new changes for Sat

[Vortex]

Sydney have one injured player on their list, Naismith, who hasn't played all season. They have been at full strength for nearly the whole season. We will go into this game with 8 or 9 of or best 22 unavailable. If we get within 3 goals it will be a good effort. This is the weakest team we have fielded all year. If you switched places and we had all players available and Sydney had 9 players out, I think they wouldn't stand a chance against us. Take Rampe, McCartin, Hickey, Florent, Cunningham, Mills, Lloyd, and Hayward out of the Swans team, how do you think they would go? Not very well, I reckon.

It's an excellent illustration of what came first, the chicken or the egg, is Sydneys unexpected rocketing into top four calculations due to their coach, list managment OR, and I would argue it is a massive, MASSIVE big OR...is it because they have been extremely lucky with injuuries and the sum of all parts.

Probably a mix of all three but in many ways clubs make their own luck. Instead of having hannebery on their list taking up a spot and a large chunk of their salary cap he's with us warming the pine and they have one less injured player. I guess you could call it luck for them but it's just better management whereas I guess you could say we've been unlucky this year but we've also been incompetent with our recruitment.

I know some Sydney people have harboured very similar resentment towards Buddy the last few years, luck with injury this year has meant a whole lot of luck with Buddy being able to string games toghether too. Luck plays a massive part in a teams fortunes especially a team that is young and still in the early stages of development, take the same number of the Swans best 22 out of their side as we have out this week and then things look a little more like an even competition. I am a strong believer in the sum of all parts however I would also argue strongly that luck with injury is probably the biggest component of all the parts.

[roskilde]

Did Hunter Clark make his own luck when his jaw was broken? Did Billings and Marshall make their own luck when they developed plantar fasciitis? Did Paton and Geary make their own luck when they broke their legs? Did Gresham make his own luck when he tore his achilles tendon?

The argument that clubs make their own luck is just a cheap cliche that has no basis in reality. If the situation was in reverse (between us and Sydney at the moment) then that logic would mean that we created that luck, when the preceding history hadn't changed. Sometimes clubs get a rotten run of injuries and it was our turn this year.

Did anyone force the club to continue to play billings when he's clearly been playing injured for a while? Does anyone force the club to rush back half fit players during the season who proceed to aggravate existing conditions?

As far as the others go when you're looking at a list sure there's some injuries that are unavoidable but if a club has chronic injury issues then sometimes you're looking at poor management, preparation and general levels of fitness in the group not just the dreaded curse of being 'unlucky'.

[cwrcyn]

No one makes luck. The concept of luck is that by its own definition there have no influence or agency over it. Therefore, the concept of making one's own luck is illogical.

[roskilde]

Sydney have one injured player on their list, Naismith, who hasn't played all season. They have been at full strength for nearly the whole season. We will go into this game with 8 or 9 of or best 22 unavailable. If we get within 3 goals it will be a good effort. This is the weakest team we have fielded all year. If you switched places and we had all players available and Sydney had 9 players out, I think they wouldn't stand a chance against us. Take Rampe, McCartin, Hickey, Florent, Cunningham, Mills, Lloyd, and Hayward out of the Swans team, how do you think they would go? Not very well, I reckon.

It's an excellent illustration of what came first, the chicken or the egg, is Sydneys unexpected rocketing into top four calculations due to their coach, list managment OR, and I would argue it is a massive, MASSIVE big OR...is it because they have been extremely lucky with injuuries and the sum of all parts.

Probably a mix of all three but in many ways clubs make their own luck. Instead of having hannebery on their list taking up a spot and a large chunk of their salary cap he's with us warming the pine and they have one less injured player. I guess you could call it luck for them but it's just better management whereas I guess you could say we've been unlucky this year but we've also been incompetent with our recruitment.

I know some Sydney people have harboured very similar resentment towards Buddy the last few years, luck with injury this year has meant a whole lot of luck with Buddy being able to string games toghether too. Luck plays a massive part in a teams fortunes especially a team that is young and still in the early stages of development, take the same number of the Swans best 22 out of their side as we have out this week and then things look a little more like an even competition. I am a strong believer in the sum of all parts however I would also argue strongly that luck with injury is probably the biggest component of all the parts.

I get what you're saying but it almost sounds like those on the board who constantly want to put all our struggles down to the umpires -- not saying you're doing that but the general idea.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'd rather be at a club competent enough to over come bad luck with injuries and poor decisions by umpires rather than blame our lack of success on factors outside of our control like 'bad luck'. I think winning teams in all sports tend to focus on getting the things right that they can control.

[roskilde]

No one makes luck. The concept of luck is that by its own definition there have no influence or agency over it. Therefore, the concept of making one's own luck is illogical.

By 'making your own luck' obviously what I'm trying to indicate is an ability to be competent enough to overcome bad situations like a run of injuries and also being skilful enough to not make decisions which further exacerbate your troubles.

[Sanctorum]

Sydney have one injured player on their list, Naismith, who hasn't played all season. They have been at full strength for nearly the whole season. We will go into this game with 8 or 9 of or best 22 unavailable. If we get within 3 goals it will be a good effort. This is the weakest team we have fielded all year. If you switched places and we had all players available and Sydney had 9 players out, I think they wouldn't stand a chance against us. Take Rampe, McCartin, Hickey, Florent, Cunningham, Mills, Lloyd, and Hayward out of the Swans team, how do you think they would go? Not very well, I reckon.

Injuries have been the major factor in St Kilda's demise this year and it suggests that the club has to make a complete overhaul of its fitness and conditioning panel. It still beggars belief that they went into the start of the season with players not totally fit to play from Day One.

