Swans vs. Demons match thread

[Nico]

Originally posted by liz
I'd argue the opposite. I think the team has a high proportion of utilities at the expense of players naturally suited to a specific role. The number of tall-but-not-tall-or big-enough defenders come forwards is testament - B2, Kennelly, Saddo, Davis Jnr, Dempster, Leo, Nicks, Sundqvist - lots of 3rd defenders / flankers / tall wingmen / possible midfield rotatees but few specialised KPPs or on-ball playmakers.

Don't quite get this post. My point was about verstility.

Kennelly - haven't seen him as a forward
B2 - ditto - recruited as back - but I reckon he is an under utalised commodity.
Saddo - Eade only once played him forward and Roos only tried it last year after was continually given a bath down back.
Davis - recruited as a forward and has been tried midfield. Problem is he is too smart for the dummies around him.
Dempster - forward??? versatilty not tested/unknown.
Leo - abject failure as a forward. No versatility value at all.
Nicks - probably the most versatile of the lot named. No consistency in any position.
Sundqvist - don't why he was named. How many games has he played exclusively off the bench.

Liz, you named these as utilities which by the very term should mean they are versatile and can play a number of positions.

One thing for sure both under Eade and Roos we will never know if this team can show any versatility.

Back on B2. I know we are short of people who can play back but this bloke could be a valuable asset as a permanent on baller. At least he knows how to get on his own.

[liz]

Originally posted by Nico
Liz, you named these as utilities which by the very term should mean they are versatile and can play a number of positions.

Yes, and I reckon they can, but probably not the most important positions - ie onballers, rucks or KPPs. My understanding of your post was that you were suggesting we didn't have enough versatile players. I think we may have too many at the expense of enough specialists. If you have a top notch KPP you're unlikely to care that he can't play on a wing or as a decoy HFF.

I notice that Dempster is described as a wingman / midfielder in the profile on him in the Swans magazine.

Kennelly has played a bit down forward (eg first half of the Port final in 2003 before he got injured), a bit on the ball at the end of 2002, mostly as a HBF since but still being talked about on here and by Roos as a potential wingman or even onballer.

Leo - not versatile? One of the best rebounders but also capable of playing on the Neitz's or Gehrigs of this world (and doing pretty well considering the height and weight disadvantage) as well as the Medhurst types.

Bolton played in the midfield and half forward line against the Hawks in round 1. He has run with Hird as a defensive type midfielder. I'm with you in that I think he could be a pretty useful "proper" midfielder.

I actually have a feeling we're almost arguing the same thing - but not entirely sure.

[Nico]

Versatile - Leo is the perfect example of someone who is not.

He can't play forward or midfield or even wing for that. He can only play backline. HBF to FB filling in when needed is not versatile.

If you could swing him up forward to kick goals during a game, than that would be versatile. Unfortunately he was a dud up forward. He could be on for a full game and you wouldn't know it. We reckoned he hid behind the goal posts or was having a couple of beers in the outer. Turning circle wider than Des Bethke.

[liz]

Depends on your definition of versatile. For me, someone doesn't have to be able to play all over the ground to be versatile, they just have to be able to play a variety of roles and play them well.

I reckon Leo is amongst the most versatile defenders going around at the moment and we have needed every ounce of that versatility over the past couple of years.

[NMWBloods]

I've been busy all weekend, so haven't commented previously, but some observations:

- I thought the guys tried a lot harder this week than previously, at least in the second half anyway. Just shows how terrible our skills are and how far behind the top teams we are.

- We had to work so hard for every goal - very painful buildup. Every delivery into F50 is generally woeful. The long kicks are not to position, but are rather long bombs that advantage the defender. Look at how effective some of Melbourne's long kicks inside 50 were. We have no one who can crumb the ball - when the ball spills we rarely threaten. Hall is struggling as he's just no getting the ball enough or in good position.

- We need to kick some goals, but we are not going to with the current game plan and execution. In 15 of the past 16 quarters we have kicked 21 goals!! That is incredibly pathetic.

- Accuracy is a major issue and shows how important it was in 2003. Part of this was the game plan whereby we went down the middle, but part of it was simply unsustainable luck and now we are seeing the other side.

In 2003 we kicked 14.5 goals and 10.1 behinds per game, which is an accuracy of 59% and 24.6 scoring shots.

