Swans vs. Magpies Match Thread

[Jeffers1984]

Oh also, why the @@@@ were we still playing wide to the boundry when we were down by 40 points???? can someone explain that please?!!

[Chow-Chicker]

Originally posted by Jeffers1984
Oh also, why the @@@@ were we still playing wide to the boundry when we were down by 40 points???? can someone explain that please?!!

That's where the game plan has to be versatile. When the team finds itself in that position, they need to adopt a more direct, attacking approach towards goal. It's high risk, but what it does is force the opposition to play one on one, and that's what Collingwood did last night. Long direct kicking into the forward 50, and our backmen were under pressure. Barry Hall took most of his marks around centre wing - a bonus for Collingwood.

Another late manoeuvre was Goodes to full forward. This dragged Lonie back deep (although he still streamed down the ground). Goodes got two late goals, but it was exactly that - too late. In another post I was ridiculed for suggesting Goodes chase his opponent and put him under pressure. The response was "Goodes is the oppositions problem, not the other way around". Well who's problem was Ryan Lonie? Lonie is no Brownlow favourite, but he did contribute to his team's success last night.

Two home games in a row we have lost, games we should have won. This now puts us in a vulnerable position on the ladder, something I was alluding to in another post, but was scoffed at. What are people's thoughts now?

[satchmopugdog]

Chow...your writing style has changed. What's happened?

You are still making suggestions for change and fair enough but there is a difference in the gist. Have you fallen out of role?

[liz]

Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
That's where the game plan has to be versatile.

I don't think the game plan had anything to do with yesterday's result - or very little.

When the likes of Williams, O'Keefe and Davis are missing shots on goal they should be able to kick in their sleep, Hall drops one of the easiest marks in front of goal he is ever going to get (though his recovery to get an accurate shot on goal was good, a the set shot wouldn't have been touched off the boot) and further up the ground the likes of Fosdike and Mathews are kicking the ball onto the chest of Collingwood players miles in the clear, it doesn't really matter what game plan you implement.

Winning the ball wasn't the problem last night. Using it was.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Leeroy
Malthouse's comment about the number of players used is a good observation. Sydney looked flat for much of the night. (I was at the match, but home in time for the wrap on tv). They lacked run and pace for much of the night and neither took risks, nor played it hard in the tight spots. Eski's enthusiasm is badly missed and it's time to bring in a kid or two to freshen up the team and provide some spark. Sure wouldn't hurt to send a subtle message that a place in the 22 is a privilege, not a right.

So you were one of those in the mass exodus ingloriously shown on TV. Shame, shame, tisk, tisk.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Young Blood
Good summary. Overall I don't think we played that badly, but Collingwood were better. They were able to find free men all night; whereas we often turned the ball over due to their pressure. Hard to tell on TV, but it seemed they were running harder.

Mathews, Richards and Crouch were particularly poor. Agree with those who've suggested Dempster would have been a better matchup with Didak than Crouch, especially considering Didak's relative strength in the air.

On the positive side, good to see Leo play so well.

When you have a few unaccountable players it opens up the play for Collingwoods running into space. melbourne was very accountable last game against them, we were not, and nor have we been for the last 3 weeks. It is time to drop players who are not earning their spot.

Interesting reading last week when one of our leaders said we were set up for the next 5 years or so. Er, on last night, beg to differ if we dont introduce new blood.

Roosey if you dont start rotating the juniors, NOW, you will put yourself into Rockets basket of not developing young players. He learned his lesson the hard way.

[Nico]

Originally posted by liz
I don't think the game plan had anything to do with yesterday's result - or very little.

When the likes of Williams, O'Keefe and Davis are missing shots on goal they should be able to kick in their sleep, Hall drops one of the easiest marks in front of goal he is ever going to get (though his recovery to get an accurate shot on goal was good, a the set shot wouldn't have been touched off the boot) and further up the ground the likes of Fosdike and Mathews are kicking the ball onto the chest of Collingwood players miles in the clear, it doesn't really matter what game plan you implement.

Winning the ball wasn't the problem last night. Using it was.

