Last minute on Sat. night

[floppinab]

Does a six point margin justify the ultra-flood???

After the Lloyd goal I reckon we had 2 blokes forward of centre at the centre bounce.

We'd been playing well enough to that point, why not back ourselves to win the footy and pump it forward???

[NMWBloods]

Re: Last minute on Sat. night

Originally posted by floppinab
Does a six point margin justify the ultra-flood???

After the Lloyd goal I reckon we had 2 blokes forward of centre at the centre bounce.

We'd been playing well enough to that point, why not back ourselves to win the footy and pump it forward???

We had one - MOL. We lost the ball. It was a monumental stuff up that could easily have led to a goal to draw the game. We should have had 3 or 4 players forward at least.

[Barry Schneider]

Should we have allowed Essendon to have loose men in our back line?Essendon were trying to win the game and pushed most of their men forward we were trying to hold on and pushed our men back.
What is the big deal?
When Poulton kicked the winning goal against us at the SCG the coach was criticised for not having enough men back.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[NMWBloods]

No, we shouldn't have had loose men in our back line otherwise exactly what happened will occur (or at least have a few more than one).

We win the ball - it goes forward - we are outnumbered and lose the ball - Essendon now has a loose man working his way up the middle with no pressure - has plenty of time and opportunity to try to find a man in better space - if worked well can produce a goal scoring opportunity.

You play maybe a couple back but leave some forward in the hope that if we get the ball forward you can lock the ball up in your forward line. What's better when the game is tight - a ball up in our F50 or the opposition with the ball and unmarked in the centre?

[barry]

The problem wasnt with the flood, nor MOL being outnumbered, it was Boltons (?) kick into the forward line from the bounce.
In times of flood kick it sideways to the boundary line.

[ugg]

What a stupid ploy, I thought on Saturday night. We had guys like Vogels in the back half marking no one and wondering what to do. We were inviting them to attack us, it wasn't very smart play.

Essendon didn't push that many forward either, they had spare men at the back waiting to pounce and rebound the ball back.

[floppinab]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
No, we shouldn't have had loose men in our back line otherwise exactly what happened will occur (or at least have a few more than one).

We win the ball - it goes forward - we are outnumbered and lose the ball - Essendon now has a loose man working his way up the middle with no pressure - has plenty of time and opportunity to try to find a man in better space - if worked well can produce a goal scoring opportunity.

Was thinking the same thing as well, by doing this you virtually guarantee the ball will come into their forward line. You are then banking on your numbers to tie the ball up. It's a tactic from a team with no confidence to win the ball out of the middle.

[Wil]

I love Swans fans. Yup lets criticise the tactic that won us the game.

No threads on the kick to kick at the end of the game yet?

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by Wil
I love Swans fans. Yup lets criticise the tactic that won us the game.

No threads on the kick to kick at the end of the game yet?

It did not win us the game. It could have drawn it. It was dumb and nearly backfired. We won nearly all the clearances in the 4th qtr, including that one, and then turned it over because we had no one fwd. It was dumb, stupid, negative, ugly play. Hope to never see it again.

[giant]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
It did not win us the game. It could have drawn it. It was dumb and nearly backfired. We won nearly all the clearances in the 4th qtr, including that one, and then turned it over because we had no one fwd. It was dumb, stupid, negative, ugly play. Hope to never see it again.

Yep, clearances were 16/2 our way in the last qr and by sacrificing that it almost cost us a win. Surely this should be almost a set play, given the number of times a close finish is likely? let's hope this partic strategy is being reconsidered.

[Norris Lurker]

If Essendon had been leading by a kick at the 32-minute mark of the last quarter, they'd have done the same thing. So would any other team.

[Wil]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
It did not win us the game. It could have drawn it.

Did I leave the game early?? I am sure we won that game. Was there another quarter played after the supporter's kick to kick?

[NMWBloods]

That's like saying Nick Davis' injury won us the game...
Davis was injured, we won the game, therefore we won because of his unjury.

Very strange view of cause and effect there.

It was a terrible tactic and was just about the best way of giving Essendon a chance when they really should have had none.

[Wil]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
That's like saying Nick Davis' injury won us the game...
Davis was injured, we won the game, therefore we won because of his unjury.

Very strange view of cause and effect there.

It was a terrible tactic and was just about the best way of giving Essendon a chance when they really should have had none.

Umm... wow. Last time I looked tactics are what win games. If Roos meant to introduce Davis then take him out of the match to confuse the Bombers then, yeah, maybe that helped (Obviously that is not what happened).

What wins games then if not tactics? A change was made to keep the lead. The lead was kept. The tactic worked. Could it of failed? Yes, of course. But it didn't.

But don't worry about it. My ideas on how sport is played is a bit kooky...

[NMWBloods]

But this tactic did not win the game. Our attacking football that kicked 4 goals (plus Essendon stopping to a walk) and put us in front won the game.

Using your line of argument, if we built up a 10 goal lead then decided to flood and our opponents kicked 9 unanswered goals, it was the flood that won the game?