A.F.L. Thread II

[benchmark00]

Dude, Sydney don't draft young talent, they recycle to stay in the 8. Been saying this for a long time.

 

[morgieb]

Dude, Sydney don't draft young talent, they recycle to stay in the 8. Been saying this for a long time.

Sad but true.

Only year we really drafted was 2009.

 

[Spikey]

they draft but they were really, really really crap at it for a while during the 00's. They look like they've got back on track though

 

[Jono]

They definitely feel that they can't bottom out, but that's hardly a crime. You have to understand your market.

 

[benchmark00]

Sydney have absolutely no commitment to acquiring and developing young talent. If they did have that commitment they would trade some dead wood, who may get a game for them and may play the occasional good game, for draft picks.

Instead they get get recycled players, who as I say are solid footballers, but will never get them to a premiership. They're not interested in competing with the top four. They're interested in staying in the top eight to appease their fans. That club has such a culture of medicority, which is in a way forced by their market, but in another way driven by their staff.

 

[Spikey]

4 of their most important players in 05 were traded

 

[Spikey]

Ps they managed to get 28 for Buchanan. which is stunning work because they used that to get Mumford. It's not as easy as people like to think that. Getting rid of trash for good picks. They did some horrible drafting and they've managed to replace it with some great trading. With free agency coming in next year they're in a great position after looking on the floor

 

[benchmark00]

There's nothing wrong with trading, and I've never said there was.

When they got Hall he was young and out of favour with St Kilda, Jolly the same with Melbourne.

You only look to trade/get recycled players if you feel that trade is going to take you to the next level. Otherwise you should take a gamble on the untested young to try and get to the next level.

Getting someone like Seaby (just came to mind) is not going to get them to the next level. Sure he's been ok, solid enough, but he's not a guy who is going to get you to compete with the top 4.

 

[benchmark00]

Ps they managed to get 28 for Buchanan. which is stunning work because they used that to get Mumford. It's not as easy as people like to think that. Getting rid of trash for good picks. They did some horrible drafting and they've managed to replace it with some great trading. With free agency coming in next year they're in a great position after looking on the floor

Errr they gave up pick 22 for 28...

 

[Spikey]

Seaby was in there too remember. 3 way trades etc. They did a great job there overall. Got #14 for Jolly too.

Just seems absurd to go after Sydney as they failed badly when it comes to drafting anyway

 

[Spikey]

The times, generally, Sydney have gone for a 12-22 range player they've only given up 40+ anyway. At that point it's less than 50%, so going for a player who at the least has established they can play that useful role which is needed is hardly bad. Focus on the bad drafting and why that is (generally not enough money) rather than decent trades tbh

 

[benchmark00]

Seaby was in there too remember. 3 way trades etc. They did a great job there overall. Got #14 for Jolly too.

Just seems absurd to go after Sydney as they failed badly when it comes to drafting anyway

I know they got Seaby, but he's taking up room on the list.

Teams in the past (North Melbourne have been guilty of it) have wanted to hold on to players because they're in their best 22, but they're too afraid to go for the unknown in the persuit of a premiership. Sydney have done it for the best part of two decades.

Collingwood's recruiting is a thing of beauty. Only resorted to trading when they're premiership window was open.

I would hop NM will do the same in a season or two.

 

[benchmark00]

The times, generally, Sydney have gone for a 12-22 range player they've only given up 40+ anyway. At that point it's less than 50%, so going for a player who at the least has established they can play that useful role which is needed is hardly bad. Focus on the bad drafting and why that is (generally not enough money) rather than decent trades tbh

Herein lies the problem. They get a useful player who will keep them around the 5-10 mark instead of going for a development player who may not be as good, but may be better. They rarely try and bring in raw talent and focus on development.

 

[Spikey]

Sydney traded superbly in the years leading up to 05, didn't work so well when they tried to fight off the fall down the ladder, but given the shape the list was in and the fact that generally the only players who could have got them good picks were still young enough to be useful (Jolly, Goodes, O'Keefe etc) in the long run meant doing a stock-take sale wasn't wise, and they've traded well again in recent seasons to make up for flaws in the list caused by poor drafting. You say Seaby's a waste of space but they've got Mumford, Pyke and...when it comes to rucks. He'll be leaving at seasons end you'd think but if you want a player wasting a spot look at Kennelly and so on.

 

[benchmark00]

Stat from On the Couch:

Swans vs Top 4 teams 2010-2011

Played: 10
Lost: 9
Won: 1

Avg losing margain of 35 point.

Don't you think that's a little strange for a team who has been around the 5th mark for the whole time?

 

[Spikey]

Since 2007

1 11 Patrick Veszpremi Northern Knights Sydney
2 26 Brett Meredith Northern Knights Sydney
4 59 Craig Bird NSW/ACT Rams/Nelson Bay Sydney

1 12 Lewis Johnston North Adelaide Sydney
2 30 Daniel Hannebery Oakleigh Chargers Sydney
4 61 Campbell Heath Gippsland Power Sydney

1 6 Gary Rohan Geelong Falcons Sydney
1 14 Lewis Jetta Swan Districts Sydney
3 38 Sam Reid Murray Bushrangers Sydney
4 54 Byron Sumner Woodville-West Torrens Sydney
4 55 Trent Dennis-Lane Subiaco Sydney

1 21 Jed Lamb Gippsland Power TAC Cup Sydney
2 40 Luke Parker Dandenong Stingrays TAC Cup Sydney
3 57 Alex Johnson Oakleigh Chargers TAC Cup Sydney
4 73 Matthew Spangher West Coast AFL Sydney


They've taken plenty of youth on. But the drafting just hasn't been up to stock.

 

[Spikey]

Stat from On the Couch:

Swans vs Top 4 teams 2010-2011

Played: 10
Lost: 9
Won: 1

Avg losing margain of 35 point.

Don't you think that's a little strange for a team who has been around the 5th mark for the whole time?

I'd argue they're at Pos 5-6 because of A) A strong culture which sees them not take bottom 8 teams lightly, unlike my own team and B) because in recent years the majority of the teams just haven't been good enough. So they've been able to float forward without too much trouble. But the fact they've haven't got a young gun, over-looking Hannebery, isn't because of trading but purely because of terrible drafting. I don't argue that a couple of the trades have been bad but it's just a minor thing. The big picture is that the drafting has really probably gotten worse over the years.

 

[Jono]

Yeah they shouldn't be 5th. The fact that they are is actually a credit to them and a blight on some of the other teams.

 

[Spikey]

And just quietly, I don't rate John Longmire at all so far

 

[Jono]

Yeah I reckon he hasn't coached well. Early days of course.

Benchy I agree with your overall premise btw. But I don't think your top 4 stat completely backs up your point.