Are we a genuine premiership threat?

[liz]

Originally posted by sydfan83
I was thinking more of how the Swans have to work so hard to win games - it's far more mentally/physically draining to have to play like that every week.

It's a double-edged sword. Playing easy games can lull a team into a false sense of where they're at - ala Cats at the weekend following their thumping of the Power the previous week.

Pundits reckon that the Saints are 'back in town' and maybe they are. But they haven't had much opposition in recent weeks and it will be interesting to see how they cope for the next 5 weeks. Melbourne are down in form but aren't nearly as bad as their form line indicates. Geelong and the Kangas won't give them an easy ride either, while a final round match against the Lions will be a tough contest. They are packed full of talent but still a bit mentally soft, I suspect, and tactically one-dimensional.

[Sean]

Originally posted by liz
Our skills against the Demons were pretty damn good for most of the game, despite the intensity from Melbourne. And they were superb in parts against the Cats. And not perfect against the Weagles but not noticeably worse than the opposition's.

I don't really agree with that (except the Cats bit). Yes, our skills were good against Melbourne but there was a distinct lack of intensity from them I thought. I thought that the Weagles skills were better than ours overall. Our delivery inside 50 was terrible for a lot of the first half. It was much better in the second half though.

I guess we probably matched them for skills in the second half and perhaps even surpassed them but it was our ability to play contested footy that allowed that to happen. That's where my confidence comes from even if I do underrate our skills a bit.

Anyway, be that as it may, over the course of the season a team like West Coast has shown far better skills than us. Not saying that our skills are bad, although they were early in the season, but they aren't quite at that top level. Imagine if our skills had been good against the Crows & Dees first time around - we'd all be planning our Grand Final trips about now.

Pretty much agree with everything else you said and your thoughts on guys like Dempster & Malceski are why I think we are a real chance over the next few years. They have got the skills and with the experience that they are now getting, they may be the players that provide that bit extra that we are lacking.

[liz]

Originally posted by Sean

Anyway, be that as it may, over the course of the season a team like West Coast has shown far better skills than us. Not saying that our skills are bad, although they were early in the season, but they aren't quite at that top level.

No arguments from me that our skills aren't at the level of the Eagles - or the Crows for that matter. I just don't reckon they're as inherently as bad as some were suggesting a couple of months ago. It's just that they seem so so dependent on confidence - more so than other teams'.

Don't agree on the intensity of the Melbourne match. I thought the Dees showed enormous desperation for most of the game. They laid over 60 tackles, which is a pretty big total for a game.

[Sean]

Originally posted by liz
No arguments from me that our skills aren't at the level of the Eagles - or the Crows for that matter. I just don't reckon they're as inherently as bad as some were suggesting a couple of months ago. It's just that they seem so so dependent on confidence - more so than other teams'.

Overall they probably weren't as bad as people suggested but they were shocking against the Saints. Losing home games to the Crows & Demons was largely due to poor skills. You could say the same thing about the Kangaroos match as well.

Your point about confidence is very true and it's great now but that is why we are third rather than second. If we played the way we are now early in the season we would have won those three games I mentioned. Not even sure why they lost confidence.

Don't agree on the intensity of the Melbourne match. I thought the Dees showed enormous desperation for most of the game. They laid over 60 tackles, which is a pretty big total for a game.

Fair enough. I just remember guys like Yze, Johnstone, Bruce & White avoiding contests and not putting their head over the ball all match - with one notable exception from Yze of course. Maybe I'm being harsh. Don't like the Demons - not completely sure why.

[liz]

Originally posted by Sean
Overall they probably weren't as bad as people suggested but they were shocking against the Saints. Losing home games to the Crows & Demons was largely due to poor skills. You could say the same thing about the Kangaroos match as well.

I reckon it's fair to say that when the Swans skills are down, they are positively horrid. And every year the team seems to go through a 3-4 match stretch where they couldn't hit the side of a barn. If anyone knows the reason why, I suggest they should apply for a job as an assistant coach.

