Protecting the Ball Carrier,

[ScottH]

or lack thereof.

The Swans Rank last in the Shepherding dept. This has been raised quite a few times on here as an area of concern.

St K 388
WC  348
Roos 276
Carl  267
Ade  249
Haw  246
Coll  230
Gee 220
Fre  215
PA  200
Rich 198
Melb 169
WB   153
Ess  149
Bri  128
Syd 104

A long way behind. I notice most times when a player gets the ball the other players around are intent on getting into a ball receiving position, rather than protecting the ball carrier.

[BonBon]

I was looking at the Footy Record from the vs Adelaide game. In there was 2 pages of stats about the teams who had most frees, goals, possessions etc and if we didn't rank last, we were certainly near the bottom. We have low stats yet look where we are now.

[NMWBloods]

Re: Protecting the Ball Carrier,

Originally posted by ScottH
A long way behind. I notice most times when a player gets the ball the other players around are intent on getting into a ball receiving position, rather than protecting the ball carrier.

And similarly after they dispose of it, rather than follow up with a shepherd, they fall away.

[ScottH]

Re: Re: Protecting the Ball Carrier,

Originally posted by NMWBloods
And similarly after they dispose of it, rather than follow up with a shepherd, they fall away.

Yeh, that one too.

"not my ball anymore, so I won't get a clanger stat against me!!"

[DST]

As Roos has said recently, he couldn't give a stuff if the Swans were last for every key indicator ever produced.

As long as they beat their opponent of that week in the key indicators, which leads to them winning the match then we can be last for all them, what does it matter?

DST

[Mike_B]

Nice to see some numbers that back up my incessant whinging for the past few years about our shepherding or lack thereof.

[Go Swannies]

Two options. The first is that the coaching staff have forgotten to teach the players about shpherding. Or they have decided that shepherding isn't worthwhile. We do expect the Swans to run harder at the end of the game than other teams so maybe some energy conservation is in that - and they have decided on the balance that it's better to have several attacking runners going forward than having one in defence.

I'm not saying the second is right. But this is a team that has been taught to play for each other yet they just don't protect each other for long runs. If you believe it's simply to avoid racking up a clanger count I think you must be mistaking them for another team.

[Nico]

Carlton, Collingwood and Hawthorn in the top 8 for shepherds. Where are they again on the real ladder?

Strange stat that seems to have a few contradictions.

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
But this is a team that has been taught to play for each other yet they just don't protect each other for long runs.

My issue with shepherding isn't on long runs, its when gathering a loose ball - being 2nd row from the fence at the SCG I get a good view of this regularly.

There will be 2 players coming to a loose ball, one will go to the ball and the other moves into a position to receive the ball, putting the retriever under pressure from the opposition player rather than laying the shepherd and giving the retriever a few moments to gather cleanly and assess options for disposal.

[ugg]

Surely a significant part of this stat is the way we play the game. Chipping it around near the boundary line for uncontested possesion doesn't require much shepharding. In a similar vein, just because we're near the top in clearance numbers doesn't necessarily mean we're the best at it, just that we get more of an opportunity to do so.

[NMWBloods]

There is no way that anyone could consider shepherding unnecessary no matter what the style of game.

The low numbers possibly do reflect our short chipping game as well as our actual lack of shepherding when we should.

[Go Swannies]

At an aftermatch ages ago (April?), Goodes started quoting some detailed stats for our success rate when we had multiple players going for hard ball gets. I was amazed at the detailed statistical analysis of the game he apparently had stored in his mind. So I think there's a reason why we don't - and think it's more to do with successful passage of play than selfish play. And, with a team as disciplined as this I can't believe it's through sloppy play. I just can't work out what it might be.

The lack of sherpherding frustrates me too - and I'd like to understand why we don't. I bet Paul Roos won't tell us, either.

[Snowy]

But there are a lot of unnecessary shepherds which count as stats. The only significant shepherds are the ones which actually prevent a pursuing opponent from laying a tackle.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Snowy
But there are a lot of unnecessary shepherds which count as stats.

Are you sure? Most of those 1%ers are effective stats not just attempts I believe.

As a comparison, Adelaide like to run the ball through their midfield. They also often follow up a handball with a shepherd, thus giving the receiver a second to compose himself. We rarely do this, which might be why we fling the ball around with a flurry of handballs or kick the ball quickly without spotting up a target, as we are known to do.

And before someone says 'yes, but look at where on the ladder we are', think about that we're 4th and we might be even higher if our running game was even more effective.

[Snowy]

Well I watch a lot of shepherds being made which are probably good as a disciplined measure but in reality don't actually achieve a lot. I'm not saying they shouldn't happen and they create good habits but I think if a bloke is legitimately shepherding within a contest it gets counted regardless of its effectiveness, just like a lot of the tackles laid at stoppages simply effect another ball-up but are not crunching tackles. That is why some of the likes of Hayes, Kirk and Obree get credited with so many because they are often the last bloke to lay the tackle before the whistle goes.