On the Couch: The game has moved on

[Hazcam]

Was it Walls who said that the game has moved on since the Swans won the Premiership? Did he accidentally make sense? Or was it Mike? I passed out soon after they made sense so it's a bit hazy.

I think we have failed to adjust.

1. The original gameplan has now been used until it no longer surprises anyone that the Swans tag, cause stoppages and run out of defense. With Tadhg out, they didn't even have to care about attempted runs out of defense anyway, Ironmonger could run down Leo these days.

2. It seems that the one trick that was worth keeping - controlling the tempo of the game - has been picked up by other teams and used less frequently and more inappropriately by Sydney.

3. When approaching the forward 50 the Swans stop and chip it around until the forward line is flooded with rebounding opposition players. The commentators still claim "they will work this around until someone is open" but more often than not they get called to play on and panic.

4. The umpires now focus on protecting "pure ball winners" and are vigilant for off the ball "hard tagging". This has hampered the midfield.

5. The "hand in the back" rule has murdered Hall. He used to get done more than he should have when it was a push in the back so this has completely beaten him. It has also made it tough for our undersized backline to be effective against the bigger forwards.

To bloody mindedly tag hard, chip around and have forwards and defenders playing from behind when those methods are no longer effective is getting hard to watch. I expect that we'll see another season of imbalanced free kicks and variable form before Roos walks off into the sunset with a cheery "I have always maintained that I am not a career coach."

well said buddy and pretty much spot on.
you're an avid watcher of the swans game play vs other premier sides and the current climate of footy

our game plan is dinosaur now and at best it will allow us to stumble our way into the finals.

we need to take a leaf our of geelong, port adelaide, wce book and get some quality players like goodesy in the midfield and mobile tall forwards and backmen.

it's so frustrating and roos needs to develop another "ingenious" style or be taken as a one-trick pony and no re-sign with us when his contract expires...which i think he will do.

as for retirees and trades/delistings...

hall has to play as a true centre half forward and nick davis needs to be blooded as a full forward (fevola would have been prefect) otherwise retire and go to boxing

matthews, leo, jude bolton, doyle, everitt plus a wealth of others need to go

LRT is alot like dunkley but he reminds me of cletus the slack jawed yokel from the simpsons. he's a dopey bugger and needs more under pressure training. or be traded.

im not sure why we got rid of scott stevens and jason saddington

our rookie and emerging list has too many small type players eg, phillips, jack and co. we only need buchanan and schneider but not both playing at same time.

what ya'll think?

[liz]

Nobody tries to emulate Sydney's offensive plan because it's frequently non-existent.

That's rubbish. Was the offensive side non-existent against the Hawks just a week ago? In 2005-6 the Swans' forward line was frequently lauded as being one of the most tactically astute, showing patience at delivering the ball, hard work from forwards blocking for each other to create that free man, excellent work at forward stop plays, and much better than average forward defensive pressure.

From a spectator's POV, the problem with Sydney's game style is that when they play poorly, it goes into lock down mode and games can become scrappy. That is how they've sometimes been able to eek out wins when playing ordinary footy and rarely get blown off the field. In contrast, when Carlton play poorly they still get a bit of the ball, probably score 15 goals but are more than likely to concede 25. And even when they play relatively well and score 20 goals, they are more likely than not to concede 21.

When the Swans implement their game plan well, they are more than capable of piling on the goals, often in a hurry - something we've seen many times.

Sure, we'd all love it if they played the good version more often. But we need to keep reminding ourselves that the game plan has got a decently talented side to two grand finals, and won one. At no point would anyone have rated our team as one of the best in terms of raw talent. And what better than average talent we do have is almost exclusively concentrated in the back and forward thirds of the ground - Adam Goodes apart. A game plan based on less pressure and defence would mean we'd be entering the 75th year of a premiership drought.

[NMWBloods]

That's rubbish.

Is that a personal attack...?

Was the offensive side non-existent against the Hawks just a week ago?

And how often do we do that? How surprising was it to see?

In 2005-6 the Swans' forward line was frequently lauded as being one of the most tactically astute, showing patience at delivering the ball, hard work from forwards blocking for each other to create that free man, excellent work at forward stop plays, and much better than average forward defensive pressure.

Yes, it was lauded such, and it looks great on paper, and yet it has been one of the lowest scoring forward lines for the past four years. Possibly more importantly, to counter flooding teams are now moving into a plan of moving the ball forward rapidly as it recognised that the slow build up no longer works so well and that is certainly what we have seen with the Swans too.

From a spectator's POV, the problem with Sydney's game style is that when they play poorly, it goes into lock down mode and games can become scrappy. That is how they've sometimes been able to eek out wins when playing ordinary footy and rarely get blown off the field.

Yes, but that's a negative way to win football and teams are not look to emulate all of that.

