I'm done

[UUaswan]

I've been silent on this board for a few years as I've been happy enough to login and read the general commentary around all things Swans, but the latest GF debacle has prompted me to put my 2 cents in.
I normally post as "Dave" since about 2004 or so, but for some reason my account has been nuked since the migration to the new platform.

Anyhow, I have a few theories as to why Horse hasn't seen success since 2012 and it all starts with him playing primarily as a full forward.

Apart from Malcolm Blight, I can't think of any successful coaches in recent memory who played as forwards and who have won multiple flags. You look at the most successful coaches since the 2000s and what they have in common - they are all hard nosed midfield and/or defender antagonist type players. Leigh Matthews, Alistair Clarkson, Chris Scott, Damien Hardwick. Even Pagan, Horse's coach, was a defender.

Defenders and midfielders are generally most effective when they are hard at the ball and the man, not so much forwards - they thrive on the back of the hard work done from down the field and finding space to lead. It's not in their DNA to physically unsettle the opposition (Lockett and Hall are probably exceptions). The amount of times I've heard Horse going on in pressers about being "mindful" of this and that was enough to make me gag. They've been turned into a team of mild mannered nice-boys seemingly incapable of smashing someone on the field to rattle them, apart from maybe Luke Parker - but so much for that now. The Bloods are barely registering a pulse these days.

I reckon the main reason 2012 was a success is that it was close enough to the transition from Roos at the end of 2010 (another defender) and his defensive game style, with a handful of players also from 2005 who knew what it took to get over the line. By 2014 we were starting to see Horse's influence on GF day where the "Unsociable Hawks" out-muscled the Swans in what has now become the standard for Swans GF appearances. Speaking of the Hawks, watch them build on the back of another antagonistic midfield/defender coach in Sam Mitchell. They will be looking at another flag before the Swans I reckon, because Mitchell knows what it takes and how to unsettle the opposition. We have the talent - they just need reprogramming.

I also have an issue with the SCG. Last time we won a GF was when the prelim was played at Stadium Australia, which has the same length as the MCG - albeit narrower. The Gabba is pretty much the same size as the SCG but the Lions had the advantage of playing the week before on the larger MCG. The Swans would've been better finishing lower and playing on a longer ground or having the finals out at Olympic Park - not sure if it can even be converted for AFL footy anymore though. I know criticising the SCG is like sacrilege on RWO but it just doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned. Especially not having a drop in wicket, making the centre like concrete. It sucks.

So that's where I stand on the situation anyway. Can't see anything changing in 2025, unfortunately.

I reckon we forget all the BS and precise preparation and just get on with it.

We have had a perfect run in and a poor run in, against Melb teams and interstate, for no difference.

Brissy had the worst you could have and won, after seeing what they endured id suggest we stop talking about what is and isn't a perfect prep and juts show up.

Regardless of the size of the oval it doesn't stop you laying a tackle or putting on some heat.

Shift from a team worrying about perfect prep, lead in etc etc and become a no excuse organisation that relishes any opportunity they can to perform when it matters.

[mcs]

I
I also have an issue with the SCG. Last time we won a GF was when the prelim was played at Stadium Australia, which has the same length as the MCG - albeit narrower. The Gabba is pretty much the same size as the SCG but the Lions had the advantage of playing the week before on the larger MCG. The Swans would've been better finishing lower and playing on a longer ground or having the finals out at Olympic Park - not sure if it can even be converted for AFL footy anymore though. I know criticising the SCG is like sacrilege on RWO but it just doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned. Especially not having a drop in wicket, making the centre like concrete. It sucks.

So that's where I stand on the situation anyway. Can't see anything changing in 2025, unfortunately.

The best statistical analysis I've seen around ground size says it really doesn't matter a whole lot in modern footy: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-...tter/101154950

While the statistics say that it has some impact (of course it does), that analysis suggests its probably small.

And I suggest such impact in true terms is far smaller than the impact for instance of not having a big home crowd behind the team, if one was to finish lower and play away (I.e. I'd postulate we don't win the qualifying final if it was away), or give up hosting rights at the home ground and play at Olympic Park, a ground we haven't regularly played at for a decade now.

I also can't agree that Olympic Park really would help us prepare for playing on the MCG - sure you get the whole extra 5 metres of length, but meanwhile you are playing on a ground 18 metres narrower than the SCG and 23 metres narrower than the MCG. I can't see how length can have a massive impact on footy, but width is so easily ignored.

