Who were the pathetic, lazy Swans....

[dendol]

The lack of any effective ruck work is what killed us. The amount of times that Port cleanly took the ball away due to a hitout was quite amazing. Even when Goodes went into the ruck for a bit, he couldnt jump and was also beaten. The injuries didnt help, but we had lost the game by the time most of our guys got injured.

Of course there were many other reasons - the lack of midfield accountability being one of them - but this game shows the true value of having a good ruck combo, and also what happens when you have no virtually ruckmen at all.

[AussieAnge]

I didn't watch the game due to other commitments but I wonder if it was a psychological thing with there being so many injuries and also losing Doyle after the warm up can't have helped. Perhaps there is a concern at the back of their minds that they too migh sucumb to an injury

[swansrule100]

roosy summed it up best... we took the break a week early

[DST]

Originally posted by Boodnutz
Don't mean to be rude here, but how many of you have played the game at a decent level? If you have, you will know that teams can hold their shape until a certain point and then it's like a rubber band that snaps. Everything spirals out of control, and no matter how you try, you can't put it back together. It means you expend energy in circumstances you normally wouldn't. You chase to back up and support in situations where you normally look to create. Everyone ends up out of position, and everyone ends up looking stupid. Swans passed that "snap" point before they arrived at the ground - too many players out. The loss of players during the game just made it worse.
Look at Port a few weeks ago against the Roos. They looked pathetic. They weren't trying? More likely they just didn't have the personnel and "snap" it all unravels. I would completely disregard the Port performance. Sure Roosy was upset, but he's the coach. What's he going to say? I think they had a go. I think they had a real hard go.

While I don't like your confrontational style of writing, I do agree with in regards to the content of your argument.

While the mental let down was noticable from the great effort last week the loss and enventual margin had more to do with the lack of cattle on the park and trying to implement our normal game plan.

To many times players were caught or forced to the wrong position on the ground (either with the ball or without). This resulted in needless running and let many Port players play loose behind and in front of the play (they were able to keep their shape and game plan) and thus use those players effectively.

Sometimes when you lose 4 players (on top of the other injuries) from the week before it tips the balance over.

DST

[Trents Girl]

mate your dreaming if you think there was 200

Yeah 12 may have been an understatement but there wasn't 200.

By the way if I was looking closely considering the fact that I was actually there and I have family members who work on the gates, there wasn't 200 they would know

[Donners]

Originally posted by dendol
The lack of any effective ruck work is what killed us. The amount of times that Port cleanly took the ball away due to a hitout was quite amazing. Even when Goodes went into the ruck for a bit, he couldnt jump and was also beaten. The injuries didnt help, but we had lost the game by the time most of our guys got injured.

Of course there were many other reasons - the lack of midfield accountability being one of them - but this game shows the true value of having a good ruck combo, and also what happens when you have no virtually ruckmen at all.

Indeed. I started having flashbacks to '93 when we'd have 5 or 6 hitouts for a game. The problem is that several of our younger big guys are not, and likely will not be, of AFL standard. I don't care if Mott is 120kg - at least he was a damned good tap ruckman. He got 38 hitouts on debut, which is more than I have ever seen from a Sydney player. If we had held onto him, I'd have felt a lot safer when Ball was injured.

[robbieando]

Originally posted by Trents Girl
mate your dreaming if you think there was 200

Yeah 12 may have been an understatement but there wasn't 200.

By the way if I was looking closely considering the fact that I was actually there and I have family members who work on the gates, there wasn't 200 they would know

I was at the game as well and I believe that there was 200 Swans fans and I'm not the only one there who agrees with me.

[liz]

Originally posted by Donners
I don't care if Mott is 120kg - at least he was a damned good tap ruckman. He got 38 hitouts on debut, which is more than I have ever seen from a Sydney player. If we had held onto him, I'd have felt a lot safer when Ball was injured.

Mott was dropped after playing just the one game for Carlton the weekend before last. I'm pretty sure they went into the game without a recognised ruckman at all (or just Deluca to pinch hit) given that French is injured atm. If Carlton would rather play with no ruckman that play with Mott, it doesn't say a lot for his prospects as an AFL player.

Or did I miss something? Was Mott actually injured?

[bigdaz]

Originally posted by dendol
The lack of any effective ruck work is what killed us. The amount of times that Port cleanly took the ball away due to a hitout was quite amazing. Even when Goodes went into the ruck for a bit, he couldnt jump and was also beaten. The injuries didnt help, but we had lost the game by the time most of our guys got injured.

Of course there were many other reasons - the lack of midfield accountability being one of them - but this game shows the true value of having a good ruck combo, and also what happens when you have no virtually ruckmen at all.

agree 100%. Outside of Ball & Doyle we don't a ruck option up to AFL standard.(No disrespect to Goodesy).

[dendol]

Originally posted by bigdaz
agree 100%. Outside of Ball & Doyle we don't a ruck option up to AFL standard.(No disrespect to Goodesy).

I think Goodes is still a good(es) option rucking around the ground because hes a different style to Doyle and Ball. This is why I would like to see him play in the midfield - if his knee and Roosy allowed - as he could be very effective as third man up.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Boodnutz
Don't mean to be rude here, but how many of you have played the game at a decent level? If you have, you will know that teams can hold their shape until a certain point and then it's like a rubber band that snaps. Everything spirals out of control, and no matter how you try, you can't put it back together. It means you expend energy in circumstances you normally wouldn't. You chase to back up and support in situations where you normally look to create. Everyone ends up out of position, and everyone ends up looking stupid. Swans passed that "snap" point before they arrived at the ground - too many players out. The loss of players during the game just made it worse.
Look at Port a few weeks ago against the Roos. They looked pathetic. They weren't trying? More likely they just didn't have the personnel and "snap" it all unravels. I would completely disregard the Port performance. Sure Roosy was upset, but he's the coach. What's he going to say? I think they had a go. I think they had a real hard go.

Now this man knows what he is talking about.

I would like to add that when the above happens, it is usually because there is lack of leaders on the ground (game injuries finally saw to that). The others collectively did not have the ability or will to take up the slack. This is the same for any team sport.

Are abilty to compete with all sides will be sorely tested if our injury list stays high. In this regard we have "hit the wall".

[swansrule100]

theres no one here who would ever think the players didnt try or didnt give their best
but the forum is too pass comment..to say they looked bad or werent as good as normal or were pathetic or what have you... its just analysing the game... surley u dont need to be a 300 game player in the afl to have an opinion :P maybe u lack the understanding of every aspect....but i mean you dont have to have been prime minister of australia to comment on john howard