Training lists

[bedford]

The Swans have named three players who can train with the club they are,
Aaron Bruce, Peter Faulks and Kristin Thornton.

No other ex Swans were named on any other clubs training list. The rookie draft is next week so i would expect those three to be on our rookie list.

 

[doona]

I highly doubt that all three of the players that were delisted will be retained on the Rookie list. Just because they were given permission to train doesn't mean that the coaching panel necessarily have any intention of keeping them.

Most club help out their delisted players by allowing them to keep training in the hope that they may be rookied by another club.

P.S. I hope Aaron Bruce is re-rookied by the Swans.

 

[bedford]

I reckon they will and Soph will go ga ga if the sex god is kept

 

[Dunkley]

The Swans have named three players who can train with the club they are,
Aaron Bruce, Peter Faulks and Kristin Thornton.

No other ex Swans were named on any other clubs training list. The rookie draft is next week so i would expect those three to be on our rookie list.

I thought you were only following Ormond next year?

 

[bedford]

And the Poowong Poos for your goodself under the astute coaching of A.Sheedy nephew of K.Sheedy

 

[SOPH_CROSS]

I reckon they will and Soph will go ga ga if the sex god is kept

ill probs cry if Aaron is re rookied Ressies is so blah with out SEX GOD

 

[grimlock]

I highly doubt that all three of the players that were delisted will be retained on the Rookie list. Just because they were given permission to train doesn't mean that the coaching panel necessarily have any intention of keeping them.

Most club help out their delisted players by allowing them to keep training in the hope that they may be rookied by another club.

P.S. I hope Aaron Bruce is re-rookied by the Swans.

I doubt all 3 will get re-rookied, but I'd be surprised if none of them will be picked up in the rookie draft. In my mind, the 3 of them are competing for 1, or perhaps 2 spots. I would pick Thornton first, then Bruce and I probably wouldn't repick Faulks.

MOD was training with the Swans are being delisted last year and by all reports it was his efforts that earnt him another year on the rookie list and subsequently promotion to the senior list at the end of this year.

 

[scottwade]

I doubt all 3 will get re-rookied, but I'd be surprised if none of them will be picked up in the rookie draft. In my mind, the 3 of them are competing for 1, or perhaps 2 spots. I would pick Thornton first, then Bruce and I probably wouldn't repick Faulks.

IIRC there were a couple of posters who indicated they were mates with Thornton & Bruce.
The guy who 'knew' Bruce indicated he was delisted because of the Swans requirements re;NSW rookies* and that Bruce would be re-rookied (presumably as a non NSW rookie).
The guy from WA who knew Thornton indicated that the club said they would look at putting Thornton on the rookie list, but that no guarantee was given.

*Presumably they want to be able to take their full quota of pre-selected NSW rookies and that they figured Bruce would be available outside that system.

 

[Dunkley]

couldnt play under talking head again, imagine listening to all them story's after work as well

 

[grimlock]

IIRC there were a couple of posters who indicated they were mates with Thornton & Bruce.
The guy who 'knew' Bruce indicated he was delisted because of the Swans requirements re;NSW rookies* and that Bruce would be re-rookied (presumably as a non NSW rookie).
The guy from WA who knew Thornton indicated that the club said they would look at putting Thornton on the rookie list, but that no guarantee was given.

*Presumably they want to be able to take their full quota of pre-selected NSW rookies and that they figured Bruce would be available outside that system.

I'm not quite I follow your argument there Scott. You're saying that the Swans delisted Bruce in the hope of re-rookieing him as a normal rookie instead of his status as a NSW/ACT rookie? That doesn't make much sense to me as it would imply that the Swans would rather stock up on another NSW/ACT player rather than a non-NSW/ACT one when the it is universally accepted that the NSW boys generally aren't as good as their interstate counterparts.

Also, I believe that Roos has stated that we only have 2 'live' picks (the ones not including the preselection of Coney and the NSW/ACT pre-selections plus the retentions of Murphy and Orreal), so to claim Bruce as one of those 2 live picks wouldn't make much sense to me.

 

[liz]

when the it is universally accepted that the NSW boys generally aren't as good as their interstate counterparts.

Not sure whether this is universally accepted - more pertinent that there will be far far more depth to choose from for non-NSW rookies (though with 15 other clubs fighting over the same players).

In terms of live picks, wonder if Roos' has forgotten that Pyke is an extra, or whether the club has just decided it doesn't want to treat him as an extra. Pretty sure that under the rules, they have 3 live non-NSW picks if they want to use them.

 

[grimlock]

Perhaps they're not, given that there are restrictions placed on the number of listed players that can appear in the Reserves team, not to mention salary cap issues.

 

[scottwade]

I'm not quite I follow your argument there Scott. You're saying that the Swans delisted Bruce in the hope of re-rookieing him as a normal rookie instead of his status as a NSW/ACT rookie?

Yep.
The possibility that Bruce will be re-rookied is based on what his mate said and that he was delisted as we wanted to clear space on the NSW rookie list.

That doesn't make much sense to me as it would imply that the Swans would rather stock up on another NSW/ACT player rather than a non-NSW/ACT one when the it is universally accepted that the NSW boys generally aren't as good as their interstate counterparts.

It could mean that we have our eye on a number of NSW guys such as Klemke, Frail & Breust.
Obviously someone like Klemke may go in the PSD, but if all 3 are available they could be reasonable pick ups.

Also, I believe that Roos has stated that we only have 2 'live' picks (the ones not including the preselection of Coney and the NSW/ACT pre-selections plus the retentions of Murphy and Orreal), so to claim Bruce as one of those 2 live picks wouldn't make much sense to me.

I must admit I thought the same as Liz that we had 3 picks in the rookie draft (excluding NSW guys) , but the official AFL list shows this;
Rookie List
1. Coney, Kyle
2. Murphy, Brendan
3. Orreal, Jake
4. Pyke, Mike
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

So it appears that Pyke is treated as a 'normal' rookie and that we will have only 2 live picks (assuming we take 3 NSW rookies).

I guess the thought behind re-rookieing Bruce is that if we take him as our 2nd pick, it basically means that he will be the 115th player selected in 2008 (85 ND/PSD and 29 rookies), so not necessarily much of a risk.
And the likelihood of him being selected by someone else is slim.