Pretty good post Liz. Unfortunately these players have done this for years. MOL doesn't kick straight through the footy. He drops it at the last micro second to his right which means it hits the outside of his boot, hence the fade. Also his injury I suspect restricts his kicking strength that adds to the fade. ROK swings his foot on impact. Davis I think cant be criticised.

Cant come at the criticism of ROK's work rate by some. His last quarters are always strong, just his finishing that is off. If Willo had kicked goals with most of those easy running in misses, he would be classed as a superstar.

[robamiee]

Originally posted by dendol
are you kidding? we were down by almost 7 goals before we "only just got beat".

Like i said albeit a weak one....

[Dave]

Originally posted by liz

Winning the ball wasn't the problem last night. Using it was.

Exactly.

On a brighter note, it was good to get a Vilis pie finally.

[Carolyn]

Originally posted by Glenn
At least the Joffa on the video screen count was 1 (That is still 1 too many)

I don't think the guy in the gold jacket was Joffa. He looked like he was 12 years old IMO and Joffa is far from 12, he's more like 50 years old.

[OldE]

Originally posted by liz
I don't think the game plan had anything to do with yesterday's result - or very little.

I disagree entirely. I thought we were thoroughly out-coached last night, arguably for the second week in a row. Our lack of accuracy in front of goal was partially caused by out total lack of forward line structure. They weren't creating space. Usually we're very efficient inside 50, but last night our forwards let us down (with the exception of O'Keefe, who I thought was solid, despite a couple of misses).

Also, the matchups entirely favoured Collingwood. For example, Kennelly on Davis was daft: Kennelly is not a strong defender, and playing on a forward that dangerous cost us Kennelly's game, as well as the Pies benefiting from Davis getting a bit of the ball, and getting it where it counted.

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by liz
Hall drops one of the easiest marks in front of goal he is ever going to get

From the way the mark was dropped, my first thought was that he lost it coming out of the lights - yes he does sometimes drop straight-forward marks, but not miss them as badly as that.

[stellation]

Originally posted by Mike_B
From the way the mark was dropped, my first thought was that he lost it coming out of the lights - yes he does sometimes drop straight-forward marks, but not miss them as badly as that.

It may have been the lights, there were a few marks dropped last night.

[liz]

Originally posted by eirinn
I disagree entirely. I thought we were thoroughly out-coached last night, arguably for the second week in a row. Our lack of accuracy in front of goal was partially caused by out total lack of forward line structure. They weren't creating space. Usually we're very efficient inside 50, but last night our forwards let us down (with the exception of O'Keefe, who I thought was solid, despite a couple of misses).

Also, the matchups entirely favoured Collingwood. For example, Kennelly on Davis was daft: Kennelly is not a strong defender, and playing on a forward that dangerous cost us Kennelly's game, as well as the Pies benefiting from Davis getting a bit of the ball, and getting it where it counted.

But our lack of accuracy wasn't because we were taking pot shots under pressure from the pockets. Some of the misses were inexcusable. I know the Pies missed a couple of easy ones too, but the facts per the scoreboard are that the Swans had more scoring shots than the Pies.

Add to that a number of appalling disposals in the middle of the ground which allowed easy turnovers. And how many times was the ball kicked aimlessly into the forward line, straight onto the chest of a Pie defender? One of the reasons Collingwood looked quick on the rebound is because the Swans were set up in offensive mode and when the ball is turned over that easily it is very easy for the opposition to make a team pay.

I'm not saying that the Pies weren't tactically good. Especially in the first quarter they were very disciplined in blocking Sydney's space up the ground, which led to that chipping around. But in the second quarter, when the Swans got themselves back into the contests they missed too many easy goals and gave the ball up when they shouldn't have done.

And who do you suggest should have been playing on Davis? If Kennelly is going to play in defence he has to be responsible for a player and the Pies have a multi-pronged forward line. Bolton, Barry, LRT and Crouch were otherwise occupied. Only Schneider was probably an alternative to Kennelly and arguably his run through the lines and his goal kicking up forward are as important as Kennelly's run. Further, I didn't think Davis had a particularly stand-out night. He contributed but he wasn't the reason we lost.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Carolyn
I don't think the guy in the gold jacket was Joffa. He looked like he was 12 years old IMO and Joffa is far from 12, he's more like 50 years old.

Son of Joffa!! now that would be scary.