No surprises last night

[Rob-bloods]

Our kickouts are still a shambles, our forward setup is in disarray, we have perhaps 15 players out of form, we have kicked 7.17 and 7.18 in 2 recent games, I am hardly surprised we lost.

With the amount of analysis, and the amount of overpaid pussies who bear the title of coach of 'something or other' in a modern day footy club, can someone explain to me how we cannot clear our defence in three weeks?

I would also like to know how our 'potent' forward line so obviously needs to be setup properly. We missed goals last night , but why do all of our leads end up deep in the pockets? Why is Barry Hall, one of the most feared in the competition, not leading out in the 45 degree arc. Did Plugger or Dunstall run to the boundary to mark? Micky O does it, one is surely enough.

The midfield is frequently blamed on this site, last night I thought they did fairly well in a tough tight game, but why when BBBH had three defenders on him at times, did we never have a man open in the forward line?

And by the way, ROK did improve on his previous efforts, but he has looked liked Craig Nettlebeck for a month (lost, dazed and confused) but how many times did he go to ground after dropping a mark last night.....far too bloody often!

[Wil]

Re: No surprises last night

Originally posted by Rob-bloods
The midfield is frequently blamed on this site, last night I thought they did fairly well in a tough tight game

I blame the midfield because there never is anyone available to get the ball from the backs to the forwards - surely that is the midfields job? Looking at the three midfielders onball last night - Ablett, Kirk, Bolton. How are we supposed to win with them? Three players who are effectively there to negate the opposition and can not create anything themselves. Why would the other team bother marking these guys? The middle of the ground is lost without Willo and Roos doesn't have the guts to get someone in there to create something for the forwards.

[swan_song]

We are not giving credit to Melbourne, which is deserved. They played smarter, were better coached, were more skillful and basically wanted to win more!

[Wil]

Originally posted by swan_song
We are not giving credit to Melbourne, which is deserved. They played smarter, were better coached, were more skillful and basically wanted to win more!

They were awesome! Played like the Swans of 2003 (and how we should be playing now).

[Matt79]

Our effort was 100% better last night compared to the Crows game and for 4 quarters was hard to fault. We chased, tackled and harrassed.

IMO I feel we are actually not too far off. Our game plan of handball and run would be effective in kicking a high / winning score if we had the self belief and confidence to match. One good passage of play, bit of luck can turn things around it's just a matter of IF and When?

What was noticable to last night was the difference in pure class...when needed, Melbourne produced a touch of class...YZE snap over shoulder / goal, White, huge contested mark / goal and last quarter Roberston, huge mark / goal.

We struggled to take one contested mark last night!

[liz]

Originally posted by Wil
They were awesome! Played like the Swans of 2003 (and how we should be playing now).

Don't really agree with that.

They played well, not doubt, but weren't brilliant by any means.

They didn't starve the Swans of ball - I thought we won enough of that to do some damage.

There were periods during the game when they were struggling to score - they went for almost half an hour without scoring at one stage.

They might have beaten us had we played better but it wasn't down to them that we used the ball so appallingly - ie I don't think it was due to pressure being applied in the same way that the Lions did in the first half of that game.

Take two examples, early in the 4th quarter when we were only about 16 points down and actually having the better of the play around the packs. Schneider and Ablett, on two separate occasions, found themselves in space running towards goal with a player on near the goal square for a kick to advantage. There was no spare man in defence to assist the Dees but the Swans boys both managed to completely muff their chances and neither kick the goal themselves or pass off constructively.

Those two goals might well have seen a Brisbane-style comeback. We were in striking range and, as one often sees, goal kicking can become contagious.

[Dpw]

Originally posted by liz
Don't really agree with that.

They played well, not doubt, but weren't brilliant by any means.

They didn't starve the Swans of ball - I thought we won enough of that to do some damage.

There were periods during the game when they were struggling to score - they went for almost half an hour without scoring at one stage.

They might have beaten us had we played better but it wasn't down to them that we used the ball so appallingly - ie I don't think it was due to pressure being applied in the same way that the Lions did in the first half of that game.

Take two examples, early in the 4th quarter when we were only about 16 points down and actually having the better of the play around the packs. Schneider and Ablett, on two separate occasions, found themselves in space running towards goal with a player on near the goal square for a kick to advantage. There was no spare man in defence to assist the Dees but the Swans boys both managed to completely muff their chances and neither kick the goal themselves or pass off constructively.

Those two goals might well have seen a Brisbane-style comeback. We were in striking range and, as one often sees, goal kicking can become contagious.

Gee liz I dont think u have given Melbourne anywhere enough credit, I thought there defence was outstanding and the coaching staff played some master strokes and to be honest blaming goalkicking and suggesting the above mentioned players misses could of started a comeback sounds a little desperate, I think you are grasping at straws.

