Pathetic

[Rizzo]

It's very hard to follow players on TV but from what I saw Williams then Jude tagged Bell. Whatever Williams got up to after that didn't lead him to the ball. As I said in a previous post, sloppy! I don't think any particular player deserves singling out for their poor performance as it was pretty much across the board (C. Bolton and Mathews were the exceptions). Didn't hit tagets and but themselves under pressure.

Why do Freo win at home and not away? Passionate supporters or the travel?

I actually disappointed to read that Carey might miss the game next weekend. I was really looking forward to yelling at him again...

[Johnny Roberts]

Originally posted by Johnny Roberts
Brett Kirk (IMHO) is clearly not up to AFL standard- he tried hard, but was chasing tail all night.

This statement is just plain dumb. You were not paying attention.

Not sure if you understand the abbreviation "IMHO" - but this relates to it being my "opinion" only- hence I expressed it.

To expand- I don't base my opinion on Kirk on just 1 game, but feel his performance against Freo just illustrated once again, that IMHO he isn't up to AFL standard - I shudder to think how he will go against a "quality" midfield like Brisbane or Adelaide.

As far as "paying attention" one only needs to look at the stats to see that he had 1 kick for 1 clanger - for a total of 10 disposals-IMO clearly not enough for a midfielder.

I am willing to excuse the "up's and down's" of the youngsters like - Scheider, Stevens, Fixter etc. (even the slightly older Fosdike, J Bolton & Goodes) because they are early 20's or younger and deserve time to develop, but Kirk is in his late 20's and has been around the club a while now.

The way I see it- 2003 is about building a "young & exciting" list for the future - Kirk (and for that matter Warfe) are clearly neither; so should make way for younger players.

[tez]

I was at the game and came away shaking my head.
They didn't appear to have passion to get the ball and
failed to back each other up. They left too many loose men,
at times 40 and 50 metres in the clear. Goodes was easily
our best and possibly got a Brownlow vote. Crouch IMO was
the next best. I thought Nicks started well but does tend
to miss the set shots from 30-40 metres out.


Hope leo's 101st game is a lot better that his 100th.

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by WASwansFanatic
Bloody hell...They were absolutely woeful.Look forward to it all year and then they come up with that ****.

And finally....My performance..... Woeful..... Not enough voice and got down too easily in 2nd and 3rd quarter
I may just have to come across mid year and experience the SCG!!!!!!!!

Mate, I can understand how you must be totally dispondent at having your once-in-a-year experience turned into a nightmare.

I chatted with several SA-based Swans supporters after our painful shellacking in Round 3 last year, and they had gotten to the stage that they expected us to play crap when they come to SA. (Indeed it seems if any the Crows are definitely our bogey side!)

They explained to me how they spend a whole year looking forward to one day, only to see total crap. I could imagine that that would be mortifying (Not that our loss to the Crows over there didn't destroy me-it DID!)

We have a supporter (Annette) in Brizzie who is in the same boat. Whilst she is a Lions member and is supportive of them when we aren't playing them, she frets too when we lose up there. Annette is definitely getting the hard end of the stick; I can't see us beating them up in their steam bath of a ground there in the next 5 years!

If you come over bud, I promise to buy you a beer or three. It is the wide-travelling one-match-a-year supporters who are the essence of any footy club.

JF

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Johnny Roberts
As far as "paying attention" one only needs to look at the stats to see that he had 1 kick for 1 clanger - for a total of 10 disposals-IMO clearly not enough for a midfielder.

Stats can be misleading. Kirk's job was to tag Headland and he did it very effectively.

[Johnny Roberts]

Stats can be misleading. [/

Fair point- stats don't always tell the story- merely pointing out that I was "paying attention" to the facts- not playing "favourites"

Kirk's job was to tag Headland and he did it very effectively.[/

I would argue that the role of "tagger" or "runwith player" (as they are now termed) in 2003 is more than just stopping your opponent. Modern footy is all about pushing forward and creating when your team has the ball and pushing back and manning up when the opponent has it- regardless of your role or set position. Which is the reason I mark Kirk's performance down.

