Lethal queries Swans tactics

[SWANSBEST]

Lions query plan
31 March 2004 Herald Sun
By Michael Stevens

Matthews wonders if Swans pause helped cause
BRISBANE coach Leigh Matthews has questioned Sydney players pressing a 15-second pause button during the Swans' two-point loss at the Gabba last Saturday night.

Matthews said the tactic of holding on to the ball for up to 15 seconds until a teammate made position would not have helped the Swans score goals.

"When the opposition's got the ball, what we're trying to do is to stop them scoring," Matthews said on Talking Footy last night.

"And I'm not sure it helped their scoring effort, even in retrospect."

With the Swans boasting key forward targets such as Barry Hall and Michael O'Loughlin, Matthews said a better option might have been to kick the ball into the 50m arc much more quickly.

"Frankly, when you had a Barry Hall and Michael O'Loughlin in that part of the ground I'm not quite sure whether I'd want to be getting it in to those blokes quicker and longer," Matthews said.

"Maybe its because our players slid upfield really well and got numbers back between the wing and Swans' goal which made the Swans play that way.

"Ultimately it was their choice and what was different, a player might be up on the wing and he might hold on to the ball for 15 seconds.

"It was the length of time they were prepared to hold on to the ball. Then maybe a hole would open up over the mark, a Swans player from upfield would lead upfield, the kick had to be precise, the mark had to be taken under pressure, and they gained about 20m.

"Their kicking skills and marking skills to mark the ball out in front of their eyes was good enough that they held possession. But I guess (the question is) ultimately did it help them score?"

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,9138032%255E20322,00.html

[Rod_]

I can agree with the intent from Lethal - however what game plan will we use next time to get within 2 points of Brisbane....

Try and guess

I am sure that Roosy has more that one string in his bow this year!

Rod_

someone else said before "today we play for sausages!" I wonder how relevant that statement is?

[floppinab]

Originally posted by Rod_
I can agree with the intent from Lethal - however what game plan will we use next time to get within 2 points of Brisbane....

Try and guess

I have to admit as the game was unfolding I couldn't help but think exactly what Lethal said in this article. I thought a lot of Brisbane's flooding was more to do with a bit of nervousness from a few players to take the first option and move it on quickly, the sort of risky midfield play that we saw a lot of last year.

Following that with the firepower we have up forward I'd've thought that we could have at least tried a bomb or two and give our forwards a chance to get to the footy. All easy to say of course.

someone else said before "today we play for sausages!" I wonder how relevant that statement is?

Not sausage's my friend,,,, sausage rolls!!!!!!

[CureTheSane]

His comments make a lot of sense, and watching him say them, you could see that he was in no way bitching, just stating his opinion.

Basically he is saying that we may have won had we not played that game plan.
We may have won well.

But we also may have been pumped.

We will use those tactics against them next time, and we have a good chance of a win using them

[NMWBloods]

I'm wondering how much the loss of Kennelly, and his dual drive with Barry from HBF, resulted in us choosing to slow the game down.

I would have thought a fast running game against Brisbane works better - less time for them to match up effectively and help each other out in the back half. Kicking the ball long is probably the worst way to play them, so our game was probably half-way inbetween.

[TheHood]

It was a slight regression on our usual game plan and a bit disappointing to be honest because I think we could have played our normal game plan and given Baz and Mick a better go at it.

I know we did play like that (IN PATCHES) up at the Gabba last year but that had an element of surprise to it, this time we played into the hands of their altert backmen who were paranoid about the impact of Baz and Mick in particular.

Was ok while Nick was on the ground but when we lost him, we were in strife.

As for Lethal, is it just the Swans he feels the need to make comment on post match or does he have a say on every team.

Last year we were freakishly accurate, this year we held up play seeking a target too long - how do you win with merit in Lethal's eyes? Maybe its kicking fast and long and peppering the goals with @@@@ loads of behinds all day?

[Rod_]

Perhaps with the amount of new talent that was in our team, the best plan to give them game time against the bench mark team.

