best footy but their strangulation of the Hawks's midfield was effective.

As for the Hawks being the 3rd youngest team and hence "improvement on every level is a certainty", this delusional attitude amongst pre-pubescent posters is one of the reasons why I post rarely on the main board (as response to a question raised a few days ago).

 

[quinnstar]

Actually for boredom's sake i just put a post on the main board with the title.. It's official.. Swan's to make Top 4...lol..

It's my word of the moment but a lot of them can't see the 'irony' of some of the points they make against the Swans..

We've got prob about a handful of 'aging' players

Hall - was injured but did a decent job
Magic - not as dominant as once before( he's even said that he might relinquish his possie to bring in some new blood in 08)
Kirk - pfftt - he'll be like Harvey n Bucks prob more Harvey
Barry - Bolton's taken over the mantle as no. 1 defender
Everitt - For the 30 mins of game time he plays he still has an impact on the game..

But what do we know.. we're all a bunch of bandwagon hoppers anyway..lol..

 

[Undisputed_King]

The one point that people love to use to explain why the swans will fall in 08 is the age card

My argument is that our aging players were below par for 07 and we still made the finals.

If we do fall in 08 it will be due to our game style rather than our personnel on the field.

 

[Fat Tony]

Explain.

We had more scoring shots. Generally speaking the side that has more shots on goal wins the game. We missed some easy chance while you guys took yours.

 

[.Shotties.]

We missed some easy chance while you guys took yours.

Yet Hawthorn still deserved the game?

 

[Fat Tony]

I think your memory might be playing tricks on you. The Hawks were well on top for the first 20 minutes of the first quarter and looked like running all over the Swans. Sydney managed to clamp down on the game for the rest of that quarter and the second, and sneak a couple of goals in the process, though scoring was hard.

They were generally in control of the flow of the game for most of the second half, and it was only a late flourish of goals from the Hawks that gave them a sniff of stealing the match right at the end.

To say that the Hawks were in any way unlucky to lose that game is a re-writing of fact IMO. The Swans weren't pretty that afternoon and played far from their best footy but their strangulation of the Hawks's midfield was effective.

As for the Hawks being the 3rd youngest team and hence "improvement on every level is a certainty", this delusional attitude amongst pre-pubescent posters is one of the reasons why I post rarely on the main board (as response to a question raised a few days ago).

i think you will find i said almost a certainty nevertheless why do you think it is delusional?? In most situations a player reaches his peak around 23-25 year mark. The majority of our players are yet to reach this peak. As they get closer they obviously get better (with those players not good enough droped/delisted). Look at Franklin for instance first year 20 goals next season 31 in 07 he kicked 70. Now im not saying every young hawk player is going to improve but it should be expected that the majority of our high draft pick personal do infact show improvement (whether that be goals kicked, possessions collected etc).

 

[Fat Tony]

Yet Hawthorn still deserved the game?

It was our fault for missing those chances not yours. Look it was a 50/50 contest that could have easily gone our way. That game reminded me a lot of the Adelaide final except in this circumstance we didn't kick the 50 meter bomb on the tight angle. Again i stand by my argument that the side that has the most scoring shots deserves the game.

 

[.Shotties.]

It was our fault for missing those chances not yours. Look it was a 50/50 contest that could have easily gone our way. That game reminded me a lot of the Adelaide final except in this circumstance we didn't kick the 50 meter bomb on the tight angle. Again i stand by my argument that the side that has the most scoring shots deserves the game.

Haha, wonderful logic. Hope it keeps you warm.

 

[is2SWaNz]

I agree entirely with your points you made Undisputed_King, though everyone on the main board states otherwise.

I know that our list is ageing and etc, but we have the most experience players which is a huge bonus for us when it comes to finals and tight/close matches. We have enough talent to push us all the way to the top again and I'm pretty certain we'll be there again this year. I love the way we are now considered as the ones who are ageing and that our game plan has been founded... the under dog tags are now hanging on our necks and we should wear them proud. It works that way for the Swans anyways, so why can't it work again this year? Use all the odds against us and produce them as winners.

What bugs me is that everyone thinks our game plan is boring and negative. Though yes, its all about defensive work and getting back into the defence to dry up our opponents scoring shots, they always forget those times when we play an attacking style in conjuction with defensive. They always forget all those good games such as against Hawthorn back in round 22 and our Prelim Finals over the past few years. I think we're going to see a more attacking side this year, and it won't be too different from the way we have played under Paul Roos.

 

[ssfc0203]

I'm expecting the Swans to make it anywhere from 5th-8th.

I'm hoping them to make it anywere from 1st-5th.

The ageing tag is stupid. Unless our older players are going to hobble around with crippling arthritis, i see no relevance to it being an issue until said players actually retire, which is not next season. A more pressing issue, i believe, is our reliance on certain key players like Hall and Kennelly to not get injured, and when they do the team to get carried by Goodes, Kirk and Bolton.
Oh, and 2009 onwards, highlighting the retirement of Everitt, Hall, Kirk, O'Loughlin, Barry..key players in many aspects of our game.

That's whats drafting's for, though. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Bird to be a Kirk with flair and speed, but there really can't be another Kirk, can there?

 

[robbieando]

Again i stand by my argument that the side that has the most scoring shots deserves the game.

That is just poor logic.

Just because you have more scoring shots than the team that wins, doesn't mean you were the better team on the day and when we beat you at the MCG last year we beat you because a) we were the better team once we got control of the midfield late in the first quarter and b) Hawthorn could handle the pressure applied to them in the match by the Swans and "scoring shots" doesn't have to tell me or anyone else that the Swans were the better team that day.

