Name: Dane Swan
Club: Collingwood
2010 Brownlow Performance: 3rd
WTS's 2010 Pre-Season Prediction: 7-10th X
Total Votes: 24
Games Polled: 12
Games Played: 22
Total Votes Breakdown, 3 2 1: 2, 8, 2
Brownlow Odds: $7 (Courtesy of TAB)
When I think of this bloke in Brownlow terms, I think of two words; Groundhog Day. Hence the reason why I prefer to call him Dane Groundhog.
I remember coming into season 2010 people were singing his praises, claiming the umpires were going to finally ‘cave’ and give him votes because he under polled the year before. Moreso, as we approached Brownlow night a groundswell of popular opinion jumped on his bandwagon and claimed that because the media had widely publicized his efforts throughout the year and predicted that he’d be almost a ‘lock’ for the 2010 Brownlow Medal, that this would therefore mean it was almost inevitable that this was going to become a reality. Of course, we all know what happened. Without blowing my own trumpet… or would that be
sax?
Ahem, where was I? Oh yes, as I was saying, without blowing my own trumpet I was one of the few who went against this popular train of thought from the get go. During the 2010 Pre-Season, in my Dane Swan player preview some of you may recall me saying:
“Swan was an absolute ball magnet last year (2009), dead set you wouldn't blame the man had he got leather poisoning. He was racking up possessions at will to such an extent that people starting judging his game by the amount of possies he had.”
Of course, this is the exact trap that many people have fallen into 2 years in a row now. No matter how much the media beats on about how many possessions he gets, it isn’t going to change the umpire’s minds. It’s a simple fact, which has rung true over consecutive years now. The thing you must remember is stats don’t show how and where in the field of play Swan has gathered his possessions. This is one of the central rules when it comes to analyzing a player's performance in Brownlow terms.
This relates to where I went on to say:
“If anything, Swan is a prime example to any punter out there that may be under the belief that the amount of possessions a player gets will therefore correlate to Brownlow votes. Because quite simply, this isn't necessarily the case. I am a big believer that umpires favour those midfielders whose strength in their game is the ability to get their own contested footy and create the play. If you look at the amount of possessions Swan gathered, in relation to the amount of those that were contested, you'll see he falls under that bracket of players I like to call 'link men receivers'. Out of the total 700 possessions he racked up - the best of any player - only 227 of those were contested. This means that only 32.42% of his possessions were contested, whilst 67.58% were uncontested.
The interesting thing though, is that Ablett didn't fair much better for this statistic, and yet he won the Brownlow medal. So what gives? The way i see it, i consider Ablett more of a playmaker whose possessions directly influence games, thereby catching the eye of the umps. On the other hand, I classify Swan to be more of a linkman who is usually the second or third link in a string of play that involves the ball being passed to multiple players before the last player in that link creates the play and either sets up a goal or has a forward 50 entry. Thus, so whilst Swan racks up a ton of possessions, he is seen by the umpire as a linkman rather than a playmaker and therefore fails to impress the men in white.”
In simpler terms, another way of saying this is that Swan doesn’t quite stand out as a damaging player to the umpire, unlike the aforementioned Judd or Ablett. A simple comparison in the number of votes Judd polled in Carlton wins to that of which Swan polled when Collingwood won highlights this very discrepancy. Judd polled in 9 out of 10 wins (90%), whilst Swan polled in 10 out of 17 wins (58%). You may disagree with me, and by all means you can, but to me that says Judd plays more of a direct influence in the outcome of those games where Carlton recorded a win, whereas Swan plays more of a ‘bit-man’ part in turning games in the favour of the Pies. The other factor you must weigh up is that other players, particularly of the likes of Pendlebury and Didak, will steal votes of Swan and stand out more.
And then there is of course the argument that Swan’s footballing style is rather unorthodox and that he doesn’t possess the same poise, and class as that of Judd, Ablett, or even Pendlebury. Or even more out there, is the claim that perhaps the umpires are of the opinion that his sleeve tattoos aren't exactly a glowing endorsement for the game, and particularly not the sort of image a Brownlow Medalist should provide.
Given these points, I will once again reiterate and stand by what I said last pre-season:
“Unless Swan alters his game somewhat to mirror that of say an Ablett, or Judd, who make every one of their possessions count, his 700 possessions a season will amount to nothing come Brownlow night. But until then, i'm not convinced.”
Will history repeat itself again? You be the judge!
** Predicted 2011 Brownlow Finish: 3-5 **
