The Sydney Swans ended 2015 an injury-riddled mess. Does the NSW capital’s elder sibling have genuine premiership hopes this season? Perhaps, but there is one big question, and many other smaller questions, that need to be answered.
John Longmire’s tenure as head coach of the Swans has involved five straight finals series and four finishes inside the top four. He’s presided over the reimagining of Sydney as a star-spangled Hollywood franchise, emerging from its scrappy, sludgy slumber under Paul Roos.
Both regimes brought the red and white the ultimate success, with Sydney’s most recent premiership coming in 2012, before the signing of key forward pairing Kurt Tippett and Lance Franklin.
While the coach is locked in until 2017, that doesn’t mean the team is sitting still. In fact, the Swans have the opposite problem in 2016: a third iteration of the modern Swans is emerging, one that melds the inside mettle of Roos and the penchant for attack honed in the first half decade under Longmire.
Football is, increasingly, driven by the run and carry and disposal quality of a team’s players. We’re a year or two into the pace and space era, and Sydney are a window into how the AFL is being shaken up.
We had a deep look at the Swans in July last year, noting that the team’s scoring power had declined despite their forward line investments, and that their style of ball movement had shifted to a more uncontested style to no great effect.
Sydney’s greatest strength has, historically, been its inside midfielders and their collective ability to win the ball in set piece situations. It was their backbone in the early 2000s, and a central feature of their game in the early part of this decade.
Last season, the Swans were ranked eighth in contested possession differential, but recorded a raw figure of just +0.8 per game – essentially a break even over the course of the home-and-away season. It was the second-weakest mark of last year’s top eight, with Hawthorn recording a differential of +0.5 per game over the year.
The Swans were similar to Hawthorn in another way: their uncontested possession differential of +32 per game was second only to the Hawks (+44 per game). However, the Hawks took an average of 112 uncontested marks per game, while the Swans took just 89.
That was likely driven by Sydney’s penchant for using handballs to dispose of the ball. Their 200 handballs per game was the most in the league, while their kick-to-handball ratio of 1.14 was the lowest in the competition by some margin. Their use of the handball was up on the 2014 season (from 194 per game), but their kick-to-handball ratio was significantly lower – down from 1.24 kicks per handball.
Sydney remains a team with a strong ability to win their own ball, and they increasingly want to use their legs with the ball in hand to move it forward. What remains to be seen is whether they Swans have the playing stocks to play that style of football at a high level.
In 2015, the Swans won just three of their eight games played against top eight sides, a remarkable stat for the fact that Sydney’s lone eventual double-up against a finalist came against Hawthorn. It was the weakest mark of the top four (Fremantle, West Coast and Hawthorn had winning percentages of 60 per cent, 50 per cent and 75 per cent respectively), and second only to North Melbourne for the worst mark of last year’s finalists.
In those eight games against last year’s finalists, the Swans managed an uncontested possession differential of +37 per game, compared to +29 per game against the also-rans. They got what they wanted by way of attacking method, but it didn’t work: Sydney scored just 74 points per game in those games against top eight sides, compared to 101 against the rest of the competition, while they conceded 88 points per game versus 62 points per game against the bottom ten.
Whether this is simply teething problems or signs that the coach has erred in moving his team away from what it does best, will be solved this season. Roar columnist Cam Rose reckons the time may have already come for Sydney to move on from Longmire as a result of the Swans’ slow descent into good-not-great status.
Personnel challenges
What is even more puzzling is that Sydney, the side trying to play with run and carry in a more concerted way than most other teams, have an abject lack of players with the outside pace to do so.
Have the AFL’s crazy, draconian, ridiculous, unedifying and manifestly unfair trade sanctions, which expired at the end of last season’s trade period, played a role in how the Swans have been able to adjust their list to this new style of play?
