Player Watch #12 Angus Sheldrick

[Bandicoot]

It is commonplace in Roman society to address me as Imperator Caesar, or simply Imperator. However I will also settle for a term originating from my native tongue - "mate."

Or you can just go with the many names bestowed upon me by my missus. "You dumb f***" gets a workout on a nearly daily basis.

Re Rowles, I remember watching a reserves game where he was going so fast his legs were doing that blurry circular thing I thought only happened in animated cartoons.

I would have thought that simply "emperor" would suffice.

 

[Dubai Quacker]

PB in the 2k time trial - Gus is fit & firing.

Just needs to avoid injury to be a break-out star this year.

 

[Punts]

Whose place he taking?

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Whose place he taking?

Rowbottom will have less mid time

I reckon the main 6 mids rotated through will be

Parker Adams (will also share a spot in the fwd rotation)
Gulden Warner
Sheldrick Rowbottom

Hopefully having Parker/Adams fwd will offer leadership, smarts and comtested ball winning ability. I guess Gus and Erol will also play fwd at times.

Hayward is the vulnerable fwd given Horses fondness for three talls.

 

[Bloods86]

Rowbottom will have less mid time

I reckon the main 6 mids rotated through will be

Parker Adams (will also share a spot in the fwd rotation)
Gulden Warner
Sheldrick Rowbottom

Hopefully having Parker/Adams fwd will offer leadership, smarts and comtested ball winning ability. I guess Gus and Erol will also play fwd at times.

Hayward is the vulnerable fwd given Horses fondness for three talls.

Warner should see reduced time (from 53% CBA), which is on par with Rowy (55%) as per 2023. Warner and Gulden should come off a wing, or rotate with Paps as the dynamic mid of the 3 at CBs. Gulden at 36% will probably stay the same.

Suspect Parker will reduce from 75% CBA to 50 odd, with Adams taking his and Warner's reductions.

Mills 37% will be eaten up by Adams, Sheldrick a little. Wouldn't expect Gus to become a main mid just yet, with his interruptions.

Mills may not fit on his return, unless we play Parker predominantly forward. Especially given we likely didn't bring Jordon up to play VFL (a step down from his role at a Top 4 side with a better midfield), though he may play off a wing/HF.

Expect to see Rowy about the same, because it'll be Swans coaching staff making that call.

Hayward will likely be safe for the same reason, though with less justification.

But anyway, just realised this was the Gus thread, not an overall mid thread. So that's my 2 cents and done.

 

[Kiama Chris]

Rowbottom will have less mid time

I reckon the main 6 mids rotated through will be

Parker Adams (will also share a spot in the fwd rotation)
Gulden Warner
Sheldrick Rowbottom

Hopefully having Parker/Adams fwd will offer leadership, smarts and comtested ball winning ability. I guess Gus and Erol will also play fwd at times.

Hayward is the vulnerable fwd given Horses fondness for three talls.

I believe that ONE of the reasons that Hayward plays is to engage the opposition interceptor and make it hard for him to zone off. I don't think any of the six mentioned above have that capability.
I'll be surprised if he's first man overboard unless way out of form. One of the mids might get named in the forwards. My preference for the seven:
Heeney McDonald Papley
Wicks Amartey Hayward McLean
Parker might be named instead of Wicks or Hayward but I hope not. Weakens us defensively.

 

[rustycrate]

I believe that ONE of the reasons that Hayward plays is to engage the opposition interceptor and make it hard for him to zone off. I don't think any of the six mentioned above have that capability.
I'll be surprised if he's first man overboard unless way out of form. One of the mids might get named in the forwards. My preference for the seven:
Heeney McDonald Papley
Wicks Amartey Hayward McLean
Parker might be named instead of Wicks or Hayward but I hope not. Weakens us defensively.

There is always an injury which makes selections easier. Injury happens. Offers opportunities. It's good to have better depth to cover for those injuries.

 

[Dan87]

Wouldn't be surprised if Adams, Rowbottom and Warner is the first choice centre bounce mix

Parker a bit of a utility, Gulden with a license and Sheldrick getting experience

 

[Kiama Chris]

Wouldn't be surprised if Adams, Rowbottom and Warner is the first choice centre bounce mix

Parker a bit of a utility, Gulden with a license and Sheldrick getting experience

Very hard to know. With Pyke gone I wonder who will set up our mids and how.
caesar88 has probably studied this more than any of us. Whaddya reckon Caesar?

