Our style of play...good or bad?

[Matt79]

Gday gang,

Just returned home after our footy weekend in Melbourne taking in 3 games, Syd V Carlton, Ess V Bulldogs and Kangaroos V Pies.

Reading in todays Herald Sun, 2 readers wrote letters lamenting the style of play Sydney play (ugly) and that they would not go and pay money to watch their team play us again.

This made me incredibly frustrated...watching 2 other live games on the weekend, every team floods, every team plays uncontested footy and every team when they are up by a small margin chips the ball around in the final few minutes to run down the clock.

When these Carlton morons were booing the swans for chipping the ball around in the last quarter I yelled back at them to tell their own stupid wooden spoon side to man up and force contested footy.

Are we being unfairly labelled as ugly or are other fans simply ignorant to the style of game their team plays?

Cheers,
Matt

[MrRed]

Re: Our style of play...good or bad?

See black people loot and white people find. Do you remember that famous caption from the New Orleans hurricane last year?

This is what it feels to be a swans supporter down here at the minute. I too read those 2 letters and it made me angry and I was going to shoot of a reply. But I didn't in the end.

Originally posted by Matt79


Are we being unfairly labelled as ugly or are other fans simply ignorant to the style of game their team plays?

I just don't understand how stupid it's getting. It's like people fail to accept that we don't flood but get flooded on, no matter how many times it shown on tv or how many times its mention. People have this ingrained opinion about the swans down here and the media does not help at all by creating myths and lies.

Its just mind boggling and frustrating at the same time!

[Schneiderman]

Premiers 2005. That gets me by when I read that crap.

[Refried Noodle]

I went down to Melbourne too, for four games (same three and Geelong for the other) and at every game when teams were chipping or flooding they were yelling stuff like 'don't play like sydney' etc.

Every team does it, but Sydney will take the criticism every time.

[NMWBloods]

Every team does flood, but the stats aren't kind for our games.

Against Carlton, 30.5 possessions per goal and 52 stoppages.

StKilda 16.6 p/g and 19 st.

Hawthorn 26.4 p/g and 37 st.

West Coast 20.4 p/g and 14 st.

Bulldogs 23.7 p/g and 33 st.

Fremantle 22.3 p/g and 29 st.

Adelaide 23.0 p/g and 45 st.

Collingwood 15.6 p/g and 12 st.

Only our win has that combination of high possessions per goal and high stoppages. Doesn't make for a great spectacle.

[cruiser]

Re: Our style of play...good or bad?

Originally posted by Matt79
Are we being unfairly labelled as ugly or are other fans simply ignorant to the style of game their team plays?

Yes to both.

[liz]

Firstly, Saturday's game was, as a spectacle, horrid. I don't see the point in denying that.

But, what many people don't seem to get is that Carlton's tactics were a large contributory factor. Yes, the Swans could have taken a few more risks at times to move the ball in quickly but they are not a team high in confidence at the moment, and securing the win was by far the most important factor. Weak as Carlton have been over recent years, they still had sufficient quality in their team on Saturday to severly punish the Swans on the rebound, had Sydney just bombed the ball in long. Indeed, in the third quarter especially, they certainly punished Sydney for the skills errors that became prevalent.

Tactically, the game wasn't that different to that dreaded Saints game from 2002. The difference here was that the Swans coped with the tactics a lot more smartly than on that dark night, and notwithstanding a few blunders and a general lack of confidence, the skills (particularly by foot) were far superior.

I also find it ironic that the style of play that copped all the criticism this week - ie the keepings off - isn't entirely the same factor that created all the uproar last year - ie the crowding the contest.

The Roos philosophy seems to be a) if you have the ball, try to keep it and b) if the opponent has the ball, try to pressure them into relinquishing it.

While my tactical knowledge of the game is basic (as I think is the case for most fans who haven't played the game at a high level), that philosophy seems to make a lot of sense. Most supporters, if pressed, would probably want their own team to have similar objectives.

However, those who complain about the occasional poor spectacle that all teams throw up at times seem to think that teams should take turns to have the ball, give it their best shot, and then turn it over to the opposition to have their turn. I realise that is a simplification, and over short periods it may even work and look entertaining in the process.