It wasn't a case of "what if...." - it was a case of "Hawthorn couldn't handle the pressure...". The point backed up in the meeting at the SCG later in the season.

 

[CAS79]

We had more scoring shots. Generally speaking the side that has more shots on goal wins the game. We missed some easy chance while you guys took yours.

I remember this game as one where the Hawks were unable to adapt the change in pace of the game.

The Hawks were fast and were trying to pin point Franklin early. But after getting jumped early the physical game came into play and by using the stoppages and ensuring constant pressure on the Hawks midfield after qtr time shots on goal were rushed and attempted from long shots. The pressure leading inaccuracy.

Its a game I think the young Hawks learnt from but the Swans were number 1 on the day for the ability to change the game style.

 

[Fat Tony]

That is just poor logic.

Just because you have more scoring shots than the team that wins, doesn't mean you were the better team on the day and when we beat you at the MCG last year we beat you because a) we were the better team once we got control of the midfield late in the first quarter and b) Hawthorn could handle the pressure applied to them in the match by the Swans and "scoring shots" doesn't have to tell me or anyone else that the Swans were the better team that day.

It wasn't a case of "what if...." - it was a case of "Hawthorn couldn't handle the pressure...". The point backed up in the meeting at the SCG later in the season.

I will think you will find i never said we were the 'better' (implying some sort of superiority) side on the day i merely said that we deserved the win

Look i know what your saying but it is you that needs to question your 'logic'. For all of Sydney's pressure, skill, momentum and experience we still managed to create more scoring shots. Even you should know that the amount of shots on goal determine the match, not marks, kicks or "pressure". As i said before we created more chances to kick goals than Sydney but missed too many of them, that was our fault, not Sydney's. It is because of this that i believe that we deserved the match. It should also be pointed out that in a 9 point result some 4 goals were handed to you by umpires. So not only did you fail to create more scoring shots but you needed everyone of those gift goals to win.

As for your other points, if Sydney truly had "control" over the midfield then why did they have fewer shots on goal? Or for that matter the lowest amount of inside 50's for a winning side, ever? Put simply we lost that game more than Sydney won it, end of story.

Finally as for your suggestion that the Hawks couldn't "handle the pressure" dont forget that we won our finals game we beat Geelong and West coast... you didn't

 

[.Shotties.]

we created more chances to kick goals than Sydney but missed too many of them, that was our fault, not Sydney's.

And as a result of your complete failure in your attempts, you lost, and deservedly so.

It should also be pointed out that in a 9 point result some 4 goals were handed to you by umpires

One from a fifty where a Hawthorn player tripped a Swans player going back on the mark
One where a Hawks player tackled a Swans player after a mark
One from pulling Hall two-handed away from a contest

Still beat you by three.

 

[liz]

I will think you will find i never said we were the 'better' (implying some sort of superiority) side on the day i merely said that we deserved the win

If you're trying to confuse us you've certainly succeeded. But you've confused yourself in the process.

How on earth can a team deserve to win a game if it is not the better side on the day?

Look i know what your saying but it is you that needs to question your 'logic'. For all of Sydney's pressure, skill, momentum and experience we still managed to create more scoring shots. Even you should know that the amount of shots on goal determine the match, not marks, kicks or "pressure".

Strange. I thought score on the board determines a match. Not scoring shots.

And if you don't understand how one team's pressure, structure and defence can influence another team's conversion rate, I suggest you go back to watching football more closely. Sure, some gimmes are missed by all teams. But where a team takes a shot from and the time and space they have to take those shots are also a factor. And guess what, those things are contributed to by the opposition.

The Hawks did miss some gettable shots early in the game but it doesn't explain why they seized up for the middle two quarters of the game.

As for your other points, if Sydney truly had "control" over the midfield then why did they have fewer shots on goal? Or for that matter the lowest amount of inside 50's for a winning side, ever? Put simply we lost that game more than Sydney won it, end of story.

Not sure whether Sydney controlled the midfield, per se, but they certainly controlled the tempo of the game in the second and the third quarters. It was a classic case of the game being played on Sydney's terms and the Hawks having no idea how to wrestle back control.

I've seen the Swans win plenty of matches they didn't deserve to but that sure as hell wasn't one of them.

 

[Humph]

Will you guys leave Fat Tony alone! It is not his fault the AFL refuses to take out the Goal Posts and score everything within the point posts equally. It would be a much fairer system. But what if you just missed this new goal section? Shouldn't that count for something too? We could make it a bit bigger a bit I guess, but again you would get the same problem.

The only answer is to have the goal surrounding the whole field for both teams and the first team to get it over the line scores a goal. This would also make it much harder for teams to flood because you would have to do it in all directions.

I've always thought the team that wants to win the game more deserves to win. So before the game the players could fill out a questionaire where they rate the game's importance to them out of 100, and the team with the highest aggregate score on the test gets the four points. Players would get injured far less often because we could do away with the game altogether! Our aging list would use their experience to always rate 100 and we would never lose!

Or maybe these are ridiculous suggestions and the team ahead on the scoreboard at the end of the game should be declared the winner, no matter how old the players are on the team.

Luv Humph.

 

[ssfc0203]

lol

 

[Mean Muggin]

Swans to stuggle in 2008 based on the logic of whats goes up, must come down.

You guys have been up for a while now, so are due for a few down years.

Hawthorn on the other hand........