 

[Dubai Quacker]

Whose place he taking?

JPK

 

[caesar88]

Very hard to know. With Pyke gone I wonder who will set up our mids and how.
caesar88 has probably studied this more than any of us. Whaddya reckon Caesar?

I'm flattered you think my opinion worth reading KC! I don't believe it's any more or less valuable than anyone else's. I for one have enjoyed sitting back and reading everyone else's takes over the past few weeks without having to offer my own. I will die on the hill that even in our widely disparate views, this board is still the number one source for Swans knowledge, because unlike the media, we actually watch the Swans every week, and most importantly, we actually care about the Swans.

Two philosophies in footy I strongly subscribe to: rotations have consequences, and the whole needs to be greater than the sum of its parts. I feel like both pertain to the issue being discussed above.

It seems when people want Player A in the team, the way to make it happen is often for Player B to shift into the position of Player C, who makes way.

In the above scenario, Sheldrick is Player A, the newcomer people want in the best 22. Parker/Rowbottom is Player B, the one seen as less exciting or valuable to the team than the newcomer. Hayward/Wicks is Player C, the sitting duck primed to be a casualty of Player A & B's rotations.

Let's say in that scenario, Sheldrick comes into the side and Parker/Rowbottom is moved forward at Hayward/Wicks' expense. Will Parker be as mobile or manic in his forward pressure as Wicks is?* Will Rowbottom be as aerobic in marking contests as Hayward is? Not likely. Do I think Parker & Rowbottom are better players than Hayward & Wicks? Without question. It doesn't mean they should be used in their roles.

It brings me to the point about the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. In the above scenario, many fans have had their wish come true with Sheldrick being in the team, but it's potentially at the expense of our front half marking and forward pressure. So have we actually gotten better? I'm sure these will be the sorts of things the coaches will be considering when they choose the team each week. It's not just names on magnets but players in structural dynamics that have to work for the team to succeed.

In short, I don't think we should be shuffling deckchairs for Sheldrick unless the finished product will be a glorious deck to rival the QE2's.

*Although I have long been an advocate for Parker playing forward, I'm not as convinced by the idea these days after Punts made the very good point that despite him having certain attributes suited to playing inside 50, certain weaknesses that have only become more pronounced with age may get exposed more so playing forward. As for Rowbottom, I'm not going near that topic with a ten foot pole!

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Many good points raised above. I also will not run over the old Rowy ground, save to say our midfield has been mediocre, both in the whole and the sum of the parts.

While Buddy and his derring do exploits are no more, what will also be missed is his experience and leadership. I’d love to see Parker and Adams effectively sharing a spot forward for both their ball winning skills and organisation and leadership.

McLean, Amartey and McDonald are still early doors into their careers and will benefit from having Parker/Adams forward. Yes neither are the aerial threat offered by Hayward but he is really the 4th marking target behind the big lads and Heeney.

Balancing our attack on the ground and in the air is a must. With that in mind I am really keen that Wicks be retained in the main 7 man rotation through the fwds.

 

[Dubai Quacker]

I'm flattered you think my opinion worth reading KC! I don't believe it's any more or less valuable than anyone else's. I for one have enjoyed sitting back and reading everyone else's takes over the past few weeks without having to offer my own. I will die on the hill that even in our widely disparate views, this board is still the number one source for Swans knowledge, because unlike the media, we actually watch the Swans every week, and most importantly, we actually care about the Swans.

Two philosophies in footy I strongly subscribe to: rotations have consequences, and the whole needs to be greater than the sum of its parts. I feel like both pertain to the issue being discussed above.

It seems when people want Player A in the team, the way to make it happen is often for Player B to shift into the position of Player C, who makes way.

In the above scenario, Sheldrick is Player A, the newcomer people want in the best 22. Parker/Rowbottom is Player B, the one seen as less exciting or valuable to the team than the newcomer. Hayward/Wicks is Player C, the sitting duck primed to be a casualty of Player A & B's rotations.

Let's say in that scenario, Sheldrick comes into the side and Parker/Rowbottom is moved forward at Hayward/Wicks' expense. Will Parker be as mobile or manic in his forward pressure as Wicks is?* Will Rowbottom be as aerobic in marking contests as Hayward is? Not likely. Do I think Parker & Rowbottom are better players than Hayward & Wicks? Without question. It doesn't mean they should be used in their roles.