Sydney were barred from bringing in any players in the 2014 trade period regardless of how many left due to retirement or trade, and were allowed to bring in players earning below $450,000 per annum over the course of their deal in 2015 – a concession they used to sign Callum Sinclair from West Coast in the Lewis Jetta trade, and to pick up Dog defender Michael Talia for less than a half-eaten sandwich.
Now that the sanctions have come to an end, the Swans might be in the market for a few outside players in this off-season or beyond. For now, they will have to make do with what they have.
Outside of Dane Rampe, Jake Lloyd and Gary Rohan, none of Sydney’s midfield group scream linebreaker. The Swans lost Lewis Jetta to West Coast in last season’s trade period, who was Sydney’s only genuine wing-type player. They have been left to cobble together an outside game made up of players more suited to the in-and-under style of the Swans of old.
Dan Hannebery has been the big beneficiary of Sydney’s mode shift, with his pack bursting abilities coming into play as he emerged as Sydney’s best player last season. He is one of 18 players on the field at any time, though, and the load he and inside bull Josh Kennedy carried last season – both were first or second in disposals, contested possessions, inside 50s and clearances, and in the top five for uncontested possessions and tackles – is not sustainable.
Kieran Jack has been the most disappointing of Sydney’s midfield group, after blitzing the competition with his ‘rugby league background’ skills in the early years of the Longmire era. Of all of the Swans midfield group, he is the one that should be leading the way in this transition to an outside-dominant mode of ball movement. Yet he seems to have plateaued at a ‘good’ level.
This concern comes at a time where the Swans will enter the season with their youngest and least experienced list in a decade, according to Champion Data. DraftGuru pegs Sydney as the league’s sixth-youngest and 11th-most experienced list in 2016, making the Swans the youngest side of last year’s finalists.
This is likely driven by the retirements of Adam Goodes, Rhys Shaw and Mike Pyke, all of whom were over 30. Collectively, these players held 719 games of experience, and when Jetta and Craig Bird’s departures are included, the Swans lost close to 1000 games in the 2015 off-season. The trade ban meant the Swans brought in the 29 games of experience garnered by Sinclair – yeah, that trade ban might have bitten the Swans hard.
Coming into 2016, the Swans now have just three players in their 30-year-old or over season – Ted Richards, Jarrad McVeigh and Ben McGlynn. There are only 11 players with more than 100 games experience, too. This will be the greenest Sydney Swans team to go to battle for, well, at least a decade.
The loss of veteran heads has opened up plenty of spots for Sydney’s recent influx of very good-to-elite young talent. This group is headed by the 101-game Luke Parker, and includes recent draftees Tom Mitchell (39 games), Isaac Heeney (14) and Callum Mills, who despite being drafted in 2015 already looks a lock to start for the Swans in Round 1.
These four players look like the building blocks of a more balanced midfield group in, say, three or four years time, as the likes of McVeigh, Kennedy, Hannebery and Jack begin to age and move to more peripheral roles.
If Sydney wanted to be really brave, they could consider throwing Heeney into the midfield mix as early as this year, and substituting Kieran Jack into a role as a running defender off the half back line. The presence of elite lockdown defender Nick Smith afford Sydney some luxury in this respect – hey, how do you think Rhys Shaw could keep getting a game despite playing defence like James Harden – and Jack would give the Swans some extra oomph behind the ball.
It would make for a young inside midfield group, given Mitchell is already plying his trade through there, but it could be an option should the Swans be seeking some extra run.
All told, there is a clear incongruence between Sydney’s playing stocks and their want to move the ball with run and carry on the outside. The building blocks of an elite midfield group are still in place, but without an injection of pace the Swans will likely struggle to move the ball in the way they would like to.
What to do about Buddy?
Which leads us to the final point on the Swans for now: what to do about Buddy?
Franklin is entering the third year of a nine-year contract with the Swans, and is now smack bang in the middle of his prime age years at 28. His 2015 season was, in many respects, the worst of his career. He played 17 games (the least since 2006), kicked 2.8 goals per game (lowest since 2005), and had 14.7 disposals per game (the least since 2007).