We never hear the end of the 'SCG postage stamp' excuse from opposition fans, but you don't hear a 10th of the chatter (maybe a little about Kardinia park) about the impact of narrowness at grounds like Kardinia, Adelaide Oval, even Perth or Docklands. Those variations are vastly more significant than the length different at the SCG - and a narrower ground arguably has a more significant tactical impact on a game than a slighty longer ground does. If we were talking about a genuine 1/2 kick each way (as it once almost was) at the SCG, then I get it. But now its just 2.5 metres difference each way - statistically significant, just, but materially important - probably not really.

Then when you actually look at what happened on Grand Final day - the biggest failing really had little to do with the length difference (they were hardly kicking goals over the back because of all that extra space) - it was far more caused by the fact our zonal marking simply didn't work, and Brisbane constantly were able to find a lot of space. That was primarily achieved by using the width of the ground very effectively and efficiently.

While I love the SCG - I'm the first to recognise its significant limitations (such as the lack of a drop in wicket). But, rightly or wrongly, the Swans remain the secondary tenant in the eyes of the SCG Trust. Like it or lump it however - we aren't getting a new ground any time soon in Sydney, and it is vastly superior to any other available options out there that would actually represent feasible alternatives.

Unless of course you've got a spare couple of billion down the back of a couch somewhere haha, then I'm sure we can do whatever one would please.

And as UU suggests - the whole ground argument is a convenient argument rolled out when people are looking for an excuse. A shift towards a no excuses approach would make a big difference.

[Swandave]

yep. No success at all since 2012. Twelve disastrous seasons.

Premiership success. Horse couldn't even get it done with the best forward in the game for 10 years.

[Swandave]

The best statistical analysis I've seen around ground size says it really doesn't matter a whole lot in modern footy: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-...tter/101154950

While the statistics say that it has some impact (of course it does), that analysis suggests its probably small.

And as UU suggests - the whole ground argument is a convenient argument rolled out when people are looking for an excuse. A shift towards a no excuses approach would make a big difference.

Yes, I've seen that analysis. I still think 5m is enough to make a difference from someone like Blakey making a run from defence. That's extra metres on a kick or by foot that have to be accounted for under pressure and fatigue. I'm not trying to say that we lost due to the ground size, it's more about looking for a combination of reasons that could affect this team's inability to win a flag, because on one else can seem to work it out for over a decade.

[KTigers]

I think the 2016 loss is excusable. The Dogs got a free pass from the umps and we only lost by 3 goals or so. 2014, 2022 & this year were just terrible. Whether we
thought we'd just win and wouldn't have to knuckle down, or just didn't want to have to knuckle down, I don't know. Does it matter? Talking about the length of the
ground is drawing a long bow that is so long it may actually encompass the entire ground. Being 33 to 49 down in the tackle count when the opposition is leading
by 12 goals is probably the most damning tell-all stat you'll ever see.

[Kafka's Ghost]

Yes, I've seen that analysis. I still think 5m is enough to make a difference from someone like Blakey making a run from defence. That's extra metres on a kick or by foot that have to be accounted for under pressure and fatigue. I'm not trying to say that we lost due to the ground size, it's more about looking for a combination of reasons that could affect this team's inability to win a flag, because on one else can seem to work it out for over a decade.

Yet we’ve been able to win other big finals at the MCG. A lot of soul-searching and probably psychoanalysis in store for this team.

[stevoswan]

Drop the holier than holy attitude Stevo. You are better than that.

Just because you don't agree with other people's point of view doesn't make their comments 'unhinged anger' or 'tempestuous arrogant'. Like everything in the world, life is a mix of views, and none of us individually should think we are well placed to be the moderators of said views.

There are a multitude of views on this thread, and most are made in a reasonable way, even if you don't agree with them.

So you're basically asking me to 'drop my opinion' then?

I have opinions and a forum is a place to put them forward. I believe some people have been exactly what I said and still do. It's hardly 'holier than thou'....and you can agree or disagree, which you have....this is how the world works.....and I'm fine with that.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Maltopia and mcs have put it more tactfully than I have - or Captain..

[Maltopia]

So you're basically asking me to 'drop my opinion' then?

I have opinions and a forum is a place to put them forward. I believe some people have been exactly what I said and still do. It's hardly 'holier than thou'....and you can agree or disagree, which you have....this is how the world works.....and I'm fine with that.

