Well drilled v. Talent

[NMWBloods]

A lot of people will hate this but I don't think the Swans have a particularly naturally skillful team or a team of players with good footy nous.

Instead what the Swans have is a very well drilled team.

When they are allowed to play their game, they play it very well. This year they play it exceptionally well. Examples of this were the very good wins in the middle of the first half of the season.

To play their game they need to be allowed to play it. This means that either the other side is weak or undisciplined, or the Swans work enormously hard and as a team, and as they always say, follow their rules.

If they do not play with intensity and follow the game plan, then we see the poor performances such as the first month and the most recent month of the season.

As MOL said in the latest article, and is often mentioned in Swans articles, "blokes were trying to do their own thing".

They just don't have the natural skills or footy brains to do this.

An interesting example of how they are well-drilled like automatons and not natural players is the kick-in plan. Many other teams have adopted to the new rule by the first player grabbing the ball after a behind and quickly kicking it in. The Swans always put in on the ground and run for their positions and wait for the set kicker, usually Kennelly, to kick it in.

I'm not entirely sure what the difference means for the Swans this year. No doubt this well-drilled approach was a major factor in us winning the flag last year.

This year, however, teams usually lift when playing us and the performances have been very mixed.

The game plan, when working, seems to be executed far more effectively than last year.

However, when not it's a disaster. Lack of discipline and teams working us out have made for games where we look lost without our game plan, and it's a struggle to find it again.

How will they perform for the rest of the year? Will they adapt better when the plan isn't working? Will they simply work harder to make the plan work? Will the lack of independent thinking and skill, combined with the inability to execute the game plan regularly enough be our undoing?

[Snowy]

Roos did say today that almost the most valuable players are those who can hit targets and finish. Seemed to be a departure from his usual focus on team ethics etc. Adelaide is a good mixture though of some top drawer talent and a well drilled outfit.

[CureTheSane]

Re: Well drilled v. Talent

Originally posted by NMWBloods
A lot of people will hate this but I don't think the Swans have a particularly naturally skillful team or a team of players with good footy nous.

Instead what the Swans have is a very well drilled team.

When they are allowed to play their game, they play it very well. This year they play it exceptionally well. Examples of this were the very good wins in the middle of the first half of the season.

To play their game they need to be allowed to play it. This means that either the other side is weak or undisciplined, or the Swans work enormously hard and as a team, and as they always say, follow their rules.

If they do not play with intensity and follow the game plan, then we see the poor performances such as the first month and the most recent month of the season.

As MOL said in the latest article, and is often mentioned in Swans articles, "blokes were trying to do their own thing".

They just don't have the natural skills or footy brains to do this.

An interesting example of how they are well-drilled like automatons and not natural players is the kick-in plan. Many other teams have adopted to the new rule by the first player grabbing the ball after a behind and quickly kicking it in. The Swans always put in on the ground and run for their positions and wait for the set kicker, usually Kennelly, to kick it in.

I'm not entirely sure what the difference means for the Swans this year. No doubt this well-drilled approach was a major factor in us winning the flag last year.

This year, however, teams usually lift when playing us and the performances have been very mixed.

The game plan, when working, seems to be executed far more effectively than last year.

However, when not it's a disaster. Lack of discipline and teams working us out have made for games where we look lost without our game plan, and it's a struggle to find it again.

How will they perform for the rest of the year? Will they adapt better when the plan isn't working? Will they simply work harder to make the plan work? Will the lack of independent thinking and skill, combined with the inability to execute the game plan regularly enough be our undoing?

As a general rule, I agree with most of your posts.

However, I am totally opposite on this one.

I think that our game plan is restricting the nous and talent of our team.
As indicated in posts over the last 3 weeks, I think we are conforming to play within Roos' guidelines.

Every team does this to an extent, a-la game plan, but I think we are a lot more restricted in how we dispose of the ball.

I found it interesting comparing our game to that of crappy socer.
Alike in a lot of ways.

I get sick of media etc saying that we have no stars.
We do.
And the players play with a lot of skill.

For many years I would want to punch myself in the eye socket so as not to see any more missed targets.

Add to that what I consider to be an extremely high fitness level compared to most teams, and I think we have most of what makes a winning package.

Just my personal view is that the players play too much like robots (under instruction from Roos)

Last year we won the flag and we were hailed by media as an average team who played well together and for each other.
That pissed me off quite a bit.

credit where it's due, thanks.

[katie-scarlett]

Is this sort of the 'team of stars vs a superstar team' debate?

[dendol]

This year, I think teams have worked out when we decide to slow down the tempo and adjust accordingly. They play hard man-on-man, flood back to clog up our forward line space, force us to kick to a contest and then punish us on the rebound. The Collingwood game is an example. Im not sure if its our skills that are letting us down now or if our "game plan" has been cracked. After every loss or poor performance, one of the players will tell the media "we weren't playing for each other" - does anyone buy this?

Sydney games seem to be a lot more tactical and chess-like - methodical ball movement and deliberate set plays. Compare this to Bulldogs or Melbourne games where its seemingly more run and gun.

Another disappointing thing this year is that if we haven't turned up to play in the first quarter, we're generally playing @@@@ football for the rest of the game. Obviously the wins against the Kangas and Dockers we turned it around in the 4th quarter, but they aren't exactly the stronger teams in the comp (Roos were on 2 wins and Freo horribly out of form, even at home). So far, the better teams haven't let us back in the game (Saints and Pies), and I doubt the Crows and Eagles will be that generous either.

