Tempo

[dimelb]

'Tempo' became the name for our style. It meant that we could both lock down and split open, hold 'em in and overrun them. Lately it's been mostly adagio; when are we going to see some more furioso? Possibly when we see some stodgy plodders replaced by blokes more light-footed - or perhaps when the coaches permit a bit more creative risk-taking.

[swantastic]

"Tempo" football as described by Walls is only if you are in front on the score board,because if you have the ball the opposition dont so therefore cant catch up.But if you are behind to him its a wase of time.

[NMWBloods]

I think you're spot on Dimelb.

Tempo football can work well whether in front or behind if executed properly. We saw good examples of this in late 2005 and much of 2006. Essentially during the slower portions, you play keepings off, but still have an intention of going forward and setting up a good shot at goal. Then at various stages the game is broken up and the ball is moved quickly down the corridor.

What we are doing now is almost identical to what we did in 2004 and is a great example of tempo football not working. The players are too scared to kick to a contest and will only pass the ball forward if they can get the perfect pass. Therefore they take the easy option and go sideways. Eventually the ball is turned over, particularly as the forward line is so crowded and options for shots at goal dry up.

[ernie koala]

All this talk about "game plan" ??? It doesn't matter what your game plan is when most of the team don't turn up....you get flogged !

[originalswan]

AFL restricting our strengths!

Last year the AFL reduced the time allowed to play on after a mark or freekick was given - Deliberately affecting the Swans ability to use their well known tempo style of play.

This year the AFL has brought in the hands in the back (even slight insignificant contact) which has affected Barry Hall more than any other player in the league (I admit there is more to his form slump, but this is one big factor).

It is now up to the Swans as a team to work their way through these deliberate rule changes attempting to restrict our style, and learn to adapt to the changes in a constructive way.

[NMWBloods]

I don't think either of these two are deliberately aimed at the Swans.

[AnnieH]

I don't think either of these two are deliberately aimed at the Swans.

.... but the two new rules don't help us any.

[originalswan]

I don't think either of these two are deliberately aimed at the Swans.

Let's think about it then. Demetriou comes out and says that we play "ugly" and that we will never be a force with that style of play - Unfortunately for him he had to eat his words and apologise upon the Swans winning the Grand Final.

This would tell me that the AFL had their eye on our shut down tactics/tempo football way back in early 2005. They and the whole football world continuously say that the Swans play "ugly" football which is detrimental to fans' enjoyment of the game as a spectacle! So how do they STOP TEMPO football (initiated by the Swans and our prime tactic), they quicken up the game! - with quicker play on rules which restricts flooding and tires out players that have to run back to support their backmen alot quicker than normal.

On the Hall issue - Do you disagree that Hall took alot of marks by using his strength - and hands et al? Therefore he is naturally restricted and frustrated with the new in the back rule. They have restricted his strength and he unfortunately hasn't worked a way around the problem.

I don't think i am being paranoid about us against them - but simply by analysing recent changes and their resultant effects on our game style - Simply these two changes don't seem to affect anyone as much as the Swans and restricts our style, or in the football World's eyes "negative gamestyle!"

I believe we are lead by an intelligent coaching roster and as such given time and importantly a positive approach by the players we shall once again become competitive. Although, I must admit our players seem to be disinterested at the moment and can't string together any semblance of form for even one continuous month.

[liz]

On the Hall issue - Do you disagree that Hall took alot of marks by using his strength - and hands et al? Therefore he is naturally restricted and frustrated with the new in the back rule. They have restricted his strength and he unfortunately hasn't worked a way around the problem.

I think Hall (and maybe to some extent O'Loughlin too) was one player who had pushed the "holding position" with hands to its limits and often got away with marks that probably were pushes. In that sense, he was one of the reasons why the new "interpretation" was brought in.

I don't have a problem with a tougher interpretation of what constitutes a push and would have much preferred to see the AFL crack down on what Hall used to get away with rather than bring in this ludicrous interpretation where players have been penalised for absolutely incidental contact to the back.

I still think Hall does get the raw end of the stick from the umpires but more for other types of frees than for HITB types (though the second contentious one against him on Michael was soft as, albeit entirely within the current rules). It is more other times he is penalised for body on body contact that I think is permitted within current rules, and clearly the umpires sometimes guess he is infringed because they could not possibly have seen him infringe where the replay shows he did absolutely nothing wrong. As an example, see one free to Wakelin in the Port game, a classic example where Wakelin was taken out by a team mate but the umpire assumed it was Hall.

