Swans depth is exposed (Or lack there of)

**Nico** · 2 May 2005, 09:00 PM

The depth we have is largely likely to come from the rookie list.

Guess what. They are not allowed to play.

***NMWBloods*** · 2 May 2005, 09:05 PM

Not sure of the point of this thread. Another saying we shouldn't be critical?

**liz** · 2 May 2005, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Not sure of the point of this thread. Another saying we shouldn't be critical?

There must be two dozen entirely critical threads on the board over the last couple of weeks. And yet someone isn't allowed to post that something that looks to be optimistic and points out that the world is not about to implode? Something that tries to rouse those of us who would still like to believe that things might turn around rather than take pleasure in being critical (as some - not all on this board seem to do).

Addressing Rod's comments...

We have decent depth for positions 18-22 in the team. Like many others we can't cover for injury or ordinary form of the top half dozen or so players. Even Port, who have seemingly had limitless depth to cover horrible injury runs over the past 3 years, are finally showing the cracks.

As I posted elsewhere, ordinary players tend to play much better when they are surrounded by good players playing well. But when Goodes is still to hit anything like the form of 2003, Hall is a bit off, we have no ruckman and Willo is missing, otherwise decent players can look ordinary. Add to this the fact that Maxfield is struggling - not a top notch player in his own right but certainly one who has managed to bring good stuff out of others in previous years.

You can probably divide AFL players (definite AFL standard, excluding marginal players) into three categories.

There are the elite group who are able to play well even when all around them are struggling and also able to lift others. The Judds, Buckleys, Hirds, Riewoldts of this world - but also arguably the Williams, Goodes and Halls.

Then there is the group that is generally able to maintain their own good to very good standard but may not influence others so much - Kirk, B1(definitely this year and 2003), Barry.

And then there are the majority of players who are capable of playing decent football consistently but need others around them to inspire belief and benefit from the magic of those around them. The players in this category for the Roos, Crows, Eagles - yes, even the Eagles have this type of player- are playing well. Ours look very ordinary at the moment because they don't have the support around them.

***NMWBloods*** · 2 May 2005, 10:06 PM

Mea culpa - I only skim read and saw that he was 'over it' about people bagging the Swans, we should be patient, wins will come, support the players instead o bagging them. It's not quite the post I originally thought it was, but it still comes across as one that we shouldn't be critical of the team.

Given not only our win-loss record, but more importantly the way we are playing, why would people not be harshly critical?

What's wrong - game plan and tactics are terrible and I think are compounding the lack of confidence of the players.

**liz** · 2 May 2005, 10:12 PM

They have and I don't recall anyone suggesting they shouldn't. Rod isn't saying that.

But if you want to defend you right to be critical, at least have the grace to allow others to try to be optimistic - certainly when it is not deluded optimism and doesn't interfere with your "right to criticise".

Sorry if this sounds like I'm going in hard. It's not directed specifically at you. But while there is no doubt that there's lots to criticise at the moment and not much to get excited about, the pleasure that some "supporters" seem to be taking in it I find really sad.

**Schneiderman** · 2 May 2005, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by liz
There must be two dozen entirely critical threads on the board over the last couple of weeks. And yet someone isn't allowed to post that something that looks to be optimistic and points out that the world is not about to implode? Something that tries to rouse those of us who would still like to believe that things might turn around rather than take pleasure in being critical (as some - not all on this board seem to do).

Thank you liz. Very eloquant.

And I'm with you Rod.

My opinion is that a team like ours (and probably most inluded) play almost purely on confidence. Despite all the conversation on the 2003 game, people have mentioned but scooted over the true difference between that year and this. The players are the same, the gameplan is the same, as is the coach.

The biggest single difference that I can clearly see, without opinion, just facts, is our conversion in front of goal. And before people start talking about kicking from the wings and poor delivery into the forward line, EVERY facet of our goal-kicking has been affected:

- Schneider had his first running goal from 50m in over a year against Melbourne.
- Willo used to do it with regularity, yet I was pleasantly surprised when he did it against Brisbane, and lo and behold it was a catalyst to win the game.
- I would have bet my house on Hall slotting from anywhere in 2003, and three-quarters of my house last year. I prefer to hang on to it now with Bazza.
- Davis used to kick it from everywhere, and any distance. He even did it in Rnd 1, but since then... zilch. Who here would feel as confident if he had that kick against Collingwood to win it for us this weekend?? Even when injured and tubby last year, have a look at his curling snap on the run against Essendon at StadeOz.
- MOL was always reliable, ROK kicked truly with his left, Maxi could kick accurately on the run with his left (2003 Rnd 5 from 50 on the boundary, or the monster 80m bouncing torp against Port in the 2003 QF).

