Robert Walls

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by giant
Despite Roosy's protestations to the contrary, I think Walls is right that the game plan has changed (or at least been tweaked). Hall is clearly staying closer to goals & they are using Goodes to fill in the gap between him & half back - which means Hall doesnt have to go to the wing to get a kick.

Well I'm not convinced the "game plan" has changed that much.

In essence we have two distinct strategies:
1. Move it quickly through the middle by hand/foot or in hand, and hit a leading target in the F50.
2. Hold on to it, deny the opposition possession, and stay close to the boundary so that if we muck it up we can force it out and have another crack at it.

The difference between our "exciting" games and victories, versus the Richmond and St Kilda, is simply when and how often we employ each strategy.

Now its hard to know why the "wrong" strategy gets employed at times:
1. Does Roos control the levers and decides these things as they happen?, or
2. Do the players as a group decide to use one or the other?, or
3. Do some players (like Benny) only play the one style and at the most inappropriate times? ... usually this can happen when your form and confidence is low.

Either way, note how Roos puts the onus on the team to get it right AND takes no credit when they DO get it right. Thats called empowerment.

[giant]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Well I'm not convinced the "game plan" has changed that much.

In essence we have two distinct strategies:
1. Move it quickly through the middle by hand/foot or in hand, and hit a leading target in the F50.
2. Hold on to it, deny the opposition possession, and stay close to the boundary so that if we muck it up we can force it out and have another crack at it.

The difference between our "exciting" games and victories, versus the Richmond and St Kilda, is simply when and how often we employ each strategy.

Now its hard to know why the "wrong" strategy gets employed at times:
1. Does Roos control the levers and decides these things as they happen?, or
2. Do the players as a group decide to use one or the other?, or
3. Do some players (like Benny) only play the one style and at the most inappropriate times? ... usually this can happen when your form and confidence is low.

Either way, note how Roos puts the onus on the team to get it right AND takes no credit when they DO get it right. Thats called empowerment.

Can't say I saw a lot of plan A even in our "exciting" wins over Port & Doggies. May well be a confidence thing but there definitely seems to be a change in the roles for both Goodes & Hall & our use of the ball from the kick-ins is another clue that things have been "tweaked" at least.

Otherwise, I agree that there are 2 distinct styles - even on the weekend there were plenty of stoppages & mid-field presses.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by giant
there definitely seems to be a change in the roles for both Goodes & Hall & our use of the ball from the kick-ins is another clue that things have been "tweaked" at least.

Yes but are these deliberate changes, or luxuries we can now afford?

On Goodes, we now have a viable enough option down back with LRT holding his spot that he can stay in the middle more often. And Adam is really only doing one thing differently... kicking! And long.

On Hall, his positional change probably has as much to do with Micky getting back his fitness and so roaming more freely all over the F50 (and even now tackling up in the midfield I notice). Add this to ROK finding some form just outside the F50 and thus negating the need for Bazza to roam that far out, and Davis coming back in with fitness and skill to add yet another offensive option. Whilst much of this will be coached into the team, just as much of it is that the options are actually there anyway.

[SwallowdaFonz]

I like Wallsy's work in the papers, as he has been given the job of being critical and naming the names that mere journos haven't the guts / cred to do.

Less enamoured of his TV work - he tends to bang on about one or two points (as did Blight when he was also critical of the Swans game plan).

Could it be that the tactics of the opposition each week have a great bearing on what style of play the Swans player adopt? If they want to play it tight and in close then so we will (and we get the blame!) but if they start to play expansively then we can hurt them on a quick rebound.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by SwallowdaFonz
I like Wallsy's work in the papers,

"Barry Hall has kicked 12 goals in the past two games because he has been playing closer to goal and the ball has transferred quicker to him than in the past. Hall admitted after the match that the game-plan had changed. My argument all along was that the Swans were selling themselves short with their stop-start style of play."

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/07/18/1121538916977.html?oneclick=true

A bit different from

"I can guarantee we've changed nothing, other than some of our personnel has changed and some of the form of some of the guys has clearly improved," Roos said after the Swans moved into the top four with a 10-6 record.

http://sydneyswans.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=215654

Anyone care to comment?

[giant]

Originally posted by Ruckman
"Barry Hall has kicked 12 goals in the past two games because he has been playing closer to goal and the ball has transferred quicker to him than in the past. Hall admitted after the match that the game-plan had changed. My argument all along was that the Swans were selling themselves short with their stop-start style of play."

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/realfooty/articles/2005/07/18/1121538916977.html?oneclick=true

A bit different from

"I can guarantee we've changed nothing, other than some of our personnel has changed and some of the form of some of the guys has clearly improved," Roos said after the Swans moved into the top four with a 10-6 record.

http://sydneyswans.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=215654

Anyone care to comment?

I think we have.

My view is that Roosy is either ingenuous or indulging in some sophistry - the game plan has at least been tweaked altho it is more the same than different.

Scheiderman's alternative (but no less valid!) view is that Roosy is rite - form & personnel mean we're playing the same game plan (or plans) but just executing them properly now.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Originally posted by giant
My view is that Roosy is either ingenuous or indulging in some sophistry

One thing is certain, you'd expect neither of these from Barry Hall.