Don't Write Us Off

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Firstly I doubt a reporter would change their mind on a player because the club were furious because I doubt the club would even bother contacting the writer but I do know a couple of people in recruiting so I could find out if I could be bothered which I cant.

Doubt is not good enough and I didn't say that he would change his mind just because a club were furious with him, I suggested that it might have actually prompted him to do a bit of research (if he has any journalistic integrity, perhaps) because it sounds like he just heard about the deal and tweeted something, without doing much research into it, but then changed his tune once he dug a bit deeper and found out what some of those who really know what they are talking about think of him. As for the club getting in touch with him, all it takes is having someone in or close to the club who is on Twitter tweeting him back about it to put forward a case as to why it was a good deal, to perhaps get him to look into it a bit more, or else a quick phone call.

Don't forget that he also removed what he initially said about Spencer White and his wrist injury in his online article on the night of the draft and that might have also been at the request of the club. It's hard to see why that would have been removed otherwise.

Now you want to compare us to Sydney and to me the important years of trading were in the late 2000's because those players will now be coming into their prime.

I went through the drafts, trades, rookies and rookie elevation in 2008 and 2009 and in the time we have got Stanley and Ray and that is it I believe. Happy to be shown to be wrong. In that time the Swans have got Johnston, Hannebery, Pyke, Smith, Shaw, Mumford, McGlynn, Kennedy, Rohan, Jetta and reid. I think all bar one played in the 2012 premiership time. Now this doesnt mean the players we got in the last 2 years cant be as good, but it does mean we are a good 2 to 3 years from coming good again even if our players are as good. My point stands, 2 to 3 years of crap recruiting puts us miles behind the Swans. I think all we can do is read and weep about those pathetic recruiting years.

Bloody hell, why is it that I have to explain so many replies I do to you after you've completely misread or misunderstood what I have said in one of my posts? Do you do it on purpose, or what?

I'm not saying that we are now where Sydney are now, I'm saying that we are now where Sydney were between the 2009 and 2010 seasons. The similarities are extraordinary. In fact we are probably ahead of where they were at that point, because we had a better season in 2012 than they did in 2009 and we've actually had a good drafting period under our belts (2011, IMO), whereas most of their good drafting/trading didn't start until that 2009 trade/draft period (when they got all of Mumford, McGlynn, Kennedy, Rohan, Jetta and Reid- and BTW, that Johnston you named is not the one who played in the GF for them, the one you named has been delisted). Yet they were able to rise from 12th to 5th the following year (2010), which you are claiming we "can't do" next year, despite the fact that we've had a similarly aggressive trading period this offseason, to go with some good trades and picks last year and there being so many other similarities.

I'm extremely well aware of how good their drafting and trading was in 2009, that off-field period at the end of 2009 is what has been widely credited with helping them to turn things around since, but my point was that PRIOR TO that time (as in, the start of trade week in 2009) their list was in pretty much the exact sort of state, if not worse, than ours was when trade week started this year.

The similarities:

-Sydney had played finals for years leading up to 2009, but missed the finals that year for the first time in years. We had played finals for years leading up to 2012, but missed the finals for the first time in years.

-Sydney had had several years of very poor drafting (see below) leading up to the 2009 season. We had had several years of very poor drafting leading up to the 2012 period (although I believe we had a much better one in 2011 than they had in 2008).

-Sydney had Hall, Jolly and O'Laughlin leave at the end of 2009 and had Kirk in his final year the next year. We have had Goddard and Gram leave at the end of 2012 and there is a likelihood that our version of Kirk, Lenny, may be in his last year next season (as may Milne, making it 4 each).

-Sydney went on an aggressive recruiting period and landed a couple of cheap trades that have turned out really well when no-one expected much from them, in trade week in 2009 and drafted really well. We went on a very aggressive trade week in 2012 and landed a couple who were much more expensive, who could very easily end up very good, in trade week of 2012 and believe that we've done well with several of our draft picks in both the 2011 and 2012 drafts.

-On the back of all that Sydney very unexpectedly turned their slide around in 2010 and rose from 12th to 5th, when most probably expected them to fall lower than 12th. ?????? What will we do in 2013????

This is where I'm saying that, like Sydney in 2010, we can also rise, in 2013. If it was possible for Sydney to go from 12th to 5th, from 2009 to 2010, when almost everyone expected them to slide further, when there were so many similarities to where we were at the end of 2012, then it is likewise possible for us to rise from 9th in 2012 to something higher, in 2013. This is my point.