Rayden Tallis' "runwith/ tagging" role on Benny Cousin yesterday is the perfect example- kept Cousins quiet(er), but still pushed forwarded to kick/ create goals.

[NMWBloods]

I would argue that the role of "tagger" or "runwith player" (as they are now termed) in 2003 is more than just stopping your opponent. Modern footy is all about pushing forward and creating when your team has the ball and pushing back and manning up when the opponent has it- regardless of your role or set position. Which is the reason I mark Kirk's performance down.

Rayden Tallis' "runwith/ tagging" role on Benny Cousin yesterday is the perfect example- kept Cousins quiet(er), but still pushed forwarded to kick/ create goals.

The ability to push forward while stopping your opponent is the ideal situation, but doesn't always happen.

Tallis v. Cousins: 19 disposal v. 18

Kirk v. Headland: 10 disposal v. 8

The net difference is much the same. So although Kirk was less effective than Tallis in the forward thrusts, he was also more effective in stopping his opponent. Which way it should be done depends on the coach's game plan.

[Johnny Roberts]

The ability to push forward while stopping your opponent is the ideal situation, but doesn't always happen.

Tallis v. Cousins: 19 disposal v. 18

Kirk v. Headland: 10 disposal v. 8

Selective use of words and stats- my point was that the role is as much about pushing forward to "kick/ create goals" as much as stopping.

Tallis kicked 1 goal and gave 1 to Crawford.

Kirk kicked 0 goals and had 1 goal kicked on him.

Tallis was clearly more effective.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Johnny Roberts
Selective use of words and stats- my point was that the role is as much about pushing forward to "kick/ create goals" as much as stopping.

Tallis kicked 1 goal and gave 1 to Crawford.

Kirk kicked 0 goals and had 1 goal kicked on him.

Tallis was clearly more effective.

And Ben Cousins kicked two goals, so again a wash.

Even if you can manage that Tallis played better, and maybe he did, the difference was not huge.

[Johnny Roberts]

And Ben Cousins kicked two goals, so again a wash.

Even if you can manage that Tallis played better, and maybe he did, the difference was not huge.

Ben Cousins 2 Goals vs Tallis 1 goal and 1 assist I would say - but we could argue the toss all night.......

My point is simply that Tallis took on one of the best midfielders in the comp in Cousins and not only kept him below his best, but also created and kicked goals also.

Whereas Kirk kept Hedland (not in Cousins class, but for argument's sake of comparable quality)below his best- without hurting Hedland going "the other way"- and therefore IMO- only 1/2 as effective as Tallis.

[NMWBloods]

My point is simply that Tallis took on one of the best midfielders in the comp in Cousins and not only kept him below his best, but also created and kicked goals also.

Whereas Kirk kept Hedland (not in Cousins class, but for argument's sake of comparable quality)below his best- without hurting Hedland going "the other way"- and therefore IMO- only 1/2 as effective as Tallis.

I can't agree with this "half as effective." Tallis was better offensively, but Kirk was better defensively. Cousins would have been more damaging with his 18 possessions than Headland was with his 8. That Cousins is a better player than Headland I don't doubt, but if Kirk's job was to shut down Headland, he did that and he did it better than Tallis shutting down Cousins. Last year Headland was averaging 19 possessions a game, while Cousins was averaging 24. Both were kept below their prior-year efforts, yet Headland would have been less effective in his game than Cousins was in his.

[snajik]

Originally posted by Johnny Roberts
I was "paying attention" to the facts- not playing "favourites"

This scenario also works in reverse. Some members of this site have a tendency to adopt "whipping boys" and slag them off irrespective of the standard of their performance. Example: one of the more opinionated posters on this site stated earlier this season that McPherson and Kirk should never play for Sydney again after having watched just 10 minutes of a practice match. I'm just glad that some of these guys will never be selectors.

With Bell, Cook and Hasleby running rampant, Freo could have won by a margin in excess of 50 had Headland not been contained. What I object to, is Kirky getting bagged when he has played well and done what Roos has required of him. If he had put in a shocker, I could accept it. I don't see anyone calling for Maxfield or Williams (who were almost unsighted) to step down for 'youth'. This is invariably justified with 'they rarely play two bad games in a row'.

