For all the nuff nuff's

[ROK Lobster]

Re: the apparent lack of comprehension on the match day thread, and the perceived 'negativity'.

In my opinion, from my vantage point at the ground I made the following observations and came to the following general conclusions:

1. The Swans played well
2. The Dogs played poorly, with a lack of intensity
3. As an aside: Rodney Eade noticed this as well
4. This did not take anything away from the observation that Sydney played well
5. Goodes and MOL had great games
6. Goodes and MOL were poorly minded by their opposite numbers - I suspect that Goodes had no opponent for most of the day, or that the bloke that was meant to be playing on him thought he was someone else
7. This does not detract from the fact that Goodes and MOL both had great games
8. The Dogs' lack of intensity was disappointing
9. The game does not provide a useful yardstick
10. If the match had been the Swans at close to their best against the Dogs at close to their best, and we won by 40 points, that would give us a very good indication of where we are currently at
11. As the Dogs were at about 60% of their best it is hard to really evaluate the worth of the win, other than the very important 4 points
12. It was a good win and a valuable win and it was very good to see Goodes get a lot of the ball, as well as McVeigh have an improved game
13. I have nothing negative to say about the performance overall except that Couch's performance on Aker, sadly, says more about where Aker is at than it does about Crouch

Is that alright, or am I being to negative, not really supporting at all.

[Zlatorog]

Digging yourself out of the hole, ROK? Or did one of our RWO godfathers offer you a deal you couldn't refuse?

[ROK Lobster]

Digging yourself out of the hole, ROK? Or did one of our RWO godfathers offer you you a deal you couldn't refuse?

What hole?

[swannieserin]

Re: the apparent lack of comprehension on the match day thread, and the perceived 'negativity'.
...
Is that alright, or am I being to negative, not really supporting at all.

Apart from your uncharacteristic grammatical mistake, I think your comments are asute and I would agree with all of them based on my experience at the game. Particularly agree about Crouch, he was good but Aker was absolutely terrible and even appeared to be playing on Spida at one stage (I mean seriously?!).

[ernie koala]

Let's not underestimate the poor coaching of the so called "gameday coach" . . .Coach Eade...still hasn't learnt to respect Goodes (should of tagged him all day)......
Ouch, that must have hurt

[ROK Lobster]

Let's not underestimate the poor coaching of the so called "gameday coach" . . .Coach Eade...still hasn't learnt to respect Goodes (should of tagged him all day)......
Ouch, that must have hurt

I thought that all day, that Rodney would not swallow his pride...

[liz]

6. Goodes and MOL were poorly minded by their opposite numbers - I suspect that Goodes had no opponent for most of the day, or that the bloke that was meant to be playing on him thought he was someone else

9 The game does not provide a useful yardstick

13 I have nothing negative to say about the performance overall except that Couch's performance on Aker, sadly, says more about where Aker is at than it does about Crouch

6. It's not the first time O'Loughlin has made his opponents look silly. He's no longer consistent enough to be considered a superstar of the comp but he's still one of the cleverest players going around. The Dogs have a similar player at the other end - Johnson - and in the first half it looked as if he might play a blinder too. But the Swans have a more experienced, cannier defensive unit that did pretty well in shutting him out after that.

Goodes had a variety of opponents, none of whom seemed to have a clue. I think they assumed the dud version of Goodes would show up. Dylan Addison was on him for at least part of the game but that might have been after Eade had already conceded the game was lost. None of the Dogs really have much of a defensive mindset and until they realise that at least some of them need to get one, they're not going to go far in this competition.

9. Half agree, half don't agree. Dogs are still a good team, regardless of their disappointing performance. The Swans showed again that they are able to dictate the style of game to be played, when they have something approaching their good game going.

Even putting aside the disappointing performance, there are measures of the Swans' performance that were pleasing - fact that everyone made some kind of valuable contribution, they owned the corridor, they were attacking the ball at stoppages, tackling was decent, skills - while not top notch - were much improved on earlier games, they showed they can launch forward attacks that don't go through Hall, the ruck combo is shaping up to be a very potent force around the ground.

13 Yep

In terms of overall assessment, the divide seems to fall along the lines of those who watched the game live vs those who watched on TV.