In 2004 we kicked 13.0 goals and 9.8 behinds per game, which is an accuracy of 57% and 22.8 scoring shots.

In 2005 we have kicked 11.2 goals and 13.4 behinds per game, which is an accuracy of 46% and 24.6 scoring shots.
Excluding Hawthorn game it is, 9.5 goals and 14.3 behinds per game, which is an accuracy of 40% and 23.8 scoring shots.

Most teams aim to get about 25-26 scoring shots per game. This was always a problem for us and why the accuracy was so important. Once this dropped up, we had serious problems, which is our midfield.

- I thought Kirk had a very good game and was actually our best player. I thought J Bolton had a very good game too, one of the best I have seen him play.

However, their games highlights even more how much we need some quality midfielders. They are our two best midfielders out there and despite them playing well, we looked quite outclassed in the midfield. They are support players who play a part but are not really capable of turning a match and setting up victory.

- Spriggs was quite lively when he was on and should get some more time. His disposal is often found a bit wanting but he might add some spark to the midfield. Jolly generally played very well, but two stupid mistakes were annoying.

- The players really seem to struggle to keep their feet, with the preferred option to jump on or slide into the ball, rather than stay on their feet, pick up the ball and then find someone in good position. When they are tackled, their two approaches are either hang onto it and force a ball up or weakly get rid off so we turn it over. Rarely do we take the tackle and give it off effectively like other teams do.

- Similarly we don't attack the ball - sometimes it seems we prefer to wait for the opposition to get it and then tackle them.

- We mess about with the ball far too much. Too many handballs and too much keepings off. When Melbourne found an open player they attacked. When we did we dithered around with it and often turned it over. Our possessions often achieve nothing. We are spending far too much time near the boundary line.

- We were very loose at checking our men in the first half was poor, not applying enough pressure and giving them too much latitude.

- In the same vein we do not put enough pressure on the defenders in F50. This includes when the ball goes in and also on the kickouts. We often run back to flood and allow the opposition to get the ball to the wing without much trouble.

- Our kickouts continue to be one-dimensional. Melbourne showed the benefit of flexible kickins.

- Barry and C Bolton in defence did okay.

- Poor coaching to leave Kennelly in defence for the first three quarters as he kept getting dragged back to the goal square and had limited impact on the game. Wasn't move to the wing until the last qtr.


Game looked over in the first 5 minutes as we were quite outclassed and I never thought we really seriously threatened at any stage. As I've said before, we look very much like a mid-table side.

[liz]

Picking out just a few of your points to respond to

Originally posted by NMWBloods


- We had to work so hard for every goal - very painful buildup. Every delivery into F50 is generally woeful. The long kicks are not to position, but are rather long bombs that advantage the defender. Look at how effective some of Melbourne's long kicks inside 50 were. We have no one who can crumb the ball - when the ball spills we rarely threaten. Hall is struggling as he's just no getting the ball enough or in good position.

Most teams aim to get about 25-26 scoring shots per game. This was always a problem for us and why the accuracy was so important. Once this dropped up, we had serious problems, which is our midfield.

We generated 25 scores - just most of them were low ones. And we didn't have trouble getting the ball into the forward zone. We outdid the Dees in this regard as far as pure numbers go.

But of course everyone who watched the game knows that the quality of forward ball was shocking.

Watching Milne play (or Davey) makes me want to sit Schneider or Buchanan down in front of several hours of tapes to show how the best of them do it. It's not entirely their fault since both are being played up the ground for extended periods but Roos surely has to get at least one of them trying to learn to be a genuine crumber even if he wants them in the midfield in the longer term.

Or maybe that's a role Moore could come in and do this week.

- I thought Kirk had a very good game and was actually our best player. I thought J Bolton had a very good game too, one of the best I have seen him play.

However, their games highlights even more how much we need some quality midfielders. They are our two best midfielders out there and despite them playing well, we looked quite outclassed in the midfield. They are support players who play a part but are not really capable of turning a match and setting up victory.

We know we don't have the top-end depth. Losing Willo was always going to be a problem, we've not found anyone with the wile of Cressa, and Maxfield's drop off / suspension also weakens midfield options.

