Roos at it again

[giant]

Originally posted by Bunyip
I am cranky after having just skipped through the Monday morning footy news

As you can see, I do not post here very often though I read the RWO a lot.

It is dissappointing that the hackneyed comments of Colless and Roos have to be the prompt for my first post of the year.

Colless - we won games with Roos, this style of play, after slow starts in 2003 and 2004...if only we had the talent of the Saints or West Coast...BLAH BLAH BLAH

Roos - we have no class, will have to win with hard work...BLAH BLAH BLAH

I have had enough of this sh&t! Enough excuses!

Thanks you, I feel a bit better now.

I think this forum's primary function is to act as a therapeutic release valve for supporter frustrations. Try it more often Bunyip, you'll be surprised how much better you feel.

Roos' comments are indeed becoming tiresome - the kindest interpretation you can place on them is that the intended audience is not you or I but the players, to demonstrate he has ctd trust in them (tho frankly if I was a player I think I'd be a bit deflated with the constant working class metaphors).

[footyhead]

Originally posted by giant


Roos' comments are indeed becoming tiresome - the kindest interpretation you can place on them is that the intended audience is not you or I but the players, to demonstrate he has ctd trust in them (tho frankly if I was a player I think I'd be a bit deflated with the constant working class metaphors).

I agree.

I remember thinking about similar remarks made by Eade, and I thoght that if I were a plyer I would feel very humiliated to have those sort of things said about me in public.

These sort of words act as a self fulfilling prophecy, as another poster recently pointed out.

Part of the coaches job is to make sure that the right prophecy is fullfilled.

[mocaholic]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
It's arguable which is the bigger problem - game plan or skills.
.......
All of these issues are critical problems with our play and need to be resolved for long-term success.

Translation - game plan doesn't work. I agree. Good, detailed analysis.

[EMJ]

Roos told them at three-quarter time they were playing like fools and it was about time they played like footballers. I think there was other comments and coupled with Demetriou's spray on Sydney - hopefully a few truths may hit home.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by Bunyip

Roos - we have no class, will have to win with hard work...BLAH BLAH BLAH.

This is such a load of crap from Roos. If it is true that the swans have to win with such hard work, how does he expect it to be sustainable from game to game, let alone quarter to quarter?

He was brought in to rebuild the swans list. He has too options

1 - if it is true that the swans can only win by playing hard, then weed out those players not good enough and rebuild until we get a group of players that are good enough to win without this excessive toll on energy.

OR

2 - if the players are good enough, come up with a sustainable game plan that doesnt require as much energy so that they can actually carry it out for long periods of time. A sustainable gameplan is a successful on, because in finals you need to win consecutive tough games. If the gameplan is too exhausting, then what chance does the team have of winning enough finals in a row to be ultimately successful?

In short:

If the players are not good enough, get rid of them. Roosy continually says they are not good enough so he should do something about it, yet he never drops anyone

If they are actually good enough, then they need a gameplan that doesnt require them to work as hard as they currently have to to win games. He doesnt drop players, so maybe his "we are not skilled enough" comments are just tripe he tells the media.

Which one is it, Roosy?

[Bas]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
It's arguable which is the bigger problem - game plan or skills. If the skills can't execute the game plan, change it.

All of these issues are critical problems with our play and need to be resolved for long-term success.

Very good analysis NMW of how we are playing and what is going wrong. It certainly cleared up any of my confusions as to what is going wrong.

They say a coach shouldn't take any notice of supporters but if a supporter can figure out the problem, you'd think the Coach over summer could do the same.

Walls has said that other teams have worked out Sydney. I hope there is an Option B game plan.

[giant]

Originally posted by NMWBloods

When the ball is in dispute, we take two approaches. One is for all the players in the vicinity to dive on the ball and lock it up. Often you will see 3 Swans and 1 opposition player contesting the ball on the ground. The win for us is to force a ball up. We lose if the ball comes out as normally we are outnumbered around the edge of the pack.

In the quarter & a bit I could bear watching of the WCE game, I reckon I saw this exact scenario happen about 6 times. Staggering.

[NMWBloods]

The Essendon game at the MCG last year is one I find interesting as it highlights all of these problems and an occasion when we did well, plus I was at the game and could see more of what was happening.

From midway through the first quarter until early in the last quarter, we played pretty much as I described above.

In the last quarter we turned it around though. What did that? I think a combination of two simultaneous and reinforcing factors.

Firstly, Essendon got tired. This seemed to be a major problem they suffered in last qtrs, so that helped us a lot, plus our dour and physical game plan possibly contributed also.

As they became more tired they found it more difficult to build the wall, play man-on-man and apply pressure.

