Morning Gloom and Doom!!!

[ScottH]

SMH

DT

AGE

SS.com.au

If you don't feel demoralised enuff!!!!

[Quiet_Observer]

It would be nice to see a headline once which says "Roos admits I am part to blame". His general response is usually "they did not come to play" "they are working class" so its generally always the players fault. He is a bit like an alcoholic, at some stage he has to admit to being responsible for his actions (in directing the team) before things can improve.

[desredandwhite]

No thanks. If the Swans don't win, as far as I am concerned the game never happened.

what game? No, I haven't read the papers, were they being printed this morning or something?

[mpr104]

SEN morning radio here in Melbourne gave us a pasting as well - deservedly so I may add.

[Glenn]

Well if it is any comfort, at least we didn't lose by 140points like Port

[NMWBloods]

""As for changing the game plan, there is plenty of criticism, but I haven't heard any suggestions. Look, I think the main thing as a coach, you have got to identify what you think wins and loses games of football, but I haven't really heard a proper assessment of how we want to play and I haven't heard any constructive alternatives."

Perhaps he should come onto RWO for some ideas... it's not rocket science...

[ScottH]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
""As for changing the game plan, there is plenty of criticism, but I haven't heard any suggestions. Look, I think the main thing as a coach, you have got to identify what you think wins and loses games of football, but I haven't really heard a proper assessment of how we want to play and I haven't heard any constructive alternatives."

Perhaps he should come onto RWO for some ideas... it's not rocket science...

I suggest we put NMW and barry in the coaches box, we are sure to win then!!!!


Actually I only saw Fri Dee/Tiges game and Sat. game. The big difference I noticed was the low flat kicks to the leading forwards, where no defender can stop the fwd marking it. We pop them up too high on most occasions and it gives defenders time to com e in and spoil.

Also Saints manned up regularly, we didn't.

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by Glenn
Well if it is any comfort, at least we didn't lose by 140points like Port

That is ONE advantage of being so boring dour and defensive. When we get thrashed, it is only by 8 goals or so, not 20! GO SWANS!

Just a thought to cheer you all up this cold morning!

JF

[Ruck'n'Roll]

"As for the game plan, I think the players are really confident in it and we talk to them all the time, and something they are comfortable with is that they know why we win and why we lose. I think at the moment, with the group that we've got, that's very important and the feedback from them is that they are very comfortable with how we want to play."

I REALLY HATE hearing my teams coach talking like some mealy mouthed MBA HRM consultant.

Perhaps it's just me, but how can a kid from the country possible relate to twaddle like that?

Similarly he didn't talk like that in 2003, but then again the team played football not "hot-potato panic-ball" in 2003!

[skilts stilts]

I am a bit tired of the coach telling the world that individually our players don't stack up with the class and skill of the top teams.
If you throw enough mud some will stick. No wonder the players are down on confidence.

[SimonH]

"As for changing the game plan, there is plenty of criticism, but I haven't heard any suggestions. Look, I think the main thing as a coach, you have got to identify what you think wins and loses games of football, but I haven't really heard a proper assessment of how we want to play and I haven't heard any constructive alternatives."

I'm not an apologist for boring games of football, and we've played too many boring games this year (as well as some exciting ones). But, y'know, he's right.

I ain't running anyone down, and this is a forum for fans to have a general chat and/or vent their spleen, not Football Tactitians Anonymous. But the fact is that there isn't, here nor anywhere else that I've seen, a thorough analysis of how Sydney (intends to) play football, nor a thorough description of how that style should change.

The main issues that usually get raised are:

1 We should kick more goals/kicking only 8 goals is a disgrace. Well, der. What would be the ideal number of goals for Sydney to kick each week? Hint: it ain't 16- it's 30 or more! Saying that we'd like to kick more goals is different to actually describing how we do so.

2 No more chipping sideways.. Creating a loose man to run out of defence is both an essential, and actually an exciting, part of Sydney's gameplan. The roar of the crowd as a half-backman streams through the square and raises his eyes looking for Barry or Micky O in the forward line, is one of the highlights of going to the game. The teams that have really exposed us this year (esp Melbourne at the SCG) have been teams that have been able to get the quick switch and breakaway from their backline. On the other side of the ledger, pointless chipping sideways to stationary targets, racking up stats and risking turning the ball over without creating a loose man to enable a breakaway, is unattractive football and football that doesn't win you games. But I doubt whether Sydney do it more than any other club. Certainly not substantially more.

3 Move the ball faster into the forward line. Couldn't agree more. An essential part of a successful team game. I'm the first to go bananas when a player takes a mark 60-80 metres from goal and then slowly goes back to thoroughly assess all options. Get the damn thing up there while the defence hasn't had time to organise! Problem is, getting the ball in fast is already an essential part of Sydney's gameplan. More so than most other sides. A breakaway from the packs/running the ball out of defence style requires that you make good on that breakaway by kicking the ball forward. Crazy, huh? A perfect example of the virtue of kicking the ball low, fast and direct to the forward line was the Keneally-Hall pass for Sydney's last goal of the night on Saturday. If Gerard Healy's assessment of Roos' tactics is right, Hall would have copped a spray for leading straight out from goals, and Keneally would have copped a spray for kicking it direct to him rather than a backwards handball or a loopy 30 metre kick to someone on the boundary. But he's not right. Of course we got flogged 'cos we didn't move the ball fast enough into the forward line. But that's like saying we got flogged b/c too many kicks and handballs missed their targets. Implementing the game plan is a skills issue.