I wasn't suggesting that we were now what Sydney are now, I am suggesting that we are now where Sydney were in the 2009/ 2010 offseason and that if our trades and drafting in the past couple of years turn out to be even close to what Sydney did in 2009 alone, that we could find ourselves in the sort of position Sydney were this year, in say 2015, when Roo will be the age Goodes was this year and Dal and Joey and Chips will be the sort of age Jude Bolton and Ryan O'Keefe were this year. They might not still be around, but on the other hand they might and we might be there in 2014 actually, because we had a better draft/trade period in 2011 than they did in 2008, so we may be able to get there one year "earlier" than they did (it took them 3 years- from 2009 to 2012, we may be able to do it in two, as we are coming from a higher base). We also have the added advantage now of being able to use free agency to top up when anyone retires, which Sydney did not have access to in the 2009-2012 years between that great trade/draft period and them dropping out of the finals in 2009 and their flag.


Just back on Sydney's drafting prior to that 2009 season I was referring to, I went back and had a look at who they picked up in the national drafts from 2005- 2008 (4 drafts) and here is the list of everyone they took in the national drafts in that time (this is the 4 years leading up to the 2009 season I keep referring to):

2005

Matthew Laidlaw 51
Kristin Thornton 54
Ryan Brabozon 59

2006

Daniel O'Keefe 15
Daniel Currie 49
Paul Faulks 65
Jesse White 79

2007

Pat Veszpremi 11
Brett Meredith 26
Craig Bird 59

2008

Lewis Johnstone 12
Daniel Hannebery 30
Campbell Heath 61


And everyone thinks our drafting in the 2008-2010 period was bad! As I said earlier, that Lewis Johnstone is not the Johnston that played for them in the GF, he is now clogging up Adelaide's list, so as far as I'm aware the only ones they took in a national draft in those 4 years that are still on their list are Hannebery, Bird and White (who they don't play). I had a brief look at who they took in the rookie drafts in that period and they looked to be just as bad.

All of this was in response to this post of yours, just in case you're wondering:

I will say it again and again. You cannot lose basically 3 years of recruiting and have stars who are getting older and still hope to climb the ladder. Comparing us to Sydney is only relevent if they had 3 years in the late 2000's when they basically got not one star player. Pretty sure in that time that got 2-4 star players depending on your view of what a star is.

Yes you can and Sydney did it in 2010.

At the end of the 2009 season they had dropped out of the finals for the first time in years, coming 12th with a % of 90, lost Barry Hall, Darren Jolly and MIchael O'Laughlin and had Kirk going into his last season and in the 4 years prior to that time they had done some of the worst drafting in history, so had almost no decent "youth" and yet were able to turn it all around and rise all the way to 5th the following season, against most expectations. They are proof that it can be done.

If they could do that, we can sure as s*** rise from 9th with a % of 120odd last season to a higher position next year, if some similar things go well for us next year (and we don't need anywhere near as much to go right for us as they did then, because we are coming from a stronger position this year than they were that year).

Hopefully that makes sense. We are now in a very similar position to where Sydney were in the 2010 preseason (for all the reasons listed above) and I believe we are going about our "rebuild" in a very similar way to the way they did it then. ie. not "bottoming out and playing the kids", but aiming to stay ultra-competitive and gradually integrating the "kids" into the team, once they are ready and hoping that by staying "thereabouts"/in the mix, that we might be able to grab a flag in the next few years like Sydney did this year, when they weren't necessarily the best team for the year, or the team with the most top 10 draft picks (in fact they had just 1), but were the team that made the most of their opportunities when they arose, largely thanks to how experienced and professional they were. As I keep on saying, we also have the added advantage that free agency is an option now and we are going to have huge cap space to have a big crack at that over the next couple of years, which could help us to immediately offset the loss of say Lenny and Milne.

There are no guarantees of course and just because it worked for Sydney doesn't mean it will work for us, but there are no guarantees going about it the "Melbourne way" either, as they have found out. Richmond are another team that haven't played finals for 10 years, proving that getting lots of high draft picks doesn't guarantee you anything at all. SOmetimes staying ultra-competitive and maintaining that winning habit is much more beneficial.

[SaintPav]

The way the comp is set up there is no reason we can't win at least half the games we play in. I see us winning between 9 -12 games in 2013.

[BadRossco]

Saint Pav may be a little optimistic, 2012 9th and above Carlton, Essendon & Richmond all of which will probably move above us. I don't believe we will return to the days when we genuinely earned our priority picks, (no tanking we were actually that bad), but even then us long term supporters appreciated the rare wins, so be prepared to stick fast and ride it out.