It brings me to the point about the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. In the above scenario, many fans have had their wish come true with Sheldrick being in the team, but it's potentially at the expense of our front half marking and forward pressure. So have we actually gotten better? I'm sure these will be the sorts of things the coaches will be considering when they choose the team each week. It's not just names on magnets but players in structural dynamics that have to work for the team to succeed.

In short, I don't think we should be shuffling deckchairs for Sheldrick unless the finished product will be a glorious deck to rival the QE2's.

*Although I have long been an advocate for Parker playing forward, I'm not as convinced by the idea these days after Punts made the very good point that despite him having certain attributes suited to playing inside 50, certain weaknesses that have only become more pronounced with age may get exposed more so playing forward. As for Rowbottom, I'm not going near that topic with a ten foot pole!

Fair analysis.

As far as team dynamic, I saw clearance work as our most glaring weakness post-JPK. And when Gus played last year, we improved markedly in that area.

A powerful 25+ possession inside mid who can win the hard ball & kick and handball off both sides - he just seems to compliment the Errols & Chads of this world beautifully.

 

[rustycrate]

Fair analysis.

As far as team dynamic, I saw clearance work as our most glaring weakness post-JPK. And when Gus played last year, we improved markedly in that area.

A powerful 25+ possession inside mid who can win the hard ball & kick and handball off both sides - he just seems to compliment the Errols & Chads of this world beautifully.

Sheldrick is powerful and dual sided. He is also consistent, relentless, selfless and talented.
I reckon he is hungry to prove himself too after any injury interrupted time at the Swans.

I very much hope he is injury free this year so we can revel in watching him do his stuff.

 

[Kiama Chris]

I'm flattered you think my opinion worth reading KC! I don't believe it's any more or less valuable than anyone else's. I for one have enjoyed sitting back and reading everyone else's takes over the past few weeks without having to offer my own. I will die on the hill that even in our widely disparate views, this board is still the number one source for Swans knowledge, because unlike the media, we actually watch the Swans every week, and most importantly, we actually care about the Swans.

Two philosophies in footy I strongly subscribe to: rotations have consequences, and the whole needs to be greater than the sum of its parts. I feel like both pertain to the issue being discussed above.

It seems when people want Player A in the team, the way to make it happen is often for Player B to shift into the position of Player C, who makes way.

In the above scenario, Sheldrick is Player A, the newcomer people want in the best 22. Parker/Rowbottom is Player B, the one seen as less exciting or valuable to the team than the newcomer. Hayward/Wicks is Player C, the sitting duck primed to be a casualty of Player A & B's rotations.

Let's say in that scenario, Sheldrick comes into the side and Parker/Rowbottom is moved forward at Hayward/Wicks' expense. Will Parker be as mobile or manic in his forward pressure as Wicks is?* Will Rowbottom be as aerobic in marking contests as Hayward is? Not likely. Do I think Parker & Rowbottom are better players than Hayward & Wicks? Without question. It doesn't mean they should be used in their roles.

It brings me to the point about the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. In the above scenario, many fans have had their wish come true with Sheldrick being in the team, but it's potentially at the expense of our front half marking and forward pressure. So have we actually gotten better? I'm sure these will be the sorts of things the coaches will be considering when they choose the team each week. It's not just names on magnets but players in structural dynamics that have to work for the team to succeed.

In short, I don't think we should be shuffling deckchairs for Sheldrick unless the finished product will be a glorious deck to rival the QE2's.

*Although I have long been an advocate for Parker playing forward, I'm not as convinced by the idea these days after Punts made the very good point that despite him having certain attributes suited to playing inside 50, certain weaknesses that have only become more pronounced with age may get exposed more so playing forward. As for Rowbottom, I'm not going near that topic with a ten foot pole!

Thanks caesar88 a great response. I believe the same holds true for CBAs and other structural setups too.
Perhaps when we get the ball locked into our forward 50 is a great time to have Parker on the field rather than have him wandering around.

 

[McRobie]

Rowbottom, Mills and Parker reduced time, Sheldrick and Adams to fill the the void. That midfield mix needs a complete shake up. Completely ineffective last year which is why we got Adams.

 

[caesar88]

Fair analysis.