Under a controlled game plan that gave these kids a chance time to think in their first games......? developing confidence ??

Learn how and what to do?


They have come off the ground with their heads held high - lost to the reigning premiers by 2 points that could have gone either way....

5 changes in the llead in the last quarter

Next time!!!

Rod_

[sharpie]

I'm actually very suprised how forgiving everyone is with the performance on the weekend. I thought we played very poorly for far too much of the game, and the style of play was frustrating to watch after the exhilarating stuff we saw last year. It seemed like a regression back to 2 & 3 years ago.

Just because we lost by a small margin is no reason to congratulate the boys. If they'd played well more consistently we would have beaten the Lions by a large margin. This would have meant people would not be sitting here going "Oh well, but for a missed kick we should have won, good effort guys, hope we play like that all year". Pfft.

If we want a premiership we cant be content with near misses and half-***ed efforts, even if it is against the "best team of the modern era".

All I want to see if 100% effort at all times. The results will take care of themselves, and if we do lose when the boys have given their best for most of the game, then so be it, but at least the commitment would be there.

[dendol]

Originally posted by sharpie
All I want to see if 100% effort at all times. The results will take care of themselves, and if we do lose when the boys have given their best for most of the game, then so be it, but at least the commitment would be there.

I thought that commitment was there last weekend. The game plan may have been wrong, but that is the benefit of hindsight. I, for one, am not claiming that a 2 point loss every week will leave us all content. We fought so had hard in that last quarter, which was evident in the lead changes. Many teams would have fallen over and been over-run.

I am content with the knowledge that our boys are still the real deal.

[liz]

Originally posted by dendol
I thought that commitment was there last weekend. The game plan may have been wrong, but that is the benefit of hindsight. I, for one, am not claiming that a 2 point loss every week will leave us all content. We fought so had hard in that last quarter, which was evident in the lead changes. Many teams would have fallen over and been over-run.

I am content with the knowledge that our boys are still the real deal.

Agree. Not sure how anyone can criticise the committment. Most of them were physically shattered by the end, and I didn't see any back slapping amongst them after they "only just lost".

Who knows if the gameplan was "wrong"? They tried something. It nearly worked but they weren't quite good enough to execute it for four quarters - this time. A "more normal" Swans gameplan might have blown the Lions away but equally likely is that we'd have been on the end of a walloping. When you have a team with that many rookies it is very hard to button down the hatches and halt a run-on when it starts, and the Lions are one of the very best teams in the league at blowing the opposition away in a half hour of football when they get into their stride.

Winning the opening game of the season is nice but it doesn't count for a huge amount. Losing any game is never ideal but losing the opener does not spell the end of the season. Getting completely blown away in the first few rounds can be a problem, though, because it can do things to players' confidence.

I'm not suggesting that Roos went there planning not to get thumped rather than trying to win - after all we should have pulled it off - but he did "play the percentages".

[sharpie]

It may have been there in the last quarter, but what about most of the game before that. We had a good 1st 10 minutes in the first quarter and then went to sleep. The 2nd was marginal and the 3rd quarter was pathetic. Where was that desperation during those parts of the game?

It is just my opinion, but I thought for too much of the night we played ordinary, uncommitted football with slack skills. The game should have been put away without relying on a final quarter fight back.

[colliwobbles]

Great game

Perhaps Leigh is right in what he observed last week. I am a Lions supporter who cheered Paul Roos on for years, and I believe that he will be a great coach.
Its amazing that the Swans and the Lions are churning out the best footy games each time they meet. The Lions will be there again this year, but so too will the Swans.
If it comes down to 2 points, it simply means that the game can go either way, and last season, the Swans did us in in the home and away games. It took a super human effort by the Lions to get up in the Prelim last year, but I wouldn't want to be banking on either side dominating the other side in any game that they play.
Both of these sides will play a major role in deciding the outcome of the 2004 football year, and don't be surprised if they in fact play off!