[SaintPav]

Saint Pav may be a little optimistic, 2012 9th and above Carlton, Essendon & Richmond all of which will probably move above us. I don't believe we will return to the days when we genuinely earned our priority picks, (no tanking we were actually that bad), but even then us long term supporters appreciated the rare wins, so be prepared to stick fast and ride it out.

Winning 9 games isn't being that optimistic.

I don't agree with you at all about Cartlon probably moving above us.

[plugger66]

Firstly I doubt a reporter would change their mind on a player because the club were furious because I doubt the club would even bother contacting the writer but I do know a couple of people in recruiting so I could find out if I could be bothered which I cant.

Doubt is not good enough and I didn't say that he would change his mind just because a club were furious with him, I suggested that it might have actually prompted him to do a bit of research (if he has any journalistic integrity, perhaps) because it sounds like he just heard about the deal and tweeted something, without doing much research into it, but then changed his tune once he dug a bit deeper and found out what some of those who really know what they are talking about think of him. As for the club getting in touch with him, all it takes is having someone in or close to the club who is on Twitter tweeting him back about it to put forward a case as to why it was a good deal, to perhaps get him to look into it a bit more, or else a quick phone call.

Don't forget that he also removed what he initially said about Spencer White and his wrist injury in his online article on the night of the draft and that might have also been at the request of the club. It's hard to see why that would have been removed otherwise.

Now you want to compare us to Sydney and to me the important years of trading were in the late 2000's because those players will now be coming into their prime.

I went through the drafts, trades, rookies and rookie elevation in 2008 and 2009 and in the time we have got Stanley and Ray and that is it I believe. Happy to be shown to be wrong. In that time the Swans have got Johnston, Hannebery, Pyke, Smith, Shaw, Mumford, McGlynn, Kennedy, Rohan, Jetta and reid. I think all bar one played in the 2012 premiership time. Now this doesnt mean the players we got in the last 2 years cant be as good, but it does mean we are a good 2 to 3 years from coming good again even if our players are as good. My point stands, 2 to 3 years of crap recruiting puts us miles behind the Swans. I think all we can do is read and weep about those pathetic recruiting years.

Bloody hell, why is it that I have to explain so many replies I do to you after you've completely misread or misunderstood what I have said in one of my posts? Do you do it on purpose, or what?

I'm not saying that we are now where Sydney are now, I'm saying that we are now where Sydney were between the 2009 and 2010 seasons. The similarities are extraordinary. In fact we are probably ahead of where they were at that point, because we had a better season in 2012 than they did in 2009 and we've actually had a good drafting period under our belts (2011, IMO), whereas most of their good drafting/trading didn't start until that 2009 trade/draft period (when they got all of Mumford, McGlynn, Kennedy, Rohan, Jetta and Reid- and BTW, that Johnston you named is not the one who played in the GF for them, the one you named has been delisted). Yet they were able to rise from 12th to 5th the following year (2010), which you are claiming we "can't do" next year, despite the fact that we've had a similarly aggressive trading period this offseason, to go with some good trades and picks last year and there being so many other similarities.

I'm extremely well aware of how good their drafting and trading was in 2009, that off-field period at the end of 2009 is what has been widely credited with helping them to turn things around since, but my point was that PRIOR TO that time (as in, the start of trade week in 2009) their list was in pretty much the exact sort of state, if not worse, than ours was when trade week started this year.

The similarities:

-Sydney had played finals for years leading up to 2009, but missed the finals that year for the first time in years. We had played finals for years leading up to 2012, but missed the finals for the first time in years.

-Sydney had had several years of very poor drafting (see below) leading up to the 2009 season. We had had several years of very poor drafting leading up to the 2012 period (although I believe we had a much better one in 2011 than they had in 2008).

-Sydney had Hall, Jolly and O'Laughlin leave at the end of 2009 and had Kirk in his final year the next year. We have had Goddard and Gram leave at the end of 2012 and there is a likelihood that our version of Kirk, Lenny, may be in his last year next season (as may Milne, making it 4 each).

-Sydney went on an aggressive recruiting period and landed a couple of cheap trades that have turned out really well when no-one expected much from them, in trade week in 2009 and drafted really well. We went on a very aggressive trade week in 2012 and landed a couple who were much more expensive, who could very easily end up very good, in trade week of 2012 and believe that we've done well with several of our draft picks in both the 2011 and 2012 drafts.

-On the back of all that Sydney very unexpectedly turned their slide around in 2010 and rose from 12th to 5th, when most probably expected them to fall lower than 12th. ?????? What will we do in 2013????

