Official Match Day Thread - Swans vs Richmond

[Nico]

As a stalwart supporter of Triple M (Much Maligned McVeigh), I have to ask - am I the only only one who thought he was our Worst On Ground? Two inside 50s RIGHT DOWN THE THROAT of opposition players, OOF under no pressure? Back to his indecisive, unconfident worst, imo. Not for dropping him though.

Are you calling him a one game wonder? He seemed to get enough of the footy in the right positions last night but his finishing was very poor. He ranked second bottom for the team with a 61% effectiveness, probably why you thought he was the worst.

He ranked only above MOL which is interesting because they appeared not to play as much to Micky as usual.

On poor disposal, very people ever mention Barry Hall. Again last night he was kicking those pissy little kicks off one step to the opposition. He works so hard to get to a mark just outside 50 but so often gives it up too easy and indeed wastes a scoring opportunity. I wish he would be told to put it to the top the square to Spida or Jolly who can take a mark or handball off to a running player who can have a ping.

[Nico]

I haven't seen the game, but I listened to it on ABC radio. They said exactly thr opposite. They reckon Tadhg looked really good tonight and that the knee didn't appear to be troubling him at all.

Gee I thought the same as Jeffers. He doesn't seem to want to do too much turning and looked decidely unfit. I just wonder if has been doing much genuine trackwork.

[Nico]

I tend to agree with Liz's summary. We should have blown them off the park in the first 10 minutes but some serious lairising lets us down. Dont agree that Goodes was best on ground, he played like he paid the opposition no respect, lairised big time, had a third of his possessions as clangers and gave away an amazing 5 frees.

Just as well Jude Bolton pulled his socks up in the second half because he was heading a worst of the year game to half time.

We had 15 more clearances but it seemed to me they were not at centre bounces AGAIN. With such ruck dominance why does this happen. They gave a stat on TV that we were the no.1 for hitouts and Richmond were no.16. We dont get many goals or put the opposition full back line under immediate pressure from first possession out of the centre. If we improved this 10% we would most of the closies.

Hall, Jolly, O'Keefe (he always plays well, cant be questioned) Schneider, Davis, Bevan, Kirk, C Bolton, Buchanan and Fozzie all played well. The rest you could say were serviceable but Ted Richards really is worrying me down back. That free he gave away for HTB was poor in that he didn't go his first instinct and give off the ball to Schmidt and I think Grundy on his outside, instead trying to break through a tackle. They replayed it a few times and it was painfully obvious he just ignored them. Unfortunately Ted does this far too often and is a bit like Dean McRae for those who remember, who tried to finess one time too many and invariably got caught.

[Triple B]

It seems I need to watch a replay.

I thought Monty was pretty average, but I note a lot of posters (and Roosey) give him wraps for his game.

And I am normally a huge fan of his work, so it's definately not a blinkered view.

[liz]

It seems I need to watch a replay.

I thought Monty was pretty average, but I note a lot of posters (and Roosey) give him wraps for his game.

And I am normally a huge fan of his work, so it's definately not a blinkered view.

I thought he was just so-so. There were some encouraging signs when he occasionally tucked the ball under his arm and charged away from congestion, but he didn't do it that often and his disposal was mixed. It was an adequate performance, and hopefully he'll get better. But it was a long long way off what he has shown he's capable of.

[Nico]

It seems I need to watch a replay.

I thought Monty was pretty average, but I note a lot of posters (and Roosey) give him wraps for his game.

And I am normally a huge fan of his work, so it's definately not a blinkered view.

No doubt his first half was bad and I would suggest he got a rocket at half time. His hard running through the midfield had a fair bit to do with us getting on top and he had 14 posseions in the second half. Just wish he would think more about his kicking disposal selection and execution. I would say on his second half effort his best is about to come.

[Nico]

It seems I need to watch a replay.

I thought Monty was pretty average, but I note a lot of posters (and Roosey) give him wraps for his game.

And I am normally a huge fan of his work, so it's definately not a blinkered view.

Now BBB, you know that people dont have blinkered views on this site.

[Triple B]

Now BBB, you know that people dont have blinkered views on this site.

Yeah, right

[NMWBloods]

Last night Bevan gave away no free kicks, got one himself, had 16 possessions and took six marks.

Why do you get so excited about six marks for a backman? They rack them up through little chip passes like nothing! It really is nothing!

[swansrule100]

i wasnt impressed with what i saw last night. You can only beat who you play, but we were always going to win and even when we got to about 30 off i still felt we had failed to gain control of the match and we had some lazy moments. We have to get to a level to contend with teams like the cats, eagles and kangas, all 3 would of beaten what we served up last night. But a win is a win i spose, maybe im too negative.

[connolly]

Why do you get so excited about six marks for a backman? They rack them up through little chip passes like nothing! It really is nothing!

Its a comparative thing -
C. Bolton 4
T. Kennelly 2
N. Malcevski 4
T. Richards 1
B. Mathews 1
H. Grundy 2
P. Bevan 6
He should have had 8 marks. One when his arms were hit and the other when Brown pushed him in the back. He took the most marks of our backmen for the second week in a row. Now it can't just be that he sneaking aound out the back door picking up easy possessions. Probably indicates a fair amount of skill, and confidence from his teamates that he can move it on.

[hammo]

It's not hard to rack up 6 marks when you hang back in defence for the soft possession if there's nothing on up the ground. I wouldn't get too excited about it.

[NMWBloods]

Its a comparative thing -
C. Bolton 4
T. Kennelly 2
N. Malcevski 4
T. Richards 1
B. Mathews 1
H. Grundy 2
P. Bevan 6
He should have had 8 marks. One when his arms were hit and the other when Brown pushed him in the back. He took the most marks of our backmen for the second week in a row. Now it can't just be that he sneaking aound out the back door picking up easy possessions. Probably indicates a fair amount of skill, and confidence from his teamates that he can move it on.

Again, who cares? Virtually all of his marks are from little chips from kick outs or sideways short kicks. That's typical for back players. Indicates minimal skill above what is required to play at a decent level.

[connolly]

Again, who cares? Virtually all of his marks are from little chips from kick outs or sideways short kicks. That's typical for back players. Indicates minimal skill above what is required to play at a decent level.

It indicates he plays a pivotal role in the defense.

[stellation]

Why do you get so excited about six marks for a backman? They rack them up through little chip passes like nothing! It really is nothing!

I have to agree. I think it is still an interesting stat to look at and useful to show someone has worked hard in a game, but I'll admit that as a general rule when looking at a defender who has racked up a heap of disposals one of the first things I look at is how many marks they have taken and use a lame formula along the lines of (disposals - uncontested marks = better indication)... I expand the lame forumla to (disposals - uncontested marks - handball receives = better indication) for looking at HBFers in the Eski mould. I don't really judge them any harsher for it, as it usually means they are doing their role very well, but it usually helps to put things into perspective.