The Ugly Swans

[Matt79]

Sorry if this has been posted.

Many of us here may not like what Robert Walls has written.

However, it is sure hard to disagree with him...

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/05/30/1117305559080.html

Well written article, based on facts. But why do I fear nothing will change anyway?

[ScottH]

Re: The Ugly Swans

Originally posted by Matt79
Sorry if this has been posted.

Many of us here may not like what Robert Walls has written.

However, it is sure hard to disagree with him...

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/05/30/1117305559080.html

Well written article, based on facts. But why do I fear nothing will change anyway?

Roos backs the critics

Roos admitted he often debated aspects of their game plan, but that having "41 possessions out of the 225 that didn?t hit their target or went to the opposition" made it impossible to win the game.

"We were really, really bad. It was a very poor performance."

[Mike_B]

I agree with much of what Walls has to say - the fact is, he wants to Sydney play well (either that or he is a magnificent liar) and to see the game grow up here. It isn't going to happen the way things are going at the moment.

[Snowy]

He stressed that on the couch last night, he's worried about the effect on the game up north.

[NMWBloods]

We need to win and kick 100+ points against Carlton to answer the critics. Anything less, and we continue to be a valid target.

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
We need to win and kick 100+ points against Carlton to answer the critics. Anything less, and we continue to be a valid target.

I think kicking 100+ points is more important than winning this weekend as far as criticism goes. Having said that, if we do score over 100, we will probably win anyway. Which leads me to wonder, when ws the last time we lost a game where we scored over 100 points?

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by Mike_B
I think kicking 100+ points is more important than winning this weekend as far as criticism goes. Having said that, if we do score over 100, we will probably win anyway. Which leads me to wonder, when ws the last time we lost a game where we scored over 100 points?

I'll answer my own question - not that long ago in fact. It was the game against the Roos last year at the SCG. We also lost games last year scoring 97, 98, and 99 points. So, on second thoughts, maybe we aren't as likely to win if we do score 100+ this weekend as I initially believed...

[Matt79]

I agree, I would rather lose in a game this weekend if it meant we kicked 20 goals and provided entertainment to the spectators.

[Ryan Bomford]

Originally posted by Mike_B
I'll answer my own question - not that long ago in fact. It was the game against the Roos last year at the SCG. We also lost games last year scoring 97, 98, and 99 points. So, on second thoughts, maybe we aren't as likely to win if we do score 100+ this weekend as I initially believed...

Huh, so we lost the shoot-outs but won the arm wrestles ... Roos coaching team must have done the same analysis and hence the current playing style.

[NMWBloods]

They're not really shoot out scores (the ones <100 pts) - they're just fairly normal scores. A shoot-out is normally at least say 17 goals - so the only time we've lost a "shootout" under Roos is the Kangaroos game last year, when we scored 112 pts. It's also our highest losing score since 120pts against Geelong in rd 22, 2000.

I'd note that when we score 100 or more we've won every game under Roos except one. When just below it's a bit mixed.