And the other Wakelin was quoted in an article this week as saying that Hall was very stiff on Saturday night with a couple of frees he didn't get.

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

The thing about our style of play is that it relies on a series of quick handballs out of defence. Players like Leo Barry try and break tackles so that we can run it out before the oppents have time to man up. Often you get until the centre square when you see our first kick.

The way to destroy it is to have strong fast tackling players on their full forward & half forward lines. Players like Barry Crouch & Buchanan have been caught trying to break tackles running out of defence. Teams know we rarely kick it out of defence either, so run at players like Leo Barry & Ben Matthews forcing them into indecision & more often than not error. This is what Collingwood did so well on Saturday.

Conversely the game against St Kilda showed you how teams are getting clued up on how to play us when we are just chipping it around. When we do that, all you have to do is have extra players filling in the 50 metre defensive arc, forcing us to either try and bomb it from outside 50 (Craig Bolton/Nick Davis) or try and find a short lead into this area.

The key to beating teams flooding against tempo football is to simply play man on man as oppsed to zonally. Players have a direct opponent as opposed to a region on the field.

JF

[liz]

The thing about our style of play is that it relies on a series of quick handballs out of defence. Players like Leo Barry try and break tackles so that we can run it out before the oppents have time to man up. Often you get until the centre square when you see our first kick.

The way to destroy it is to have strong fast tackling players on their full forward & half forward lines. Players like Barry Crouch & Buchanan have been caught trying to break tackles running out of defence. Teams know we rarely kick it out of defence either, so run at players like Leo Barry & Ben Matthews forcing them into indecision & more often than not error. This is what Collingwood did so well on Saturday.

And this is the main aspect in which we miss Kennelly. He is very often on the end of a chain of handballs (often at the start and in the middle too) and he is the one capable of carrying the ball out of congestion around the 50m arc using his pace.

[NMWBloods]

Let's think about it then. Demetriou comes out and says that we play "ugly" and that we will never be a force with that style of play - Unfortunately for him he had to eat his words and apologise upon the Swans winning the Grand Final.

This would tell me that the AFL had their eye on our shut down tactics/tempo football way back in early 2005. They and the whole football world continuously say that the Swans play "ugly" football which is detrimental to fans' enjoyment of the game as a spectacle! So how do they STOP TEMPO football (initiated by the Swans and our prime tactic), they quicken up the game! - with quicker play on rules which restricts flooding and tires out players that have to run back to support their backmen alot quicker than normal.

It's not aimed at the Swans because they are the Swans - it is aimed at ugly football.

On the Hall issue - Do you disagree that Hall took alot of marks by using his strength - and hands et al? Therefore he is naturally restricted and frustrated with the new in the back rule. They have restricted his strength and he unfortunately hasn't worked a way around the problem.

Yes, I have commented quite a bit that the new rules have affected his marking style. However, as Liz notes, Hall's marking technique often pushed the boundaries of what was allowable. There is zero suggestion that this rule change is aimed at the Swans.

I don't think i am being paranoid about us against them - but simply by analysing recent changes and their resultant effects on our game style - Simply these two changes don't seem to affect anyone as much as the Swans and restricts our style, or in the football World's eyes "negative gamestyle!"

I think you are being paranoid. The rules are introduced to address concerns in the style of football, not to stop the Swans.

[originalswan]

It's not aimed at the Swans because they are the Swans - it is aimed at ugly football.

Yes, I have commented quite a bit that the new rules have affected his marking style. However, as Liz notes, Hall's marking technique often pushed the boundaries of what was allowable. There is zero suggestion that this rule change is aimed at the Swans.

I think you are being paranoid. The rules are introduced to address concerns in the style of football, not to stop the Swans.

Just got back from my psychiatrist and he assures me that the ugly football you refer to specifically targets the Swans and to some degree Adelaide.

[NMWBloods]

It targets unattractive football. If the Swans play unattractive football they will be affected. That's not the same as saying it was deliberately put in place to counter the Swans.

[AnnieH]

It targets unattractive football. If the Swans play unattractive football they will be affected. That's not the same as saying it was deliberately put in place to counter the Swans.

well, they're not going to come right out and say that, are they?

funny how the swans are the only ones referred to (in the media and by theo andrew) as playing ugly or unattractive football (doesn't matter what you want to call it).

who would have thought that the umpires had a list of protected players? or that they would have admitted to having one?

of course the new rules were meant to slow us down. you're very naive if you believe otherwise.