On the Couch: The game has moved on

[ROK Lobster]

Fair enough. Except that if you substituted "Hawks" with "Swans" and "Sydney" with "Collingwood" you could be describing last Saturday's game.

It's always very hard to tell to what extent a comprehensive beating by one team is because their opposition played poorly or because the winning team forced them out of their comfort zone / preferred game plan and made them play poorly.

I did not see Saturday night's game - probably thankfully - so cannot comment on that. Given that Collingwood have recently been in ordinary form I think it is highly likely that Sydney were crap to the point of making them look good.

For what ever reason, Sydney were only average for most of the year. To some extent I think it is fair to say that the Swans have moved on and the game has stayed where it was. I am sure that the 18 year old I faced in the nets 2 weeks ago was not any faster than the 18 year olds I was facing in the nets three years ago, but I have no doubt that I am a little bit slower getting my foot to the pitch and my head over the ball.

Ball and Williams are the only 2 retirements from the 05 side (sadly neither Maxfiled or Schauble can be said to have made much on field contribution in that year). The 25-28 year old bracket is now 27-30 and tiring. Without visiting the Swans web site I would reckon that there are about 6 or 7 players in that bracket, rather than 2 in 05. Additionally, the current 25-28 year olds are not as good as the 26-28 year olds of 05, with none of the second tier players really establishing themselves (Goodes is excluded, as he is just good). Our youngest are about equal quality. I guess my point is very few have improved, yet all have got older.

[NMWBloods]

Which is similar to my comparison between us and Port.

[Jewels]

But hang on a second, If we won against WCE in game 1, did not draw against Brisbane and did not lose by one point against the umpires (er i mean Essendon) we would have finished 4th, lost our first final, had a home semi final and be one game out of a third consecutive Grand Final. Don't forget in our premiership year we were saved by davis in the finals and had three other close games we managed to win. All I am saying is that yes the game has changed but so can we, and just because we did not clean up three games we should have won - does not mean we are slow, unable to evolve and too old.

I think we may be hitting the panic button a little early.

Absolutely spot on! The main difference between 07 and 05 was that two years ago, things fell our way. This year, they went the other way.
I don't think we need make huge changes to the group, a fit Kennelly, Goodes playing the whole year like he finished this year and a bit more pace in the middle and I think things will be a whole lot different.

[liz]

I did not see Saturday night's game - probably thankfully - so cannot comment on that. Given that Collingwood have recently been in ordinary form I think it is highly likely that Sydney were crap to the point of making them look good.

You might have argued that after they made us look ordinary at Telstra Stadium in round 12.

Pushing the same argument after they made us look even more ordinary in round 21 could be described as optimistic.

But when they did it again two weeks later you have to start wondering if there is maybe more to it than that.

My take on this season is that the Swans have played more good footy than last year, possibly not as much as in 2005. We claimed very few top 8 scalps in 2006 and the first - maybe the only - "really good win" was against West Coast at Subiaco. That just happened to be a QF, earned us a week off and a PF at home against a team that had never played at Telstra Stadium and were in their first ever PF. And even while the Swans looked comfortably in charge all game, they butchered scoring chances galore and kept the game in the balance far longer than it should have been.

In 2007 we didn't win any games we didn't soundly deserve to win, by which I mean there weren't any narrow wins that could have gone either way, or ones where the Swans created fewer scoring opportunities but just kicked straighter, or ones where we got a few dodgy umpiring decisions at critical times that tilted the game in our balance. We may only have won 12 and a half but they were solid wins. Even in 2005 we possibly fluked a couple, which landed up being the difference between top 4 and not top 4. The early season Gabba game is one that springs to mind.

I acknowledge that we were fortunate to get 5 games against the three basket case teams this year. But the wins against Port, Bulldogs, Hawthorn x 2, Saints, Brisbane and Freo were all quality, convincing performances against teams capable of matching it with the best teams in the competition.