Is there another team in the league which has collectively a bigger gulf between its best and worst, skillwise? A few years ago it was collective team intensity that seemed to waver between great and awful. But while they still have minor aberrations (like the Richmond game recently), this is one area that Roos seems to have really improved the team in.

Teams like Freo, Port and Geelong have been very up and down this year but I think that is more down to variation in effort than skill (plus multiple injuries played their part too).

The Kangaroos match earlier this year is the one that rankles the most with me because the Swans were in control of that one for three quarters, with clearly the better of the play around the ground, yet left the door open for a final quarter blitz. That one, much more so than the Richmond game, is "the one that got away" and could prove to be the difference between a top 4 spot or making up the numbers.

[Schneiderman]

I think we have enough skill, and now also enough experience to be a genuine finals threat.

Most importantly, all of the last 5 years Grand Finalists (who could argue to have more experience and skill as a result) are toughing it out even to make the finals, let alone the GF. This is a very rare circumstance.

Where it will all be won IMO is above the shoulders now. And I dont think its simply confidence. The team that runs out onto the MCG on that last day, has to really feel like they belong there, that this is their time.

Of the teams left that will feel that way and have the best opportunity based on that assumption are IMO the Saints, Brisbane, Swans and maybe Geelong. The Crows and Eagles both have too small a part of their team with this level of determination, and large parts of the team may be over-awed. I still believe this is what got to us in 1996.

Nevertheless, WC and the Crows have the best chance if the ladder remains as it is today, and their key players remain injury and suspension free come Round 22. But I just cant write us off, and if we keep winning we aren't pretenders by any stretch.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

A Big Ask?

Originally posted by liz
I was feeling moderately optimistic. Then I saw some info posted on WLF this evening that showed that the premiership team has been ranked top 3 in attack pretty much every year for the past couple of decades.
I think we're currently 15th!!!

I was wondering whether some of our resident number crunchers could see how we are ranked in attack for the period between rounds 11 and 17 inclusive?

[ScottH]

Re: A Big Ask?

Originally posted by Ruckman
I was wondering whether some of our resident number crunchers could see how we are ranked in attack for the period between rounds 11 and 17 inclusive?

Points                Rank
for   against   Attack  Defence 
683     519         8      2

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Ruckman
I was wondering whether some of our resident number crunchers could see how we are ranked in attack for the period between rounds 11 and 17 inclusive?

8th

[Mike_B]

Re: A Big Ask?

Originally posted by Ruckman
I was wondering whether some of our resident number crunchers could see how we are ranked in attack for the period between rounds 11 and 17 inclusive?

Over the last 7 games (so from Rd 11 v Carlton onwards) we are ranked 8th in points for.

Team		Pts For		Rank For	Pts Against	Rank Against
Adelaide	743		4		486		1
Brisbane Lions	863		1		555		3
Carlton		598		13		943		16
Collingwood	601		12		768		13
Essendon	648		10		800		14
Fremantle	668		9		660		9
Geelong		592		14		637		7
Hawthorn	535		16		802		15
Kangaroos	698		6		617		6
Melbourne	644		11		765		12
Port Adelaide	761		3		641		8
Richmond	542		15		698		10
St Kilda	803		2		555		3
Sydney		683		8		519		2
West Coast	734		5		610		5
Western Bulldogs688		7		745		11

[j s]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
8th

The trend is in the right direction anyway.

[barry]

On current form we are a shot for the flag. Unless we can snare 2nd we may need some luck to avoid a final in perth which I beleive we couldnt win.

Still some holes in our side though:
1) FB: Barry cant handle Gehrig, Neitz and those types. We need to have Schuable up to seniors fitness and avaliable for selected games.
2) Midfield. No doubt Buchanan's form has got our midfield up to a level where its quite formidable, but can he maintain his form for the next 9 weeks.
3) We still struggle at MCG sized grounds. Be good to get a good win there against the hawks before finals.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by barry
3) We still struggle at MCG sized grounds. Be good to get a good win there against the hawks before finals.

