Smoke and mirrors

[NMWBloods]

The aim of the possession game has been to control the tempo. I'm not sure how successful it has been at specifically doing that. It's arguable that it has been more detrimental to us at times than to our opponent.

The jury is also out as to whether we have the game to win finals.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
The aim of the possession game has been to control the tempo. I'm not sure how successful it has been at specifically doing that. It's arguable that it has been more detrimental to us at times than to our opponent.

On one hand it does seem to stem the tide pretty effectively but on the other, how many times does it result in a bomb into an over-crowded 50m after five or six short passes!

[giant]

Originally posted by Sanecow
The possession game is deliberately "boring". It's to change the tempo of the game when the opposition gets a run on (which can be exciting to watch but not good to encourage). It's amazingly effective (except when you can't get a clean possession and the Crows put on a handful of quick goals).

Yep, real qn mark as to whether its the rite game plan for wet or slippery conditions.

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by NMWBloods

The jury is also out as to whether we have the game to win finals.

I hope the jury is back in about three weeks from now. It will be needed.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
I hope the jury is back in about three weeks from now. It will be needed.

Are you on trial soon?

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by barry
But we do flood a lot, and it is boring, lets be under no illusions there.

No its not. Not for me. Its not exciting but it aint boring. Not if its a proper flood where you try to win the ball back with massive pressure and then rebound quickly to score yourself.

Whats boring is when you have a skill-less side like Carlton (and even at times Adelaide and the Roos), who flood like crazy, but when they get it they dont know what to do with it.

Unfortunately I think players like Bevan, Mathews and LRT fall into this category too, whilst Kennelly, Barry and Bolton are the opposite.

The big difference between earlier in the year and no IMO, is that we apply the flood more effectively now, with Kennelly and the like running hard from the backline, and thus we change the momentum of the game more quickly. From there on there is less need to keep flooding... just like in the Essendon game where we used it for about 2min in total.

[ScottH]

My problem with "Sydney Flooding" is, I find it hard to understand why other games I watch have 99% of a team in one half of the ground, but they are not describe as flooding.

All teams do it to some extent, some worse than others, but we are the ones, the finger is pointed at.

[Sean]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
The jury is also out as to whether we have the game to win finals.

We have won finals in the past few years so there aren't any problems there. The jury is out in regards to whether we can win 3 finals but that will come down to the players rather than the game plan.

In regards to flooding and what Barry said earlier:

But we do flood a lot, and it is boring, lets be under no illusions there.

I disagree. We don't flood more than other teams and in fact flood less than many. Unfortunately the definition of flooding seems to have been changed so that we can still be criticised for doing it.

We get numbers around the ball - not specifically behind the ball or in our defensive 50. So, if the ball is there we have numbers back but if the ball is in our forward 50 we tend to have numbers there as well.

TV stations love to show the shot of our forward 50 with no-one in it but that doesn't mean we are flooding - and the opposition tends to do exactly the same thing (like Brisbane) but that goes un-mentioned. The Eagles regularly had at most 1 person in their forward 50 when defending but no-one calls them flooders. I remember at one stage in that game we had no-one in our forward 50 but still had about 6 guys in our attacking half - they'd just moved up ground to give the defence someone to kick it to.

The flooding issue is also clouded by opposition coaches, players and fans bending the truth. Hamill said on TFS that he remembers the Saints flooding once - in 2002. That's quite obviously rubbish. Rocket says that the Bulldogs flood less than any other team in the AFL. How can they have so many free men available to run the ball out of their defensive 50 if they aren't flooding?

We certainly do do it at times - like Schneiderman said we did it briefly against Essendon. However, other teams that claim to play attacking footy, like the Demons for example, do it a lot more than us.

Flooding is unfairly criticised anyway - Brisbane won three flags with flooding being a major part of their game plan. Brown would take a lot more marks in their defensive half than Hall does - that's because they flood back and then move the ball out quickly with him being the obvious target.

Also, flooding isn't by definition boring - it's what happens next that tends to be boring or exciting.

Rant over

[barry]

Originally posted by NMWBloods

The jury is also out as to whether we have the game to win finals.

In the last two finals campains we've won 2 finals, and lost 2. I think we were underdogs in all 4. So we have the game to win finals, but the jury is out as to whether we have the game to string 3 or 4 finals wins in a row together.

[barry]

Originally posted by Sean

We certainly do do it at times - like Schneiderman said we did it briefly against Essendon. However, other teams that claim to play attacking footy, like the Demons for example, do it a lot more than us.

