How’s this for a fact, since 2003 the Sydney Swans have only missed the finals once, in 2009. They are the only side who have achieved that.
They also have won two premierships in that time, in 2005 and 2012.
Have they been lucky in achieving what they have? Not at all. Only now people have started to take notice of how the Swans win games playing sensible, percentage, and pressure football.
They have been doing this for years, even without someone who can kick a bag every few weeks (Barry Hall and Daniel Bradshaw aside).
Sure it helps knowing you have someone who can have a big presence up forward but they can survive without one and still win enough games to make the finals.
They don’t have a huge superstar onballer who takes over the game every week, they have players who do well for their system of contested ball, high defensive pressure and accountability required to take down teams who have more ‘talented’ players, like Hawthorn in last year’s decider.
They were the trendsetters in lots of contested ball and multiple stoppages since 2005. Funnily enough Ross Lyon, who has had St Kilda and Fremantle play like this, was a Swans midfield coach under former coach Paul Roos from 2004-2007.
Since it started it came under fire but it has its positives and since then has become a big part of AFL football.
Of course the Swans have needed not only the right players for this to work but players with the right attitude, which comes under ‘you will find your way in the system or out of the system’. in other words no immature or silly people.
You only have to look at some players with attitude over the years – like Jason Akermanis, Aaron Edwards and Brendon Fevola – to see how they can create problems at clubs and possibly careers.
The Sydney Swans cleaned out Barry Hall after giving him a second chance following the Brent Staker punch but he became too much to handle so it was over for his Swans journey.
The Swans are a second chance club though, having done really well with picking up players whose original clubs did not want.
Josh Kennedy, Shane Mumford, Ben Mcglynn, Ted Richards, Mitch Morton, Craig Bolton, Rhyce Shaw, Barry Hall, Daniel Bradshaw, Kurt Tippett, Andrejs Everitt, Martin Mattner, Mark Seaby, Peter Everitt and Tony Armstrong are players who most have had success or at least played a decent role for the Swans.
Once you walk in however you have to earn the respect of your fellow teammates to stay in the Swans group. They have leaders that command respect already and make smart decisions, both on and off the field, like Adam Goodes, Ryan O’Keefe, Jared Mcveigh, Jude Bolton and Nick Malceski.
You rarely hear about the Swans in Sydney causing trouble at nightclubs or being arrogant. Some people say it’s because AFL is not popular there like it is in Melbourne, and that has something to do with it, but the Sydney Swans are like one big family that bleeds red and white success.
They want to follow team rules and be the bench mark for each other and the rest of the competition, they have always known they do not have the strongest list on paper but they continue to churn out results and stick to their values at all costs.
This has bonded the football club together since its darker days in the 80s and 90s.
They have had the right people being around since Paul Roos started out and eventually gave the coaching baton to John Longmire after years of observing what the Sydney Swans are about.
They play with a passion to follow the Swans way all the time, play the percentages, tackle, win the contested ball, know who your man is and always keep your head up, no matter what the score is.
Only now has the football world really woken up to what Sydney do week in and week out every year. Is it a surprise at how consistent they have been, despite playing in the eras of some great sides like the Brisbane Lions, West Coast, Geelong and Hawthorn? No.
Since the Start of 2003 to the beginning of Round 15 this year (including finals matches) overall they have won 163 matches, drawn four and lost 100 matches.
The results speak for themselves.
derek
Guest
Once again the afl umpires won Geelong the game down at Simonds stadium against Brisbane Lions. If i was the Lions president or a supporter of Brisbane i would be suing the AFL fotch for match fixing. Round 2 the AFL cost North Melbourne the game with bad umpiring. It is a well know 100 fact that the Afl fix matches for Geelong. Salary cap breaches have been going on since 2003 at Geelong football club this is a fact a100% fact and the AFl new about it and let it go. They encouraged Geelong to cheat the salary cap. Also the AFL have instructe the umpires to look after the cats and make sure they win. Essendon have been acredited for bring the game into disriputed for their drug scandel wheather they are guilty or not!!
EddyJ
Guest
You've got your Geelong stats for 2002–2006 completely incorrect. I think Geelong were a bit of a basket case in 2003, not so good in 2002, and dropped off completely in 2006 – you've got them listed as winning 81.4% of games in 2006, but they only won 10 out of 22 games (45%), 31% in 2003, and 50% in 2002. Actually, your figures for 2004 are also incorrect – they won 64%, and 54% in 2005. I didn't check 2007–2013, but they probably are correct. Where did you get your figures from?
