Analysis 2022 List, Game Plan and Best 22?

[caesar88]

No chance Wicks looses his spot.

He's a lock IMO. I don't think there's been a single young Swan who has had such a dramatic impact on the team in terms of changing the way we play as Wicks has had, probably not since Dawson cemented his spot in the team in 2019 and helped us become a dangerous defensive transition team.

His forward pressure is just absolutely manic, at a level that at this stage not a single other player on our list is capable of.

And I reckon Horse knows it too. That's why even in a year when he seemed keen to drop/manage every player who wasn't providing enough/was struggling physically, he wanted Wicks out there every single week, no matter his circumstances.

 

[Kapers]

He's a lock IMO. I don't think there's been a single young Swan who has had such a dramatic impact on the team in terms of changing the way we play as Wicks has had, probably not since Dawson cemented his spot in the team in 2019 and helped us become a dangerous defensive transition team.

His forward pressure is just absolutely manic, at a level that at this stage not a single other player on our list is capable of.

And I reckon Horse knows it too. That's why even in a year when he seemed keen to drop/manage every player who wasn't providing enough/was struggling physically, he wanted Wicks out there every single week, no matter his circumstances.

The amount of scores we get from his pressure is insane, literally best in the league.

I don't want Jack of all trades, I want players that are the best at what they do.

 

[caesar88]

Per the 'where to play McInerney' discussion happening in the pre-season thread, I feel this is the more relevant place since it refers to our game plan.

I'm fully on board the McInerney at HBF train. The seminal move of the season by Horse (and arguably his career tbh, given how many quality players it got the best out of and the effect it had on our game plan) was the shifting of the McInerney-Blakey-Dawson-Hewett-Gulden quintet around rounds 15 & 16.

Horse basically swapped Blakey with Dawson, shifting Blakey to defence to play as the spare tall and rebounding player, and shifting Dawson to the wing. Blakey's numbers went from 11.1 disposals a game from rounds 1-14, to 17.7 from rounds 15-23. Meanwhile Dawson's disposal count increased from 21.4 to 23.5 in the same time period (only marginal, but to actually get more of the footy on the graveyard wing spot than at half back shows how suited he was to it.) His inside 50s, which is an important one for one of the best kicks in our team, also increased from 2.4 a game to 3.8, and he finished with 9 goals between rounds 15-23, after being goalless from rounds 1-14.

The second half of it was moving around the very classy pieces of Gulden, McInerney & Hewett.

Gulden replaced McInerney, spending more time on the wing. His heat maps show he averaged 73% of his possessions in the forward half between rounds 1-14, down to 48% between rounds 15-23. This might sound alarming to the "hOrSe iS tOo dEfEnSiVe" brigade, but it's actually called just being a midfielder. Don't we want Gulden to follow the action?

McInerney then replaced Hewett at HB, out of the graveyard wing spot and into a role where we could get the ball in his hands as much as possible. His disposal average went from 15.8 between rounds 1-14, to 20.5 after that, while also providing some electric rebound from half back. Hewett then went into the guts (replaced Rowbottom) and I believe I've already spoken about how much better he was following that move.

Now we have lost two of those five that I believe really revived our season. But Hewett in the midfield will be replaced by Rowbottom/Ch. Warner/both, and Dawson on the wing will be replaced by Heeney, probably the only guy actually more talented than Dawson on our list. The others can stay on the exact trajectory Horse put them on in rounds 15 & 16: Gulden keeps getting more action around the midfield, and 'Blakinerney' keep on being our damaging rebounding duo.

 

[dosser]

I will not be surprised to see O'Connor and Sheather get debuts.

Humour me here, Horry. I saw O'Connor a couple of times on Kayo and he didn't do anything particularly impressive or make me sit up and pay attention. Now, I want to get excited about this guy, but he is only new to the game with limited exposure, so why are you so bullish about him? Convince me here because I need some hope.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Humour me here, Horry. I saw O'Connor a couple of times on Kayo and he didn't do anything particularly impressive or make me sit up and pay attention. Now, I want to get excited about this guy, but he is only new to the game with limited exposure, so why are you so bullish about him? Convince me here because I need some hope.

Forget which Ressies game it was but in one I was impressed by
* how he took the game on
* his disposal
* reading of the play
* competitiveness

I think we have something to work with.