This is where I'm saying that, like Sydney in 2010, we can also rise, in 2013. If it was possible for Sydney to go from 12th to 5th, from 2009 to 2010, when almost everyone expected them to slide further, when there were so many similarities to where we were at the end of 2012, then it is likewise possible for us to rise from 9th in 2012 to something higher, in 2013. This is my point.

I wasn't suggesting that we were now what Sydney are now, I am suggesting that we are now where Sydney were in the 2009/ 2010 offseason and that if our trades and drafting in the past couple of years turn out to be even close to what Sydney did in 2009 alone, that we could find ourselves in the sort of position Sydney were this year, in say 2015, when Roo will be the age Goodes was this year and Dal and Joey and Chips will be the sort of age Jude Bolton and Ryan O'Keefe were this year. They might not still be around, but on the other hand they might and we might be there in 2014 actually, because we had a better draft/trade period in 2011 than they did in 2008, so we may be able to get there one year "earlier" than they did (it took them 3 years- from 2009 to 2012, we may be able to do it in two, as we are coming from a higher base). We also have the added advantage now of being able to use free agency to top up when anyone retires, which Sydney did not have access to in the 2009-2012 years between that great trade/draft period and them dropping out of the finals in 2009 and their flag.


Just back on Sydney's drafting prior to that 2009 season I was referring to, I went back and had a look at who they picked up in the national drafts from 2005- 2008 (4 drafts) and here is the list of everyone they took in the national drafts in that time (this is the 4 years leading up to the 2009 season I keep referring to):

2005

Matthew Laidlaw 51
Kristin Thornton 54
Ryan Brabozon 59

2006

Daniel O'Keefe 15
Daniel Currie 49
Paul Faulks 65
Jesse White 79

2007

Pat Veszpremi 11
Brett Meredith 26
Craig Bird 59

2008

Lewis Johnstone 12
Daniel Hannebery 30
Campbell Heath 61


And everyone thinks our drafting in the 2008-2010 period was bad! As I said earlier, that Lewis Johnstone is not the Johnston that played for them in the GF, he is now clogging up Adelaide's list, so as far as I'm aware the only ones they took in a national draft in those 4 years that are still on their list are Hannebery, Bird and White (who they don't play). I had a brief look at who they took in the rookie drafts in that period and they looked to be just as bad.

All of this was in response to this post of yours, just in case you're wondering:

I will say it again and again. You cannot lose basically 3 years of recruiting and have stars who are getting older and still hope to climb the ladder. Comparing us to Sydney is only relevent if they had 3 years in the late 2000's when they basically got not one star player. Pretty sure in that time that got 2-4 star players depending on your view of what a star is.

Yes you can and Sydney did it in 2010.

At the end of the 2009 season they had dropped out of the finals for the first time in years, coming 12th with a % of 90, lost Barry Hall, Darren Jolly and MIchael O'Laughlin and had Kirk going into his last season and in the 4 years prior to that time they had done some of the worst drafting in history, so had almost no decent "youth" and yet were able to turn it all around and rise all the way to 5th the following season, against most expectations. They are proof that it can be done.

If they could do that, we can sure as s*** rise from 9th with a % of 120odd last season to a higher position next year, if some similar things go well for us next year (and we don't need anywhere near as much to go right for us as they did then, because we are coming from a stronger position this year than they were that year).

Hopefully that makes sense. We are now in a very similar position to where Sydney were in the 2010 preseason (for all the reasons listed above) and I believe we are going about our "rebuild" in a very similar way to the way they did it then. ie. not "bottoming out and playing the kids", but aiming to stay ultra-competitive and gradually integrating the "kids" into the team, once they are ready and hoping that by staying "thereabouts"/in the mix, that we might be able to grab a flag in the next few years like Sydney did this year, when they weren't necessarily the best team for the year, or the team with the most top 10 draft picks (in fact they had just 1), but were the team that made the most of their opportunities when they arose, largely thanks to how experienced and professional they were. As I keep on saying, we also have the added advantage that free agency is an option now and we are going to have huge cap space to have a big crack at that over the next couple of years, which could help us to immediately offset the loss of say Lenny and Milne.

There are no guarantees of course and just because it worked for Sydney doesn't mean it will work for us, but there are no guarantees going about it the "Melbourne way" either, as they have found out. Richmond are another team that haven't played finals for 10 years, proving that getting lots of high draft picks doesn't guarantee you anything at all. SOmetimes staying ultra-competitive and maintaining that winning habit is much more beneficial.

