The end of an era

and who do you barrack for. your not in bed with Anon. ?

Now I know you are a keeper is faeces. Good call for the year.

Don't mistake a rebuild for a collapse. Over the past couple of decades each of these three teams have shown an ability to rebuild on the fly rather than dropping back to the bottom. Speaking for the Swans, they've missed just 3 of the last 23 finals series through three coaches and a few generations of players. This club's success is bigger than its coach or its players. It's a culture of success. Think the Swans midfield is done ? Think again. In 2018 the Swans robbed the midfield to prop up gaps in the forward line. By contrast the Swans of 2019 is a mixture of experience heads and new emerging talent. They have a plethora of midfield options. Ollie Florent - Serious wheels, rising star nomination, broke out in 2018 Harry Cunningham - More speed, also broke out in 2018 *Ryan Clarke - Gives Swans even more run Josh Kennedy - Midfield bull. Still able to turn a game on his own Luke Parker - Another bull. Very dangerous when resting forward *Callum Mills - Pure talent. Defensive midfielder getting better each year. 2019 will see far more time in the middle Isaac heeney - Another remarkable talent approaching his prime. Versatile and difficult to match. George Hewett - Shuts down absolutely anyone, even a Brownlow medallist, and gets his own ball too. *Nick Blakey - Midfield/Forward top draft pick. Ready to play. A huge coup for the Swans Kieren Jack - Hard, experienced mentor midfield/forward who has plenty to give *Jordan Dawson - Tall strong midfielder/forward *Robbie Fox - Versatile young midfielder, emerging talent. *James Rowbottom - Tough young inside md Zak Jones - Agressive defensive midfielder Tom Papley - Aggresive midfielder/forward and goal sneak *Matthew LIng - First round draftee 2017. Pacey midfielder/defender. Injured in 2018 *James Bell - Emerging hard running midfielder As an added bonus the Swans of 2019 will also have Sam Naismith to back up Callum Sinclair in the ruck. First use the ball means everything at the SCG * New to the Swans midfield

THEN POST IT! Otherwise stop saying you have when you clearly haven't.

I wrote a long explanation why it would not make any difference or "even" up the competition but deleted it when I realised you will not be swayed by any reasonable argument. In the end it's a game of numbers. You have a state a population of only 2.5 mil compared to Melbourne alone with 5 mil people. The bulk of the viewing audience and population is in the east and that's why there will always be more teams here. Take heart in the fact that if Melbourne only had four teams, you might travel less but the increase in available talent to those teams would mean Victorian teams would permanently occupy the top four. If it annoys you so much follow Subiaco or West Perth. Problem solved.

Richmond had one tall foward and five smalls,although Caddy plays like a tall. I think Edwards and Prestia are good midfielders. Are you referring to Grigg when he Rucks ?

Bulldogs were worse.

Richmond won a premiership with one forward two midfielders and a ruckman that can’t tap! Worst premiers ever, but they still won!

Menzel, Reid, Sinclair and a more experienced McCartin will help Buddy this year. Mills, Jones, Blakey will back up Parker/Kennedy. Don't forget the Swans defeated every other top 8 team except Richmond in 2018. While they lacked depth and struggled with injury all year they still accounted for 1/3 of West Coast's losses. Swans will finish top 4 in 2019 and play GF in 2020 and/or 2021. Anything can happen in a GF. Sydney's last two years were rebuilding. Geelong will finish top 8 again and Hawks too if they can cover Mitchell (big loss) but will be the stronger for it in 2020.

How have the AFL rewarded mediocrity in the last decade exactly? What draft picks have been gifted. “Father son picks is an even playing field for all teams as the rule is the same for all teams” That applies across the board – the rules are the same for all teams, just some teams get greater benefits from them than others. As far as “myopia” goe and the situation with Carlton as a comparison to Geelong it is worth remembering this; Between 1981 and 2001 Carlton had won 4 premierships and appeared in 7 Grand finals. Between 1995 and 1998 they lost the likes of Kernahan, Madden, Hanna, Williams, Spalding, Dean and they still made the grand final in 1999 and finished second after the home and away season in 2000 and then 5th in 2001 with 14 wins. They lost Sexton in 2000, Rice and Silvagni in 2001, then Bradley in 2002 and then Ratten, McKay and Hickmott in 2003 and the rest as they say is history. They barely broke stride after the first group of premiership stars left but the second was devastating.

