Leigh Matthews article

[Reggi]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,%255E26297,00.html

Saturdays Herald Sun

[floppinab]

It's a great article, while a lot of coaches talk about salary caps, martians and taking it one week at a time we see at least part of the reason why Leigh Matthews and the Lions are where they are at today.
They are still down on their best but managed to comfortably account for the Crows on Sat. night.

[RogueSwan]

A very good point from Lethal, can we keep it going? Roosy is very quick to point out
"...but you'd be a fool to think it's going to keep going for another 14 weeks,"

[barry]

Originally posted by RogueSwan
A very good point from Lethal, can we keep it going? Roosy is very quick to point out
"...but you'd be a fool to think it's going to keep going for another 14 weeks,"

Roosey also said (or implied) we werent going to make the finals this year. He's just keeping a lid on things.

Matthews article does raise the question. Why dont we go inside 50 more often?. Our ruck division seems to be doing well, and our midfielders are doing well (bolton/williams). Is it because we break down at CHF just outside the 50 sometimes?

[Angelic Upstart]

Well I found it ironic that he would suggest that the Swans have been lucky, winning only from accurate kicking - then the next day Brisbane wins despite Adelaide having more scoring shots. On his criteria, Brisbane also fluked their wins over Port and Collingwood too.

Maybe our accuracy also comes not just from good luck but from good leads from our forwards, quick midfielders finding more time and space, smart distribution, etc etc - and maybe other teams inaccuracy comes from the pressure our midfields and defence apply to their opponents.

Matthews might be a good coach, but it's shows poor character to take away from your opponents' achievements by saying they're just lucky.

[floppinab]

I think he's drawing that bow Angelic but he does say :

I'm not saying it is good luck.

and does point to the acheivements of our forwards.

[scurrilous]

I always took the article/comment as a compliment to our team plan and forwards.

/shrug

Go figure. I guess that's just my psyche, positive rather than negative. Alot of supporters here of the Swans seem to be defensive of their precious team? My suggestion, build a bridge and get over what other people are saying.

[Red]

Originally posted by scurrilous
I guess that's just my psyche, positive rather than negative. Alot of supporters here of the Swans seem to be defensive of their precious team? My suggestion, build a bridge and get over what other people are saying.

Why on earth do you call yourself scurrilous then?

I didn't like Matthew's tone in his article. Someone here said that he's the master of the back-handed compliment and this is a good example of one. To say that we've won 9 quarters rather than 3 games is just stupid. And to suggest that we can't maintain our 'incredible' conversion rate is an attempt to put the mozz on it. He can put whatever spin in it he likes, but the truth is that he (and Akermanis, and Voss) were simply out-coached and out-played on the day and there's nothing more to it than that.

However, it's fine if he and other coaches put their defeats down to them losing rather than us winning. Even Thompson has taken that line. The longer we can keep 'flying under the rader', the better.

[TheHood]

I didn't like Leigh's post match press conference comments either. No credit to the Swans, it was more about their squandered opportunities and more or less about how "they" should have won! As though they deserved it.

As for how we are converting so well inside 50. Well we have 2 new dead eye dicks in Schnides and Nick and we are crumbing better now than ever in the past 13 years. We have the best crumbing/roving unit in the business - AS, ND, MO, AG and any number of good midfielders. When confidence is up, big sticks seem to get wider.

[hardluck_harry]

I didn't understand thing about the less inside 50s. We kick a goal the ball goes back to the centre, they kick it to 25 metres out a couple of times and we repel it. Doesn't mean they're playing better footy because of more inside 50's.

Assessing the inside 50 is hard, depends on what statistians constitute as a inside 50, a boundaryline hitout, a pass backwards by the opposition, kick off the ground etc.

Maybe they should come up with effective inside 50s.

Anyway, still waiting for AFL stats to bring in assists, which would be more interesting IHMO.

[Charlie]

I think an "effective inside 50s" stat would be much more useful. I think any ENTRY into the forward 50 from the midfield, that results in a contest or mark or whatever...

[scurrilous]

He's just saying that the swans make the best of their opportunities. Nothing malicious. Remember, he's not representing Victoria, or a Victorian club in his comments .

Those that make the best of their opportunities go on to win grand finals.

[sharp9]

Or even disposals inside fifty.

Also it is disappointing that Contested and uncontested mark stats as well as hard ball and loose ball gets are not noted anyway accessible. They seem to be the sort of thing TV stations keep a record of to while away half time and pre game commentary.

They would make interesting reading.

For example in the Bulldogs Carlton game there was a whole raft of stat examples where those two teams were 1st and 16th in the comp. (hard ball gets and loose ball gets were two of them - can't remember which way round!)