Franklin’s year ended early due to mental health issues, and was arguably one of the catalysts behind Sydney’s finals fade out along with injuries to Parker and captain Jack.
At his best, Franklin looks like the only non-midfielder with the chops to pinch a Brownlow medal from those pesky midfielders, a feat he almost accomplished in 2014 in what was clearly his best season.
The Swans have another seven years of work to get out of Franklin – at the end of his contract he will be pushing 37. To put that into context, there is currently one player on an AFL list playing at this age: the indefatigable Brent Harvey, who might play into his 50s at his current rate. Which is to say the Swans should be judicious in the way they use their prized asset over the remainder of his useful life.
One of Franklin’s best attributes is his speed and agility for a player of his size. Why don’t the Swans consider using that pace to solve its midfield dilemma? Franklin could play as a high half-forward, or even a wingman if the situation demanded it.
It is a role he has played in fits and spurts throughout his career, as his 23 games with more than six inside 50 launches attests. His lead up marking and size would prove a nightmare match-up for opposition wings who would be some ten centimetres shorter and 15 kilograms lighter than number 23. The only concern would be on defence, where Franklin may not have the defensive chops to match it with more traditional wing players.
But it’s not as if the Swans are short on tall players. Tippett, Sam Reid, Sinclair and Toby Nankervis have all shown to varying degrees that they can play forward of the ball. Yes, the Swans look at their best when both Tippett and Franklin share the forward line, but Sydney’s dearth of outside talent calls for some drastic measures to be taken.
Which leads me to believe this might be a down year for the Swans. There are a lot of questions to be asked, without particularly satisfying answers.
Now, we aren’t talking a down year in the way that, say, Carlton and Essendon are likely to have a down year in 2016. The Swans will still be thereabouts when it comes to the end of August. There is no way known that the Swans don’t get to 11 or 12 wins just on talent alone.
The draw is kind enough – it projects as the second easiest on Pythagorean win percentage of last year’s top eight – and the likes of Hannebery and Kennedy are just about to hit prime age.
But the competition looks remarkably even this year as we have been saying since January, and by virtue of their past couple of years, the Swans have slid back into the quagmire of teams that stretches from the bottom of the top four to the top of the bottom six.
That’s not to say the Swans will end the year with double digits on their ranking – but the unbroken finals run of the Longmire era is certainly under threat.
Mark
Guest
I'm glad you got this very wrong.
Mark
Guest
Or just not pay players the amount agreed to in their contracts. You, sir, are not very bright.
Aransan
Guest
Dave, I hope GWS keep McCarthy. I think the AFL, in consultation with GWS, should give him the year off and add another year to his contract. To a significant extent young players are often unknowingly at the mercy of their agents who have a vested interest in getting their charges to change clubs for more money. The AFL is a national code and the big money is only available because it is, if players are seeking to become de fecto free agents on the basis of "homesickness" then they are in the wrong business -- nobody is forcing them to play AFL football.
Dave
Guest
An uneducated view on Academies. The traditional AFL states have never had to worry about things like "go home factor" and competition from NRL and rugby. The Swans have invested millions into their academies to encourage talented kids to go down the AFL path and when it finally pays dividends, with two, only two kids, it is seen as unfair. Yes, the Swans have been very lucky to develop two rare talents in two years but what about the next 3-4 when there are no obvious potential stars? Are you happy for the Swans to keep pumping millions into trying to develop kids from non-AFL areas or should they just go and play soccer or NRL? Just in the last year the Swans lost Jetta due to "homesickness", the Giants couldn't keep Treloar and have pretty much lost McCarthy and the poor Lions struggle to keep any kids with a glimmer of talent. Yep, those Academies are a really unfair. I think your article in pretty on the mark Ryan. Hopefully a few of the kids coming through will step up,. Papley looks a likely chance to take that step.
bloodssince1973
Roar Rookie
Mumford has had many famous moments - e.g. eating twenty sausages at a BBQ in his Geelong days... I recall his arrogance towards supporters at teh lakeside oval in September 2012 which did not endear him to many people. However we do miss him as a ruckman.
chris
Guest
There is one very simple counter to this incredibly short-sighted view... If the swans got rid of longmire.... Would any team finishing below say ... 8th not hire him... Or even say 5th..... Ridiculous... What other coach in history has a 100% record for making the 8?