As far as team dynamic, I saw clearance work as our most glaring weakness post-JPK. And when Gus played last year, we improved markedly in that area.

A powerful 25+ possession inside mid who can win the hard ball & kick and handball off both sides - he just seems to compliment the Errols & Chads of this world beautifully.

We did improve in clearances when Sheldrick was in the team last year, but I think you're doing a disservice to Parker & Rowbottom to attribute that improvement to Sheldrick. They both had arguably their best block of form of the season during that stretch of games and were still performing better and doing more than Sheldrick.

 

[Millky95]

What was Gus' TOG% this year?

 

[SGBeach]

I'm flattered you think my opinion worth reading KC! I don't believe it's any more or less valuable than anyone else's. I for one have enjoyed sitting back and reading everyone else's takes over the past few weeks without having to offer my own. I will die on the hill that even in our widely disparate views, this board is still the number one source for Swans knowledge, because unlike the media, we actually watch the Swans every week, and most importantly, we actually care about the Swans.

Two philosophies in footy I strongly subscribe to: rotations have consequences, and the whole needs to be greater than the sum of its parts. I feel like both pertain to the issue being discussed above.

It seems when people want Player A in the team, the way to make it happen is often for Player B to shift into the position of Player C, who makes way.

In the above scenario, Sheldrick is Player A, the newcomer people want in the best 22. Parker/Rowbottom is Player B, the one seen as less exciting or valuable to the team than the newcomer. Hayward/Wicks is Player C, the sitting duck primed to be a casualty of Player A & B's rotations.

Let's say in that scenario, Sheldrick comes into the side and Parker/Rowbottom is moved forward at Hayward/Wicks' expense. Will Parker be as mobile or manic in his forward pressure as Wicks is?* Will Rowbottom be as aerobic in marking contests as Hayward is? Not likely. Do I think Parker & Rowbottom are better players than Hayward & Wicks? Without question. It doesn't mean they should be used in their roles.

It brings me to the point about the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. In the above scenario, many fans have had their wish come true with Sheldrick being in the team, but it's potentially at the expense of our front half marking and forward pressure. So have we actually gotten better? I'm sure these will be the sorts of things the coaches will be considering when they choose the team each week. It's not just names on magnets but players in structural dynamics that have to work for the team to succeed.

In short, I don't think we should be shuffling deckchairs for Sheldrick unless the finished product will be a glorious deck to rival the QE2's.

*Although I have long been an advocate for Parker playing forward, I'm not as convinced by the idea these days after Punts made the very good point that despite him having certain attributes suited to playing inside 50, certain weaknesses that have only become more pronounced with age may get exposed more so playing forward. As for Rowbottom, I'm not going near that topic with a ten foot pole!

Im sorry c88, but I question your midfield analysis and put it down to simply BF BS.
You wanted us to trade out Rowbottom 12 months ago (what did he finish is the B&F?)
Also remember that you wanted the Swans to trade in a 35yo Mundy (which player A, B or C would make way?)
and that Hewett was the cleanest midfielder to have ever played.
Also remember that all your Mids analysis (many aspects you named after yourself - WTF) you didn't take into consideration simple things like who was the opponent and what role each player was assigned. You bang on about the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.. but failed to recognise the whole at any point.

 

[Dubai Quacker]

We did improve in clearances when Sheldrick was in the team last year, but I think you're doing a disservice to Parker & Rowbottom to attribute that improvement to Sheldrick. They both had arguably their best block of form of the season during that stretch of games and were still performing better and doing more than Sheldrick.

I’d have to disagree on that particular point.

We were consistently belted in clearances early in the season (and when we did get the pill we were incredibly Buddy centric - the other glaring issue I found myself frustrated with as the losses mounted).

Gus didn’t win the Swans rising star award for nothing - I genuinely thought he improved our midfield when he came in, which is not something you’d necessarily expect of a 19 year old. The only caveat - his best games were against dud sides.

Parker is a club great and never lets us down. But post JPK he can’t carry the grunt stuff alone, particularly with no Mills. Rowy works incredibly hard, but has his limitations.

Errol will be a great player for a long time, Chad teases that he could be great (although the jury remains out) ….. personally, I see Campbell and Gus as next in the production line - I believe both could become stars.

 

[Kiama Chris]

I’d have to disagree on that particular point.