I suspect that Kirk is being groomed to replace Cresswell, and I believe that in this role he should do alright. He is already our best tagger, and best tackler, and his offensive skills are not as bad as you would suggest. His effectiveness and his stats from his last six games (R19 2002 - R2 2003) back this up.

R 19 v North. Came on midway through the 2nd quarter, picked up 24 possessions and put Shannon Grant out of the game.

R 20 v St Kilda. Kept Lenny Hayes to a season low of 9 possessions.

R21 v Melbourne. Did not have a tagging role. 19 possessions, and rested for spells during the last half.

R22 v Richmond. Shaded by Mark Coughlan. Coughlan had 20 possession, 1 goal, Kirk 15, 1 goal.

R1 v Carlton. Kept Camporeale to 12 possessions. Camporeale kicked 2 goals (Kirk was on the bench getting work done on his calf when the second was kicked), Kirk kicked 1 goal from 15 possessions. Against the more fancied Collingwood, Camporeale picked up 26 possessions.

R2 v Fremantle. Kept Headland to 8 disposals. Headland produced 6 clangers which would indicate the level of pressure he endured.

I would propose that he is definitely earning his position in the side.

Incidentally, Kirk has only recently turned 26. Hardly late twenties. As he debuted as a rookie in 1999, his AFL development is probably more akin to players 3-4 years his junior. With the loss of Kelly, Dunkley, Lockett and Schwass (and with Cresswell about to pull stumps) we will need some players 25>. The theory of new + young = good does not necessarily work in practice.

[Skells]

Going on these figures Kirk is doing a great job and looks as though he will definately be able to fill Creswell's shoes, lets hope he keeps it up.

[Johnny Roberts]

This scenario also works in reverse. Some members of this site have a tendency to adopt "whipping boys" and slag them off irrespective of the standard of their performance. Example: one of the more opinionated posters on this site stated earlier this season that McPherson and Kirk should never play for Sydney again after having watched just 10 minutes of a practice match. I'm just glad that some of these guys will never be selectors.

Isn't that the whole point- none of us are selectors- hence we post on boards like RWOL to express our opinions/ get things off our chest.
FWIW- if you read my original post you will see I was a giving my observations on Kirk based on what I have seen over 4 years- not one game.

What I object to, is Kirky getting bagged when he has played well and done what Roos has required of him. If he had put in a shocker, I could accept it. I don't see anyone calling for Maxfield or Williams (who were almost unsighted) to step down for 'youth'. This is invariably justified with 'they rarely play two bad games in a row'.

I wasn't aware that you were "privy" to Roos matchups and player's individual roles- even so (as I have already stated)- I would contend that a runwith role is as much about stopping as it is creating - particularly under the attacking game plan that Roos has employed since talking over as coach.
BTW- the reason i didn't mention Maxfield was that he is coming back from an interrupted pre-season and Willo's dual B&F's speak for themselves- ie. both have the runs on the board.

I suspect that Kirk is being groomed to replace Cresswell, and I believe that in this role he should do alright. He is already our best tagger, and best tackler, and his offensive skills are not as bad as you would suggest. His effectiveness and his stats from his last six games (R19 2002 - R2 2003) back this up.

Sorry, but I to disagree, Crouch is our best tagger in my book, with Cresswell, Mathews and Fixter also able to play that role I personally feel we need to find more attacking midfielders, not more "stoppers"
Kirk played 18 games in 2002 why only mention the last 4?

[QUOTE]I would propose that he is definitely earning his position in the side.

Fair call- hard to argue given our injuries and loss of experienced midfielders- however IMO Kirk does not have what it takes to take the swans to the "next step".

The club and Roosy have stated a few times that season 2003 is not about short term success, but instead "rebuilding" a list to contest finals and G/finals in the long term. Therefore IMO it is time to take a punt on an Ablett, Powell, Malceski etc. - if this is at the expense of a more senior player, who has been given chances previously- then so be it.

[robbieando]

Johnny I think your wrong about Crouch being our best Tagger, I think Ben Fixter is. But having said that Crouch has never let us down before when used as a Tagger I just think its time he got a more "free role".