Hyena
Guest
People keep referring to picking up Buddy and Tippett as a change in recruitment. Sydney has always had 1 or 2 marque players since the days of Warwick Capper, including Tony Lockett and Big Bad Bazza. Sure we haven't usually had 2 at the same time but I doubt the recruiters knew Buddy would be on the table when they negotiated with Tippett.
New York Hawk
Guest
I think you forget how dominant he was in 2008 because it was so long ago. He was great in 2014, but in 2008 he was The Man.
RnR
Guest
A good answer, it is far better to be a Swans fan in the 21th century than almost anyone else. FWIW The 'faithfull' to whom I referred are more likely to be found on Big Footy and RWO than the Roar. Which often includes thoughtful and well argued posts.
EddyJ
Guest
The Swans couldn't trade Tippet at the end of 2013 because he was one-third of the way into a three-year contract. Mumford, I think was ready to leave anyway, his 2013 season wasn't great, and probably saw the writing on the wall. Plus GWS was able to offer a larger and longer contract than the Swans. Also, just because Mumford has had a few good seasons at GWS, doesn't mean that he would have replicated that at the Swans. Sometimes, a change of scene can improve a player.
EddyJ
Guest
Well, everyone's entitled to their opinion. I would prefer to be in the Swans' position, than all other clubs, except for Hawthorn. What is success? Ultimately, it's winning the premiership, but I'd much rather be winning 69% of games, and make the grand final, than be in, say Melbourne's position over the past decade, or Richmond's since 1982. Of course, statistics are used selectively, but better to rely on them, rather than this subjective claim about 'the faithful' and what the may have said on an obscure site like The Roar. Who are 'the faithful'? Have you spoken to a sample group? Is it qualitative, or quantitative? I don't know what the answers are. I'm just saying that the Franklin/Tippet recruitment is nowhere near as bad as people are making it out to be, and most of the stupidity behind these discussions was created by Eddie Macguire. Everyone is saying the Swans will slide this year – sure, they are making informed comments about this: a loss of 1000 games of experience, some untried newbies, Longmire running out of ideas, etc. But, sport is unpredictable. A similar story was told about the Swans in 2003, when they lost about 800 games of experience, but rose to third position. Will other players step up (like they did in 2003)? Were the players that retired actually holding them back in 2015? I think Goodes was, Pike certainly, Shaw to a lesser extent. How will their luck with injuries pan out this year, compared to injuries that occur at other clubs. Do they have the right gel within the playing group? I'm not saying the Swans will do the same as 2003 this year (or even slide), but let's wait until the season starts to see how it pans out. And, as I've already mentioned, this silly debate has started up again, after a poor pre-season game against GWS. Get back to me when the season starts, and see what happens then.
RnR
Guest
When these big $$$ recruitments took place, some of the 'faithful' were very busy browbeating the doubters on the basis that it would win the Swans another flag. Apparently to question the clubs decisions is being disloyal. Now that the next premiership is looking further away, the 'faithful' start moving the goal posts. They talk about win/loss records, as if a flag is only a sort of bonus win (I suspect the increased membership argument will make an appearance shortly). Speaking of percentages: "Since Tippet was recruited, the Swans have won 69% of all matches . . . " - undoubtedly true, so too is that in the year before he arrived, the Swans won 76% of games. Does that "prove" Tippett was a bad buy, or just that the selective use of statistics is silly? Leaving such matters and returning to the recruiting discussion. While not all "underachievers" recruited by the Swans have been a success, enough of them have been, to allow the Swans to win 2 premierships. I won't ask how many more years will it be before the 'faithful' acknowledge that they were wrong and that the big $$$ approach has failed again. Frankly fans (or fanatics of any sort) never acknowledge error. PS Barling, James, Edmond and Rioli suggest that the Edelstone era recruiting was a success.