Obviously I am going to argue that there is a fair bit of difference between where we are at now. and where Sydney were in 2010. In those poor trade perriods for Sydney they trade for an AA in Richards and also got Mattner. In our poor period we have got Ray and Stanley so they are ahead. They also got 3 pretty experienced AFL players in Mumford, McGlynn and Kennedy who even though they hadnt set the world alight they were AFL ready to go. We have got Lee, TDL, Hickey and Roberton who in hindsight may work out or could end up like Polo and Peake.

And I aint suggesting the Melbourne way or any way actually. I am just giving reasons why I think we wont improve this year unless we basically fluke the Sydney recruiting. And for us to improve the likes of Lee, Roberton and TDL have to have a huge impact as the Sydney players did in 2010. We would also need Steven, Armo, Simpkin and one or two others to become top 5-7 players this year.

[SuperDuper]

I went through the drafts, trades, rookies and rookie elevation in 2008 and 2009 and in the time we have got Stanley and Ray and that is it I believe.

well in 2008 we got Stanley, Ray and Simpkin. So you missed Simpkin there... a little more improvement and he could be important...

True, in 2009 we have zero players left at the club BUT we got T. Walsh who we traded in 2011 for pick 35 and 68 which got us Daniel Markworth and Beau Wilkes
And in 2009 we also got T. Lynch who we traded for pick 37, which got us Jack Newnes...

So, we did ok in 2008 (2-3 senior players each year for 10 years is enough to get your 22+emergencies.. i.e. 2-3 players who can play regularly is a par score for a draft) and saying we have zero from 2009 is disingenuous.. we got players who we used as currency to get Markworth, Newnes and Wilkes

Further, in 2009 we chose Winmar rather than Roberton. For free this year we made the switch, taking Roberton instead and delisting Winmar... Now that is not a direct result of our 2009 trading so it does not count for my point above.. but Roberton is a player of that era who we now have on our list... and we did not give up anything for him... just delisted Winmar.. there is no opportunity cost in economic jargon terms....so it is as if we selected Roberton in that year

[plugger66]

I went through the drafts, trades, rookies and rookie elevation in 2008 and 2009 and in the time we have got Stanley and Ray and that is it I believe.

well in 2008 we got Stanley, Ray and Simpkin. So you missed Simpkin there... a little more improvement and he could be important...

True, in 2009 we have zero players left at the club BUT we got T. Walsh who we traded in 2011 for pick 35 and 68 which got us Daniel Markworth and Beau Wilkes
And in 2009 we also got T. Lynch who we traded for pick 37, which got us Jack Newnes...

So, we did ok in 2008 (2-3 senior players each year for 10 years is enough to get your 22+emergencies.. i.e. 2-3 players who can play regularly is a par score for a draft) and saying we have zero from 2009 is disingenuous.. we got players who we used as currency to get Markworth, Newnes and Wilkes

Further, in 2009 we chose Winmar rather than Roberton. For free this year we made the switch, taking Roberton instead and delisting Winmar... Now that is not a direct result of our 2009 trading so it does not count for my point above.. but Roberton is a player of that era who we now have on our list... and we did not give up anything for him... just delisted Winmar.. there is no opportunity cost in economic jargon terms....so it is as if we selected Roberton in that year

Im not doubting any other that but my point is 2009 players would be ready to go now. Getting players young players as replacements puts us back a couple of years. And i know we got Wilkes and roberton but the jury is out on both of those.

[SaintPav]

Loved Beau's last game and his effort throughout the season but the jury isn't out on him. Don't reckon he will get much better.

I have a feeling Roberton is going to surprise a few people.

[SuperDuper]

Im not doubting any other that but my point is 2009 players would be ready to go now. Getting players young players as replacements puts us back a couple of years. And i know we got Wilkes and roberton but the jury is out on both of those.

Agreed on both points.... hopefully Wilkes has a little improvement left in him, with a full pre-season... he clearly needs to step up from a servicable 2012 if he is to be rated a successful recruit....
And Roberton is a "maybe" right now... we will know in 12 months.. I am optimistic

And agreed, we fall behind a couple of years by trading for younger players.... But at least it seems we have upgraded, Newnes, Markworth seem better prospects than T. Walsh and T. Lynch IMO.. using those players as currency to upgrade will help soften the fall from those 2 poor years... hopefully it even prevents the fall.. if the players develop well

[SuperDuper]

Getting players young players as replacements puts us back a couple of years

Oh.. one more point... because you are not quite right here.... you are referring to 2 "lost years"... yet if we look at the *age* of players from 2008-2009, you could say we have taken Tom Lee, Dylan Roberton, Tom Hicky and Ahmed Saad in recent drafts, who are of that era.. we got them by using draft picks from a later era (2011-2012)...
while we used the players we drafted from 2009 as currency to secure younger players, Markworth and Newnes, who we got in 2011... so as an overall picture we have recruited unconventionally... but one could argue that the spread of ages is about right....