Kicking goals wins games and builds confidence. Miss a few and it works against you. Not sure how, but we have to get back to that level again. Moving towards it will start the ball rolling, and over time the confidence will grow and the players wont be so worried about a couple of turnovers or lucky goals to the opponent.

***NMWBloods*** · 2 May 2005, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by liz
They have and I don't recall anyone suggesting they shouldn't. Rod isn't saying that.

But if you want to defend you right to be critical, at least have the grace to allow others to try to be optimistic - certainly when it is not deluded optimism and doesn't interfere with your "right to criticise".

Sorry if this sounds like I'm going in hard. It's not directed specifically at you. But while there is no doubt that there's lots to criticise at the moment and not much to get excited about, the pleasure that some "supporters" seem to be taking in it I find really sad.

I don't mind if people want to be optimistic. I'm quite happy to have a discussion on what can change, how we can improve, what we should do to improve, etc, as I have done elsewhere. As noted above though, I misread part of his post and mistook his point.

***NMWBloods*** · 2 May 2005, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Schneiderman
The biggest single difference that I can clearly see, without opinion, just facts, is our conversion in front of goal.

We are taking less shots at goal than previously, which was already less than most other successful teams in the comp. Our previous conversion rate was unsustainably high.

**Schneiderman** · 2 May 2005, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Our previous conversion rate was unsustainably high.

Well thats what they said throughout 2003 too, and yet we kept it that high the whole way through. Amazing what confidence can do for you.

West Coast showed those amazing glimpses of confidence on the weekend too. In those conditions they converted extremely well.

**punter257** · 2 May 2005, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Well thats what they said throughout 2003 too, and yet we kept it that high the whole way through. Amazing what confidence can do for you.

West Coast showed those amazing glimpses of confidence on the weekend too. In those conditions they converted extremely well.

confidence is golden at the minute

how good would it be if kirk, bolton and ablett were goalkicking midfielders like cousins, judd and embley.

**Go Swannies** · 2 May 2005, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I have quoted facts - we are taking less shots at goal than previously, which was already less than most other successful teams in the comp. Our previous conversion rate was unsustainably high.

Why? Different boots? Feet?

And if you think that it is purely statistical then no doubt our low conversion rate at present is unsustainably low? So just as we had to drop, now we don't have to do anything but wait for it to improve?

**Schneiderman** · 2 May 2005, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by punter257
confidence is golden at the minute

how good would it be if kirk, bolton and ablett were goalkicking midfielders like cousins, judd and embley.

Well yes of course.

But better still if Davis played more like Sampi, ROK like Hansen, Schneider like Atkins, Maxfield like Braun, etc.

Its the second- and third-tier players that are playing the way they are due to confidence, for both teams. And for us, even the first-tier players are starting to suffer

**liz** · 2 May 2005, 10:39 PM

During 2003 we may not have been getting the ball into the forward 50 very often but when we did it was - more often than not - clean, rapid and quick, and the ball was often delivered to the optimal "cone" in front of goal.

Add to that the fact that Davis was kicking them from everywhere, Schneider was kicking freakish goals (though also missing sitters) and we had two goal kicking midfielders in Williams and Cressa, and things were a bit different.

Davis and O'Keefe playing further up the ground this year, O'Loughlin struggling fitness wise and no effective small forward means that teams can focus more on shutting down Hall and/or forcing him wide. So not only is the midfield slow and fumbling but even when they do get the ball cleanly there are few "easy options" to aim at and they are either bombing it in wildly or trying to be too cute and creating nothing.

Challenge number one is to create a couple of genuine goal kicking options other than Hall. Magic should provide one of them in due course but we need more. It will deliver goals to them but the main beneficiary in the longer run should be Hall.

***NMWBloods*** · 2 May 2005, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Well thats what they said throughout 2003 too, and yet we kept it that high the whole way through. Amazing what confidence can do for you.

And it dropped back in 2004. Teams are typically not able to maintain those conversion ratios indefinitely.

West Coast showed those amazing glimpses of confidence on the weekend too. In those conditions they converted extremely well.

They kicked 15.14 and missed some easy chances. But their accuracy is not stellar this year, however they are not relying on that.

Swans depth is exposed (Or lack there of)

Swans depth is exposed (Or lack there of)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment