1858

So PS3 and X-Box have been dropped?

Yeah, I think Watts might enjoy the extra space at Subi as well. Dunn hasn't been in the game enough so far but I just wonder if his tank would be useful at Subi as well.

I thought Bartram was a little off today but not exactly a "poor" game.

Will be a tough call at the selection meeting that's for sure and we had no injuries of note did we?

I just hope that our sub is a running type as it will be hard going over there.

Sydney have made the finals in 2 of the last 3 years. During that time they have won 1 of 9 MCG games (against Richmond). This doesn't pencil us in for a win but it does suggest that the MCG has been a stumbling block for them of late.

I'll be looking at our forward line defensive pressure as a critical area - we can't let their defenders bring the ball out too easily (no Malceski will hurt them). IMO we're good enough to break even in the middle and defensively we can at least be sure that Garland and co will make them earn it.

Sydney are honest but I expect us to win this.

I'd be more inclined to sub a ruckman off than sub one on. If we went with Spencer we could ruck him heavily and play Jamar forward and relieving. Then providing no injuries sub Spencer off in the 3rd and ruck Jamar solo.

Martin/Spencer, Jetta, Trengove, Strauss/Petterd (sub)

I think that would be a general option most teams would look at through the season.

IMO we should start with Martin in the 21 and see where we're at as early as possible this season with 1 main ruck and a versatile secondary. If Martin can develop as a viable 2nd option it means we have more strings to our bow as the season goes on. I think teams who can keep the opposition guessing up to 90 minutes (wrt final line up) will have an advantage. We won't have this advantage if we literally don't have the versatility.

Since we play them round 1...

Sydney Swans Injury list 17/03/2011

Craig Bolton / Achilles injury / Indefinite

Daniel Bradshaw / Modified programme due to knee / Indefinite

Campbell Heath / Knee ACL rupture & repair / 6-8 weeks

Tadhg Kennelly / Knee MCL and patella dislocation / 1 week

Nick Malceski / Knee ACL rupture & repair / 10-12 weeks

Jarred Moore / Ankle / Test

Lewis Roberts-Thomson / Hamstring/gluteal / Test

Matt Spangher / Quad strain / 2-3 weeks

Given that he was retained on the rookie list in the first place is it that out of the blue that he got the nomination? I'll admit it is a little amusing that the Newton saga continues but heck we aren't losing that much here - the club simply values a player with some experience to fill a gap if required. The younger rookies can still develop in the mean time at Casey and we have the mid-yr nomination up our sleeve.

Well said the both of you - this quarters crap is Bailey-speak for we lost the game but .. Let's hope there's more talk about good starts and games won !

This seems to be the main misconception of the thread IMO.

Bailey's emphasis of lost quarters isn't just restricted to games where we lose. His analysis of lost/bad quarters is across the board win/lose/draw.

The reality is you can have a bad quarter even if you get over the line and win the game - I realise this is hardly a profound statment but that needs to be added to the context of the debate. Addressing these aspects of our game are important so that we can minimise these sorts of bad quarters occuring in the future - just because we won the game in question doesn't change this. Bailey has a duty of due diligence in all games and I think he often hi-lights where we need to improve even when we win.

Obviously bad quarters have cost us games and have nearly cost us games so to not address this would be negligent in the context of a young team.

I actually like the approach Bailey takes to the break down of quarters.

A young team needs to learn that 1 good quarter can be undone the following quarter if you just coast. That stat about less points conceded in 2010 is an excellent one. We improved the number of quarters that we won last year but we also cut down the number of bad quarters where even though we lost it we didn't get absolutely trounced and undo 3 quarters of good/hard work.

If it is a micro-management scheme to keep the players focused and it actually works then why not stick with it?

Given this was his article after we were 0-1 last year, I tip Rohan Connolly to cut sick.

Might as well throw Warnock into that "prime" group rp. At 26yrs and 51 games I can't see him dramatically improving over the next 19 games (should he play them).

But yeah, overall some much needed perspective in your post.

I am told he will play- Strauss won't - injured,hamstring last weekend.

Thanks for confirming.

Definitely a big game for young Kelvin this week (in the event he plays).

I have little insight on who is most likely to be elevated despite after the RD having a slight impression that Nicholson had a head start on the other youngsters. Quite simply a "watch this space" scenario for me now, genuinely looking forward to the announcement.

On the subject of rookie lists, in case anyone missed this article:

Players want rookie list scrapped

Great read, thanks.

Obviously looking forward to seeing Tappy play (along with 1000s of other Dees supporters).