Now the big question of course is... will they step up ! ?? Let's hope so

[hungry for a premiership]

Sam landsberger had Lee as the 6th best impact of players drated last season so I doubt he thinks we did badly. Unlike most on here though he probably doesnt rate our picks any better than any other clubs so on top of losing BJ and Gram and our stars getting older he has come to the logical conclusion that we will drop down the ladder.

I will say it again and again. You cannot lose basically 3 years of recruiting and have stars who are getting older and still hope to climb the ladder. Comparing us to Sydney is only relevent if they had 3 years in the late 2000's when they basically got not one star player. Pretty sure in that time that got 2-4 star players depending on your view of what a star is.

So not one of Big Mac, Sipposs, Steven or Armo will be a star?

[Bernard Shakey]

Sam landsberger had Lee as the 6th best impact of players drated last season so I doubt he thinks we did badly. Unlike most on here though he probably doesnt rate our picks any better than any other clubs so on top of losing BJ and Gram and our stars getting older he has come to the logical conclusion that we will drop down the ladder.

I will say it again and again. You cannot lose basically 3 years of recruiting and have stars who are getting older and still hope to climb the ladder. Comparing us to Sydney is only relevent if they had 3 years in the late 2000's when they basically got not one star player. Pretty sure in that time that got 2-4 star players depending on your view of what a star is.

So not one of Big Mac, Sipposs, Steven or Armo will be a star?

Big Mac and Siposs will be.

[plugger66]

Sam landsberger had Lee as the 6th best impact of players drated last season so I doubt he thinks we did badly. Unlike most on here though he probably doesnt rate our picks any better than any other clubs so on top of losing BJ and Gram and our stars getting older he has come to the logical conclusion that we will drop down the ladder.

I will say it again and again. You cannot lose basically 3 years of recruiting and have stars who are getting older and still hope to climb the ladder. Comparing us to Sydney is only relevent if they had 3 years in the late 2000's when they basically got not one star player. Pretty sure in that time that got 2-4 star players depending on your view of what a star is.

So not one of Big Mac, Sipposs, Steven or Armo will be a star?

Apart from Siposs none of those were recruited in the period I was talking about. And Im unsure any will be stars. Siposs maybe the only chance. I really like Ben and especially Steven but they certainly need to show even more this year to look like star rating.

[philtee]

Great post AnythingsPossible.
Love the passion and I like the reasoning.

[Kickit]

My take is that we ended a decade of ordinary drafting with some shocking drafting.

Armo is great, but he must be 8 foot tall to be developing so slowly. ( Compare with Jack Riewoldt who was available at the same draft).

But the past is past.
I think the recruiters have done a good job of making a desperate catch up. Saad, Milera, Dunell, and Lee have all effectively bypassed the normal development cycle. (If the first three were to be traded tomorrow, we would get more than we got for Cripps who I maintain was a decent pick in his draft ).
I felt that much of our midfield was carried by Armo and Steven last season, and that both have an upside to them.
I feel that many of the older players were a bit flat last season ( Joey? ). Given that Kingsley has said the team is 5% fitter than they were last season, we may see some improvement there.
I dont normally expect new recruits to have a major impact on the outcome of games. Its players like Sippos, Milera, Saad, Lee that have potential. ( Having said that , there is often someone who surprises me .... Ledger?).
We have Gwilt with a strong chance of recapturing some good form, and Geary who seems to be able to play more consistantly than Gram ever did.
We have the whole team fitter and more familiar with Watters gameplan.

Then we have the loss of that grumpy bugger who yelled at the young players.

The team has been getting written off since their premiership window closed in 200...5 was it? I can't see them sliding too far this year. Last year injury by Fisher, McEvoy, Stanley, and Gwilt was a bigger loss than not having Goddard.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

Great post AnythingsPossible.
Love the passion and I like the reasoning.

i agree i am enjoying the posts from AnythingsPossible they are able to have a debate without the need to turn it into petty name calling ... something very rare for these parts

[loris]

Great post AnythingsPossible.
Love the passion and I like the reasoning.

i agree i am enjoying the posts from AnythingsPossible they are able to have a debate without the need to turn it into petty name calling ... something very rare for these parts

Agree.......... I've become a real 'groupie' of AnthingsPossibleSaints. Always devour his posts with interest.

