Putting it in perspective

[Matt79]

I would feel a lot worse about our situation if we were Geelong (losing to Essendon) and Brisbane (losing to the Bulldogs).
I mean we only lost by 7 points to an in form team in Adelaide. I thought as I mentioned earlier it was a great effort.

[Charlie]

Looks like I'll have to agree to disagree with you all.... but the following points remain:
a) We could have won, but didn't.
b) As a result, we cannot finish second.
c) Adelaide were not at the same level they have been in recent weeks.
d) We had relatively few players beat their opponents around the ground.
e) Skills were bad.
f) A considerable number of our stars had little to no impact, and/or their workrate was unsatisfactory (I'm looking at Hall, C Bolton, Williams, Schneider, Jolly, Crouch and arguably Davis).

We stuffed up. Simple as that. What we might have expected before the game has absolutely no bearing on that fact.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Charlie
b) As a result, we cannot finish second.

Bollocks. We are a chance still. I wouldn't put my house on Adelaide beating Port Adelaide and West Coast.

It might not happen (Swans finishing second), but I wouldn't say it cannot happen.

Originally posted by Charlie
c) Adelaide were not at the same level they have been in recent weeks.

Because they were playing a quality team, duh.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by Charlie
c) Adelaide were not at the same level they have been in recent weeks.

Would you perhaps consider that maybe they didnt appear as good due to the extreme pressure applied by the swans. The one short period that they broke free was when our pressure dropped in the 3rd quarter, a straight forward shift in momentum that occurs in every game. When the momentum shifted back our way we got back into a game-winning position. Only our goal-kicking let us down.

[Xie Shan]

Originally posted by sharpie
Only our goal-kicking let us down.

I agree , even though I only saw the second half on TV. They did everything possible to win that game except kick goals! Never mind what happened in the first three quarters, they created more than enough chances to win that game in the last quarter alone, but threw them away. I think it was 16 inside 50s in the one quarter alone for one goal, that's how wasteful it was.

I think the blame for this loss lies with the forwards - the midfield gave them plenty of supply in the last quarter but they didn't capitalise - Hall dropped several marks he should have taken, and seemed more interested in appealing for free kicks he was never going to get...O'Keefe blazed away a couple of times, O'Loughlin inexplicably failed to see Goodes alone in the square...

Sure, it's disappointing that they failed, and that 2nd spot is gone now, but I'm in no doubt that they can match it with, and defeat, any other team in the finals now - I'd back them to win the first final away if they finish 4th from here, which IMO is the most likely position, even allowing for the trip to Subiaco. They didn't have much luck last night when it counted, but the experience of playing in front of a hostile crowd will help. I'm actually seeing more similarities with the 2003 game against the Crows at AAMI (the Carey "mark" one) which they just lost, but having matched a good team away from home ended up giving them the extra confidence that resulted in away wins against Brisbane and famously, Port. Wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened this year.

[Sean]

Originally posted by sydfan83
but I'm in no doubt that they can match it with, and defeat, any other team in the finals now - I'd back them to win the first final away if they finish 4th from here, which IMO is the most likely position, even allowing for the trip to Subiaco.

I couldn't really see us winning at Subiaco but I'd be happy enough to see us play Adelaide again.

However, if we do "have" to play West Coast I'd probably prefer that it was in the first week of the finals. They haven't won too many finals lately so getting them whilst that idea is in the back of their minds would be best. To beat them at Subiaco in a PF would be virtually impossible IMHO.

[Xie Shan]

The main things in our favour in a final against WC at Subiaco are:
- WC are unproven in finals. Can't argue with this - haven't won one since when? Not this milennium, 1999 maybe? Anyway, they are a bit like Port in this aspect.
- History. Beating Port in a final in Adelaide does count for something, especially when it's basically the same group of players as we've got now.
- Our game plan. (Yes! Finally something positive about our game plan that isn't a message on a T-Shirt! ) Say what you like about this low-scoring, contested brand of footy, it really is like playing a final every week, and provided the players don't run out of steam before September, should give them an edge.