This is a forum to discuss our beloved club. Opinions on the club, the coaching, players etc. are very welcome. What puts people off, is the way you disagree with other people's posts, by belittling them, cussing, telling them that they are not real supporters of the club etc.

Disagree all you like with other member's opinions about the game plan, club direction etc., just don't make it so personal. You are allowed to think the other poster is an idiot or whatever, but keep that to yourself and don't convey it in your posts.

[Swandave]

I think the 2016 loss is excusable.

Actually, I'll give Horse a hall pass on that one. That result was predetermined by the AFL.

[Swandave]

Yet we’ve been able to win other big finals at the MCG. A lot of soul-searching and probably psychoanalysis in store for this team.

Big finals but not the ultimate. It seems like we can cope with the step up from H&A games to semis/prelims intensity but the step up needed for a GF is elusive.

I think part of the problem also exists whereby they assumed that due to their apparent "perfect preparation" this year, they were just going to phone it in. I couldn't believe hearing multiple personnel say after the match that they didn't know what happened as "we had perfect preparation". Obviously that prep lacked any consideration on showing some physicality towards the opposition. Nothing like a few errant body hits or elbows in the guts to show you are up for it.

Maybe they should bring Diesel Williams in as a consultant...

[mcs]

So you're basically asking me to 'drop my opinion' then?

I have opinions and a forum is a place to put them forward. I believe some people have been exactly what I said and still do. It's hardly 'holier than thou'....and you can agree or disagree, which you have....this is how the world works.....and I'm fine with that.

Nope not at all. Simply asking you to show some respect to other people and their opinions. You constantly go beyond just disagreeing to effectively belittling others in your comments, calling others arrogant, tempestuous, insert whatever word come to mind - that is the 'holier than thou' point I was making.

Disagree all you want, but doing that need not be exclusive to showing some reasonable manners in the process.

[mcs]

Yes, I've seen that analysis. I still think 5m is enough to make a difference from someone like Blakey making a run from defence. That's extra metres on a kick or by foot that have to be accounted for under pressure and fatigue. I'm not trying to say that we lost due to the ground size, it's more about looking for a combination of reasons that could affect this team's inability to win a flag, because on one else can seem to work it out for over a decade.

Not saying it doesn't make some difference. But I'll take the statistical measure of its likely actual impact (very small) over the vibe of it.

Of course it makes a difference - but in order of magnitude, there are other factors that vary far more significantly between grounds, and can be shown to be far more important then 2.5 metres each way.

While we've got it wrong on Grand Final day of course, and badly wrong - we've had good performances over the years at the MCG as well. Which suggests to me the actual key factors lie elsewhere, otherwise surely we'd see a more consistent 'fail to turn up and get flogged at the MCG" vibe happening.

[stevoswan]

Nope not at all. Simply asking you to show some respect to other people and their opinions. You constantly go beyond just disagreeing to effectively belittling others in your comments, calling others arrogant, tempestuous, insert whatever word come to mind - that is the 'holier than thou' point I was making.

Disagree all you want, but doing that need not be exclusive to showing some reasonable manners in the process.

If I was to personally 'belittle' someone by name or by quoting them directly, you may have a point. As it was a general observation of a range of views, it is really no more than giving my opinion, much like those who I believe were being tempestuous were, ie: with passion.

Yes, I can be opinionated but I don't think I attack anyone personally or unreasonably. As I said, they have a right to disagree with me and I will take it on the chin if they do.

Having said that, I will try in future to get my point across in a way that doesn't offend 'anyone'.

[stevoswan]

This is a forum to discuss our beloved club. Opinions on the club, the coaching, players etc. are very welcome. What puts people off, is the way you disagree with other people's posts, by belittling them, cussing, telling them that they are not real supporters of the club etc.

Disagree all you like with other member's opinions about the game plan, club direction etc., just don't make it so personal. You are allowed to think the other poster is an idiot or whatever, but keep that to yourself and don't convey it in your posts.

Sorry mate, you have me confused with someone else. I have NEVER told anyone they 'are not real supporters of the club' ever....and never would.

I told Barry he has always wanted to support the Giants....which he likely now will.

As for name calling....sticks and stones mate....but I will try to curb my supposed 'offensiveness' on what is a place of supposedly lively debate, ie: an 'adult' forum.

How ironic it is that this thread implores our players and club to 'toughen up'.