[NMWBloods]

Re: Re: Well drilled v. Talent

Originally posted by CureTheSane
I think that our game plan is restricting the nous and talent of our team.
As indicated in posts over the last 3 weeks, I think we are conforming to play within Roos' guidelines.

That's a fair comment.

I guess it is a difficult one to assess.

When we look best is when we run the ball up the middle out of defence. Is that due to natural skill or executing a game plan? I tend to think it is the latter.

When we work the ball slowly, but with purpose, forward to a free player and we eventually get a very good shot at goal, I think that is good execution of the game plan rather than natural skill.

In both cases, the skills of the players have improved a lot in recent years and their fitness levels are high, plus their discpline is good, allowing them to play this game plan well. This is what we do when we play well. I think this reflects a well-drilled game plan rather than natural skill.

When our guys play "selfishly" or lose confidence, such that the short game spends more time going sideways or backwards, we are in trouble. I tend to think we don't have the natural skill to get ourselves out of this.

Now, maybe it is the case that we don't really have those skills. Or maybe it is the case that Roos restricts the players from utilising them and now they have become so wedded to the game plan they can't perform without it. I'm not really sure but I tend to favour the former.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by dendol
The Collingwood game is an example. Im not sure if its our skills that are letting us down now or if our "game plan" has been cracked.

Yep, that's the key question. It is hard to exactly pinpoint it.

Sydney games seem to be a lot more tactical and chess-like - methodical ball movement and deliberate set plays. Compare this to Bulldogs or Melbourne games where its seemingly more run and gun.

All teams have a game plan and skill. Some seem to emphasise one more than the other. This is the sort of comparison between our game and some others.

[liz]

Some teams look skilful even when in second gear. The Swans aren't one of those. Even when in space they muff their kicks and drop handballs at the feet of team mates.

Lift the intensity and even at greater pace the skills suddenly become crisp and precise. It is almost as if they need hard running legs to pump blood to their brains.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by katie-scarlett
Is this sort of the 'team of stars vs a superstar team' debate?

Sort of.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
Some teams look skilful even when in second gear. The Swans aren't one of those. Even when in space they muff their kicks and drop handballs at the feet of team mates.

Lift the intensity and even at greater pace the skills suddenly become crisp and precise. It is almost as if they need hard running legs to pump blood to their brains.

That seems to sum it up well!

Maybe they need the discipline and rigour of a game plan to increase that intensity as they can't do it themselves individually.

[SimonH]

The whole discussion actually reminds me of Lleyton Hewitt's tennis.

At his best, he's proved he can be the best in the world. But he doesn't have any Pete Sampras-style weapons that will allow him to blow away everyone bar the top 10 in 'coasting' mode. He only has to be 10% off his game, and #50 or even #100 in the world playing well can knock him off, no worries.

No doubt he knows this, too: hence the endless stream of "c'mons" and other annoying self-motivating outbursts: they're his means of keeping himself at 100% all the time, and not letting his intensity slip even a fraction.

I'm sure there's something in that for us. Or not.

[swantastic]

Originally posted by katie-scarlett
Is this sort of the 'team of stars vs a superstar team' debate?

IMO it seems like it quote"a good team will always beat a team of champions"as we have seen on the weekend dogs v weegles.Hopfuly that will pan out over the next two weeks for us,and we can play like a great team and not a team of Mark"jacko"Jacksons.

[Zlatorog]

I never bought that media thing about "team of champions" vs "champion team", because they tend to label anything so that would suit their purposes.
I also never bought that notion coming from Roos we have no stars. That's crap as well. Of course we have them.
We all know where our problem is. It's our midfield and the ball usage. The only reason they were drilled that way is to overcome that problem. The opposition has probably cracked our "secret" code by now targeting our talented players, because they know that the other players i.e. passengers are not good enough to turn things around. You shut them down and our underbelly is exposed.
Even the likes of Hall, Kirk, O'Keefe, Bolton can take that much beating every round and it is time for some other blokes to take the plunge and start playing the game seriously instead of just "watching" it.

[Rizzo]

The Crows are a very well drilled team. Craig has gone on record about stars playing through injuries. He says that the biggest problem is that these guys miss training. Sound familiar?

[Xie Shan]

Originally posted by SimonH
The whole discussion actually reminds me of Lleyton Hewitt's tennis.

At his best, he's proved he can be the best in the world. But he doesn't have any Pete Sampras-style weapons that will allow him to blow away everyone bar the top 10 in 'coasting' mode. He only has to be 10% off his game, and #50 or even #100 in the world playing well can knock him off, no worries.

I nearly missed this post, but I've thought this for a while. I probably have better things to do, but in a brief trawl through the depths of RWO's archives, I found a post by none other than the Lobster on this very subject, during the 2005 Australian Open. This was before we won a premiership, and while ROK was on the money about Hewitt not being able to beat players with superior talent, the Swans have since proved that it's possible to do so in a team sport, at least.

It's funny, reading that thread, one of the things that won the Swans the premiership last year was their Hewitt-like tenacity. I still reckon we could do it again IF the guys can recapture that.