But true, much better to have to play the game at Subiaco in week 1, than the PF. And the resolution of the MCC dispute has now made it that much harder for the Saints to make the GF - assuming they can't catch Adelaide (and I don't think anyone will, now), they'll now have to play a prelim at AAMI - again - or at Subiaco.

Of course there's always a chance that we do finish 3rd and beat Adelaide in the QF at a venue where we have never lost a final hence eliminating the need to play a prelim at Subi.

Could just as easily miss the top 4, and get knocked out in the first or second week though. I never take anything for granted when following this team!

[SXP]

Chocking game has backfired and I think even Roos knows that by now. Only kicking goals will win it and everybody knows that no matter how hard are you working on the filed. Let's face it boys and girls, they are not contenders. At least not this year. Somebody put them side by side of St Kilda and I find that a joke. We'll see how many games will Sydney win till R22.

[Sean]

Originally posted by SXP
Chocking game has backfired and I think even Roos knows that by now. Only kicking goals will win it and everybody knows that no matter how hard are you working on the filed.

We were the more attacking team - we had more inside 50s and more shots at goal. Kicking at goal and disposal inside 50 was the problem - our gameplan wasn't IMHO.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by Sean
We were the more attacking team - we had more inside 50s and more shots at goal. Kicking at goal and disposal inside 50 was the problem - our gameplan wasn't IMHO.

That was one of the ludicrous things about the commentary. A Swan would be buried in a tackle yet again as the commentators were saying "Sydney has to be more attacking".

Adelaide is rated the best defence in the comp - and it showed.

[Xie Shan]

Bit of both, I'd say. The gameplan has still been winning games - the Swans aren't a high-scoring team, but still tend to average 13-16 goals a game when they win which is OK. With the number of I50s they got last night, they should be kicking more goals anyway. 6 goals won't win you many games, no matter what your gameplan is.

As for why they only kicked 6 goals, the kicking at goal and disposal inside 50 is pretty much an execution thing, though the forwards also seemed simply to be beaten by their opponents on the night, which is a bit of a worry given the talent that is supposed to be there.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
That was one of the ludicrous things about the commentary. A Swan would be buried in a tackle yet again as the commentators were saying "Sydney has to be more attacking".

Yeah and it was usually Schwass saying that. He really annoys me as a commentator - he tries too hard to be unbiased and just ends up bagging us all the time. I've lost a bit of respect for him.

Adelaide is rated the best defence in the comp - and it showed.

That part of their game is excellent - the best I've seen in a few years.

[Xie Shan]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
Adelaide is rated the best defence in the comp - and it showed.

Definitely! I think the reason it was so close and so low-scoring was that both teams had pretty much met their match defensively - it's pretty hard to score against a team that plays the same way you do, I'd have thought. And you could say that for either team last night. Great contest though - certainly not ugly or boring, and was exciting to watch apart from the frustrating errors in front of goal.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Matt79
It was simply a 3 minute period at the beginning of the 3rd quarter that got us, not to mention the two freak goals that Riccuto (torpedo from 60m) and Burton (snap over his shoulder) got for the Crows in the second.

I don't think Burton's goal was freaky.

Lapses like allowing your opponent to kick 7 of 8 goals costs teams premierships.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by sydfan83
- WC are unproven in finals. Can't argue with this - haven't won one since when? Not this milennium, 1999 maybe? Anyway, they are a bit like Port in this aspect.

Not really like Port - WC's finals have been away games after just making finals, as opposed to home games after finishing top.

- History. Beating Port in a final in Adelaide does count for something, especially when it's basically the same group of players as we've got now.

Counted for little last year.

- Our game plan. (Yes! Finally something positive about our game plan that isn't a message on a T-Shirt! ) Say what you like about this low-scoring, contested brand of footy, it really is like playing a final every week, and provided the players don't run out of steam before September, should give them an edge.

We said this last year too.