EddyJ
Guest
The old 'recruiting' chestnut. What would you do if Kurt Tippet and Lance Franklin contact you and say they want to play for your club? Do you say 'nah, sorry mate, we only pick up underachievers at our club, you know, rubbish players at other clubs that we try to improve'. No, you work out a way of accommodating those players and getting them to your club as quickly as possible. For every success story that the Swans have had at recruitment (etc. Ted Richards, Rhys Shaw), there's about 10 others that didn't make the grade, so this strategy is risky, as is, of course, picking up a top recruit for nine seasons. Since Tippet was recruited, the Swans have won 69% of all matches, three top-four finishes, and made the Grand Final in 2014. That's not bad – only Hawthorn and Fremantle have a similar or better record. Since Franklin arrived, the Swans have won 70% of all matches, two top-four finishes, made the Grand Final. Two players don't make a team, but I'd suggest that so far, the recruitment policy has been very successful. Of course, that doesn't mean the future seasons will be exactly the same, but so far, it's been a very successful strategy. And, unless you're Hawthorn, your team isn't going to win the premiership each year. Also, the Edelstone era wasn't 'idiocy', it was a good policy of getting the best players and coach to the club. In 1986 and 1987, the Swans were a very very good, high scoring, speedy team. Fell apart in the finals though, and players left after 1988, but that was a very good team.
RnR
Guest
The change in the Swans inter-club recruitment philosophy - from picking up under achievers and improving them, to buying big ticket items like Tippett and Franklin has not brought the expected premiership success and I surely even the Swans faithful must be wondering whether it ever will. I suspect that in time, their supporters may come to debate which was the worst Swans trade. Neville Fields, the Edelstone idiocy or Horse's high stakes gamble.
RnR
Guest
I regard Shane Mumford is the most influential ruckman I have ever seen in red and white. You just have to look at the difference his presence on the ground made to the Giants in the last two years. Chalk and cheese. As to his injuries, the extraordinary way he played his position made them certainties. Other ruckmen would have crumpled completely under such a load - certainly Pike did.
EddyJ
Guest
"it’s plain to see that there is not a winning culture at this club". That's an odd comment. Since the premiership year in 2012, the Swans have won 69% of their matches (second to Hawthorn – 80%), made the top four, made the Grand Final in 2014. If fact, aside from Hawthorn, they are the only other team to win a premiership since 2012! Who knows what the 'issues' are at the Swans that holding them back from winning every single game, but I'd say they haven't done too badly since 2012 – certainly better than 16 other teams. It seems like many people have made their comments based on what they saw when the Swans played GWS last weekend – a practice match during the pre-season. Richmond were thrashed by Port Adelaide tonight – is that the end of Richmond for the year? The good thing about sport is its unpredictability – both Geelong and Fremantle lost their two finals matches in 2014, Fremantle topped the ladder in 2015, Geelong fell away. Either of these options could happen to the Swans, but just because something happened in the past (and to a different club), doesn't mean that it will happen. Conversely, people saying things like ‘the Swans are always written off, they'll make it’, etc. Sure, they were predicted wooden spooners in 2013, but ended up coming third – that might happen again but then again, it might not. The Swans have got the players to do well in 2016, but it will come down to the usual factors – coaching tactics, skill, bringing out the best of players at the right time, injuries and some luck. As for these issues: "but there’s just been too many decisions that have left me going, pardon my french, what the f—? …" – transforming Lewis Jetta into a defensive player. Coaches are always trying out different things, according to circumstances. Alex Johnstone was a big loss, and they've tried Rohan and Jetta to fit into that particular game plan. Didn't work out, but as least they tried. – playing Gary Rohan as a half-back. Ditto. – moving Buddy up the ground. Worked a real treat in 2014, not so in 2015, but it looks like there were other factors affecting his performances. – playing Tippett in the ruck/giving him minimal time inside 50. He's back to playing the role he had at Adelaide. Pyke had a poor final year, and other ruck players were not up to scratch. – turning the Swans into a crazy handballing side. Yes, agree. – not improving (in fact, worsening) the Swans skills. I'd say Dane Rampe is the only one that has poor kicking skills, and made some atrocious errors in the backline. Aside from that, it's not too bad. – letting Nick Malceski go. The 2015 season shows that it was probably the right decision. – playing Sam Reid in defense. Reid has proved to be quite effective in defence. I'd say anything like this it to be encouraged, to get him away from having set shots at goal. – considering using Callum Sinclair as more of a forward (instead of Tippett). That's how he was used at West Coast. It's early days.
