Winning ugly - dilemma for opposition

[NMWBloods]

So when will we see a return to the running style of game?

I suspect within the next few weeks.

It seems as if Roos has put together a very cunning strategy over recent weeks.

We were being found out badly when the opposition played the man-to-man, tight, pressure game. This was the preferred option to combat our running game.

That's no longer the most obvious option as we are winning in that ugly tight style of play.

Now what do you do to beat the Swans.

Roos now has a preferred Option A but also a viable Option B.

Hopefully this is the case - if it is Roos is a very smart man and it sets us up very well.

Will be most interesting to watch over the next few months.

[penga]

we changed our disposal percentages on the weekend in the conditions as well to 66% kick, 33% handpass... that is meant to be the winning formula

im curious though, should we react to how the opposition are playing us, ie plan a vs plan b, or should we be proactive and determine the game ourselves?

[NMWBloods]

Once we've established the Option B is a viable strategy, then I think in most cases we should go out to win the game with Option A. Of course there will be exceptions depending in the weather and conditions, and possibly the opposition.

[Damien]

Originally posted by penga
im curious though, should we react to how the opposition are playing us, ie plan a vs plan b, or should we be proactive and determine the game ourselves?

Should always try and be proactive and determine the game yourself, but sometimes it just doesn't work and you have to be reactive and counterpunch. Some teams are going to come into games and blow you out of the water with brilliant planning.

That is probably where Rocket was a very strong coach - he really understood what was happening out there and what was going wrong.

[dread and might]

Originally posted by penga


im curious though, should we react to how the opposition are playing us, ie plan a vs plan b, or should we be proactive and determine the game ourselves?

clearly it has to be a balance of the two. a good example on the weekend was adelaide putting a tagger onto Kirk. i guess the art of coaching is being able to play a predetermined style of game and have the flexibility to deal with "unexpected" coaching moves from the opposition.

example B: 2nd quarter. Hall kicks goal and signals something or other to Magic. Magic starts to run into the defensive half and gets there as play restarts. literally a few seconds later there is a contest near the swans BP, (yet another) ugly pack forms, the ball comes out to....you guessed it Magic.

i wish i knew enough about football to know what the instructions were, but little moves like that happen constantly, from both coaches trying to gain an advantage.

so bottom line, lets have a balance of pro and re- activity, at least we appear to have a plan B on the proactive side now.

[stellation]

Re: Winning ugly - dilemma for opposition

Originally posted by NMWBloods

Roos now has a preferred Option A but also a viable Option B.

Hopefully this is the case - if it is Roos is a very smart man and it sets us up very well.

Will be most interesting to watch over the next few months.

I have been wondering about this myself because it does seem to have been a fairly obvious shift and Roos always commends the players on following the game plan... Of course he does play his cards pretty close to his chest anyway...

[liz]

It has been said that a team only needs to clearly "win" a few match-ups around the ground and break-even on most of the rest to win. Rocket was a master at creating mismatches while not losing too much the other way. He also moved his pieces around the chess board so often that the opposition lost track of who and where they were playing.

I wonder though if, in the end, the players stopped enjoying playing because they were all sacrificed to the team strategies.

Roos seems to have found a balance between the players being willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the team but still being allowed to play their own game - and enjoy it in the process.

I see the last few weeks as a learning experience for both Roos and the Swans. They have proved to themselves that they can win different ways and Roos now has a few more tricks up his sleeve that he can call upon when he needs to. He's still pretty much a rookie coach because he didn't serve a very long apprenticeship as an assistant. I think we sometimes forget how quickly he has achieved what he has.

[TheHood]

Originally posted by lizz
I wonder though if, in the end, the players stopped enjoying playing because they were all sacrificed to the team strategies.

Everyone except Tony (apart from 2002).

[sharpie]

All these theories sound good, and I would like to agree with them, but I will only be able to make a decision after we play some good sides.

We have beaten poor teams recently by playing ugly. The question is whether that was a game plan, or simply because we weren't good enough to play better. The true test starts this weekend.

FWIW, I think it is a combination of the two - a dose of game plan with a pinch of not being good enough. But the "not being good enough" aspect I believe largely revolves around the selection of guys like Schneider and Fixter who were obviously not match fit enough in the last few games. I think Roos picked these guys knowing we were playing teams we were likely to beat, so that they would be closer to match fitness in the games coming up when we need our best team out on the park.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by sharpie
All these theories sound good, and I would like to agree with them, but I will only be able to make a decision after we play some good sides.

We have beaten poor teams recently by playing ugly. The question is whether that was a game plan, or simply because we weren't good enough to play better. The true test starts this weekend.

Absolutely agree, hence my last couple of sentences.

[BAM_BAM]

and hopefully it will be a theory to silence the arguement of why they were picked. A very good theory at that guys.

[liz]

Roosey responds...

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=160237

Poor bloke must be wondering what he has to do. As he points out in this article, a few weeks ago Rohan Connelly wrote an article about how the Swans could never win a final playing their fancy, freewheeling style of football.

[dread and might]

good call, especially on the "if you stop them [the swans] running then they can't win" now we're winning ugly and still being criticised. (words to that effect)

people will just always bag the swans, they kept bagging us for flooding, long after just about everyone else started as well.

[Nico]

Originally posted by lizz
Roosey responds...

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=160237

Poor bloke must be wondering what he has to do. As he points out in this article, a few weeks ago Rohan Connelly wrote an article about how the Swans could never win a final playing their fancy, freewheeling style of football.

Connolly is such a rabid Essendon supporter that his opinions of other teams comes across as criticisms. He just about lost me with his dribbling article on how Essendon's future looked so bright after they thumped "Richmond", because a couple of younger players put in credible performances. He has as good as hailed Ted Richards as the next superstar CHB because he had 20 possessions. Please!!!! Enough to make one pewk.

[SXP]

Originally posted by lizz
Roosey responds...

http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=160237

Poor bloke must be wondering what he has to do. As he points out in this article, a few weeks ago Rohan Connelly wrote an article about how the Swans could never win a final playing their fancy, freewheeling style of football.

Note to Roos: Don't read what some so called "footbal experts" are writing about the Swans game strategy.