 

[Kapers]

Per the 'where to play McInerney' discussion happening in the pre-season thread, I feel this is the more relevant place since it refers to our game plan.

I'm fully on board the McInerney at HBF train. The seminal move of the season by Horse (and arguably his career tbh, given how many quality players it got the best out of and the effect it had on our game plan) was the shifting of the McInerney-Blakey-Dawson-Hewett-Gulden quintet around rounds 15 & 16.

Horse basically swapped Blakey with Dawson, shifting Blakey to defence to play as the spare tall and rebounding player, and shifting Dawson to the wing. Blakey's numbers went from 11.1 disposals a game from rounds 1-14, to 17.7 from rounds 15-23. Meanwhile Dawson's disposal count increased from 21.4 to 23.5 in the same time period (only marginal, but to actually get more of the footy on the graveyard wing spot than at half back shows how suited he was to it.) His inside 50s, which is an important one for one of the best kicks in our team, also increased from 2.4 a game to 3.8, and he finished with 9 goals between rounds 15-23, after being goalless from rounds 1-14.

The second half of it was moving around the very classy pieces of Gulden, McInerney & Hewett.

Gulden replaced McInerney, spending more time on the wing. His heat maps show he averaged 73% of his possessions in the forward half between rounds 1-14, down to 48% between rounds 15-23. This might sound alarming to the "hOrSe iS tOo dEfEnSiVe" brigade, but it's actually called just being a midfielder. Don't we want Gulden to follow the action?

McInerney then replaced Hewett at HB, out of the graveyard wing spot and into a role where we could get the ball in his hands as much as possible. His disposal average went from 15.8 between rounds 1-14, to 20.5 after that, while also providing some electric rebound from half back. Hewett then went into the guts (replaced Rowbottom) and I believe I've already spoken about how much better he was following that move.

Now we have lost two of those five that I believe really revived our season. But Hewett in the midfield will be replaced by Rowbottom/Ch. Warner/both, and Dawson on the wing will be replaced by Heeney, probably the only guy actually more talented than Dawson on our list. The others can stay on the exact trajectory Horse put them on in rounds 15 & 16: Gulden keeps getting more action around the midfield, and 'Blakinerney' keep on being our damaging rebounding duo.

We also have plenty of players that could POTENTIALLY play on the wing. Now I'm not saying that they'll replace Dawson, becuase they won't, but it's probably close to our most competitive spot.

I don't want to read to much into next year, because anything could happen, but I would love to see Campbell get a full season (if he deserves it), would be incredible.

IMO, we'll be looking back on our 2018 (we already are) and 2020 with jaws open wide.

 

[Kapers]

Don't know where to talk about this, but I just wanted to address the 2019 draft. Everything I say is ignoring Taylor for ... obvious ... reasons.

I think most of us came out of that draft pretty stoked with most of the picks (the one complaint I see is Stephens over Serong, but besides that one most were happy).

I feel the draft could still be anything. Stephens and Gould are both players that could be anything. and yes, this means that they could also be massive busts.

I think Warner is going to be solid, I've been most impressed with his quick turn, but he obviously struggled coming back from injury. No shame, he's a second year kid, doesn't need to be consistent yet.

I think a lot of this year the focus will be on this crop. If Gould doesn't play this year I would think he'll be delisted. He hasn't had any major injuries and should at least have gotten a game like McInerney, to give him a taste of the top league, but he hasn't deserved it yet.

Stephens doesn't need to be incredible, but he needs to play a few games in a row. I am worried about him, if it took that long to get him to sign on I don't see how we can keep him in two years if he doesn't cemment a spot.

A lot of our best 22 depends on how Stephens and Gould perform. They are definitly at the point where they can make a real impact on the side, but my biggest fear is that they not be good enough.

 

[caesar88]

Don't know where to talk about this, but I just wanted to address the 2019 draft. Everything I say is ignoring Taylor for ... obvious ... reasons.

I think most of us came out of that draft pretty stoked with most of the picks (the one complaint I see is Stephens over Serong, but besides that one most were happy).

I feel the draft could still be anything. Stephens and Gould are both players that could be anything. and yes, this means that they could also be massive busts.

I think Warner is going to be solid, I've been most impressed with his quick turn, but he obviously struggled coming back from injury. No shame, he's a second year kid, doesn't need to be consistent yet.

