Team v Brisbane

[swansrule100]

Originally posted by footyhead
He doesn't really exsist. He is just a construct of our collective imaginations.
The Swans are on a course of failer that no coach can ever have any effect on.
The club is the titanic of the AFL, extreamly expensive and grandios, rather showy and invested in by all the power brokers of the day.
But it is a sinking ship.
Like Big Brother- Paul Roos is a constructed identity to make the passengers feel less afraid as their worst fears are materialised.

then who do u suggest coaches the team?????

only three modern (since 1990) premiership coaches are currently not coaching and that parkin joyce and blight??



Ive never known one loss to spell such doom will you be apologising if the swans beat brisbane for all your carrying on??? you never say anything when they go well

[Plugger46]

As long as they play a couple of kids here and there, and don't play proven hacks such as Saddo and Fosdike I'll be happy. Wouldn't drop Nicks, but hopefully Stewie will step aside.

[smasher]

Against Brisbane we need to play as many hard ,tough nuts that we have.Otherwise they will belt the living crap out of us as they have done to St Kida and Port(even though they lost).They are playing kids who look like seasoned campaigners.Come on Swannies it's a mans game so play like men.

[Mark]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Back to the Brisbane team, I would stick with the same team:

FB: Larry Curly Mo
HB: Groucho LRT Harpo
C: Abbot Costello Chaplin
HF: Laurel Hardy Keaton
F: Prior Wilder Arbuckle

Arbuckle playing out of the square tho he has lost some pace

[Rob-bloods]

Originally posted by Syd Swan
Not missing, but in my opinion they don't deserve a start, with McVeigh being the possible exception.

And LRT in?

[Ruda Wakening]

Originally posted by smasher
They are playing kids who look like seasoned campaigners.

Because the kids have the luxury of learning and training with the best, which is a huge advantage and something that IMO costs teams like Sydney dearly.

[Sanecow]

Maybe we should pick up the kids rejected by the good clubs.

[Thunder Shaker]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
In the past 30 years the only times we have kicked less goals during the H&A season were in 1993 (1 win)

Not an accurate comparison because in 1993 we only played 20 games. How does the comparison look when that is factored in?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
Not an accurate comparison because in 1993 we only played 20 games. How does the comparison look when that is factored in?

Good point - forgot about that. Our equivalent goals for 1993 were therefore 293.

Over the course of our history, we are very middling, but unsurprisingly horrible in the post war period.

Our number of 'goals for' is 1% below the average for the competition per season, and the number of 'goals against' is 3% above the average for the competition. Our average wins are 46% of games played.

In the post-war period, we are 2% below ave for 'goals for', 8% above average for 'goals against', and win only 39% of games.

Back to the goals, in 2003 we kicked 5% above comp average (we kicked 14.5 goals per game against comp ave of 13.9).

Last year we kicked 4% below average (ie: we kicked 13.0 goals, the comp average was 13.6 goals).

In 1993 we were 14% below average.

Our own 'goals for' average (13.0 goals per game) in 2004 was our lowest since 1992 when we kicked 12.9 per game. We are reverting back to the ugly days of the 60s and 70s when we kicked less goals than the competition average.

Interestingly, during Eade's reign, despite views of our defensive game, we averaged 14.5 goals per game, or 4% above comp average, while under Roos were are at 13.4 goals per game, or equal to the comp average. This has declined over past years though from 14.5 goals in 2003 to 13.0 in 2004 to 12.5 so far in 2005.

Roos is producing a far more defensive game than Eade.

[footyhead]

Roos is not as astute a coach as Eade.
Not many are.
But Roosy knows how to inspire confidence.
However he may lose that capacity if he can not turn the team into a better goal scoring machine.
Certainly he is starting to lose the confidence of the supporters with his ugly style of football and rather insipid public personality.

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
This has declined over past years though from 14.5 goals in 2003 to 13.0 in 2004 to 12.5 so far in 2005.

12.5 average so far this year is completely meaningless, particular given the deviation between the scores of the two games.

[Chubby Muffler]

Originally posted by footyhead
Certainly he is starting to lose the confidence of the supporters with his ugly style of football and rather insipid public personality.

I have to say he is sounding more and more like a politician. Sometimes I just wish he'd answer the questions.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
12.5 average so far this year is completely meaningless, particular given the deviation between the scores of the two games.

As a number, yes. However, given last year's number and our game performance on the weekend, unless things change dramatically, we wouldn't expect the final number to be any higher than last year's.

[DST]

Interesting fact from Champion Data on SEN radio yesterday.

Since this type of statistic has been taken every premiership team has averaged more than 55 inside 50's per game.

Last year for the first time Port averaged just under 50 inside 50's per game.

Considering that we as a finals team over the last two years have averaged the least amount of inside 50's, it does show that our current game plan does make it harder for us to win a premiership.

As we have a lack of height in defence, I do like the idea of pushing players back to cover spots and help with coverage in the air. Where I would like to see us changing the game plan is carrying the ball more to try and get through the numbers in the midfield and draw the zone defence out more to give Bazza, Davis, MOL, Saddington and the resting ruckman more room to move. Wether this is done with short kicks and handball is not the issue but actually carrying the ball and breaking the lines is.

In 2003 we caught a lot of teams off guard with this type of play (as soon as Roos took over in 2002 you could see the team structure change around stoppages where you saw a free players always push forward to be used as an option to carry the ball forward).

Unfortunately in 2004 (while we were still succesful) other teams woke up to this and started to drag Kennelly back to the goal square all the time at stoppages and because of Schuables absence Leo was forced to mind a bigger player in the goal square.

Comments from Brisbane this week state that they are ready for a stop start game with plenty of numbers around the ball. It would be fantastic this week if we came out and rolled the dice from half back and had Kennelly & Leo run and carry the ball. Would also love to have either Saddo or MOL available as that second marking target to make us a bit more unpredictable.

Don't be surprised to see Saddo line up this week at full forward, as we are going to need to drag Leppa away from Mal Micheal and make him accountable. Otherwise it's going to be a hard day at the office for Bazza with one at his side and the other 10 meters in front.

Either Davis or O'Keefe are also going to need to work hard to blunt Chris Johnsons influence with the ball as well.

DST

[Rob-bloods]

Originally posted by DST
Interesting fact from Champion Data on SEN radio yesterday.

Since this type of statistic has been taken every premiership team has averaged more than 55 inside 50's per game.

Last year for the first time Port averaged just under 50 inside 50's per game.

etc etc

DST

A fine post, a pleasure to read, informed, neither condescending nor sarcastic, not in-crowd specific.....should be more like it I say!

and no mention of ROK's physical attributes.........