[Wil]

Originally posted by liz

Take two examples, early in the 4th quarter when we were only about 16 points down and actually having the better of the play around the packs. Schneider and Ablett, on two separate occasions, found themselves in space running towards goal with a player on near the goal square for a kick to advantage. There was no spare man in defence to assist the Dees but the Swans boys both managed to completely muff their chances and neither kick the goal themselves or pass off constructively.

Those two goals might well have seen a Brisbane-style comeback. We were in striking range and, as one often sees, goal kicking can become contagious.

DONT WORRY I KNOW! I was going crazy at that point - with exactly that in mind. When those two runs were over I could barely talk, nearly fainted from the screaming and that was it for me as well!

RE: Melbourne's performance. Sydney are great at defending and slowing down the opposition. You don't often see really impressive scores against us - Adelaide's result was inflated due to the 4 or so late goals when Sydney gave up. I thought Melbourne were really impressive against us - good run from the back, able to find their FF in a goal kicking position when they needed to. Able to get clean position out of the centre bounce and also pulled out a couple of "miracles" which a team should be able to do a couple of times a match.

[liz]

Originally posted by Dpw
Gee liz I dont think u have given Melbourne anywhere enough credit, I thought there defence was outstanding and the coaching staff played some master strokes and to be honest blaming goalkicking and suggesting the above mentioned players misses could of started a comeback sounds a little desperate, I think you are grasping at straws.

Not sure how that is grasping at straws. I merely gave two examples of plays were the Swans failure had nothing to do with direct play from the Demons but was just down to their own mistakes.

I thought the Dees played well but I don't think they blitzed us. That is the standard of football that a team has to play in this competition. Kicking truly to a forward on the lead, taking marks in the forward 50, finding a player in space, the odd accurate snap at goal - it's all regulation AFL stuff.

Melbourne did it and we fell way way short.

If anything, I'd have thought that blaming the Swans' failures on the opposition is grasping at straws.

[Schneiderman]

My thoughts:

Miller on Hall was a (&%^#$^!!) masterstoke. The SCG is small enough not to need two large forwards (hence why we have never produced two unlike other good teams) so using him defence was clever. Its probably the reason they were less successful in attacking - as opposed to the crap Daniher was saying about us playing ugly

Hall had a bad night out. Unusual, but it was the worst time to do it. I wonder what would have happened had he been made captain for the night??

ROK had a much better game. Seemed to play a lot in the midfield from what I could see. Jude gets better every week. This could well be his best year yet, and I predict he'll poll well in the Brownlow votes.

We REALLY missed both Maxifield and Williams. There was justnot enough flair or run from the midfield, and Maxi's hardness would have really helped. A couple of extra big hits on their depleted midfield would have been great. Whenever he got physical they seemed to wilt.

Davey, Robertson and Yze had too much class. As Crouch loses his pace and confidence he is becoming more of a scragger. We need another option. Dempster was given a valuable lesson, and Yze is just too skilled.

More rucking options would have really helped. White is probably too good to a ruckman for us to completely beat, but some extra options would have been great.

[liz]

Originally posted by Schneiderman

We REALLY missed both Maxifield and Williams. There was justnot enough flair or run from the midfield, and Maxi's hardness would have really helped. A couple of extra big hits on their depleted midfield would have been great. Whenever he got physical they seemed to wilt.

More rucking options would have really helped. White is probably too good to a ruckman for us to completely beat, but some extra options would have been great.

Not sure that the ruck was the area we lost the game. Jolly did pretty well against White, I thought, and apart from one very strong mark in front of goal, I didn't think White did a huge amount around the ground to hurt us.

We certainly missed Williams but then we knew we would. The problem is that we can't afford to miss one midfielder as much as we always miss him when he's out. And he's not coming back anytime soon.

On Crouch, I wonder if it's time to take him off tagging duties at the moment. I don't think pace is necessarily the problem - Davey made him look slow, but then Davey would make anyone look slow. He is still capable of breaking the lines himself and we need that with Willo out. He doesn't quite have the class of Williams disposal wise but can still add some ball carrying zip around the midfield. And maybe it will make football a little more fun for him because at the moment he is getting down on himself and doesn't look as if he's enjoying himself much.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by liz
On Crouch, I wonder if it's time to take him off tagging duties at the moment. I don't think pace is necessarily the problem - Davey made him look slow, but then Davey would make anyone look slow. He is still capable of breaking the lines himself and we need that with Willo out. He doesn't quite have the class of Williams disposal wise but can still add some ball carrying zip around the midfield. And maybe it will make football a little more fun for him because at the moment he is getting down on himself and doesn't look as if he's enjoying himself much.

Well we all know he loves a goal. His one effort at it last night was hopeless, and he kicked it well over Bazza's head.

Bevan seemed pretty quiet last night, and I was actually expecting to see him on Davey all night instead.

[Nico]

Kennelly is one of the biggest culprits when running through centre. His kicks either are to a 3 on 1 contest or are scrapping low kicks cut off by defenders or both.

The disposal by both he and Buchanan has by deplorable.