Michael Huston
Guest
No point trying to seek logic in Longmire's vision. I respect what he has done thus far, and he deserves a place in history for the job he did in 2012, but there's just been too many decisions that have left me going, pardon my french, what the f---? ... - transforming Lewis Jetta into a defensive player. - playing Gary Rohan as a half-back. - moving Buddy up the ground. - playing Tippett in the ruck/giving him minimal time inside 50. - turning the Swans into a crazy handballing side. - not improving (in fact, worsening) the Swans skills. - letting Nick Malceski go. - playing Sam Reid in defense. - considering using Callum Sinclair as more of a forward (instead of Tippett). to name a few.
Michael Huston
Guest
AllMumford ever did was get reported or injured. Don't like his recklessness and never did. In all fairness, coming off the back of the premiership, we had exactly one forward, and that was a 32 year old Adam Goodes limping around on a bung knee. So at the time, the priorities were 10000% forward > ruck. However, I was the only person who believed we could have won at least another flag without a permanent forward. Unconventional, but it worked for us. And in 2014, our midfield dominated for most of the season with an ineffective rucking combination, and the grand final performance was not decided on the back of ruck influence. So, Mumford or any other ruckman for that matter, doesn't warrant a mention really...
Kreese
Guest
If the Swans were able to hang on to Shane Mumford, they would be a lock for a top 4 finish. I can't understand why, at the end of 2013, the Swans didn't trade Tippett to ensure they could hang on to Mumford. A quality ruckman is what the Swans are missing. They have one of the best midfields in the competition which fails to get clean delivery at the stoppages. What's the point of having two superstar forwards when the midfield struggles to get the ball into the forward 50? Bring back Mummy!
