AFL preview series: Sydney Swans

Hate the way the Swans have played this pre-season - turnovers and skill errors that plagued last year have made them seem inept, but I'm not prepared to predict a tumble yet. Last season was no failure. In the qualifying final the Swans were without Franklin, Parker, Jack, Smith, all of whom have been All Australians and lost Sam Reid in the 2nd quarter but still went within 10 points of Freo in Perth . No shortage of depth and "bloods culture" in that effort. There's also much nonsense spoken about Longmire and the Swan's game plan. It's true that the team suffered scoring runs against it in 2015. But guess what? So did every team in the comp. Hawthorn itself found that out against Port in Adelaide, Sydney in Melbourne and memorably against the Eagles in the qualifying final. The game has changed in the past 2 years. Hawthorn has set the way with a focus on quick ball movement and uncontested possessions creating rapid scoring runs. All the blood and guts effort in the world can't stop scoring if you can't get near the ball. In 2012 Hawthorn topped the season in uncontested possessions - they did so again in 2015 but with a massive 17% increase of total uncontested possessions over that time. You might think that this evolution has passed by the old Swans contested, clearance game . And that would be true if Longmire hadn't evolved the Swans gameplan as well. It's not noticed much but Sydney has become a much more "outside" team. Surprisingly to many, Sydney was the team with the 2nd highest number of uncontested possessions in the AFL last year. Longmire has stressed a spread and move the ball quickly method. The Swans vulnerability isn't speed or effort. It's a foot skill level that doesn't quite match that ambition. In 2015 it was turnovers, and inconsistent delivery into the forward 50 that took the edge off the Swans. While it was 2nd to Hawthorn in total disposals Sydney dropped to 8th in disposal efficiency. (mind you the culprits weren't the ones mentioned in this thread - the most effective Swans disposer was Heath Grundy at 82.3% which is close to elite - higher than say Bob Murphy 80.3%. Even Dane Rampe scores a creditable 78.8% above other backline rebounders like Heath Shaw 78.3%, Corey Enright 78.5% or Shaun Burgoyne 78%). But Sydney will fall short if disposal efficiency doesn't rise to execute the gameplan -which is why within it's power under trade and drafting restrictions the Swans stressed kicking ability in its draft pocks in 2105. Callum Mills as home grown academy product is at the heart of this strategy.

Will be out for all of 2016 sadly. Such a sad story

@Paul D, well we've just signed Smith, plus Parker and Hannebery on long term contracts. So it's looking good so far

I would like to know if our bionic Johnson can still be a revelation should have been given the 2012 madal maybe another could go his say

No way in hell is Mills a fringe player, that is for sure.

Holy shi...t. Was it 42 appearances...that's even better than I remember. He came out to my club when I was playing for the West Adelaide Bloods as a junior before changing zones to Port Adelaide. I remember my father saying, "that man is the dirtiest player you're ever likely to meet!" Still to this date I have no idea why he was at an under 13's training day in Adelaide of all places. Not exactly the type of player you want being a role model either. I got his autograph though, but I doubt it's worth much!

Long way to go Rick. Rhys-Jones record is actually 42 appearances. 25 as the charged and 17 as the 'victim'.

Mills, B.Jack and Talia are bloody handy fringe players.

Don't lose sight of the fact they have still drafted in two of the hottest young talent in the past two seasons. Mills and Heeney is like Richmond getting Cotchin and Deledio years ago - the difference being that Richmond got those picks when they finished on or near the bottom, compared to Sydney who finished 2nd and 4th. Don't feel sorry for them.