I suppose that depends on how much myopia one suffers from. Father son picks is an even playing field for all teams as the rule is the same for all teams, regardless of success or failure, other than possibly GWS and GCS due to their time in the competition. In the future it could be any team that gets the benefit of Father son picks. Not so with draft picks. In saying that I am not saying there should not be some "boost' for poor performers. Its just a matter of how far the AFL should go in rewarding mediocrity and poor club culture year after year.

Oh Don, the Cake song the distance springs to mind; "As they speed through the finish, the flags go down The fans get up and they get out of town The arena is empty except for one man Still driving and striving as fast as he can The sun has gone down and the moon has come up And long ago somebody left with the cup But he's driving and striving and hugging the turns And thinking of someone for whom he still burns" It's over, you lost, move on.

Maybe you'll understand monosyllabic words.

Is this what I have reduced you to Don one word answers to questions that were not even asked? It’s better to walk away when you have been beat than carry on like thid

No.

The original thread comment? So you want me to say “no I am not arguing that” before you even suggest I am arguing it? And in the post above a specifically reference “the original post” so what am I supposedly avoiding? This is hilarious though, watching you grasping for anything that justifies you wasting 4 days of you life prosecuting an argument that if you had the slightest clue you should have known on Friday was wrong.

The original thread comment. I assume you are choosing to not deal with that. Avoid! Avoid!

Once again your comprehension skills fail you, the claim is obviously I am arguing “29yo is too old to play top AFL footy.”. As for my answer I repeatedly said “No I am not arguing that” (which is a valid respsonse if “yes, I am arguing that” is a valid response), asked you to demonstrate where I have said such a thing and pointed to the phrase “on the horizon” to clarify my statements more than once, the fact that despite all this you took 4 days to comprehend what I was saying clearly shows my comments about your inability to comprehend weren’t “avoidance” but accurate assessments. I do love that you seem to think you being completely wrong is somehow my fault. ” Your choice to not go there straight away” For the record you made your original post at 9.16 on the 18th of Jan, my next post at 10.20am asked “Why would you think that is what I am saying Don?” and my subsequent post (after being told it is what I am arguing) at 12.35 was “No Don, it isn’t what I am arguing”. So just an hour after your post I query why you would think that (which should have been a clue that I wasn’t saying it) and just over 2 hours later you get the outright denial that you now say you wanted, yet 3 days later you were still claiming I was arguing 29 was too old and hadn’t answered your question. Time to give it up Don, you have lost and this flailing around is undignified.

Don - "Good to know you don’t think 29 is not to old" Anyone blessed with the intelligence of a gnat would have known this back on the 18th when I said "No Don, it isn’t what I am arguing" but it is no surprise you are 4 days behind the rest of us. "Metaphorical horizons’ had nothing to do with anything at all in this article." So we are all constrained by the boundaries set in the article, we can not expand? And given we were talking about what I was arguing surely what I said should have been your reference point not the article. What I love most about this post of yours is that you can actually see the penny dropping, the realisation that you have been banging away with your "It’s actually what you argue…always. It’s also what you have argued here. " and "Why did you mention ages? You must have had a reason?" thinking you were on solid ground and now finally you understand what was said in the original post and the earth disappears from below your feet and even as you plummet down you still don't admit defeat, you still try to cling to some small thread of righteousness even though you know you have been completely outclassed.

What’s the claim? You could answer, “Yes I am arguing that” or ‘No, 29yo is a very competitive age.” Your choice to not go there straight away but to do your ‘comprehension’ avoidance thing is completely in character but totally useless as a contribution to the initial conversations.