I can't move away from the difference in consistency of the team - nor the observation of the marked difference between day and night performances. Which is why I also don't accept that there is anything fundamentally wrong with the tactical approach that the Swans are still taking to their footy and its ability to beat good opposition - notwithstanding that the observation about Collingwood's performances against us indicates that some variation is needed.

[bennyfrou]

Absolutely spot on! The main difference between 07 and 05 was that two years ago, things fell our way. This year, they went the other way.
I don't think we need make huge changes to the group, a fit Kennelly, Goodes playing the whole year like he finished this year and a bit more pace in the middle and I think things will be a whole lot different.

The only thing I would add here is that each time the Swans were asked the question to step up in 2007 (ie, take second by winning against Pies in R12 and secure a top four spot against Lions) we mis-fired incredibly. Whether that is hunger, or lackthereof, or just the aging list unable to fire for the big games. In 2005 we (almost uncharacteristically) fired up big time for the big games - perhaps now the 2005 medal weighs too much in that some older players may think their job here is done?

[Sanecow]

If we won against WCE in game 1,

Yeah, well we lost.

did not draw against Brisbane

Yeah, well we drew.

and did not lose by one point against the umpires (er i mean Essendon)

Yeah, well we lost.

we would have finished 4th, lost our first final, had a home semi final and be one game out of a third consecutive Grand Final.

And if we'd won every game we would have finished first. BFD. If Leo Barry hadn't been run down and Spida hadn't lost the plot we might have won on the weekend. But we lost.

Don't forget in our premiership year we were saved by davis in the finals and had three other close games we managed to win.

To stick with a plan that required insane heroics to win a Premiership is, as they say in the classics, a low percentage option.

[bennyfrou]

Yeah, well we lost.



Yeah, well we drew.



Yeah, well we lost.



And if we'd won every game we would have finished first. BFD. If Leo Barry hadn't been run down and Spida hadn't lost the plot we might have won on the weekend. But we lost.



To stick with a plan that required insane heroics to win a Premiership is, as they say in the classics, a low percentage option.

I agree with you, not one that is going to get us over the line every year, unless things go our way.

[Sanecow]

I agree with you

Shut up! I'm arguing!

[bennyfrou]

Shut up! I'm arguing!

Well i failed to see a valid argument so I just agreed :P

[Bloody Hell]

I think we may be hitting the panic button a little early.

Or a bit late.

[Bart]

Goodes on Goodes

http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/oloughlin-to-help-young-swans-soar/2007/09/12/1189276809677.html?page=2

Both O'Loughlin and Goodes were at Blacktown yesterday for the launch of the AFL's Indigenous Academy.

"At the end of the day, we're not looking for the next Adam Goodes in these programs," Goodes said.

A budding FIGJAM ?

[Bloody Hell]

http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/ol...77.html?page=2

Both O'Loughlin and Goodes were at Blacktown yesterday for the launch of the AFL's Indigenous Academy.

"At the end of the day, we're not looking for the next Adam Goodes in these programs," Goodes said.

A budding FIGJAM ?

Well, he is a dual brownlow medallist...though maybe he should have said Micky O. Speaking of which the first page of the above article gives a good indication of the great man he is.

http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/oloughlin-to-help-young-swans-soar/2007/09/12/1189276809677.html

[NMWBloods]

A new team demanded a new way of playing. So did the trend of the competition. The Western Bulldogs had shown the way: it was forward, quickly, at every opportunity. Geelong and the Kangaroos had seized gleefully on the idea. Malthouse's young Magpies were happy to play to that blueprint.

H-Sun 21/9/07

[Kanga]

Works on a small ground like the SCG

Other teams play on quickly and move the ball rapidly into their forward line before the opposition can flood back. The Swans still try to play the gradual build up with short pinpoint passes.

It may have worked on a small ground like the SCG...., but a much different story on the larger grounds which require at least one extra decent kick.

[reigning premier]

It may have worked on a small ground like the SCG...., but a much different story on the larger grounds which require at least one extra decent kick.

Have you got the dimensions of Carrara mapped out for training yet down at Arden Street?