We were consistently belted in clearances early in the season (and when we did get the pill we were incredibly Buddy centric - the other glaring issue I found myself frustrated with as the losses mounted).

Gus didn’t win the Swans rising star award for nothing - I genuinely thought he improved our midfield when he came in, which is not something you’d necessarily expect of a 19 year old. The only caveat - his best games were against dud sides.

Parker is a club great and never lets us down. But post JPK he can’t carry the grunt stuff alone, particularly with no Mills. Rowy works incredibly hard, but has his limitations.

Errol will be a great player for a long time, Chad teases that he could be great (although the jury remains out) ….. personally, I see Campbell and Gus as next in the production line - I believe both could become stars.

All of those mentioned except one I can visualise their role(s) in the team, although the game plan is very important in that. Sheldrick yeah.
Campbell I'm less certain about. Is he a winger? I don't see that he has the tank, even now. Is he an inside mid? See no sign of that. Is he a defender? IMO not really. He can do it if needed but leaves you feeling unfulfilled. Is he a HFF? That and/or HHF seems to me to suit him best but at the moment that position is occupied by Hayward and is played more defensively than attackingly (sic). He could play part of Gulden and Chad's role on the fringe of packs but better than them? I look forward to seeing what the Match Committee decide.

 

[BloodBrother1]

All of those mentioned except one I can visualise their role(s) in the team, although the game plan is very important in that. Sheldrick yeah.
Campbell I'm less certain about. Is he a winger? I don't see that he has the tank, even now. Is he an inside mid? See no sign of that. Is he a defender? IMO not really. He can do it if needed but leaves you feeling unfulfilled. Is he a HFF? That and/or HHF seems to me to suit him best but at the moment that position is occupied by Hayward and is played more defensively than attackingly (sic). He could play part of Gulden and Chad's role on the fringe of packs but better than them? I look forward to seeing what the Match Committee decide.

i could see Campbell playing that N Daicos/H Sheezel sort of role where they sit in defence but are more attacking minded and roll off their defender when we look like getting our hands on the pill. Some people call these sorts of players "seagulls". I see them as important to the team game plan and even the player development.

Campbell has the kicking skills and the speed to be exceptionally good at this sort of role much like Daicos is. The SCG is a notoriously short ground and with him taking off we could have it in our forward line in a blink of an eye without the oppo defence being able to set up an interceptor. With the exceptipon of McLean, i beleive most of our tall forwards will be leading fowards anyway. They just have to learn to keep out of each others way and not clog up the others leading lane.

The drawback of this strategy is that if we cant or dont have the defensive pressure to keep the ball in our forward half and the ball comes back the other way Campbell could be found out of position.

I see potential in Campbell ... he just seems to be a late bloomer and he hasnt really found his niche position. I guess we compare him to Gulden who was drafted the same year but much later who knows his position and plays it exceptionally well.

 

[rustycrate]

i could see Campbell playing that N Daicos/H Sheezel sort of role where they sit in defence but are more attacking minded and roll off their defender when we look like getting our hands on the pill. Some people call these sorts of players "seagulls". I see them as important to the team game plan and even the player development.

Campbell has the kicking skills and the speed to be exceptionally good at this sort of role much like Daicos is. The SCG is a notoriously short ground and with him taking off we could have it in our forward line in a blink of an eye without the oppo defence being able to set up an interceptor. With the exceptipon of McLean, i beleive most of our tall forwards will be leading fowards anyway. They just have to learn to keep out of each others way and not clog up the others leading lane.

The drawback of this strategy is that if we cant or dont have the defensive pressure to keep the ball in our forward half and the ball comes back the other way Campbell could be found out of position.

I see potential in Campbell ... he just seems to be a late bloomer and he hasnt really found his niche position. I guess we compare him to Gulden who was drafted the same year but much later who knows his position and plays it exceptionally well.

I always laugh at this perpetuated myth.

 

[Orange crush]

What was Gus' TOG% this year?

About 55% but that is affected by being subbed

 

[Deccas]

Gus's game against the lions was fantastic. We were beaten by a better te that night but it was the first sign that our form was going to turn. Gus's inclusion genuinely went some way to getting us to finals. Incredible effort for the young fella.

The "but who is he replacing" talk is sensible but also moot. At any given point there will be a half dozen players injured. He'll find a spot at some point and if last season was any example play too well to be dropped.