For me, this is the biggest issue between being a genuine contender and a pretender wannabe, and it pretty much has been for a long time.

There are a whole heap of factors affecting whether we play well or badly on big grounds, so we need to get them right in September.

We'll get a decent idea on the weekend - big ground, good opposition, second tough week in a row.

[Go Swannies]

We did okay against the Dees on a similar sized ground as AAMI. But we've had another hard game since then and even Roos is already talking about changes because of that.

Except for the extremes (SCG 147x136 vs Subiaco 175x122) I think the ground size is overrated (or is that why WA teams generally struggle away - not used to wide short grounds like the MCG?)

More worrying from those interesting stats is that the Swans are N0 2 in stopping goals against over the recent games. No 1? The Crows.

[NMWBloods]

In this national competition one of the great challenges for all clubs, particularly those from Western Australia and Sydney, is to formulate a game plan that suits their home grounds but can be adapted to the vastly different MCG.

The difference between the MCG's dimensions and Subiaco's are significant and obvious, but not so the contrast between the MCG and SCG. Yet, having played there many times, the impact is far greater than the figures suggest.

Those four metres at either end make a big difference and it affects the Swans, in particular their forward structure. At the SCG you can get away with only one power forward if the ball is rebounding quickly off the half-back line because the centre half-forward gets bypassed.

With a possession-based game plan, in which the 30m kick dominates and the ball doesn't come easily out of defence, you need transition players on the wings, and wide on the flanks.

This is why Barry Hall takes so many marks on the wing. He simply gets sucked up into the middle when the ball moves slowly out of defence. Given that most of his marks in this area are on his chest, his great bulk and mobility are wasted. And, as he's shown in the past two weeks, he's far more dangerous close to goal.

Developing a game plan with only one tall forward has major ramifications when you translate it to the MCG, where Sydney is yet to win a final ? ever.

The MCG requires three, and possibly four, talls, even with today's variable match styles.

Nobody plays possession footy more than Port Adelaide, yet it started last year's Grand Final with Warren Tredrea, Brendon Lade and Toby Thurstans in the forward line.

West Coast has also had difficulty adapting to the MCG. There are several reasons for this ? weather, surface and travel ? but the different ground dimension is another factor.

At Subiaco the run is generated from the middle, not half-back, so with the exception of Guy McKenna, who was a committed sweeper, the Eagles have not developed this type of player.

John Worsfold has been working on this, however, and may have found someone in Brent Staker.

Staker usually takes the third tall option, but such is his improvement it may not be long before opposition teams drag him deep into defence to restrict his rebound.

If you generate your run from the middle and not half-back at the MCG, you get hurt because it slows the transition of the ball into the forward line. This gives a defensive zone defence more time to set itself, taking away space for the forwards.

This is why Hawthorn has broken down after a promising start to the year. It has been blocked coming out of defence, which gives its opponent enough time to clog the forward space. Without any tall options the Hawks are too predictable in going to the player on the lead. Not many crumbs at Hawthorn at present.

But crumbs are the reason the Eagles defeated Richmond two weeks ago ? crumbs and Chris Judd.

Phil Matera has been a small full-forward in a structure that failed in finals. This year, with Quinten Lynch in the goalsquare, he has become a crumber and his five goals against Richmond made the difference.

At Subiaco there is so much space available that forwards can all take marks one-out.

There is little flooding because it's difficult to run the lines and impossible to fill all the space. While Lynch is helped by Michael Gardiner at Subiaco, centre half-forward Ashley Hansen becomes the pivotal player at the MCG.

His workrate is vital to provide the link if the ball is pushed wide.

However, Worsfold's greatest challenge is to develop a game that generates run from defence, not the middle, that kicks it in long and deep to Lynch. And then hope he plays like his namesake Alastair.

- Extract from Gerard Healy article, H/Sun 18 June 2005