Jack Smith
Roar Guru
Hahahahahahahahahaha. Funny. Just funny mate. Swans got assistance from the umpiring on Friday night. BULL#%*&! did you watch the same game? Swans got the poor end of the stick, I was there - the whole crowd agrees with me. Even if they are all Swans fans, not everyone knows the rules inside out and everyone knew it was crap umpiring on Friday night. Swans are 13th Frees for, and 10th against this year - yep, they get the rub of the umpires mate - not. Swans were 6th for last year and 3rd against last year - having the 3rd most free kicks against you doesn't help your premiership campaign.
Brett
Roar Rookie
I did have my facts right and im not going over the top, Sydney were the trendsetters of slow congested defensive football, I was not talking about Geelong but well done to them for all there flags they have won Armstrong has been in and out but still has time, Seaby did his job required until he got injured but when he was playing the Swans were more then happy with his ruck work, both Tippett and Armstrong have time on their side, yes they could not stop them and that's where the Swans struck gold by getting players to come to them instead of Bradshaw going to Carlton or Tippett to GWS
Jsteel
Roar Pro
Disappointed, you had a really good idea for an article and wrote it well but let it down with wrong facts and over exaggerations to try make your point stronger. Geelong has also only missed one finals series since 2003, not "just Sydney" To say Tony Armstrong and Mark Seaby have played "at least decent roles" at Sydney is extremely debatable, and Kurt Tippett simply hasn't yet. In a lot of the recycled players cases as well there original clubs did actually still want them but couldn't stop them from leaving (Hall, Mumford, Bradshaw, Tippett, Armstrong...).
big dallo
Guest
me i like football. i am afraid to break it to you but you are some sort of clown.
diondioff
Roar Rookie
beny, They also didn't make the finals in 2003.
beny iniesta
Guest
Pretty sure Geelong has only missed the finals once since 2003. That being 2006 for the record, the down year that "launched" their period of success. I say this as a "bitter" St. Kilda supporter! (2004, 2009, 2010! - and 2005 for you Swannies - thanks for the memories Baz!)
Judes
Guest
You've got to be joking Kaga. It worked both ways on Friday- did you turn a blind eye to the Malceski incident?This year particularly we actually have been given less frees most weeks. A couole of games we won by 40 points but had half the frees of the opposition. So get your facts straight Kaga- & put your perspective glasses on. I agree we should have won one more flag- the 2006 grand Final we lost by 1 point - where afterwards it was shown that several in the WC team were drug cheats-but that's another story.
Matt
Guest
What exactly do those percentages represent me, I like football? If they are supposed to be % of games won, then your source is very ordinary to say the least and just wrong (perhaps you are measuring something completely different, and if you are then fair enough, but at least make it clear). If you are looking at winning percentage of matches in each season, then the actual numbers are below. 2002 - Geelong won 11 from 22 - 50% winning percentage Sydney won 9 from 22 = 41% winning percentage 2003 - Geelong won 7 from 22 = 32% winning percentage Sydney won 14 from 22, plus 1 from 2 finals = 15 from 23 = 65% winning percentage 2004 - Geelong won 15 from 22 + 1 final from 3 = 16 from 25 = 64% winning percentage Sydney won 13 from 22 + 1 from 2 finals = 14 from 24 = 58% winning percentage 2005 - Geelong 12 from 22 + 1/2 finals = 13/24 = 54% winning percentage Sydney won 15 from 22 + 3/4 finals = 19/26 = 73% winning percentage 2006 - Geelong 10 from 22 = 45% winning percentage Sydney won 14 from 22, + 2 finals from 3 = 17 from 25 = 68% winning percentage 2007 - Geelong won 18 from 22, plus 3 from 3 finals = 21 from 24 = 87.5% winning percentage Sydney won 12 from 22 games, 0 from 1 finals = 12/23 = 52% winning percentage 2008 - Geelong won 21 from 22, plus 2 from 3 finals = 23 from 25 = 92% winning percentage Sydney won 12 from 22, plus 1 from 2 finals = 13 from 24 = 54% winning percentage 2009 - Geelong won 18 from 22, plus 3 from 3 finals = 21 from 25 = 84% winning percentage Sydney won 8 from 22 = 36% winning percentage 2010 - Geelong won 17 from 22, plus 1 from 3 finals = 18 from 25 = 72% winning percentage Sydney won 13 from 22, plus 1 from 2 finals = 15 from 24 = 62.5% winning percentage 2011 - Geelong won 19 from 22, plus 3 from 3 finals = 22 from 25 = 88% winning percentage Sydney won 12 from 22, plus 1 from 2 finals = 14 from 24 = 58% winning percentage 2012 - Geelong won 15 from 22, plus 0 from 1 finals = 16 from 23 = 69% winning percentage Sydney won 16 from 22, plus 3 from 3 finals = 19 from 25 = 76% winning percentage Collating the statistics over those 11 seasons you have: Regular season Geelong: 163 from 242 - 67.4% winning record Swans: 138 from 242 - 57% winning record Finals Geelong: 14 from 21 - 66.6% winning record. Swans: 