4 Fewer players around the stoppages. Ah- now we're getting somewhere. The highest-scoring game of the round by a long margin was Dons v Dogs. Even though the stats-compilers might not count a tapout for every bouncedown and throw-in (one player just grabs the footy, or it's unclear who won the tap), the proportion of non-tap stoppages will be reasonably constant. So tapouts will do as an indicator of number of stoppages. 55 tapouts in the Dons/Dogs game, of which 42 were 'compulsory' stoppages (38 goals + 4 starts of quarters), so just 13 in-play stoppages (including 'out of bounds' in that definition). 68 tapouts in Saints/Sydney game of which just 27 were 'compulsory', so 41 in-play stoppages. That's obviously where you're really losing your entertainment value and goal-scoring potential. But what is the alternative? Is it merely that we think our onballers aren't good enough and will lose more contested balls if there are fewer of them? As the ball is bound to come out sooner or later, how does 7 vs 7 improve your chances of it coming out your way rather than 4 vs 4? Or is all of this 'drab 4/defensive midfield' stuff nonsense, and it's actually a cover for the fact that our gameplan requires us to bolt out of the packs in large numbers? If we should aim to have 4 rather than 7 players at a given stoppage, where should those other players go and what should their role be? How would the 'running the ball in numbers out of the stoppages' gameplan work? Should that part of the gameplan be completely jettisoned? If so, what should take its place?

These are the sort of debates that we need to be having, not the kind of 'Roos has lost the plot' or 'Sydney are so BOOOOORING' sloganeering that it's pretty easy to come up with on the week after your team loses badly.

Sorry for the length of the above, but I just doubt whether at the moment Roosy would pick up any terribly constructive suggestions about Sydney's gameplan if he was to wander onto RWO. As there are people on this forum who watch the game more avidly, and spend more time posting, than me, I'd be interested to see our collective brain turn to this sort of thing, rather than whether LRT will ever make league standard or whether we should try to trade Fosdike at year's end.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by SimonH
"But, y'know, he's right.

I ain't running anyone down, and this is a forum for fans to have a general chat and/or vent their spleen, not Football Tactitians Anonymous. But the fact is that there isn't, here nor anywhere else that I've seen, a thorough analysis of how Sydney (intends to) play football, nor a thorough description of how that style should change.

Well you know - there has been - a number of times.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by SimonH
Sorry for the length of the above, but I just doubt whether at the moment Roosy would pick up any terribly constructive suggestions about Sydney's gameplan if he was to wander onto RWO.

No its a good post.

My question has always been: Who really creates all that congestion around the stoppages??

My theory )hard to prove mind you) is that its actually not us. Other coaches will see our stats that show we win a lot of in-and-under contests in stoppages, and maybe even that we dont use them well to get the ball out. But this would encourage them to put MORE players into a stoppage, to ensure when we get our hands on it we cant clear it. Which just creates more congestion and more stoppages.

As a team we dont mind this. We get hands on the ball first, so we dont care how many others are around it. Not only that, but because of our acknowledged poor disposal, we add an extra player or two, or stand a couple of extra meters closer to the stoppage to improve our chances of a clearance.

Its a Catch-22 situation. We know we'll get hands on the ball so we encourage stoppages (or at least dont avoid them). We put extra players in there to improve our chances to get a clearance. They put extra players in their to stifle our clearance. We put even more players in there to tag their ball-winners. Everyone but the forwards and backs are now around the ball. Hardly all our fault though.

So how do we combat it?? Without faith in our skills, or a Judd like receiver who can use the ball effectively, we cant exactly put fewer players into the stoppage area. If we just let the stoppage be covered by say Kirk, Bolton and two taggers for their two ball-winners, would we have faith we could get enough clearances?? Who here has that much faith in our midfield? Do the other players have enough faith? Or will they just edge a little closer to the contest each time until it resembles another scrum?

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Other coaches will see our stats that show we win a lot of in-and-under contests in stoppages,

We win a lot of contests as we have a lot of stoppages. I posted detailed stats on this last year IIRC. Our proportion of clearances to stoppages was one of the lowest in the competition.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
We win a lot of contests as we have a lot of stoppages. I posted detailed stats on this last year IIRC. Our proportion of clearances to stoppages was one of the lowest in the competition.

Yes this is my point too. But its wont stop the coaches from doing what they currently do. Because if we keep encouraging stoppages, and keep winning the ball (not the clearance mind you) then the only defense other coaches see is to add more of their players to the contest.