Did We Miss Ross Lyon & Peter Jonas?

[DST]

I think it would have helped on Saturday night. They may have been able to carry and kick goals from the midfield, but on Saturday night the easiest path of attack for them was to kick to a leading forward so I think we should have at least done something to try to stop that early on.

If I can remember correctly they got at least two goals from their midfielders carrying the lines and kicking over the defence.

I can't recall one goal from our midfield in that situation and in a one point game that was the difference.

One on one we have one the best defences in the league, what we need to do is get the ball in the hands of Davis, Kennelly, Malceski, Scheinder and ROK forward of the centre where they can do some damage the same as the West Coast midfield.

DST

[liz]

Isn't that was Roos is paid the big bucks to work out?

He is. But I struggle to see how people can say definitively that the reason the game was lost was that Roos was outcoached if they are unable to suggest what he should have done. We have no idea what specific instructions he was giving to the team, nor the extent to which they were carrying them out.

We are, however, able to observe some skills errors and poor decision making that clearly contributed to a one point loss.

Chances are its a bit of both.

[NMWBloods]

Chances are its a bit of both.

I have little doubt it was both.

[Jeffers1984]

It doesn't matter. JW used the same tactic in the grand final and worked for him. Like i said before, Roos SHOULD of already prepared and devise a plan to counter it in the off season.

[stellation]

He is. But I struggle to see how people can say definitively that the reason the game was lost was that Roos was outcoached if they are unable to suggest what he should have done. We have no idea what specific instructions he was giving to the team, nor the extent to which they were carrying them out.

We are, however, able to observe some skills errors and poor decision making that clearly contributed to a one point loss.

Chances are its a bit of both.

I understand what you mean, but surely a large part of a coaching is to not only give players instructions but also to recognize when either the players aren't able to follow those instructions or the instructions just flat out aren't working and need to be altered? I'm sure Roos didn't tell Leo to trail 5 metres behind Lynch on leads, but surely he should identify that that is an issue and address it?

[Mr_Juicy]

So put yourself in the coaches' box. What would you have done to counter the Eagles' tactics?

Set up a defensive line around halfback. Not had our backmen following their forwards any further past this line. Thus leading to forced long bombs outside 50 into a more congested forwardline.

[Mr_Juicy]

Block up the space infront of Lynch

Aaaah. I like your thinking. See my previous post.

[Mr_Juicy]

Hold the ball. Don't give it up. Do NOT pump it long into the forward line under any circumstances. Hold it and make them come out.

Hold the ball close enough to them to make them chase without giving it up. Somewhere around just slightly the defensive side of centre.

Sydney used to be patient with those types of situations - draw players out then deliver. Saturday night showed no initiative to break the flood. Kenelly, Dempster, Bolton etc got the ball tried one or two options then banged it in long.

It won't work if the opposition is well disciplined and stick to their instructions. We had to do something on their counter from our forward thrusts, and then causing a turnover and moving the ball back to our forward line quickly.

[Mr_Juicy]

Putting an extra man into defence aint the problem as they have the midfield to carry that player and kicks goals.

That's why the defensive line has to be set up along the half back. It's just an effect of creating a wall and keeping the ball in our half for one or two passes longer. Enough to force a turnover.

[liz]

I understand what you mean, but surely a large part of a coaching is to not only give players instructions but also to recognize when either the players aren't able to follow those instructions or the instructions just flat out aren't working and need to be altered? I'm sure Roos didn't tell Leo to trail 5 metres behind Lynch on leads, but surely he should identify that that is an issue and address it?

That's very hard to change within a short time frame - ie within a match. Particularly if you don't have any alternatives sitting on your bench.

On the Leo issue, it is almost impossible for a defender to stop a forward leading into space when he has acres of it around him and the ball is being kicked to his advantage by highly skilled midfielders. Lynch took a few marks, sure, but he hardly did a number on Leo and it wasn't the reason we lost.

People can point to tactics - and sure they have an effect - but the last six games between these two sides have been decided by less than a goal. In most of these cases, the siren a few seconds earlier or later could have caused the result to be reversed. Over that time the tactics have shifted around, suggesting that it is the way the two teams match up against each other, their mutual desperation and respect, that create these close games.

Saturday wasn't a carbon copy of the GF. In that game the Eagles dropped a spare man back but they didn't uber flood. So it is unfair to say that Roos was beaten by the exact same tactics.

And in all these close matches it is easy to identify simple skill errors - not tactical errors - that might have made all the difference. We have all catalogued the mistakes that happened in the GF. On Saturday there were fewer clangers to match those, but we can still point to missed goals from Bolton and Spida late in the game.

If the team kept getting thumped by the Eagles I could understand the angst. But that simply isn't the case. Yes, a few adjustments probably need to be made. They need to learn from what didn't work. They need to understand why they were so flat at the start of the game, and in the first half of the GF.

But that hardly seems cause to come down hard on a coach who's achieved a fair amount in a relatively short time with this team - not based on just round one, anyway.

Last season Carlton and Essendon each scored impressive wins in round 1. Look where it got them. The Swans were shocking for the first month. Look where it got them! Can't we wait for a few more weeks before starting the post-mortem?

[DST]

That's why the defensive line has to be set up along the half back. It's just an effect of creating a wall and keeping the ball in our half for one or two passes longer. Enough to force a turnover.

Still won't stop the ball being delivered to a forward if the best midfield in the land has time and space to deliver the ball perfectly time and time again.