I notice his style makes some previously name calling posters and those simply fishing to bait others, they respond in a more reserved manner if they differ to APS opinions, as they realise they will look complete goose if they resort to replying to his posts with emotive claptrap, so it makes them present their views more objectively, which is good for all.

Thanks for lifting the level of analysis APS

[saintsRrising]

No one apart from Swan's diehards would have picked them for a Premiership in 2012.

One of the keys foe them was the improvement in so many of their younger players, and recycled players from other clubs. While this is by no means the only factor, it was a big factor.

Likewise with the Saints in 2014, as it will for many clubs, our fate will largely be in the hands of players improving.

Steven, Stanley, Siposs, Simpkin, Saad, Ben etc. Not all will, but we need a number to. some of the new blood like Lee need to have impact.

Potential needs to be realised. Whether it will or not we will have to wait and see.

But if nothing else, with so many players ripe to bloom there will be a lot fora StKilda footy nut to see in 2013.

[bigcarl]

Great post AnythingsPossible.
Love the passion and I like the reasoning.

Agree. I like his positivity

[bobmurray]

Great post AnythingsPossible.
Love the passion and I like the reasoning.

Agree. I like his positivity

Positivity....what is that

[clarky449]

We were done and dusted after the Grand Finall II in 2010. We arent going up, we are going back. Its not hard to see.

[St Ick]

Great post AnythingsPossible.
Love the passion and I like the reasoning.

i agree i am enjoying the posts from AnythingsPossible they are able to have a debate without the need to turn it into petty name calling ... something very rare for these parts

Agree.......... I've become a real 'groupie' of AnthingsPossibleSaints. Always devour his posts with interest.

I notice his style makes some previously name calling posters and those simply fishing to bait others, they respond in a more reserved manner if they differ to APS opinions, as they realise they will look complete goose if they resort to replying to his posts with emotive claptrap, so it makes them present their views more objectively, which is good for all.

Thanks for lifting the level of analysis APS

Ditto, posters like APS and Old Mate are whats great about Saintsational... mainly because they both make my arguements for me saving me sh.it loads of time typing them up on this tiny Samsung Galaxy keyboard.... Pretty sure both posters are BF tragics too which is good to see.

[bigcarl]

I like his positivity

Positivity....what is that

POSITIVITY
1: the quality or state of being positive. 2: something that is positive.

as opposed to,

NEGATIVITY
Lacking positive or constructive features, especially:
a. Unpleasant; disagreeable:
b. Gloomy; pessimistic: a negative outlook.
c. Unfavorable or detrimental:
d. Hostile or disparaging; malicious.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

Obviously I am going to argue that there is a fair bit of difference between where we are at now. and where Sydney were in 2010.

If that is so why is it that Sydney dropped all the way to 12th with a % of 90 in 2009, compared to us dropping just to 9th with a % of 120odd in 2012?

In those poor trade perriods for Sydney they trade for an AA in Richards and also got Mattner. In our poor period we have got Ray and Stanley so they are ahead. They also got 3 pretty experienced AFL players in Mumford, McGlynn and Kennedy who even though they hadnt set the world alight they were AFL ready to go. We have got Lee, TDL, Hickey and Roberton who in hindsight may work out or could end up like Polo and Peake.

It is true Sydney had gotten Richards and Mattner (neither of whom were close to AA at the time, I would suggest) in the 4 years leading up to 2009 (they also got Nick Smith in a rookie draft), and you say that we "got Ray and Stanley so they are ahead", but what about Siposs, Saad, Simpkin, Milera, Newnes, etc, from last year and 2010, who all came to our club in the 4 years leading up to 2012?

It is Richards, Mattner, Smith, Hannebery, Jesse White and Bird v Ray, Stanley, Siposs, Saad, Simpkin, Milera, Newnes, Dunell, Markworth, Wilkes, Minchington, etc and Jetta, Reid, Kennedy, Mumford and McGlynn v Lee, Hickey, Roberton, TDL, Wright, White, Saunders, Murdoch and Pierce. If you compare where our 20 are now with the Sydney 11 as they were 3 years ago, I don't think there would be much in it at all. Of course theirs looks to be better now, because they have 3 years more development and experience in them, but if you were to compare our 20 or more in 3 years time with Sydney's 11 at the point they are now, it may be close again. It all depends on how our 20 develop. I'm going to suggest that some of our 20 will develop very well indeed.

