Roos embarassed

[Steve]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
That basically means we need to get rid of him!!

Well they did try.

Says a bit that no-one wanted him.

Unfortunately it doesn't look like it has stung him.

[chammond]

but Roos also has to accept some responsibility for an average day in the coaches box.

It's always good for a laugh to see which player we are going to pillory after a loss. Not sure how Nicks was to blame for the crappy first half, but what's logic got to do with it.

IMHO Steve's quote above is the most interesting so far. I thought Roos should be embarassed about his own performance on Sunday. Ayres is no tactical genius, but he clearly out-thought Roos in the first half, and Roos was very slow to react. That, combined with Roos reluctance to give Ablett and Stevens (and Schneider to an extent) a decent run, meant that the game wasn't just lost, but was also a waste of time in terms of team development.

In the past two weeks, the Swans have had a chance (albeit slim) to win the game. Last week, Kennelly missed a shot which stopped the momentum, and this week it was Goodes and Davis who did the same. Not Nicks, nor Warfe, nor Bolton.

And if we're talking about unfit players who shouldn't be in the team: Davis has been a passenger for 3 matches, and is not improving! Going on form, you'd have to drop Davis and Stevens before you'd consider anyone like Nicks.

And what's this continued criticism of the defence? We've got a midfield that can't win the ball, and a forward line that can't kick straight, but we're still worrying about a possible weakness in the backline?

[skilts stilts]

The most accurate assessment I have read thus far.Chipping nine iron passes into the wind and then short passing with the wind was just kindergarten stuff.Similarly playing a 2 man forward line with the wind meant plenty of packs around the ball.Plain dumb football overseen by a nice guy still very wet behind the ears.With the exception of Davis I have no doubt they do give 100%,which is the sad thing ,most aren't up to it.How many in the team have played less than 30 games.Inexperience can't be used as an excuse just yet.

[NMWBloods]

It's always good for a laugh to see which player we are going to pillory after a loss. Not sure how Nicks was to blame for the crappy first half, but what's logic got to do with it.

My comments on Nicks related to his performance over a period of time and Steve's comments above. I think it reasonable to assess players' performances after a couple of poor losses.

In the past two weeks, the Swans have had a chance (albeit slim) to win the game. Last week, Kennelly missed a shot which stopped the momentum, and this week it was Goodes and Davis who did the same. Not Nicks, nor Warfe, nor Bolton.

Thanks for that Mr. Logic - you don't think the rest of the game leading up to that point has any bearing on the outcome either? Games are rarely decided by a single act, except in very close games.

And if we're talking about unfit players who shouldn't be in the team: Davis has been a passenger for 3 matches, and is not improving! Going on form, you'd have to drop Davis and Stevens before you'd consider anyone like Nicks.

And what's this continued criticism of the defence? We've got a midfield that can't win the ball, and a forward line that can't kick straight, but we're still worrying about a possible weakness in the backline?

I think it is more sensible to worry about all parts of our team. I said before both of the previous two games that our midfield was the biggest problem. I think the forwards get frustrated by the lack of delivery and its poor execution. Our backs have done okay, considering the weak midfield, however they're not great.

In terms of points against, we rank 6th. However, that has been ably assisted by playing two pretty poor outfits in the first two games - Carlton and Freo. The former is the 6th lowest scoring team and the latter is the worst.

[NMWBloods]

I noticed that Peter Rhode has made very similar comments about the Bulldogs' players. I wonder which coach will be the first to take the knife to their senior list?

[chammond]

I think it reasonable to assess players' performances after a couple of poor losses.

So what did you think of the players' performances (as opposed to blaming a single player)?

Games are rarely decided by a single act, except in very close games.

Not so. Many games have a watershed (McAvaney's "pivotal point") that is critical to the result. IMO the plays that I nominated were examples of that.

I think it is more sensible to worry about all parts of our team.

Then we'll have to agree to differ. I've said before that I believe this is a very weak squad. But I think our midfield inadequacies and our poor kicking for goal are the factors that will be fatal to our chances of making the finals.

[Steve]

Trying to assess it objectively:

Nicks vs Davis:

• both are not fit enough
• hence carrying both of them in the one forward line is causing problems
• Davis has just turned 23, Nicks about to turn 28
• Davis has kicked 80 goals in the past 3 seasons (2000-2002), Nicks 67
• Davis had little if any pre-season (ie. at least some degree of an excuse), Nicks should have had a solid one

We can't carry both of them in our forward line at the moment, and unfortunately Nicks is unable to offer anything in any other role. Nor really is Davis, but my query would be how long we aim to persevere with a player who it seems even Roos has conceded is now a one-position player.

[NMWBloods]

So what did you think of the players' performances (as opposed to blaming a single player)?

I have commented in various places on most of them. Generally speaking they lacked either endeavour or skills or both. There were only a few good players - C Bolton, Maxfield, Kirk, for example. I think Roos, as coach, has a lot of work to do too.

Not so. Many games have a watershed (McAvaney's "pivotal point") that is critical to the result. IMO the plays that I nominated were examples of that.

I think some games have "pivotal points", however I think most don't. Sometimes I think it is mentioned as it makes a good story, but may not have a lot of substance.

Then we'll have to agree to differ. I've said before that I believe this is a very weak squad. But I think our midfield inadequacies and our poor kicking for goal are the factors that will be fatal to our chances of making the finals.

I agree with your comments here though. However, I think the backline is a bit suspect under pressure also. It does okay, but is vulnerable IMHO.

[chammond]

We can't carry both of them in our forward line at the moment,

I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, Steve, but I just don't think that dumping Nicks will make one scrap of difference to the team's performance. Our problems are much more fundamental than that.

