How we lost

[CureTheSane]

I don't think I've even seen another game with such distinct reasons for the loss.....

Firstly, I think Paul Roos had a lot to do with it.

Either that or the players all need a good clip behind the ears for not playing like he instructed them too..

It was WET!!! Don't play posession football. Kick long!!!!

And the marking (or lack thereof) was shocking.
How come Collingwood seems to ba able to mark the ball on the chest and we couldn't?

Simply, Collingwood manned up every time we had posession, yet when they had the ball, there was always a fre man to take it.

Both teams had a bit of luck.
Collingwood seemed to land the ball on the chest of a team mate when the ball was blindly bombed in, and our players kickeda hell of a lot of goals from big angles to stay in the game.

I also think Mickeljohn learnt a bit of a lesson about seniors football.
Did some good things, and some bad

[Mike_B]

IMHO the match committee had a little to answer for as well. Collingwood are known to be very weak in the ruck department. Why we needed LRT AND Meiklejohn in the 22 was a bit bemusing.

Now obviously in hindsight, knowing the weather was so bad, this was compunded even more by the fact both of them were totally ineffective, meaning we were really playing with a squad of 20. But it makes you wonder....

[liz]

Originally posted by Mike_B
IMHO the match committee had a little to answer for as well. Collingwood are known to be very weak in the ruck department. Why we needed LRT AND Meiklejohn in the 22 was a bit bemusing.

Now obviously in hindsight, knowing the weather was so bad, this was compunded even more by the fact both of them were totally ineffective, meaning we were really playing with a squad of 20. But it makes you wonder....

True, but Collingwood had a few non-contributors as well. Surprisingly McGough (who was one of the late changes) had almost no impact at all - anyone remember his ANZAC day performance in 2002 when it was pissing down with rain?

It would have made more sense to have an Ablett, Seymour or even Frosty out there instead of either MJ or LRT but I doubt the result would have been different. It was our inability to mark and our poor usage of the ball that cost the game.

[Jason Nevins]

Josh Fraser has been one of the form ruckman in the AFL for the last 11 weeks.

[BAM_BAM]

Originally posted by Jason Nevins
Josh Fraser has been one of the form ruckman in the AFL for the last 11 weeks.

and he certainly showed us that last night JN. I was cursing him all night .... that then carried on again this morning during the replay.

[Swansinger]

1.Yes , we gave them too many UCPs
2.Wakelin had Hall in his pocket
3.We were asleep for the first ten minutes
4.Rocca was too good for Schauble

Whilst neither was IMO our best player , the only two who impressed me last night were ROK - not just his goals but his chasing - and Schneider.
Kirk at least limited Buckley's effectiveness without totally shutting him down.
Magic tried his best but it was not a good day.

Maxfield and Cresswell stood up in the second half but it was too little too late.
For a game like this , we really needed the senior players to show leadership early - but they didn't.

And credit to Collingwood - Fraser was easily BOG and they played some good football.

[Sanecow]

Two inexperienced talls in a wet game was infuriating! Bring back Nicks you bastards!

[liz]

Originally posted by Swansinger

And credit to Collingwood - Fraser was easily BOG and they played some good football.

Not according to Fraser himself. In his brief post match interview he reckoned that Goodes had shaded him. Hard to tell really because they didn't seem to be playing very close to each other most of the game.

Certainly Fraser played a good enough game but Goodes was one of our best as well. Certainly can't fault that guy for his work rate in the second half. Their smaller midfielders were probably the key though. They won the ball more cleanly from the centre and, more to the point, passed it to a team mate when they had it. We didn't.

Given how badly the midfield played, especially in the first half, our defence didn't do too badly. Rocca beat Schaubs, but then he is a very good player when he wants to be and many defenders would have struggled against him.

Not quite sure what to make of our forward line. For conversion of chances they probably get a B+. For creation of chances only a C but how much of it was their fault and how much was due to the haphazard way the ball was delivered to them?

[ugg]

1.Yes , we gave them too many UCPs

Only because they just kept getting the clearances.

2.Wakelin had Hall in his pocket

Can't blame BBBBH for the rubbish delivery dished up to him

3.We were asleep for the first ten minutes

Yes, agree there. Also got caught out with Walker playing up forward.

4.Rocca was too good for Schauble

Two of Rocca's three goals came from:
1) Uncontested mark at the top of the goal square, when Schauble went to help out in a contest after the ball had been turned over.
2) A lucky goal from the boundary line that he wouldn't get again if he had another 100 goes at it.

Schauble had a reasonable game IMO.

[TheHood]

I thought Goodesy was excellent for most of the night.

Ditto for Willo and Craig Bolton!

As for the other 19, well the fumbles and dropped marks killed us, in fact we were half a chance at finding our groove more often only to be let down by overuse and marks.

The Pies were solid and played the game that we should have played.

I had a bad feeling about this one. Whenever I introduce first-timers to AFL and the Swans, we always lose. From now on I am not sharing!

[jixygirl]

We were definitely fumbling and dropping marks but we didn't play to the conditions. We should have kicked long more often. I thought Goodes had a pretty good night in a match were Sydney played hopelessly.

[TheMase]

A few thoughts ..

I had my concerns before the match about taking BOTH Meiklejohn AND LRT into the match. I said to a mate that it was a stupid decision considering the weather. We were taking TWO INEXPERIENCED TALLS (ruckmen) into a game. Now, too much height in a wet match, without even thinking about their lack of experience.

We basically ran two men short on the ground.
What a waste really. Young Ablett could have had a go, even Nicks would have been more useful to us.


I thought Goodesy was sensational considering. EASILY our best player I thought. He killed Fraser for most part, in the ruck and around the ground. 28 possessions and 20 hitouts compared to Fraser 17 possessions and 17 hitouts.

Bolton was vgood aswell, but it stops around that point.

Hall should have pushed up to CHF and not played out of the square. He needs to push up the ground to give us more opportunities.

I don't know what happened to Schneider after quarter time, but if they moved him, they were crazy. In that first quarter he was the only one presenting.

If we lose O'Keefe I think I will cry. Absolute crazy stuff, this kid is a gun. I remember reading an interview with him, saying he would like to stay at the Swans. Lets hope that reads true.

[TheMase]

I also thought that Crouch was very good at times, and probably should play that role more often!


Davis was also off his game, and spent a bit of time on the pine.

[ugg]

Originally posted by TheMase
I also thought that Crouch was very good at times, and probably should play that role more often!


Davis was also off his game, and spent a bit of time on the pine.

Yes Crouchy was very good, and that's because he didn't have to tag a small forward. If only Fixter was fit....

[liz]

Originally posted by ugg
Yes Crouchy was very good, and that's because he didn't have to tag a small forward. If only Fixter was fit....

ditto

In fact, despite all the fumbling, many of the team played pretty decent second halves. Certainly I don't question their endeavour or desire. The team just has to understand why it starts so slowly.

There was an article in yesterday's Sunday Tele about the mood of the players in the rooms before they ran out, telling how they were all revving each other up and were determined to make a good start. By yesterday evening I was able to laugh at the last two sentences of the article.

"Irishman Tadhg Kennelly throws up.

Unfortunately, the Swans' first two quarters go the same way."