McVeigh and Ablett are probably the only two capable of making any immediate contribution to improve the midfield. Ablett probably played his least effective game of the year, particularly with his disposal, but was he not playing on Green for much of the game? Whoever was deserves some credit for keeping Green mostly ineffective - although of course when the MacLeans of this world can pop up to fill the breach it becomes a bit of a meaningless "victory".

- The players really seem to struggle to keep their feet, with the preferred option to jump on or slide into the ball, rather than stay on their feet, pick up the ball and then find someone in good position. When they are tackled, their two approaches are either hang onto it and force a ball up or weakly get rid off so we turn it over. Rarely do we take the tackle and give it off effectively like other teams do.

Agree, though there were a few occasions (not just in this game but in earlier ones too) where a player managed to win the ball or at least stop an easy opposition take-away by sliding on the ball at the feet of an opponent and either managing to get up and pass it on or winning a free for attacking the ball. One from O'Loughlin in the 4th quarter comes to mind, Jude and Kirk regularly do it, and Bevan's not scared to have a go (not withstanding the fact he sometimes mucks it up by lying on the damn thing). Nicks and Kennelly also both did it in the final quarter against the Lions.

We can criticise many things about the team but collectively I don't think they lack the courage to put themselves in a contest.

- Similarly we don't attack the ball - sometimes it seems we prefer to wait for the opposition to get it and then tackle them.

Something that is more prevalent this year and the change to the interpretation of HTB must be a contributing factor. I don't think this observation is limited to the Swans.

- We were very loose at checking our men in the first half was poor, not applying enough pressure and giving them too much latitude.

Yes - and all day against the Crows. That is indefensible when your game plan revolves around applying maximum pressure to the opposition.

[Wil]

Originally posted by liz
We can criticise many things about the team but collectively I don't think they lack the courage to put themselves in a contest.

IAWTP. But... I might be wrong but are the Swans players TOO keen to put themselves into a contest for a loose ball? It seems to me that they get themselves out of position going for the BIG 1%er. Which results in a loose opponent who can get a free run/kick if they get the ball.

[NMWBloods]

I think that.

When an opposition player has the ball, three Swans often try to tackle him, thus either forcing a ball up or, more likely, leaving opposition players free to receive a handball.

When the ball is loose on the ground, three Swans will dive on it, thus limiting the chances of it coming out. If it does, then it's usually the opposition who are there to get it.

Their tackling is ferocious but often quite stupid. Bevan is particularly bad at this, and J Bolton's shocking tackle on McLean which was unbelievably missed was a great example of this.

[Newbie]

Personally, the opposition would not mind to see the ball in Jude Bolton or Kirk hands for as many times as they did in the weekend. They do not do enough with the ball in hand. They would be the perfect support cast, do all the grunt work so that a more talented teammate could sit back, composure himself, identify opportunities and apply the maximum effort to optimize the chances.

I am starting to worry about the depth of talents we have. In 2003, we are all hoping for Goodes to maintain the form, Schneider to build up from his exciting promise, LRT to graduate and take an established position down back, Kennelly to broom and become a potent midfield weapon, McVeigh to add a deft touch of class to the midfield and Fixter to play again.

What have been on show so far, none of the pieces has fallen our way. With the wear and tear of Mickey, Maxfield and others, the problem is further magnified.

Maybe, we have to go back to the drawing board again. That would mean at least another five years in wilderness. By then, we must also find a replacement for Hall, Barry, Kirk, Bolton and few others.

Geez, the horizon has no single sign of promise at all.

[stellation]

Originally posted by Nico
Davis - x-snip-x Problem is he is too smart for the dummies around him.

I have been thinking the same thing the past few games.

[dann]

Much of my thoughts have already been added in this thread - and I would like to reaffrim that Roos was definately out-coached on Saturday night. Sure our forward line wasn't functioning but not a great deal was done about it - they didn't try to get Hall up the field just to open up the forward line.

I assume Roos and the crew had thought about this but either didn't want to implement them - perhaps the gameplan wasn't condusive to that switch - or more worrying, maybe Roos didn't have faith/ didn't want to take the risk of such moves. A friend of mine mentioned to me that whenever he watches Sydney (which is fairly regularly - sporting nut who lives in Melbourne and in a cursed Demon supporter) he thinks that they are always playing to stay in the game - rather than to win it. He said that after the win over Hawthorn funnily enough and every game since has looked exactly like it...