I think a lot of this year the focus will be on this crop. If Gould doesn't play this year I would think he'll be delisted. He hasn't had any major injuries and should at least have gotten a game like McInerney, to give him a taste of the top league, but he hasn't deserved it yet.

Stephens doesn't need to be incredible, but he needs to play a few games in a row. I am worried about him, if it took that long to get him to sign on I don't see how we can keep him in two years if he doesn't cemment a spot.

A lot of our best 22 depends on how Stephens and Gould perform. They are definitly at the point where they can make a real impact on the side, but my biggest fear is that they not be good enough.

It's definitely not been a resounding instant success that the two drafts it's wedged between have been. But then drafts aren't judged instantly (well, they shouldn't be...) They're judged long-term, and Stephens & Gould have time to make a name for themselves, though there's no denying that they've made doing so a little harder for themselves by not doing it sooner.

I think it's a classic case of timing. In a way because our rebuild has produced so many quality kids, it's kinda been like a race to cement their places in the teams and ensure themselves as part of our long-term future. We are probably past the point now where we can just play kids with patience and an eye to their development, like we had done the past two years. The kids of our rebuild are now the incumbents, so the group below them - which I consider Stephens and Gould to be included in - are in the somewhat unfortunate position of their fate being out of their own hands now. They are relying on others getting injured, or others having poor performances, or others being traded/retiring to vacate spots. Not an enviable position to be in.

 

[Kiama Chris]

Don't know where to talk about this, but I just wanted to address the 2019 draft. Everything I say is ignoring Taylor for ... obvious ... reasons.

I think most of us came out of that draft pretty stoked with most of the picks (the one complaint I see is Stephens over Serong, but besides that one most were happy).

I feel the draft could still be anything. Stephens and Gould are both players that could be anything. and yes, this means that they could also be massive busts.

I think Warner is going to be solid, I've been most impressed with his quick turn, but he obviously struggled coming back from injury. No shame, he's a second year kid, doesn't need to be consistent yet.

I think a lot of this year the focus will be on this crop. If Gould doesn't play this year I would think he'll be delisted. He hasn't had any major injuries and should at least have gotten a game like McInerney, to give him a taste of the top league, but he hasn't deserved it yet.

Stephens doesn't need to be incredible, but he needs to play a few games in a row. I am worried about him, if it took that long to get him to sign on I don't see how we can keep him in two years if he doesn't cemment a spot.

A lot of our best 22 depends on how Stephens and Gould perform. They are definitly at the point where they can make a real impact on the side, but my biggest fear is that they not be good enough.

On exposed form neither has been good enough to hold down a spot. In Gould's case, not enough to challenge for a spot. No doubt both will get a run in the preseason games to show how they have improved. Can't say I hold out any great hopes.

 

[SeanM]

I allways thought Stephens would take a while to develop. His lighter framed reminded me of Hayward/Florent in their early years where they were not physically comfortable at AFL level. I thought there was unnecessary panic that he was not best 22 in his 2nd season mainly because he was out of contract.

Re Gould. I think it is hard for defenders to get a debut and then cement a spot in our defensive unit. He just has to take his opportunity when he gets it. Because guys like Fox and CoR will also be pushing hard for a medium defender position.

Re. Warner. I think Sheldrick/Roberts drafting will help him. They can be the pure disciplined inside mid workhorses. And it means we don't have to rely on Warner and Rowbottom to inherit that role.

 

[Mikevk123]

B D.Rampe L.Melican H.Cunningham
HB J.Lloyd T.McCartin N.Blakely
C J.Mclernery C.Mills O.Florent
HF I.Heeney L.Franklin W.Hayward
F T.Papley L.McDonald E.Gulden
FOLL: T.Hickey J.Rowbottom L.Parker
INTER: J.Kennedy, B.Campbell, C.Warner, P.Ladhams

Emergencies
D.Stephens, S.Wicks, S.Reid, B.O’Connor,
H.McLean, J.Amartey, J.Bell, C.O’Riordan,
B.Ronke, A.Sheldrick, M.Roberts, P.McCartin

 

[Kirkswan]

B D.Rampe L.Melican H.Cunningham
HB J.Lloyd T.McCartin N.Blakely
C J.Mclernery C.Mills O.Florent
HF I.Heeney L.Franklin W.Hayward
F T.Papley L.McDonald E.Gulden
FOLL: T.Hickey J.Rowbottom L.Parker
INTER: J.Kennedy, B.Campbell, C.Warner, P.Ladhams

Emergencies
D.Stephens, S.Wicks, S.Reid, B.O’Connor,
H.McLean, J.Amartey, J.Bell, C.O’Riordan,
B.Ronke, A.Sheldrick, M.Roberts, P.McCartin

Not bad at all, fairly harsh on Wicks though I would have thought... But that's going to be our problem this year I reckon, who not to play!