13 from 21 - 61.9% winning record Those numbers show just how fine a team Geelong has been, especially since 2007. But over the full period from 2002-12 as you listed, its a lot closer than what your set of numbers suggest, and unlike your suggestion, there are indeed 4 years where the Swans have a higher winning percentage. Of course, that also shows that statistically, geelong is a better team, but not everything about football is quantitative either. You won't get any argument back from me to say that Geelong has not been the pre-eminent team of the last half a dozen years. But Sydney are up there as a model of consistency, and an ability to make the best of what you have as well. I do want to pose a nice hypothetical for you however to ponder? Assume (and its a massive assumption of course) the Swans go on and win the flag this season, Geelong doesn't play in the grand final (knocked out for instance in the Prelim) and then both Geelong and the Swans fall off a cliff and never play football again. If you then look back in 20 years time, and compare the decade from 2004-2013, you would find two teams that have won three flags, lost one grand final and each having only missed 1 final series each in that period. Geelong's winning percentage is higher as shown before, but surely the game is measured as much by achieveing the ultimate goals, then by how many games you win along the way (the games that only live in the memory in the long term are the ones that matter?). Would it be so clear then that Geelong was so far above Sydney over that period? What I'm trying to say there is that the gap between the teams over the period isn't as great potentially as statistics suggest.
Brett
Roar Rookie
First I want to say the AFL has given out the increased living bonus because it is more expensive and Sydney and even though people may think they used it all on Tippett but look at the amount of delisting's and retirements since 2009, they had built room in the salary cap. Of course the AFL would like every team to be competitive to increase the interest in the competition, just look at how Gold Coast and GWS had help to start off with different levels of success so far, the Swans made a change to play a different style of football because it works for them. Also there is no umpiring bias whatsoever that is out of order, think why would the AFL say go easy on a certain team the umpires are umpiring to get given a game for next week just like the players, there is no match fixing and yes geelong has had a successful era winning more flags and staying competitive too
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
"Anyone doubting the help they get, just take a look at the umpiring last Friday night. If it was horse racing there would have been an inquiry into that." Tun it up mate!
me, I like football
Guest
Geelong have set the standard in recent times way above the swans and for every one of those spin statitics you used for the swans I could find 2 for the cats *Geelong were the only team to defeat Collingwood in 2011 and they did it 3 times not to mention ending a winning streaks of 14 games would of been 25(including 1 draw) if geelong had not defeated them earlier in the year *Geelong also almost ended St Kildas winning strek in 2009 but they actually went on to defeat them in the Grand Final *Geelong won by the higest margin ever in Grand Finals in 2007 (119 points) * geelong have 3 grand finals to theire name and since 2007 geelong have winning percentage over 81% as a matter of fact if you look at the end of every season since 2002 until now geelongs winning percentage is way above that of the swans Year Cats Swans 2012 84.6% 73.1% 2011 72.2% 67.1% 2010 78.7% 62.9% 2009 76.7% 61.6% 2008 78.4% 56.5% 2007 80.9% 56.4% 2006 81.4% 56.8% 2005 77.3% 57.8% 2004 74.6% 59.2% 2003 73.5% 59.1% 2002 70.1% 59.4% It’s Geelong setting the standard in recent time then daylight. I’m sorry but the Swans have to fight it out with the other clubs for second you may have a case
me, I like football
Guest
sorry, suppose to be the reply above
Matt
Guest
Firstly, I'll make it clear, I am a Swans fan through and through. Been following them since I first remember watching games as a 8 year old as the revival began in 1995, and been going to games for the past decade. So I don't present an unbiased view, but I think its relatively well balance. The Swans aren't an 'outstanding' team in the classical sense, as we have seen with other teams considered to be amongst the 'greats' (think Geelong, Hawthorn, Brisbane early 2000's), in that they are not a dominant team that beats all before them and smashes their way to a Premiership. However, they are outstanding in the fact of being a consistently competitive team year after year. Leaving aside any arguments about their playing style, its obvious that those within the clubs have found a way to stay competitive long term, and indeed be good enough to win flags as well in the process. Its one thing to just tread water in the middle of the table, its another to do that and