Yeah, Richmond claimed they were going all out attack this year, and look where they are now.

Glad we never got wallet as coach.

[NMWBloods]

I was primarily referring to the ability to win more than one final, to win in Melbourne and, to a lesser extent, to win by decent margins.

The Swans have struggled in these areas for a long long time and whether we can do this now remains uncertain.

[Sean]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I was primarily referring to the ability to win more than one final, to win in Melbourne and, to a lesser extent, to win by decent margins.

I agree with the first bit but aren't sure about the other two points.

Sure, we don't win finals in Melbourne but we don't actually play them that often and when we do we are always the away team and usually the underdog. The stat about Sydney never winning a final at the MCG is true but I think we've only played there about 6 times and we would have been expected to lose every time - except the GF maybe but we were the "away" team. That's why a top 2 spot is so important - avoid the MCG until the GF when hopefully we'd play another non-Victorian side.

In regards to decent margins, we beat the Eagles easily last year but it would be nice to see us win all games by more than we do.

[NMWBloods]

Part of the reason we beat WCE so easily last year was the weather. Our previous biggest winning margin since the war was 12 points. Our highest scores in finals since the war are 104 and 100.

Since the war from 18 finals games = 5 wins - 4-2 in Sydney, 1-0 in Adelaide, 0-11 in Melbourne (8 MCG, 2 Wav, 1 TD). Our average losing margin in those 13 losses is 47 points. Our average winning margin is 10 points (4 points excluding the WCE win).

Of course, the only way we will get to play as a neutral in Melbourne is in the GF against an interstate side, but I'd like not to rely on that. I'm also not sure how much of an advantage the MCG should be for some Melbourne teams when playing Sydney.

[Sean]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I'm also not sure how much of an advantage the MCG should be for some Melbourne teams when playing Sydney.

Surely the fact that they play there more often, it's in their home town, more of their supporters will turn up and we have to fly to get there would be considered an advantage? Add that to the fact that if we are playing at the MCG it means that we are playing someone who has earnt a home final ahead of us.

Home state advantage exists - not sure why you would think it might not.

You've used that weather excuse for the Eagles before but hadn't they kicked a whopping 2 goals before it started raining? Also, it's not like we were any good in the rain. We won because we were better than them - and had the home ground advantage. They play in the rain more than us so blaming the weather for a loss seems a bit lame - would you use that excuse for a Swans loss?

As for the other stuff, since the war means nothing - except that the Swans have generally sucked for the last 70 years. What happened 10, 20 or 50 years ago will have no effect on our upcoming finals campaign. Over the last 10 years we have generally made the finals and we've won a few - that and how good we are this season is all that matters.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sean
Surely the fact that they play there more often

A team like StKilda doesn't really. They have only 2-3 games per year at the MCG.

it's in their home town, more of their supporters will turn up

We have a pretty decent Melbourne supporter base and not all opponents have big supporter bases overall (eg: Kangaroos). Our Melbourne games seem to have a reasonable showing of supporters.

and we have to fly to get there would be considered an advantage?

Sure going to your 'local' ground is some advantage over flying, but it's not much of a trip from Sydney.

Add that to the fact that if we are playing at the MCG it means that we are playing someone who has earnt a home final ahead of us.

Not sure if that means a lot on the day.

Home state advantage exists - not sure why you would think it might not.

I didn't say home state advantage didn't exist - just "not sure how much of an advantage the MCG should be for some Melbourne teams when playing Sydney."

You've used that weather excuse for the Eagles before but hadn't they kicked a whopping 2 goals before it started raining? Also, it's not like we were any good in the rain. We won because we were better than them - and had the home ground advantage. They play in the rain more than us so blaming the weather for a loss seems a bit lame - would you use that excuse for a Swans loss?

Not saying it was the only reason - however I still think it was a factor - WC were even more crap than us in the rain. How do they play in the rain more than us?

As for the other stuff, since the war means nothing - except that the Swans have generally sucked for the last 70 years. What happened 10, 20 or 50 years ago will have no effect on our upcoming finals campaign. Over the last 10 years we have generally made the finals and we've won a few - that and how good we are this season is all that matters.

Of course it is. However, I'm simply noting that the Swans make finals and either just manage to scrape a win or get smashed. Whether that remains the same this year or not remains to be seen.

One thing in our favour relative to previous years though is that there are no real standout teams in the competition.