I have commented in various places on most of them.

Actually I was just reading them, NMWB, while you were typing this. I think you are spot on about Kirk and Kennelly. Kirk now has to be one of the first picked each week. As far as I could tell, Kennelly was playing on Edwards and did a crap job. This bloke is fast and a superb kick - perfect wingman material. Why he is wasted in a defensive role I just can't understand. He's naturally attacking, and doesn't seem to have a clue about defensive roles other than some instinctive desperation.

[Sanecow]

I wasn't blaming Nicks for anything!

[Steve]

Originally posted by chammond
... but I just don't think that dumping Nicks will make one scrap of difference to the team's performance. Our problems are much more fundamental than that.

Yeah, but the thing is I didn't actually say it would.

Essentially what I started off saying was that IMO Nicks deserved being put under the pump just as much as many others.

But we're hardly going to move forward if after all the negative aspects are highlighted, the club says "how much will things really improve if we change negative aspect a) - what's the point".

When you speak of pivotal moments, IMO the Nicks miss late in the first quarter was massive. Heads definitely dropped after the 17-point turnaround, and we then came out very flat after quarter-time.

In any case, I think taking the hard line on players of Nicks' ilk will at least be moving in a positive direction.

[sharp9]

Definitely the pivotal moment

30 metres out form in front the score is about to be 4 goals to 3, quarter time upon us and having been outplayed into a massive headwind.....

That would have been an enormous boost, a lucky escape.

Instead, he missed and 1 minute later it's 6 goals to 2!!!

Drop him.

Same at the end of the second quarter (I think)... acouple of goals and then we surge forward, win the hard ball, about to go into the fifty and really narrow the scores then....Warfe handballs it right into the path of MaCleod and the game is over.

Drop him.

We could not possibly lose by trying these very simple remedies!

[chammond]

Yeah, but the thing is I didn't actually say it would.

That's right . . . it's me that's saying "I just don't think that dumping Nicks will make one scrap of difference to the team's performance"

But we're hardly going to move forward if after all the negative aspects are highlighted, the club says "how much will things really improve if we change negative aspect a) - what's the point".

Sorry, this doesn't make sense. If changing something has no effect then it can't be a "negative aspect".

IMO, dumping Nicks is just tokenism. If we're really going to punish poor performances, then it must be across the board. Saying that Nicks deserves to be punished more because he is older makes no more sense than retaining players merely because of their seniority.

When you speak of pivotal moments, IMO the Nicks miss late in the first quarter was massive. Heads definitely dropped after the 17-point turnaround, and we then came out very flat after quarter-time.

Can't argue with that. The miss was atrocious, but I'm not sure that Nicks caused the 17 point turnaround.

[Steve]

OK on the first point, although "I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, Steve, but I just don't think..." is making a link b/w my assessment and your assertion that it won't make any difference.

If you meant them to be two separate things that's fine.

You have msinterpreted the second point, which is why it didn't make sense. Maybe it wasn't presented as clearly as it could have been.

I'll try again:

But we're hardly going to move forward if, after the club investigates all the negative aspects and highlights them, they say "in isolation this first problem isn't massive - what's the point of doing anything about it". When this happens for all the points nothing ends up being done.

On the third point, I think it's very unfair to summarise the many points I put forward into 'drop him 'cause he's old'.

My references to Nicks' age, particularly when compared to others (eg. Davis) is that much more should be expected from a player in their 9th season at the club, and when they aren't and haven't delivered it (after what must be considered a reasonable amount of time), then it's a bit of a stretch to give them the benefit of the doubt ahead of guys who haven't had nearly as many chances.

Put simply, if Nicks can't get himself fit in 9 years, who is suggesting he's suddenly going to in the next couple?

On the last point, I don't think it's consistent to say that Nicks' miss didn't in some way lead to Adelaide's following 2 goals, yet earlier argue that misses by Kennelly, Goodes and Davis have changed the course of games by missing shots themselves.

If it wasn't Nicks' fault, but the forwards' who didn't pick up their men from the kick-in, the defenders for not marking their men closely enough etc etc, then I can accept that.

But surely then it wasn't Kennelly's/Goodes'/Davis' fault either, but their team-mates' for dropping their heads, for allowing their opponents to gather possessions, and the defenders for not marking closely enough to prevent the 'sealing' goals.

[chammond]

My references to Nicks' age, particularly when compared to others (eg. Davis) is that much more should be expected from a player in their 9th season at the club, and when they aren't and haven't delivered it (after what must be considered a reasonable amount of time), then it's a bit of a stretch to give them the benefit of the doubt ahead of guys who haven't had nearly as many chances.

You'll need a much stronger argument than that to convince me that different rules for different players is a good thing. To me, that's been part of the problem at the Swans for a long time. Scapegoating is just as bad as playing favourites, no matter how it's dressed up.

IMO, giving all the young players 'a fair go' might work okay in the under 8s, but in a professional environment it should just be a matter of: only the best 22 players on current form get on the park. Anything else just compromises the integrity of the team. If Nicks is good enough, he plays, otherwise he's out. His age, or length of service, shouldn't come into it.

On the last point, I don't think it's consistent to say that Nicks' miss didn't in some way lead to Adelaide's following 2 goals, yet earlier argue that misses by Kennelly, Goodes and Davis have changed the course of games by missing shots themselves.

Now who's misinterpreting, Steve? I've already agreed with you that Nicks' miss may well have been 'pivotal'. My earlier point was that there have been other misses by other players that were just as (or more) significant.