Damn, it's sad to see that depth building, aint it...

 

[Mikevk123]

Not bad at all, fairly harsh on Wicks though I would have thought... But that's going to be our problem this year I reckon, who not to play!

Damn, it's sad to see that depth building, aint it...

Was a hard choice. But Gulden has more upside. Will be good to see Stephens, Gould, Sheldrick, O’Connor get some game time

 

[Kirkswan]

Was a hard choice. But Gulden has more upside. Will be good to see Stephens, Gould, Sheldrick, O’Connor get some game time

Oh I agree, it would not have been Gulden I left out... and can't wait to see Stephens, O'Connor and Gould get some game time! I reckon all three might surprise some around here. I wouldn't be all that surprised if Sheldrick gets a game or three, but if we play him a lot, who is not playing??? Back to that same old question... damn its sad!

 

[scaryness]

Wicks should make it ahead of Florent

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

The Club did really well in 2021 in minimising games lost to injury. No doubt this helped continuity and performance. Obviously we will miss Dawson and Hewett.

The question is can we expect natural improvement of our younger players to help balance this out.

I really doubt Parker or Hickey can have better years. JPK is in decline - think all agree, but disagree on the rate of decline/fall.

Who knows what the fixture will offer us, but it is likely to be tougher on paper. Hopefully the Virus does not compound the challenges for a young and developing list.

In 2022 I am looking forward to Mills cementing himself as a dominant mid and for TommyMac to transition to becoming leader of the backline.

 

[Punts]

Florent IMO is the who will be out first but then again the coaches rated him top 10 , back end of year he was shocking , again IMO

 

[Bloods86]

The Club did really well in 2021 in minimising games lost to injury. No doubt this helped continuity and performance. Obviously we will miss Dawson and Hewett.

The question is can we expect natural improvement of our younger players to help balance this out.

I really doubt Parker or Hickey can have better years. JPK is in decline - think all agree, but disagree on the rate of decline/fall.

Who knows what the fixture will offer us, but it is likely to be tougher on paper. Hopefully the Virus does not compound the challenges for a young and developing list.

In 2022 I am looking forward to Mills cementing himself as a dominant mid and for TommyMac to transition to becoming leader of the backline.

Re: the fixture, while it will probably be tougher, there's a small benefit to finishing 7th at least, we fit into the "middle six" of the AFL fixturing scheme.

So given GWS finished in the top 6, that should mean the following. I think the AFL will be focusing on rivalries and big selling games both for crowds, and TV viewing (to keep 7 happy), in order to recoup some lost money. Who I think the AFL would prefer is *, italics is my preference.

1 double-up against:
Melbourne
Dogs* (just shading out the Cats)
Geelong
Port
Brisbane

(Up to) 3 double-ups against:
Bombers*
Saints
Eagles*
Freo
Richmond*

(Up to) 2 double-ups against:
Blues
Hawks*
Crows
Suns
Pies*
North

PS. Happy to take this elsewhere, General Discussion?

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Re: the fixture, while it will probably be tougher, there's a small benefit to finishing 7th at least, we fit into the "middle six" of the AFL fixturing scheme.

So given GWS finished in the top 6, that should mean the following. I think the AFL will be focusing on rivalries and big selling games both for crowds, and TV viewing (to keep 7 happy), in order to recoup some lost money. Who I think the AFL would prefer is *, italics is my preference.

1 double-up against:
Melbourne
Dogs* (just shading out the Cats)
Geelong
Port
Brisbane

3 double-ups against:
Bombers*
Saints
Eagles*
Freo
Richmond*

2 double-ups against:
Blues
Hawks*
Crows
Suns
Pies*
North

PS. Happy to take this elsewhere, General Discussion?

Interesting debate points.

