Four things that damaged my tv remote

[Snowy]

Rutten and Mattner are two underrated players but if the ball goes in quickly and Hall et al are on fire the defenders rebound at their own risk. Now most of the action is chipping to contests and short to no advantage on the wings.

[Bleed Red Blood]

Originally posted by satchmopugdog
That's two remote controls in two weeks. Mine went last week when Nicks'shot on goal was really a pass to the Lions defender in the goal square. It does help with the fitness having to get up and down.

My sound system remote is gone too. When Goodes gave away that free..

[dimelb]

Originally posted by mocaholic


Hard to tell when you watch on tv as you don't get the full picture.

Absolutely. As an alternative to yelling and groaning at our blokes, I was screaming at Ch. 9 to pull the camera back and let us see the field action. They seem to love closeups, "movement and colour" that stops you from seeing where the hell we are. Here's hoping for 7 next time around.

[Old Royboy]

From my usual perch in the Noble Stand, end on and elevated I get a different perspective to most. And at least I can?t kill any electrical appliances up there. My view and post match comments made by Nicks, Goodes and Jude at the aftermatch led to these thoughts.

Dempster should be our kick off man. Can kick the footy. He kicked one on Sunday 50m plus to an open receiver, lace out. A long accurate kicker expands the oppositions zone, each man must cover a greater area so targets are easier to find. So what did we do? Gave the next kick in to the down on confidence Kennelley.

Jude made the suggestion that when we are attacking down one side of the ground and the ball is rebounded by the opposition back down the other side there is not much can be done. For those directly involved in the headless chook handballing some excuse, but the others for CS, how about manning up instead of watching the (usually) disastrous results of the kick in.

Jude also said that the team was disorganised in setting up its zone against Adelaide?s kick in. Doe?s this mean we lack midfield leadership. Was that because Willo was off injured? Some-one in the group needs to show some on field leadership if blokes are stuffing up like that.

A fast break is fine, but is there is a target to aim at? Bazza and his mates either came up or were dragged up by their opponents too far up the ground. A couple of times when Dempster took off, he looked up and Bazza was only metres ahead, all there was to kick long to seemed to be the legless Mick and three crows. I think this could partially explain the headless chook running and headless chook handballing ? no bloody targets because all the targets have sucked up too far. OK if the ball can be carried to 50 for a shot, (only able to do that against the tired Brisbane) otherwise UTS.

Many of our backs appear to have zero peripheral vision. They consistently ignore open men and deliver to a target requiring pinpoint delivery & where failure to do so is disaster because the said target is 1 on 2. Often disaster results.

Craig looked at the cattle we had and devised a good game plan. His players in the main executed well and should have blown us away in the third quarter. The team we sent out, plus injuries during the game, plus the @@@@house way we played, plus the crap goalkicking meant that Roos found it difficult to respond and we lost. For all that that we were still a chance to pinch the game with 10 minutes to go. It was bad, but could have easily have been much worse

[Wil]

Originally posted by Old Royboy
Jude made the suggestion that when we are attacking down one side of the ground and the ball is rebounded by the opposition back down the other side there is not much can be done.

Thats rubbish. This is because the Swans play Auskick "throw a blanket over them" style.

Basically all the midfielders, the two forward pockets, the two half-forwards and the two back pockets chase the ball around all day. Which obviously creates rebounding space for the opposition and no targets on the field further than a handball for us.

[NMWBloods]

I agree - that is a staggering thing to say.

Does that mean when the opposition rebounds we should just give them a goal?

Why is it then that when we rebound the opposition seems to be able to do something to counter it?

I have to wonder whether that's really what Bolton said, but given the nature of the way we play it really wouldn't surprise me.

[Wil]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Does that mean when the opposition rebounds we should just give them a goal?

Well I think our fast, hard tackling players might confound the effect somewhat so it is not as obvious. Edit - Also wanted to ad the fact that we have a bloody good back line that also makes up for this. But they cope way too much pressure. Kind of like how no matter how good a goal keeper is in soccer if the defenders give the other team heaps of chances they are going to score goals.

Why is it then that when we rebound the opposition seems to be able to do something to counter it?

Is it because they have players spaced more evenly around the ground. Or is it because by the time the swans stop handballing it around and have got a kick away the other team has its players in better positions.

The Swans also never seem to "switch" play with a long crossfield kick to an open man. But probably because Swans never have players in kicking distance from the ball.

[Vivien]

Well said Cressakel! Why on earth are they paying Hall millions of dollars if they're not gonna give him a chance to kick bloody goals! I thought the whole point of having a talented forward line (which we do) was to get the ball to them and allow them to score! The number of times the swans went wide, short and indirect into the forward 50 were too numerous to count. We are best running from half back straight through the centre corridor with one kick into the F50. So why the over-handballing?

This is not to discredit Adelaide's performance. Their defensive zone was strong. They played a simple, attacking, direct style of football and were rightly rewarded. This is what we need to do.

As much as I admire him, I really think that Roos has lost the plot a bit. Football really isn't rocket science. You just have to get the ball through those white sticks to win. Why use 10 disposals getting to F50 when you really only need one or two? Why not have confidence that our players will come through in a man-on-man contest? Why make things hard for yourselves? A direct, no-nonsense, aggressive and attacking style of play will always win out over fancy tricks which we simply do not have the skill to excecute.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by Vivien
The number of times the swans went wide, short and indirect into the forward 50 were too numerous to count. We are best running from half back straight through the centre corridor with one kick into the F50. So why the over-handballing?

This is not to discredit Adelaide's performance. Their defensive zone was strong. They played a simple, attacking, direct style of football and were rightly rewarded. This is what we need to do.

Have you read the RWO match report:

http://redandwhiteonline.com/content.php?id=522_0_2_0_C

We were well outcoached by Craig. Yes, the Swans grossly overhand-balled and short kicked but they generally went for the corridor. The Crows ran wide (I hope they put all their fans in the O'Reilly stand) time and again and in a three kick rebound were lining up for goal because the Swans just didn't go to the wing to cover them. If we could be as effective running around the boundary I wouldn't mind it. But this time we largely went direct (via a thousand short passes) but couldn't get it effectively out of our defensive 50 or into our attacking 50.