Performances in the first 6 weeks

**liz** · 30 April 2005, 10:56 PM

Re: Performances in the first 6 weeks

Originally posted by Mike_B
Its often said that when your mid-range players step up, that's when a team has its best seasons. Regardless of the level of player, which of ours can honestly say they are having a strong season this year.

IMHO the list is:

Jude Bolton

Says alot doesn't it?

I think Brett Kirk can reasonably be added to that list. He probably hasn't improved over last year but has held his ground.

Ablett's started the year OK but needs to keep on with it and hasn't had that much of an impact for the past two weeks, despite getting his hands on the ball a reasonable amount.

In 2003 we can Schneider emerge, Barry, Hall, Goodes, Kirk, and Bolton have their best years to date (to that point).

In 2004 it was O'Keefe who improved dramatically and three of the big improvers from the previous year held their ground or got better.

This year only Ablett, B1 - and maybe B2 - have improved a bit over prior form, while Dempster looks part of the team but isn't having a major impact.

It's hard to pinpoint a couple of others who could lift their game to help get us back on line at the moment. I'd hoped Buchanan would be one who did but that's not looking likely at the moment.

**Mike_B** · 30 April 2005, 10:59 PM

I umm'ed and ahh'ed over whether I include Kirk, Ablett and Craig Bolton and decided against them because they haven't quite been performing strongly week-in week-out. They've had a couple of quiet games.

Either way though, can't see any more than the 2 Boltons, Ablett and Kirk who can honestly say they've earned their pay packets to date this year.

**robbieando** · 30 April 2005, 11:15 PM

Simple plan, get a settled gameplan worked out and give the likes of Willoughby, Schmidt, Moore and Malceski a run in the midfield, dropping the likes of Maxfield, Buchanan, Schneider and Crouch.

We are going no where fast and if Roos doesn't pull his head out of his arse quick smart, he'll be without a job.

**liz** · 30 April 2005, 11:35 PM

Right now it's far less about individual performances and more about getting them to play as a team and believe they can string two performances together. What we witnessed tonight was one team chock-a-bloc with confidence and another completely bereft.

Every time the ball popped out of a contest "at random" there was an Eagle to meet it because they had the confidence to run off their man. And while the Swans may not be the most skilled team going around, they are nowhere near as bad as we've seen for the last 3 weeks.

It doesn't matter that Kirk and Jude did OK tonight, that O'Keefe continues to find a bit of form, and Goodes too. Even most of the rest of the players tried pretty hard but were just running round in circles, chasing their own tails. The whole is far far less than the sum of the parts at the moment and there is no easy way out.

Comments about the game plan are a bit irrelevant at the moment, IMO. Any game plan would look ugly at the moment.

***NMWBloods*** · 30 April 2005, 11:47 PM

Lack of confidence is a major problem now, no doubt.

But the game plan is still an issue. When was the last time we won by playing a good offensive game (ie: scoring > 100 pts) against a decent team.

In the past 30 games, we have won 16 (53%).

Of those 16 wins, in only 6 have we scored more than 100 pts.

Of those 6, only 2 against decent opposition ('Roos Rd 3, 2004 and St Kilda Rd 11, 2004).

I'd also note that in those past 30 games, we've only kicked more than 100 pts 7 times in total and only twice away.

In those 30 games we are averaging only 80 pts per games. Our opposition is averaging 83 pts per game.

It's not only ugly football, it's losing football and has no future.

**liz** · 1 May 2005, 12:20 AM

But who knows what the game plan is meant to be? Even if Roos were trying to change things around I don't think it would be apparent right now.

Second to the ball, playing behind the man, not working into space, kicking blindly rather than to advantage - these are all things that will make any plan ineffective.

I think they were trying to do things a bit differently tonight - whether this was in response to weather conditions or an independent attempt to change things around, who knows, but there was more long kicking than normal. Problem is that there was never a Swan able to work their way to the front in a contest, or even hold their ground to keep the ball in a contest.

Later in the game when they were starting to get blown away they reverted to what they know best - the short handball, usually to a man under more pressure than them. But most teams under the pump will instinctively return to what they know best. Trying new stuff won't work while confidence is down.

**ugg** · 1 May 2005, 02:46 AM

You could add Jolly to the list. I wasn't expecting too much for a backup ruckman but I think he's done well and could arguably be our current no 1 ruckman. He wins most of his taps which is something we haven't had in recent years. Shame about the suspension of course.

**stellation** · 1 May 2005, 08:03 AM

Re: Performances in the first 6 weeks

Originally posted by Mike_B
Its often said that when your mid-range players step up, that's when a team has its best seasons. Regardless of the level of player, which of ours can honestly say they are having a strong season this year.

IMHO the list is:

Jude Bolton

Says alot doesn't it?

I think Davis is close to being on the list (bar his goal kicking radar being off), particuarly considering the odd opportunities he appears to be afforded by Roos at times.

**hammo** · 1 May 2005, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Lack of confidence is a major problem now, no doubt.

But the game plan is still an issue. When was the last time we won by playing a good offensive game (ie: scoring > 100 pts) against a decent team.

In the past 30 games, we have won 16 (53%).

Of those 16 wins, in only 6 have we scored more than 100 pts.

Of those 6, only 2 against decent opposition ('Roos Rd 3, 2004 and St Kilda Rd 11, 2004).

I'd also note that in those past 30 games, we've only kicked more than 100 pts 7 times in total and only twice away.

In those 30 games we are averaging only 80 pts per games. Our opposition is averaging 83 pts per game.

It's not only ugly football, it's losing football and has no future.

I was hoping someone would pull that stat together.

Says a lot doesn't it?

**ROK Lobster** · 1 May 2005, 09:34 AM

I dont mean to take the thread off course, but agree with stella that ND has improved this year (along with Jude and maybe B2). I was only listening to the game last night but the commentators seemed to think that Davis was a) doing a good job but b) spending a lot of time of the bench. For those that saw it, is that a fair analysis?

**Mike_B** · 1 May 2005, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
I dont mean to take the thread off course, but agree with stella that ND has improved this year (along with Jude and maybe B2). I was only listening to the game last night but the commentators seemed to think that Davis was a) doing a good job but b) spending a lot of time of the bench. For those that saw it, is that a fair analysis?

I was impressed with Nick's workrate last night. For the amount of time he was on the field, he seemed to get a fair bit of the ball. He has improved his fitness and workrate this year no doubt.

***NMWBloods*** · 1 May 2005, 10:38 AM

Davis definitely looks one of our most accomplished players on the field (which is not that hard really). Doesn't seem to get as much game time as I would like.

**Whitefox** · 1 May 2005, 10:43 AM

I hope his individuality isn't stifled to the point that he ends up looking like just another player.

**originalswan** · 1 May 2005, 11:14 AM

Time off ground for Davis might have a bit to do with him having more responsibilities up the ground rather than closer to goal, therefore the extra conditioning and fitness required for all the extra running.