[Triple B]

In terms of overall assessment, the divide seems to fall along the lines of those who watched the game live vs those who watched on TV.

A fair point, although not sure if this is what you mean, but a 14K crowd is small in terms of what you are used to. Given we always were in control, I'd imagine the atmosphere would not have been particularly electric. Being at the game could have been an anti-climax.

Never really a contest + small crowd = little to no atmosphere.

On TV however, it is just another game which differs little whether there's 14K or 44K.

[NMWBloods]

In terms of overall assessment, the divide seems to fall along the lines of those who watched the game live vs those who watched on TV.

By this I assume you mean that by being able to see other parts of the game you can get a feeling whether a side isn't quite with it for the game, which is something you don't always pick up on TV.

[voodooguru]

Completely submerged in drool here, did we win by 13 or something?

[DST]

Apart from your uncharacteristic grammatical mistake, I think your comments are asute and I would agree with all of them based on my experience at the game. Particularly agree about Crouch, he was good but Aker was absolutely terrible and even appeared to be playing on Spida at one stage (I mean seriously?!).

Don't have to be einstien to work out that when Aker was moved down back from Crouch to try and break the tag, Roos just placed a tall such as Spider, Goodes or Jolly foward to exploit Aker.

This just forced Aker back up the field into a match-up with a Crouch which is what Roos wanted.

DST

[AnnieH]

A fair point, although not sure if this is what you mean, but a 14K crowd is small in terms of what you are used to. Given we always were in control, I'd imagine the atmosphere would not have been particularly electric. Being at the game could have been an anti-climax.

Never really a contest + small crowd = little to no atmosphere.

On TV however, it is just another game which differs little whether there's 14K or 44K.

i must agree that there is obviously a huge difference in the views of those that watched it live at manuka, and those that watched it on tv.

the atmosphere at the ground was electric. it was a clear, warm, sunny day and the 14.5K people who turned up were in a great mood for footy. the smell of bbq wafting in from behind the grandstands was intoxicating. the beer was cold. we felt sorry for the players. imagine trying to play when bbq in cooking in the background. being so close to the play was (is) an amazing experience when you're used to sitting in the lofty heights of the brewongle. imagine ... goodsey can really hear me when i profess my love. micky can really hear me when we encourage him to go for the goal. the dirty, filthy maggot could really hear me when i let him have it for not giving bbbh a free after his head was nearly knocked off right in front of me (i could see it ... why couldn't the maggot??). the dodgy pa system. the kids on the boundary lined up five deep waiting for the second siren to go for kick-to-kick.
if you've ever been to a "country" grand final ... that's what the atmosphere is like. almost carnival-like.

[liz]

By this I assume you mean that by being able to see other parts of the game you can get a feeling whether a side isn't quite with it for the game, which is something you don't always pick up on TV.

My observation is really just empirical - those who were at the game seem to have come across with the impression that the Dogs weren't really on, whereas those who saw the game on TV seem to have got the impression that the Swans just didn't let the Dogs play.

It is not a direct split down the middle, but those tend to be the ways views are placed.

I am not trying to offer a reason for this. It's not a divide of opinion I have ever really noticed before. Maybe it was just something about this game.

And I can't pinpoint what exactly it was that gave me my impression. It was just an overall feel. Maybe it was down to the fact that sitting at the game it was evident just how little the Dogs seemed to be running off the ball, and the lack of intensity with which they attacked many contests.

[Lucky Knickers]

....it was evident just how little the Dogs seemed to be running off the ball, and the lack of intensity with which they attacked many contests.

Pretty evident on the telly too IMO. Eagleton and Gia were pathetic and won't enjoy watching the tapes this week.

[hammo]

I don't think the Dogs were 'on' but you can only play as well as the opposition lets you. The Bulldogs threw everything at the Swans in the 3rd quarter and couldn't bridge the gap.

By the way, the highlights I've seen of the game (from On The Couch) would indicate that the Swans' tackling and fierce attack on the ball was sensational.

The fact the Dogs have come up short against Eagles, Crows and now Swans would indicate that they don't have the appetite for a contest.