 

[Bloods86]

Florent IMO is the who will be out first but then again the coaches rated him top 10 , back end of year he was shocking , again IMO

I think he's certainly in the first handful or so, but given he was rated by the coaches, he's obviously doing his job according to them. I also think he's been unfairly maligned. Yeah, he's not the star we hoped (at least yet), but even in the games where he had some shocking blunders (albeit trying to take the game on, something people have cried out for), there were crickets when he did good things afterwards. It does seem to be a trend on here (not you specifically), that unless you do something spectacular, either good or bad, you don't really get noticed that much.

The way I see it, there's a group of players who will be named even if they have an average pre-season. If they struggle with injury, or just lose all ability to play the game being the exceptions.

Then there's a group that could be overtaken by others, or just not make it in, if they're average (poor). Now the coaching staff might have favourites (it has been known to happen), but if they have quiet pre-seasons, the following should be facing the chop (assuming there's others ready). In my particular order, and with players that were in or around the senior team at the end of season:

Bell
McLean
Melican
Wicks
Chad Warner
Florent
Gulden
COR/Fox (simply have to play one of them IMO)

 

[Punts]

I think Warner will be a top 3 mid in our team by years out

 

[Crust]

I think he's certainly in the first handful or so, but given he was rated by the coaches, he's obviously doing his job according to them. I also think he's been unfairly maligned. Yeah, he's not the star we hoped (at least yet), but even in the games where he had some shocking blunders (albeit trying to take the game on, something people have cried out for), there were crickets when he did good things afterwards. It does seem to be a trend on here (not you specifically), that unless you do something spectacular, either good or bad, you don't really get noticed that much.

The way I see it, there's a group of players who will be named even if they have an average pre-season. If they struggle with injury, or just lose all ability to play the game being the exceptions.

Then there's a group that could be overtaken by others, or just not make it in, if they're average (poor). Now the coaching staff might have favourites (it has been known to happen), but if they have quiet pre-seasons, the following should be facing the chop (assuming there's others ready). In my particular order, and with players that were in or around the senior team at the end of season:

Bell
McLean
Melican
Wicks
Chad Warner
Florent
Gulden
COR/Fox (simply have to play one of them IMO)

No way Wicks and Gulden are facing the chop.

 

[Bloods86]

No way Wicks and Gulden are facing the chop.

Did you read the post or just go straight to the list? If they have average/poor pre-seasons and there's others ready to take their spot, yeah they definitely should (just less than some others). If Rampe or Parker or Buddy have quiet pre-seasons, you pick them anyway. If that list has quiet pre-seasons their spots should absolutely be in question.

 

[Crust]

Did you read the post or just go straight to the list? If they have average/poor pre-seasons and there's others ready to take their spot, yeah they definitely should (just less than some others). If Rampe or Parker or Buddy have quiet pre-seasons, you pick them anyway. If that list has quiet pre-seasons their spots should absolutely be in question.

Yes I read it.
Even with quiet pre seasons they will not face the chop, and will be picked anyway, just like Buddy.

 

[caesar88]

I think he's certainly in the first handful or so, but given he was rated by the coaches, he's obviously doing his job according to them. I also think he's been unfairly maligned. Yeah, he's not the star we hoped (at least yet), but even in the games where he had some shocking blunders (albeit trying to take the game on, something people have cried out for), there were crickets when he did good things afterwards. It does seem to be a trend on here (not you specifically), that unless you do something spectacular, either good or bad, you don't really get noticed that much.

The way I see it, there's a group of players who will be named even if they have an average pre-season. If they struggle with injury, or just lose all ability to play the game being the exceptions.

Then there's a group that could be overtaken by others, or just not make it in, if they're average (poor). Now the coaching staff might have favourites (it has been known to happen), but if they have quiet pre-seasons, the following should be facing the chop (assuming there's others ready). In my particular order, and with players that were in or around the senior team at the end of season:

Bell
McLean
Melican
Wicks
Chad Warner
Florent
Gulden
COR/Fox (simply have to play one of them IMO)

Isn't this true of pretty much every Swans player? If they have a poor pre-season and it effects their form, they'll be in the firing line. We saw that with Blakey and Hayward this year, and they were past favourites of Horse.

I'd say everyone but those in the leadership group are at risk of the chop if they don't perform.