TOPIC:

Heater19 wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote: For the 2 gulls one of your very own posted some time back about you adding a few hundred to the attendance figures for those missed during the Colts game.

Swans do the same to their local zone % figures, they actually only play around 45% local zone players

That would still beat Subi's abysmal 36% local zone talent from Round 1!

Beasley Hutton wrote:

Heater19 wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote: For the 2 gulls one of your very own posted some time back about you adding a few hundred to the attendance figures for those missed during the Colts game.

Swans do the same to their local zone % figures, they actually only play around 45% local zone players

That would still beat Subi's abysmal 36% local zone talent from Round 1!

Let's be honest, you're beating the local zone talent drum because it's all you've got at swans. Wooden spooners and attendances way down so you've gone looking for the only stat that you're up the top of the table in other than free kicks. But this is just further proof that the junior zones need to be evened up.

Take junior clubs off Swans who play their local zone boys to reward a team who play virtually no local zone talent at all and in fact are calling for 2 more out of zone boys to come in this week after only playing an appalling 36% last week....yeah that makes perfect sense!

Beasley Hutton wrote: Take junior clubs off Swans who play their local zone boys to reward a team who play virtually no local zone talent at all and in fact are calling for 2 more out of zone boys to come in this week after only playing an appalling 36% last week....yeah that makes perfect sense!

Would you like me to explain it with pictures