Michael Huston
Guest
Interesting topic, and I respect that you actually make a detailed analysis of the Swans current state, as opposed to some who say 'they suck because they're old' (paraphrasing). I've said this before but what I'm witnessing with the Swans is something that's really rare, so rare that I can't actually think of a team just sort of losing the plot the way the Swans have. There really are just so many contributing factors that it's baffling that they're still a top four team, let alone a top eight team. If you think about the off-field distractions that came with the Tippett-Buddy signing/COLA debate, the Adam Goodes saga, the (ridiculous) trade ban enforced by the AFL, the over-use of the handballing, the fact that some players have literally just lost their mojo, the fact that in 2013 and 2015 we were literally bombarded with injuries right in the middle of finals football, that John Longmire undeniably overcomplicates the Swans game-plan, that the Swans had to completely change their game-plan with two key forwards injected, that many of our premiership players have retired or moved clubs... it's an incredible amount of variables that ultimately lead to so many what-if scenarios. Take out any one of them and replace them with something good, and who knows what could have happened. It's for that reason that I still, after three years of analysing and scrutinising the heck out of this Swans outfit, am unable to come up with a legitimate explanation as to why the Swans have declined. My best response is this: They've been through a s---storm the last few years, created both by themselves and external sources, both on and off the field. I'm not making excuses, I'm just saying all of the above are reasons enough for a team to perform not at their highest level, and when you consider that all of that has taken place fairly constantly since 2012, it's not surprising they aren't performing at their highest level on a regular basis. What I will say is that the most damaging thing that could have happened for the Swans future was to win the 2012 flag. Yes it was wonderful, but it also changed the Swans, particularly this group of Swans players and the aura of the club. It changed them more so than any COLA controversy or Buddy recruit could. They went from being under the radar, regularly hunting teams rather than being the ones who are hunted. Then seemingly out of nowhere, John Longmire loosens the shackles, let's many of the Swans play free-flowing, creative football, they go to the MCG and beat the highly-fancied prime-time team of the era (and beat them at their own game, mind you), and suddenly, they go forward not only as the hunted, but as premiership players. You have Alex Johnson (20), Nick Smith (24), Lewis Jetta (23), Dan Hannebery (21), Craig Bird (23), Sam Reid (20), Josh Kennedy (24), as well as Kieren Jack (25) and unlikely guys such as Heath Grundy and Mike Pyke all with premierships under their names. It's an underdog story of a very young team doing the impossible. Post-2012 football for the Swans has looked like routine, like business-as-usual. Like it's a 9-5 job for them as opposed to a passion. They seem to have not only crumbled under the pressure that comes with expectation, but they've also lost the desire. This is where Hawthorn come in. When the Hawks won that flag in 2008, the Swans were just as quality in 2012. The difference? The Hawks clearly had a winning culture, where one never seemed to be enough. They've known when to turn it on when the victory is on the line, the Swans have caved whenever the victory is on the line. It's that simple. The Hawks have willed themselves to reinvent, to succeed, to thrive on being the hunted. The Swans, since 2012, have always had this attitude of 'eh, it'll do.' It comes out in their half-baked handballs, it comes out in their arrogance during a good performance, it comes out in their kicks that clearly aren't mastered well enough because they miss their target by a few metres, it comes out in their frequent tendency to put the cue in the rack against a lower side, it comes out in their refusal to switch up a game-plan whenever the going gets tough. Watching guys like Isaac Heeney, Luke Parker, Dean Towers, Brandon Jack etc will themselves to improve and try hard at various stages of last season was devastating because they looked like they were stranded on an island with a bunch of experienced natives who knew the island back to front so didn't bother to give the new guys any instructions. Watching Gary Rohan frequently putting his body on the line despite injury setbacks to get back into the best 22 since his injury in 2012 has been heart-breaking because it feels like his effort has rarely been emulated by the majority of his team. I may be sounding dramatic here, but I don't think it has as much to do with Buddy and Tippett as people would like to think. Yes, they've altered the Swans, and they're one of the many contributing factors I listed above ^. But I know these boys, and I believe in them, and I've followed basically their every move on the field since 2012 (and before, of course), and the one thing that's stood out to me more than anything - even the infuriating handballs or lack of skill or ineffective forward efficiency - is the attitude of the players. They constantly exist in this strange combination of defeatist and arrogance. They've had some great moments over the past few years, and for a large portion of 2014, they looked the best any Swans outfit has ever looked, but even then I could see their attitudes didn't represent a winning team. So, my verdict is this: There is a lot that Sydney need to improve, and it's borderline impossible to improve it all in one season to loft the trophy by October. I'm a realist here guys. They need to do less handballing. They need to revert to their former ways of spacious slingshot football. They need to tighten their forward 50 entries. They need to improve their basic skills (kicking, marking mainly). John Longmire needs to stop trying to make his players flexible and just let them flourish in their destined positions. But above anything else, they need to somehow create a winning culture, because it's plain to see that there is not a winning culture at this club that deserves a hell of a lot more than it's allowing itself.