Also think Howe will be quite a versatile player for us once fully developed.

wrt the forward zone, I have no problem with how bad we are at it in the short term, you've got to start somewhere. So long as we stick with it and improve at it is the main thing as it is quite important in modern footy. I suppose now that we have our forward blue print in place wrt player acquisitions now is the time to make inroads.

I was hoping for best available but with affirmative action toward talls.

Why?

For the reason Sylinator has already stipulated - we drafted "Morton and Grimes in 2007... Strauss, Blease, Bennel, Jetta, Mckenzie and Bail in 2008... and Scully, Trengove, Gysberts and Tapscott in 2009."

It's not the clubs fault that fans aren't realistic about timeframes for development.

Correct.

We also got some likely types in Evans (inside mid) and Nicholson (halfback rotating mid) in last year's rookie draft. If McKenzie is a testament to our eye for talent and ability to develop rookies then they could be handy comodities.

A structure change as fundamental as that really stuffs the other players around as well as being mostly counter productive in the long term IMO.

The thing about Moloney is, that he gets his hands on the footy often enough , back lacks the smarts or any kind of pace to dispose of the ball properly often getting caught.

If you watch him he roves the ball nicely but then tucks the ball under his arm stares at the ground and just trys to break a tackle.

He does this alot , so he seems to back his strength, and not side step, or keep his head up and shoot out a quick handball ala Scully or even Jordan Gysberts in the few games he has played.

He is a big kick of the ball and is probably better off pumping it into the forward line, as i doubt whther he can learn any new evasive tricks or gain pace at this stage.

Bingo.

He does indeed get a fair bit of it and the problem is most definitely what he does with it. IMO part of the Moloney problem is that he is not very proficient at doing the run and carry and a lot of the things the younger players are instructed to do but he is in the situation where he has to set an example. Ironically Scully and McKenzie are probably better equipped to do this. It doesn't mean that Moloney can't be a very damaging player for us if we want him to be.

I agree wholeheartedly that he is one particular player who is more often than not better off (for all concerned) at roosting it out of the middle and it will make him less predictable to the opposition and put fellow mids under less pressure. The Collingwood gameplan IMO is very good at taking player limitations out of the equation and putting ball movement first. They clear the area and work harder down the ground to get to the ball first, this is most noticeable with their defensive set up admittedly.

It is a hard sell given that a lot of Moloney's kicks are still up and unders and it is an approach that wears the stigma of "lack of accountability" but I still prefer to see him clear the area more often one way or another than cough it up in the name of trying to be accountable. He genuinely has a Sam Mitchell like gift at getting the footy in the middle so why not capitalise on it a bit more even if it means giving him a slightly different role to some of the other mids. Obviously with faster mids around him he can dish off a quick handball no worries but when that option isn't there or he attacks the footy and tries to break the lines he should at least do so front on to goal which at least gives him a viable option to dispose by foot.

Is there any likelyhood of Tapscott playing a pre-season game I wonder.

"The following night Collingwood will play one of the two wildcard teams at Etihad Stadium."

It's more than likely but aren't they getting ahead of themselves?

The three consecutive bottom 3 finishes relate to 2007-2009. In any case, it's 4 bottom 5 finishes in a row.

Agree with your point on the players though, that's quite poor journalism.

I was aware of that HG.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/107618/default.aspx

i think trengove has just become my new fav player! what a gun!

Good words from Trengove for sure.

Starting to get sick of the falsehoods related to our past performances though, they get more blasé as time goes on.

"Three consecutive bottom-three finishes on the AFL ladder have allowed the Dees to stockpile impressive young talent, including Scully, Trengove, emerging forward Jack Watts, defender Jack Grimes, midfielders Cale Morton and Jordan Gysberts and untried duo Sam Blease and Luke Tapscott, over the past few years."

Two key players we acquired via trading senior players for picks but I guess it's easier for some to put down our wealth of talent simply due to finishing down the bottom.

I think that is on the level. I think the club has asked his manager to put that out because of all the hysteria, which is epitomised in this thread.

Obviously a big part of it, as others have said some of the outlooks expressed in this thread alone have been less than healthy. Having said that the fundamental reason why such comment had to be made was due to misrepresentations in the media. Doom and gloom on this thread is a symptom. The misrepresentation/s in the media are the causes.

Scully's press release: "Contrary to media speculation, Tom Scully has not signed an AFL contract with Greater Western Sydney." It should never have had to come to this if proper mechanisms were in place. I do however appreciate that Tom took the time to make such a statement for the well being of all concerned and we can all try and look forward to the season.