Don't rate Jake Lloyd? He's not amazing but is a solid hard worker on a wing with neat skills if given enough space. Certainly best 22 ahead of Zak Jones and given injuries. He'll surely be there in round 1. I think you overvalue Tippett. He might be the premier ruck/forward in the game but so what? You can only be in 1 place at once. In the ruck he's solid but not in the top few rucks who really influence games. Forward he's good, but needs the right delivery and match up to regularly impact. I'm not sure he'll slide between the roles effortlessly. Especially given Sinclair might struggle against better rucks and struggle to influence forward. How much of a difference does Tippett and Sinclair make compared to Hawthorn using McEvoy and Ceglar? For all the extra talent the Sydney pair might have due to Tippett it could be a 1 goal a game differene and no structural advantage. I'd try Sam Reid down back as well, but given the lack of Sydney goal kickers he might be better forward. Sinclair is used to getting out of the way of gun talls at West Coast, he might need to play 3rd fiddle to Franklin and Reid. Let's see if Reid has more influence this year. The big negatives for Sydney certainly are: 1. Key defenders 2. McVeigh being too old, Mills too young at half back for a top 4 side 3. Lack of outside mids 4. Lack of goal kicking options They have some star players who they can spread around to fix these problems ie. Luke Parker forward, Hannebery outside, even Josh Kennedy back. But at the end of the day unless a few guys really step up out of nowhere it will be too much shuffling the decks.

Stevie J I'm certain wants to beat David Rhys-Jones 25 tribunal appearances. What an achievement that would be.

Yeah, I was more replying to D Large above. Will be very interesting to see how many starting team players the Swans lose to other clubs during the next 5-6 years. That bloods culture will be more important than ever because they're going to have to rely on other factors than pure money to keep players at the club, because it's a safe bet most of their first choice players will be able to earn more elsewhere as they come out of contract.

No-one really knows how this nine-year deal will play out, but it was probably a case of the Swans being creative when they wanted to secure one of the best players in the league. Who knows what will happen in five years time, so probably best to extract the best in the here and now period, and defer any problems towards the future. That's probably what the Swans were thinking, but we'll find out how good that decision was in about five years time. I'm not one who agrees with this idea that the Swans 'culture' has fallen apart since Franklin and Tippet were signed up – they've had three top four finishes since Tippet arrived in 2013 (two since Franklin arrived in 2014), and made the Grand Final in 2014. They've also won 69% of games since 2013. The Swans haven't done too badly, and only second to Hawthorn during this time. As for the future, that could be a different story, but we won't know until the end of this season. The depth of the Swans second-tier players is not great – they're about three reasonable players short, and their reserves competition (NEAFL), is not at the same level at WAFL, SANFL or VFL, which means the step up to AFL for those players is greater. However, this only becomes a problem if there are injuries to players (or lack of form), so we'll just have to see how that plays out throughout the season. Also, for those who are criticising Dean Towers, he has got some talent but he's 25, so I'm not so sure how much further he can develop. He's only played 17 games, but 2016 has got to be a breakout year, otherwise that might be it for his career.

I think we're on the same page here Paul. I said the Swans are going to start paying the price for their blatant abuse of COLA. Those numbers are how I remember them being reported. Look at the 2016 figure and relate it to my post above to D.Large. The very fact they took the salary cap inflation into consideration when signing Franklin means they can't rely on it to get out of trouble. The salary cap will always go up, but it's going to go up for the opposition as well. They signed him on a 9 year deal, affectively $1.5 million a season, because we all know he won't be playing that level of football at 35. Teams like Freo, Geelong, Hawks, WCE & Collingwood, which are all very well run clubs are going to have a field-day when it comes to Sydney in the next 5 years. All of those clubs I believe are in a better position to win he flag in the next 5 years also. Those are the Swans major competitors and they have strapped lead-boots to themselves by signing Tippet and Franklin in the way they did. COLA can't save them, nor inflation or anything else for that matter. We are in total agreement.