If West Coast are going to continue dropping numbers back we need to put more pressure on the ball carrier as they move from defence to midfield.

We also need to somehow force their extra defenders wide and further up the field to create more space for Hall & Mikey O.

DST

[Mr_Juicy]

Still won't stop the ball being delivered to a forward if the best midfield in the land has time and space to deliver the ball perfectly time and time again.


DST

Not completely no. But you are not pushed up from the halfback line forward, more between the centre of the defensive 50 arc forward. allowing 25 - 30 metres space between goal line and last line of defence. Just imagine the layout of a footy team sheet being pushed forward 20 or so metres.

[originalswan]

That's very hard to change within a short time frame - ie within a match. Particularly if you don't have any alternatives sitting on your bench.

On the Leo issue, it is almost impossible for a defender to stop a forward leading into space when he has acres of it around him and the ball is being kicked to his advantage by highly skilled midfielders. Lynch took a few marks, sure, but he hardly did a number on Leo and it wasn't the reason we lost.

People can point to tactics - and sure they have an effect - but the last six games between these two sides have been decided by less than a goal. In most of these cases, the siren a few seconds earlier or later could have caused the result to be reversed. Over that time the tactics have shifted around, suggesting that it is the way the two teams match up against each other, their mutual desperation and respect, that create these close games.

Saturday wasn't a carbon copy of the GF. In that game the Eagles dropped a spare man back but they didn't uber flood. So it is unfair to say that Roos was beaten by the exact same tactics.

And in all these close matches it is easy to identify simple skill errors - not tactical errors - that might have made all the difference. We have all catalogued the mistakes that happened in the GF. On Saturday there were fewer clangers to match those, but we can still point to missed goals from Bolton and Spida late in the game.

If the team kept getting thumped by the Eagles I could understand the angst. But that simply isn't the case. Yes, a few adjustments probably need to be made. They need to learn from what didn't work. They need to understand why they were so flat at the start of the game, and in the first half of the GF.

But that hardly seems cause to come down hard on a coach who's achieved a fair amount in a relatively short time with this team - not based on just round one, anyway.

Last season Carlton and Essendon each scored impressive wins in round 1. Look where it got them. The Swans were shocking for the first month. Look where it got them! Can't we wait for a few more weeks before starting the post-mortem?

The point is that the Eagles were heavily crirticised for their tactics against Hall & O'loughlin in the Qualifying Final of 2006, where they gave them too much space to lead into. IN RESPONSE, they changed their tactics for the Grand Final, by restricting the clear path of the Swans Forwards with extra men in defence to frustrate Hally, O'loughlin etc.

I just wonder what the Swans players (who are supposedly the opponents of the flooding Eagles) are up to? It is alot harder to gauge on TV in Melbourne.
What are these guys doing? It just seemed that Hall was constantly up against 3-4 Eagles whenever the ball was sent into the forward line. So where were these extra 3-4 Swans players? I just have to question whether they were playing smart football and smart positioning or running around haplessly.

One suggestion I have is perhaps to play them at their game, that is:

a) If you're going to congest our Forward line then we will congest your strength, that is your MIDFIELDERS! - Simply get the opponents of the Eagle flooders to pick up Judd & Kerr - Get two players on each!

b) Be more patient when we have the ball (as we have in the past) and look for the free man rather than banging the ball into the forward line in hope.

Overall, I think we at least know the Eagles game plan against us and somehow believe that Roosy has one or two tricks that he has planned for them for the Finals (here's hoping).

[Sanecow]

Block up the space infront of Lynch

Jolly blocked the space in front of Seaby (IIRC) nicely. Annnnd up he goes!

[Boodnutz]

But isn't that precisely what they spent most of the goalless second quarter doing? Leo, B2 and Teddy were just playing kick to kick in the back half of the game, trying to hold onto the ball in the hope that something might open up in the forward line. And nothing did.

Beating an uberflood is a hard thing to do. We probably all still retain the scars from THAT Saints game in 2002 and there were a lot of similarities between the two games - although the overall skill level was higher this time round.

The only idea I can suggest is to instruct Ablett and Dempster to play around the wing / half forward area and get the team to seek them out as often as possible, with an instruction to them to just take long pot shots at goal. Chances are that many of them would miss and we'd get just as frustrated, but probably only as much as seeing a Wiggle defender pick off a pass forward.

What I saw change in the second half was players actually getting their heads over the ball and attacking contests, rather than holding off for that split second, and passes out of defence being placed in the path of the running player rather than just away from him, which had caused a lot of stopping and propping in the first half.

I am not trying to absolve the coaching staff of all responsibility but to suggest that the players were precisely executing their instructions seems a little one-sided to me.

Well, I must have been at a different game. I don't think the players attack on the ball was in question at all.

Leo and Teddy etc just flipped it around a couple of times before bombing it. There was no attempt to draw players and no evidence of any attempt to work it through.

Team's responses to flooding has moved on since that dark night at the Dome. To seek out Ablett or Dempster and then bomb it will turn the ball over 8 times out of ten. And based on WCE strike rate, when they break out it would give them a goal every time.

If a team wants to play like WCE did on Saturday night there's no way you can smash through that. Their players overall were much faster, more mobile and would always beat us in a break-out situation.

If I was in the coaches box? Make them run. Take the ball close enough to tempt them into it, the crowd gets aggro, the pressure builds, after a while they do get sick of running in zones without getting a touch. One or two get caught out and we're away.

Means there is only probably three or four goals for the half. But we aren't chasing a six goal deficit to get back into the game.