Secondly, our guys started to run more. In particular the guys were running with purpose, making effective leads and looking to push the ball forward into threatening positions. Leads into the centre square were far more prevalent and it allowed us to kick the ball forward and attack far more directly.

It's hard to say which of these came first - it appeared to be simultaneous.

Of course, it then became reinforcing as our run made Essendon feel more despondent and tired, while our confidence increased, hence making our guys more likely to run to space and attack, while Essendon were less likely to be able to cover or follow.

The big problem is that in many games this game plan seems to rely on the opposition not expecting it (2003), not really rating us or coming out to shut us down (arguably St Kilda 2004), or the opposition tiring (Essendon 2003, Brisbane 2004). Of course there are exceptions, however they do not appear to be the norm.

Hence, it is a reactive game plan. Despite talk about managing tempo and the like, it actually hands all the initiative to the opposition. We play defensively and react to their plays. This is a huge bonus to the opposition as it is far easier to set the game up and run with it in your style and with your initiative and not worry about reacting to your opponents.

Unless we do something dramatically different, I can't see this game plan producing long-term benefits for the team as it is too reliant on the performance opposition and not reliant enough on ourselves.

[Glenn]

Originally posted by DST
You can't be serious Glenn

We lose 4 games this year playing a style of play that at least half the compertition are currently playing (but the media like to pin on us) and you think every kid in Australia doesn't want to play for us. Oh please...............

I don't like the current game plan but the facts are it is being used by every coach in the league at present to control all or parts of a game.

Where we are different at present to the others is our lack of ability (by hand and foot) to be able to implement that game plan.

Once again this was evident on Saturday night, in the first quarter we outplayed them at the clearances, doubled their inside 50's, had our forwards work hard to retain the ball inside 50 and all for what? A 4 point lead.

Nothing wrong with the game plan but poor foot skills meant we didn't take advantage of the ball when we had it. Look to the second quarter, West Coast reverse the trend and pile on 6 goals game over.

It ain't the game plan it is how it is implemented at present that is killing us.

DST

I am sure the game plan we see on field it is not what is devised by Roos and the coaching staff (at least I hope not)
What I meant in reference to any youngsters in the draft, is that the general perception (rightly or wrongly) that Sydney is not giving the youngsters a chance to develop

[footyhead]

If I was coaching againts us, I would tell the boys to just play well within themselves for the first 1/4 and a half and see where the score board was at the end of that time. If We were winning and the Swanes losing, I would then encourage them to continue at that pace till 3/4 time when an all out effort should be made againts the insipid Swans to break there deffensive reslove, from there it would be a matter of not letting up on the attack and watching them drop off like the flies they are.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by Glenn
Sydney is not giving the youngsters a chance to develop

I'm not convinced that this is actually a perception held by anyone other than us at RWO. Has this issue been raised anywhere in the media? To be fair, there are a number of inexperienced players in the team: Schneider, Bevan, Buchanan, McVeigh, Ablett, LRT - all young guys with very few games between them.

[Glenn]

Originally posted by sharpie
I'm not convinced that this is actually a perception held by anyone other than us at RWO. Has this issue been raised anywhere in the media? To be fair, there are a number of inexperienced players in the team: Schneider, Bevan, Buchanan, McVeigh, Ablett, LRT - all young guys with very few games between them.

Yes I see what you are saying, I guess looking in relation to this year and the sub par performance of some of the "established" players, can make you question why those in the Reggies aren't given a look in

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by footyhead
the insipid Swans . . . drop off like the flies they are.

Personally, I'd prefer to be one of Aker's monkeys than one of your flies. You didn't actually write "die like flies" but I'm guessing the Mortein can't be far from your mind in one of the most offensive analogies I've seen on RWO.

[floppinab]

I would'nt mind seeing a few innovative changes from Roos.

Saw the Tiges game on the weekend. Who would've thought a team with Richo, Stafford, Simmonds and Hall would've gone with a small forward line for a decent slab of the game.
Could anyone see Bazz playing permanently up on the wing (rather than just leading up there), with Schneids and NOG parked in the F50. What about sticking him behind the goal line, with instructions not to lead until the ball gets within 70m of goal.

This is one area where MOL keeps us a bit restricted, as there is nowhere else for him except on the goal line.

When things are not working surely we need to a try a few radical changes rather than keep things predictable for the opposition.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by Glenn
Yes I see what you are saying, I guess looking in relation to this year and the sub par performance of some of the "established" players, can make you question why those in the Reggies aren't given a look in

So we can rip them to shreds here like we do Schneider, Bevan, Buchanan, LRT, et al?

How long should we give Malecki - and how many errors - before the first "he should never play again" post appears?