And I aint suggesting the Melbourne way or any way actually. I am just giving reasons why I think we wont improve this year unless we basically fluke the Sydney recruiting. And for us to improve the likes of Lee, Roberton and TDL have to have a huge impact as the Sydney players did in 2010. We would also need Steven, Armo, Simpkin and one or two others to become top 5-7 players this year.

As I suggested, we don't have to "fluke the Sydney recruiting", because, as I said, they didn't give up much to get the likes of Mumford, Kennedy and McGlynn, so they were genuine "flukes", so to speak, becaue it's not often that you get someone who turns out really good when you don't give up much to get them, but we did have to give up a significant amount for the likes of Lee and Hickey, so it won't be a "fluke" if they end up good, because by giving up so much for them it is pretty much expected that they will be very good.

There is also a hell of a difference between the likes of Lee and Hickey and Peake and Polo, because again, we gave up almost nothing to get Peake and Polo, because no-one really rated them and they were right, but we again did have to give up a lot to get Lee and Hickey, because not only we, but other clubs really rated them (resulting in us having to give up more to get them than if no-one else was interested in them).

Again, we also don't have to improve anywhere near as much as Sydney did from 2009 to 2010 to move up, because we only have to move up one spot to go from not playing finals in 2012 to playing finals in 2013.

[plugger66]

Obviously I am going to argue that there is a fair bit of difference between where we are at now. and where Sydney were in 2010.

If that is so why is it that Sydney dropped all the way to 12th with a % of 90 in 2009, compared to us dropping just to 9th with a % of 120odd in 2012?

In those poor trade perriods for Sydney they trade for an AA in Richards and also got Mattner. In our poor period we have got Ray and Stanley so they are ahead. They also got 3 pretty experienced AFL players in Mumford, McGlynn and Kennedy who even though they hadnt set the world alight they were AFL ready to go. We have got Lee, TDL, Hickey and Roberton who in hindsight may work out or could end up like Polo and Peake.

It is true Sydney had gotten Richards and Mattner (neither of whom were close to AA at the time, I would suggest) in the 4 years leading up to 2009 (they also got Nick Smith in a rookie draft), and you say that we "got Ray and Stanley so they are ahead", but what about Siposs, Saad, Simpkin, Milera, Newnes, etc, from last year and 2010, who all came to our club in the 4 years leading up to 2012?

It is Richards, Mattner, Smith, Hannebery, Jesse White and Bird v Ray, Stanley, Siposs, Saad, Simpkin, Milera, Newnes, Dunell, Markworth, Wilkes, Minchington, etc and if you compare where our 11 are now with the Sydney six as they were 3 years ago, I don't think there would be much in it at all. Of course theirs looks to be better now, because they have 3 years more development and experience in them, but if you were to compare our 11 or more in 3 years time with Sydney's 6 at the point they are now, it may be close again and we could very easily be in front. It all depends on how our 11 develop.

And I aint suggesting the Melbourne way or any way actually. I am just giving reasons why I think we wont improve this year unless we basically fluke the Sydney recruiting. And for us to improve the likes of Lee, Roberton and TDL have to have a huge impact as the Sydney players did in 2010. We would also need Steven, Armo, Simpkin and one or two others to become top 5-7 players this year.

As I suggested, we don't have to "fluke the Sydney recruiting", because, as I said, they didn't give up much to get the likes of Mumford, Kennedy and McGlynn, so they were genuine "flukes" becaue it's not often that you get someone who turns out really good when you don't give up much to get them, but we did have to give up a significant amount for the likes of Lee and Hickey, so it won't be a "fluke" if they end up good because by giving up so much for them it is pretty much expected that they will be very good. There is also a hell of a difference between the likes of Lee and Hickey and Peake and Polo, because again, we gave up almost nothing to get Peake and Polo, because no-one really rated them, but we again did have to give up a lot to get Lee and Hickey because not only we, but other clubs really rated them (resulting in us having to give up more to get them than if no-one else was interested in them).

Im not sure how i can discuss the last paragraph but it is very one sided. kennedy and Mumford and even McGlynn are flukes but the players we wanted are not. Strange that flukes get offered a hell of a lot more 3 years ago than the players we got now even though wages have gone up. No matter which eye you open their players had better credentials than the players we have got. That doesnt mean it wont work out for us. We could have the next Plugger or the next Cox or we could have the next Gamble or the next Ackland. Your argument would suggest no one wanted Ball but if you put a silly price on your head then that will happen and the club who really wants you gets you. I would suggest that certainly happened with Mumford and Kennedy. Doesnt mean they were unwanted.