Hall: The Walls method

[Sanecow]

You know how I hate Robert Walls? Well, maybe he's right sometimes. Geez I wish they'd moved Hall onto the ball after his start to the game. Or the bench. Somewhere, anywhere! He must be in the game.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

I haven't seen the tape of the Port game yet, but "give him a run on the ball" is a weekly recomendation from Robert Walls. Doesn't matter who he's reporting on, if you're over 6.4 and not doing so well then he wants you in the ruck.

[Sanecow]

He didn't cover the game on the weekend, but maybe if he had, you know Roos is listening to the commentary for tips.

[RogueSwan]

Was it Walls that said Russell Robertson should be moved onto the ball during the Doggies/Demons game?
Maybe that is on his check list for each game:
...
5. Find a player who hasn't had many touches and flap on about how he should be moved onto the ball for 5 minutes.
6. Gibber on about man-on-man, tough contested, "not pretty footy" unless it is the swans then gibber on about ugly, flooding footy.
...

[stellation]

Robbo should have been moved onto the wing or at least up to HF in that game.

[NMWBloods]

Re: Hall: The Wall's method

Originally posted by Sanecow
You know how I hate Robert Walls? Well, maybe he's right sometimes. Geez I wish they'd moved Hall onto the ball after his start to the game. Or the bench. Somewhere, anywhere! He must be in the game.

Garry Lyon suggested the same thing about 6 min before half time.

[Legs Akimbo]

I think it is a ridiculous idea. He should have run more into the space between half forward and wing, but there is nothing to be gained from running him on the ball. Robert Walls is a cretin.

[wyatt]

Barry Hall is our most competent ruckman - bar none (even better than J.Ball). Virtually every time he contests the ruck in the forward line, he wins - even against the major opposition ruckmen. If it wasn't robbing Peter to pay Paul, I'd drop Chambers in a flash and have Hall rotating between ruck and full-forward. His stamina and mobility would make him nearly impossible to match up - a la Adam Goodes.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
there is nothing to be gained from running him on the ball.

Nothing but hit outs, kicks, handballs and tackles.

Originally posted by Legs Akimbo
Robert Walls is a cretin.

Yeah, I know.

[ugg]

Originally posted by wyatt
Barry Hall is our most competent ruckman - bar none (even better than J.Ball). Virtually every time he contests the ruck in the forward line, he wins - even against the major opposition ruckmen. If it wasn't robbing Peter to pay Paul, I'd drop Chambers in a flash and have Hall rotating between ruck and full-forward. His stamina and mobility would make him nearly impossible to match up - a la Adam Goodes.

There's a difference to taking boundary throw-ins than center bounces.

[timthefish]

Originally posted by wyatt
Barry Hall is our most competent ruckman - bar none (even better than J.Ball). Virtually every time he contests the ruck in the forward line, he wins - even against the major opposition ruckmen. If it wasn't robbing Peter to pay Paul, I'd drop Chambers in a flash and have Hall rotating between ruck and full-forward. His stamina and mobility would make him nearly impossible to match up - a la Adam Goodes.

i remember hall relieving goodes in that great semi (?) win against port to give goodes some time to recover. he rucked for around five minutes and did a good job but was pretty much spent by the end of it. i know he works hard on the lead and comes up the ground a lot, but i think he'd find the ruck work too debillitating long-term.

[stevej]

Originally posted by ugg
There's a difference to taking boundary throw-ins than center bounces.

Hey Ugg, Like you cumulative free kick stats. I'd be interested in those stats up to half time of our 1st two matches. Our frees seem to come in junk time when the umpires have already put the game beyond doubt!!!

[ugg]

I think they were something like 18-8 against Essendon and 14-4 against Port.

[anne]

Originally posted by stevej
Hey Ugg, Like you cumulative free kick stats. I'd be interested in those stats up to half time of our 1st two matches. Our frees seem to come in junk time when the umpires have already put the game beyond doubt!!!

Of course they do - they said so at the after match(Luff). It is just to even up a bit so the figures don't tell the real story.

[TheMase]

Originally posted by anne
Of course they do - they said so at the after match(Luff). It is just to even up a bit so the figures don't tell the real story.

I reckon this is all wrong, as is the previous post on the umpires giving us the free kicks in "junk time" once the umpires have decided the match.

The basis idea of football is 'if you are first to the football the umpire will protect you'.

The Swans problem at the moment is this. We are CONSISTANT second to the football, and as a result we are GIVING AWAY more free kicks. A nudge in the back, a tackle too high, a trip as the player is trying to run away with the ball etc etc.

We are applying too much pressure on ourselves by not getting first to the ball, the players are becoming despirate and doing stupid things.

The junk time comment is this ... The Swans are now suddenly, 3 1/2 quarters into the match, deciding to turn up to the game!!!
They are now first to the ball and winning the hard ball contests.
The other team is now tired for the 3 1/2 quarters building up an unbeatable lead and is making mistakes thus giving the Swans free kicks, and then the tally is evened up.

Its like this. If we are first to the ball, if we work hard, we WILL get the better side of the umpiring.

Now now .. I know we were behind last year too, and you could justifiably say we are not getting the 50/50 free kicks although at the moment we obviously don't want the ball, and are consistantly giving away free kicks, so you can see why the umpire may believe it was the Swan that infriged rather than the other way around.

Our game plan last year was hard attack on the football, all over the ground. Creating stoppages and a highly defensive gameplan. Defensive gameplans will cause free kicks. We were able to turn the ball over at times last year through our agressive tackling. Fortunately last year we were only 1 step behind the opposition with the ball, this year we are three ****ing metres!

WAKE UP SWANS. GET FIRST THE BALL AND YOU WILL BE PROTECTED BY THE UMPIRES.

And if you question this logic ... tell me this...

If the Swans went through the whole game without enabling the opposition to have the ball. How could the umpire give a free kick to the opposition unless the players were caught with the football? What if our skills were up to a professional level (which they currently are not)? Then perhaps we would be pin pointing targets instead of kicking the ball back to the opposition. We would have more time to dispose of the ball and be more confident.

At the moment the players are 3 metres behind the bloke with the ball, becoming despirate and doing stupid things.

Here is a breakdown.
The ball is in the middle of the ground. There is no defensive pressure from the midfield because they are sitting around doing **** all. Then the ball comes flying into the defense and gee, that came quick, better trying and stop him (infringment).

Lets go to the other side of the park. We kick inside 50 turn the ball over. No defensive pressure inside 50. No defensive pressure in the midfield. The opposition eases themselves down the ground and scores another goal. Either through a good pressureless passage of play, or an infringement due to a playing being too far away from their respective opponent due to a) not paying attention b) no defensive pressure making it easy.

Wake up Sydney...

(sorry for the ramble, I dont know what I even said at the start of this post. Sydney need to start taking responsibility for the poor efforts rather than blaming training, umpires, weather, whatever)