Good points D, but it's all relative. Let's look at the benchmark in the Hawks. To my knowledge, not one player has a contact over 800k a year. Most of their players are between 400-600k. The Cats are also very similar with Danger excepting a 800k contact, which just shows players are willing to stay/move for success when we look at these two clubs. The Swans at present have two players above this, with one quite a bit above. The Swans are not going to get 9 years out of Franklin - more likely 5-6 years best as a key forward. This basically means he's a $1.5 million a year player, coupled with a 900k player in Tippet. That's imbalanced, and I'm being extremity generous when I say that. The Swans have problems, big problems and without COLA, I have no idea how they grind those numbers down irrespective of pending retirements of champion players in the coming 5+ years.

An Age article (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/revealed-buddy-franklin-to-profit-heavily-in-later-years-of-megadeal-20131009-2v8qk.html) from 2013 states the following: "Lance Franklin is contracted to be paid close to $1.5 million in the eighth year of his ground-breaking nine-year contract, with the superstar forward's payments due to peak in the seventh and eighth seasons. Fairfax Media has learnt some details of Franklin's unprecedented contract, which sees him paid at the low end in the first two seasons of 2014 and 2015, when he receives about $700,000 a year, but it rises to around $1.2 million in the third season (2016) and remains at about $1.2 million in both years four (2017) and five (2018). The star forward is due $1.3 million in the sixth year (2019), $1.4 million in 2020 and is contracted to get close to $1.5 million - expected to be more than 10 per cent of the salary cap even then - in 2021, when he will be 35." So I don't agree with the argument salary cap isn't the issue, it hasn't even started to become the issue yet. Basically the Swans are hoping that the cap continues to rise over coming years, and they essentially "inflate" their way out of this problem, as Buddy's contract allocation becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of the cap over time. Even so, unless the salary cap hits more than 15 million in 2021 (currently it's 10 million) that's still 10% of the cap on one player. That's a big outlay.

Very good points Paul, especially their depth issues. I remember seeing an interview with Andrew Ireland after the Swans signed Franklin. It was a shock to everyone - how could they afford such a player, especially after signing Tippet on a 900k plus contract the year prior? Andrew explained the unique nature of the 9 year deal, which seemed ludicrous at the time and still does in my opinion. I'm pretty certain a lot of Franklin's pay is back-ended, which means the depth issue you are discussing is going to worsen. I may have heard that wrong, but I'm almost certain this is how they landed him, whilst keeping him under the salary-cap. An even bigger problem for the Swans: they have already taken an increase in the salary-cap into account when offering such a long & expensive contract. The AFL gave the Swans a stern warning and advised against the signing due to the high risk involved, but at the end-of-the-day they went against such advice. That high risk is now starting to unfold, especially with Buddy being diagnosed with mental heath issues, which could basically mean anything. Like you said, two premierships is a bare minimum return on such an investment and I just don't see that happening whatsoever!

Good points Rick & Paul, however I don't think the salary cap has been their issue, nor will it be going forward. With the amount of high earners that have left the club or retired since Buddy joined, coupled with no trades in the last 2 years I would imagine they have a reasonable war chest ready. They'll be very active in the next trade period.

“Using COLA to their advantage with two-pairs each year is how they should have played their cards, not smacking the rest of the competition in the face with a lay-down-misère.’ As a card enthusiast, I do like that analogy, it’s very apt. As you say, if they hadn’t signed Franklin this wouldn’t have been an issue, and if they don’t win a flag while he’s there it will be seen as a colossal failure. Some would argue 2 flags is the bare minimum. I think the Achilles heel of the Swans has already been established – depth. The money Franklin and Tippett are on inevitably leaves less to sign and retain quality depth players on the list, and the gap between their best and worst players in the squad is growing very wide indeed. The Swans will undoubtedly be hoping like hell an increased cap from the TV deal goes some way towards bailing them out of their cap issues – they’ve already got the marquee players, so while other clubs are also having to part with 1 million+ figures to retain their marquee signings, the Swans will have more cash to spend on their depth players. In theory anyway.

I hate dragging out Media driven terms, but to me the Swans have lost their 'Bloods Culture'..... They used to have such heart as individuals and as a collective