If the club fails to take action to have this matter fixed in 2022 the results next year will be no better than this year, which is unacceptable and reflect very poorly on both management and the club's Board.

I hope the team plays well against Sydney tomorrow night and prove all of us wrong, but the odds are not in their favour....without a strong, fast, experienced and tall key defender it will be hard to stop Buddy Franklin (199 cm) as well as veteran Sam Reid (196 cm) going on a rampage and I have a real fear that it could well be a 10 goals plus thrashing.

[cwrcyn]

There's a threshold, I think, of how many injuries a club can cope with, irrespective how how good their depth is. Richmond are a case in point. I think our club has definitely made mistakes around recruiting and last year got it wrong during preseason. However, I still think that all other clubs would have been negatively impacted had they had the level and persistency of injuries we've had this year.

[Wayne42]

Our list is shite and gets exposed glaringly when we have multiple injuries.

We haven't been able to cover injuries anywhere near as well as the Bulldogs have, they have even turned an average Full Forward into a Key Defender to cover their injuries.

[CURLY]

Our list is shite and gets exposed glaringly when we have multiple injuries.

We haven't been able to cover injuries anywhere near as well as the Bulldogs have, they have even turned an average Full Forward into a Key Defender to cover their injuries.

The WB haven't had the injuries we have had this season. Ridiculous to compare.

[Wayne42]

Our list is shite and gets exposed glaringly when we have multiple injuries.

We haven't been able to cover injuries anywhere near as well as the Bulldogs have, they have even turned an average Full Forward into a Key Defender to cover their injuries.

The WB haven't had the injuries we have had this season. Ridiculous to compare.

Disagree, i thought you only knew about umpires.

[CURLY]

Our list is shite and gets exposed glaringly when we have multiple injuries.

We haven't been able to cover injuries anywhere near as well as the Bulldogs have, they have even turned an average Full Forward into a Key Defender to cover their injuries.

The WB haven't had the injuries we have had this season. Ridiculous to compare.

Disagree, i thought you only knew about umpires.

That's just my match day role.

[Wayne42]

Our list is shite and gets exposed glaringly when we have multiple injuries.

We haven't been able to cover injuries anywhere near as well as the Bulldogs have, they have even turned an average Full Forward into a Key Defender to cover their injuries.

The WB haven't had the injuries we have had this season. Ridiculous to compare.

Disagree, i thought you only knew about umpires.

That's just my match day role.

[The Fireman]

long out ........... ffs i give up

[bergsone]

long out ........... ffs i give up

And Kent stays in,quickly losing it with Ratts

[st.byron]

long out ........... ffs i give up

And Kent stays in,quickly losing it with Ratts

Ditto. Unfathomable. At this rate they’ll give him a new contract.

[bergsone]

long out ........... ffs i give up

And Kent stays in,quickly losing it with Ratts

Ditto. Unfathomable. At this rate they’ll give him a new contract.

Please dont put thoughts in their heads

[Scollop]

long out ........... ffs i give up

It's easier to drop a bloke than admit your game plan is wrong, or that you need half a dozen players to lift their output and earn their keep.

They don't want to upset too many senior players. Better to have a scapegoat like Long. I know he only got 8 possessions, but he is a very very good distributor. It would be better for the team to increase his disposal count and keep him in the team instead of the turnover merchants like Kent

The coach could very easily say; "pass it to Long" but where would that leave Seb and Brad Hill?

[bangaulegend]

long out ........... ffs i give up

Yeah mate makes no sense to me but WTF would I know obviously the club knows better

[cwrcyn]

Apart from aggression, I can't see what Ben Long offers. I don't see any problem with him being omitted

[bangaulegend]

Apart from aggression, I can't see what Ben Long offers. I don't see any problem with him being omitted

IMO It's not the fact he's been dropped but Kent that has held his spot in front of him that is the issue

[Yorkeys]

It it fair to conclude then that Bytel is considered sufficiently slow that a fast but ineffective Kent is a better option. That has to be pretty slow. So long since I've seen Jack play I can't really remember, but can't recall him ever taking a bounce (?) Recall Dean well enough though.

[St Plugger]

Apart from aggression, I can't see what Ben Long offers. I don't see any problem with him being omitted

I do because Ben Long} and Josh Battle, who some on here also don't rate, play with attitude and grit, a character/ingredient to frequently in short supply this season from many of their teammates!

[The Fireman]

Apart from aggression, I can't see what Ben Long offers. I don't see any problem with him being omitted

I do because Ben Long} and Josh Battle, who some on here also don't rate, play with attitude and grit, a character/ingredient to frequently in short supply this season from many of their teammates!

exactly , I rather have a team made up of these blokes than a bunch of pea hearts ,
Long is settling in at forward and Id like to see him given more time, I see more potential in Long than half a dozen others.
He has the X factor....if he was given a decent stint and didn't progress I'd have misread him , we won't know now

[takeaway]

Apart from aggression, I can't see what Ben Long offers. I don't see any problem with him being omitted

IMO It's not the fact he's been dropped but Kent that has held his spot in front of him that is the issue

I don't rate Kent, but he was probably preferred over Long because he has been better than Long over the last few weeks. Stats would confirm that.
Long was poor last week, and his opponent tends to get free to start attacks from the backline too often.

I think we need to find replacements for both.

[cwrcyn]

I don't want pea hearts, either, but it helps if you're effective in your role. Ben Long has been playing as well as Lonie played before he got dropped. I don't see the problem. As for Kent, he's only marginally ahead of Long at this stage, but I think he understands how to play as a small forward better than Long does.