But a) I don't think the odds of winning a premiership with this approach are all that high unless you have an exceptionally skilled team of players and b) end to end shoot outs, with few defensive highlights, can become as monotonous as tight defensive games with stoppage after stoppage if that is all you are dished up.

For me, the wonderful thing about this game we love is the variety, the ebbs and flows, the different characters of different tussles, both from game to game and within games.

Otherwise I'd probably follow basketball or soccer.

[desredandwhite]

Style of play be damned. You do what you have to do to win. When we are struggling, we lock it down, and it's going to be ugly. When we're good, we're REALLY good. Of course, we're very very rarely on fire for a full four quarters so most of our games have ugly patches when we attempt to control the pace of the game.

If we win, I honestly could't care less what anyone else thinks.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
b) end to end shoot outs, with few defensive highlights, can become as monotonous as tight defensive games with stoppage after stoppage if that is all you are dished up.

I don't know why people think this. Watch some football from the 90s or 80s or 70s and you'll see high scoring encounters along with an exceptionally tough and physical style of game. Kicking lots of goals doesn't mean the game simply bounces from end to end with no tackles or stoppages. It just means the game is focussed on the exciting part (goals, fast play) and not on ball ups and scrimmages.

It's nice to win but I rarely re-watch our games as an entertaining spectacle.

If the aim is simply to win and who cares what it looks like, I begin to wonder the point in the sport as a spectator.

[stellation]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I don't know why people think this. Watch some football from the 90s or 80s or 70s and you'll see high scoring encounters along with an exceptionally tough and physical style of game. Kicking lots of goals doesn't mean the game simply bounces from end to end with no tackles or stoppages. It just means the game is focussed on the exciting part (goals, fast play) and not on ball ups and scrimmages.

It's nice to win but I rarely re-watch our games as an entertaining spectacle.

You're livin' in the freakin' past, man. Livin' in the freakin' past.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by stellation
You're livin' in the freakin' past, man. Livin' in the freakin' past.

Hey man, wake up and smell the future!

[Steve]

Our gameplan is to strangle the life out of each match, so I can understand why neutral (or opposition) supporters get frustrated by it.

The new rule changes (to speed up the game) were indirectly designed to counter tactics such as Sydney's, and it would appear that Roosy is stubborn enough to paddle against the current.

Deliberately slowing down the kick-ins is one obvious example.

Given we've also been recruiting based on the old rules (Schmidt and Moore etc to add to a Kirk, J.Bolton, Buchanan, Mathews et al midfield) it will be interesting to see how this changes over time - picking up Laidlaw / Brabazon / Thornton would seem to indicate a new direction.

[Old Royboy]

Currently our boys seem to have a conservative mindset whenever the ball is in their hands. So we persist with the designated kicker and blokes with a mark or free wait for a sure (well in their minds anyway) kick to a teammate before disposing. Blokes are minding their men rather than hunting the ball at stoppages. This is why we are playing poorly, and any modern team will flood if given the time to do so. I don?t blame the opposition for flooding, I blame the Swans for giving them the time to do it. All teams flood, the ways to beat it are to go the bulldogs way (with skill plus speed of brain and foot) or try and pick it apart as our guys are trying to do now.

In the finals last year the Swans showed that they have the brains, speed and ability to do it both ways. We havn?t seen it this year.

In Eade?s later years we saw this type conservative play because any clanger caused a scorched ear (it seems Rodney has digested that lesson now); I suspect this year it is also a mental thing (eg can?t let the blood brothers down/ break team rules)

Where is that daredevil Irish? We need his positive attitude.

[Mike_B]

It is a bit of the chicken and egg syndrome. If other teams don't drop plenty behind the ball, would we really play the style we saw the other evening? Yet on the other hand, if we were to say kick in quicker rather than having the umps tell the kicker to hurry up, we wouldn't give the opposition time to get behind the ball.

You can't look at us in isolation, nor any other team for that matter because the way your opponents go about defending plays a huge part in the way the team with the ball goes about moving the ball forward these days.

[ScottH]

As frustrating as it is,............ whatever makes us win.