challenge for flags as well along the way. Three grand final appearances, two grand final victories, plus an additional prelim final, plus finals in every year bar one, show just how big an achievement that really is. If you want a model of how to create a consistently successfuly club, then its hard to go past what the Swans are doing. Where credit really is due has been their ability under Roos and Longmire to replenish the list, absent of a whole host of early draft picks, and make good use of recycled players and those at other clubs looking for a second chance. There is no club, in my opinion, that has been better over the last decade at being able to find players at other clubs maybe not living up to potential, and then bringing them in and helping them lift to heights previously not seen. Teddy Richards is the best example of this at the moment, but he is one of so many to whom this applies. Saying all I've said before however I think does underplay just how good the Swans team of 2005-06, and the Swans team of 2012 (and hopefully 2013-14) have been. And whilst there are still period of 'dour football' in the current team, when on song (as they showed against Adelaide, Esssendon and Collingwood), they can play some superb football which leaves the opposition without answers. They are an exceptionally fine team, with a fantastic midfield, a superb defence (especially in 2012) and a work ethic second to none. I'm not convinced the Swans are good enough to beat Geelong or Hawthorn at the pointy end of the current season, but as a Swans fan, I know that when I watch them, they will give all they've got, and give again, and that is all you can ever ask for. As we saw in the 2012 Grand Final, these boys believe in their ability, and know that anything can happen in our great game. I will support them to the end, whatever that may be. I hope it might involve me bear hugging in joy a random swannies fan at the MCG as tears stream down both our faces as we celebrate another flag won by our club, but even if it is tears of despair after a season ending loss in the finals, I will remain so proud of a team that gives so much to its fans year after year, and is the envy of many out there in the AFL community. They are a class act, on and off the field, and I think that's a key reason why those that follow the Swans feel so very close and so very proud of their team. Just my (elongated) thoughts :) PS: For all those that whine about Sydney getting too much AFL support, either stop living in the days of the VFL, or at very least present some tangible evidence to support your claims. I know everyone goes on about the cost of living allowance, but that is simply one factor, and if you bother to understand how it is applied, I consider it really has little overall impact on player's decisions. We all hear how the Swans are an AFL 'favourite child', but very few people present evidence to actually show this to be the case.
wisey_9
Roar Guru
haha are you suggesting that there was some sort of directive from the AFL to the umpires of Friday night's game, telling them to umpires in the Swans favour? You need to get a grip. I'd argue that the umpiring was poor throughout the game - not just biased against the Blues. Don't forget that the Swans had one of the worst calls against them in the past decade, with the Malceski "rushed behind" incident.
Avatar
Roar Guru
There is no doubting that Sydney are setting the standard for success in the AFL, despite the dominance of teams such as the Brisbane Lions, West Coast, Geelong and Hawthorn. Those teams, and maybe a few others, have not had their way, partially because of the Swans. Examples: * Sydney were the only team to defeat Brisbane more than once in 2003, though they would get beaten by them in the preliminary final. * Sydney ended St Kilda's 10-match winning streak in 2004, and almost ended their 17-match winning streak in 2009. * In the years where Sydney have won the premiership, they defeated the most dominant team that year (West Coast and Hawthorn in 2005 and 2012 respectively). * They are also the only team to defeat Geelong at Simonds Stadium since 2007. Sydney are just going about their business quietly it seems....
Chairman Kaga
Guest
Let's face it, the Swans get looked after by the AFL. They are their favourite child and get a lot of assistance both on and off the field. If you want a serious discussion on this, the question begs they should probably have more than 2 flags the last 10 years. Anyone doubting the help they get, just take a look at the umpiring last Friday night. If it was horse racing there would have been an inquiry into that. The AFL is slowly but surely morphing into a WWE/pro wrestling style of organisation in the way it works results.
kurt
Guest
might be anti-football in your books but they play in the rule and play to there strengths, they win, and i support them, so ill take antifootball over melbourne football, any day of the week
Savvas Tzionis
Guest
"The results speak for themselves" The style speaks for itself... Anti-football.