There's no doubt about it that the sh1ts and giggles and mindgames have started. Sheedy, McGuire, the list will continue.

The problem is that we haven't even started the NAB Cup. This will go on and on and on. The club will stand steadfast like any club in this situation and say they are focusing on the footy but let's not kid ourselves this will grow week in and week out and will definitely affect the club.

The AFL is largely at fault here IMO.

After last year processes should have been put in place to avoid the circus that was Ablett. The "will he or won't he" scenario I have no problem with, Tom Scully is fully entitled to lay off negotiations until the end of the year and the stark possibility of him leaving is something we should be prepared for. Those who wish to speculate including supporters, the media or other club identities will do so.

However, the "has he or hasn't he" scenario which is what has reared again from the Eddie commentary is more fuel which could have been avoided and illustrates what a farcical situation this club (or any other club) could be in. If the AFL had put into place a basic requirement of disclosure wrt signed contracts or MOUs a lot of this sh1tstorm would be avoided, unfortunately the AFL actually likes to perpetuate this crap.

If such a disclosure requirement was in place wrt a current player having already signed with another club:

1) Clubs would know immediately which current players would not be on the list in future seasons and could act in the best way they see fit wrt player development and list management.

2) Speculation as to whether a player will leave is inevetable until an announcement has been made and that is a fact of life. Speculation that a player has signed with another club has IMO greater potential to be destabilising to a club than the "will he or won't he" crap and to an extent may be avoided.

3) Importantly, in the event of no news of a signing (because a player genuinely does want to wait until the end of the season before negotiations) it may alay a large proportion of the crap that goes on in the media which does effect a club and at least give the process a remote chance of taking its natural course (which is something Cam Schwab touched on).

The club doesn't deserve this, Tom Scully doesn't deserve this and even Melbourne supporters shouldn't have to go through this crap. The media will always be the media (and sometimes publicity can be good if things turn out well) but the circus will be bigger than necessary due to a lack of sound AFL policy in the matter (IMO).

dog act? most on here copped it on the chin and trotted out the 'if another employer offred you more' line when Carlton simply purchased Chris Judd in most illegal fashion, when it was obvious he should have been wearing the number 3 of his idol and captaining his boyhood club out of the grasp of extinction (at the time)

how would Scully taking the money and running be considered a dog act in comparison

I never said it would. I was tending to the obligatory references made in the post I replied to.

What, we will look stupid if we play him all year to discover he he already signed with GWS?

This thread is ridiculous. Did Rischitelli play doggo this year because he had signed this year for GC17?? No, he won their B&F.

Did Gary Ablett play doggo? No, had a great year (didn't win their B&F because their cowardly and hypocritical coach had a personal spat with him)

Scully will wait until the $1Billion TV rights deal is complete before negotiating as it is fait accompi that salaries will be skyrocketing. His worth at the end of this year will be a significant multiple of what he could sign for now.

His management is doing the right thing by Tom. Now, relax. I don't think I can bear 27 more weeks of this thread!!!!!!!!

lol I love this forum. Perhaps you should re-read your own post and tell me who isn't relaxed. It is the inability of some people to take the time to comprehend another poster which perpetuates a lot of garbage on any internet forum.

I made an isolated point about the club being in the dark as to the status of Scully signing with GWS in the event of that particular scenario - in no way did I make comment on the likelyhood of that scenario or Scully himself. Scully's dealings are private end of story. The sky is not falling in, yes I have faith in the club and no I don't think Scully would do a dog act.

My point was to do with the system of how the AFL likes to have such contracts or at least the eventuation of such contracts deferred or hush hush. GC wanted to announce Ablett but the AFL held it off. I don't know if Geelong were enlightened at all but if not IMO they had a right to know - pretty simple principle really. No club should be in the situation IMO where they are not informed immediately of one of their players signing with another club whilst still under contract to them. I would imagine such a scenario is rare and as a result find it easier to accept and respect Scully's position but the principle is there.

I have no idea if TS has signed, is about to sign or has not made up his mind.

But one thing is certain whichever way it goes in 2011 there are going to be some people with egg on their faces.

If the above is untrue there goes omlete head King.

If it is true a few around the Dees will look silly if we play him all year only to discover he signed up before 2011 started.As well as his manager who I believe has said nothing has been discussed.

The History of this will be very interesting.

Out of all things Scully/GWS, this is probably the scenario which I would think is completely unacceptable if it eventuated.