When the Swans implement their game plan well, they are more than capable of piling on the goals, often in a hurry - something we've seen many times.

For only short bursts though, not sustained over a whole game.

Sure, we'd all love it if they played the good version more often. But we need to keep reminding ourselves that the game plan has got a decently talented side to two grand finals, and won one. At no point would anyone have rated our team as one of the best in terms of raw talent. And what better than average talent we do have is almost exclusively concentrated in the back and forward thirds of the ground - Adam Goodes apart. A game plan based on less pressure and defence would mean we'd be entering the 75th year of a premiership drought.

No one is saying less pressure and defence. In fact, what I have been saying is that other teams are copying our pressure and defence. What they're not copying is our offence. That combination worked well for Collingwood, and it isn't too dissimilar to Geelong's style.

[liz]

Is that a personal attack...?

No, to be a personal attack it has to a) be an attack; and b) be personal.

Disagreeing with your opinion is neither

For only short bursts though, not sustained over a whole game.

Which is in part because other teams are good - to varying degrees - at stopping the Swans do what they try to do. It's what comes of playing in a very even competition where there is little to choose between most of the lists.

But it's also because those high scoring sprees require a particularly high intensity. Watching that good 10 minutes of Saturday's games, it was evident how about half the team suddenly lifted their intensity significantly. It started when Hall chased the ball out of the 50m shoulder to shoulder with Wakelin, got ahead, won possession and managed to lay it off to Goodes. Goodes seemed to lift even his work rate (which is saying something) and had several telling possessions in a very short space of time. Kirk steeled himself for even more of a battering, and enough other players came to like to make it tell.

During that period the Pies' defence was easy to pull apart. But the Swans just didn't have it in them - whether physically or mentally - to come up with even one more 10 minute period like that during the game, or even to lift their pressure enough to at least impose a holding pattern on the game.

No one is saying less pressure and defence. In fact, what I have been saying is that other teams are copying our pressure and defence. What they're not copying is our offence. That combination worked well for Collingwood, and it isn't too dissimilar to Geelong's style.

I don't understand what you mean by "not copying our offence". Sure, they're not copying it when it doesn't function but I doubt the fundamentals of what the attack is trying to achieve are any different from other teams and some have certainly focused on forward pressure and set plays in the way the Swans have. (Not that I am claiming the Swans were the first to do those things.)

[dimelb]

I think Geelong and Collingwood both do quick handpassing/short kicks in order to kick long into the forwards in one or two kicks. They both seem to trust their forwards to be in the right place, and the forwards often are. We don't do as much of that as we did in earlier years and are less likely to play on. In addition we are, on the whole, slower. There's nothing wrong with the game plan of mixing up the tempo, but we used to do it much better, and that's where other sides have gone past us.

[NMWBloods]

No, to be a personal attack it has to a) be an attack; and b) be personal.

Disagreeing with your opinion is neither

Ah - some other people could learn from that...

Which is in part because other teams are good - to varying degrees - at stopping the Swans do what they try to do. It's what comes of playing in a very even competition where there is little to choose between most of the lists.

Yes, which is why people are changing game plans.

During that period the Pies' defence was easy to pull apart. But the Swans just didn't have it in them - whether physically or mentally - to come up with even one more 10 minute period like that during the game, or even to lift their pressure enough to at least impose a holding pattern on the game.

But they rarely do, which is why their scoring is generally low.

I don't understand what you mean by "not copying our offence". Sure, they're not copying it when it doesn't function but I doubt the fundamentals of what the attack is trying to achieve are any different from other teams and some have certainly focused on forward pressure and set plays in the way the Swans have. (Not that I am claiming the Swans were the first to do those things.)

They're not copying it in that they are focussed on getting the ball quickly into the forward line. The Swans generally aren't.

[Layby]

Ah - some other people could learn from that...

@@@@ off, you knobend, where do you get off trying to teach people lessons.

[NMWBloods]

@@@@ off, you knobend, where do you get off trying to teach people lessons.

Don't talk to your teachers that way. Off to detention for you!

[liz]

They're not copying it in that they are focussed on getting the ball quickly into the forward line. The Swans generally aren't.

Which is in part because other teams have implemented an uber flood against us this year. Even West Coast did it in round 1.

Is in part because our midfield has been crapper this year than last (Goodes' poor form in the first half of the year and Monty's relatively ordinary season being two obvious contributing factors given they're the most creative mids we have).

In part it is because our main marking forward has had an ordinary year (which is true regardless on whether you put it down to injuries, rule changes or just poor form).

In part is because we've been missing the bloke who has historically got the ball moving quickly from defence for practically all the season. (Even when he was back in the team, he was far from his best, understandably.)

In part is because one of the main instigators in past years managed to elevate his game to such a level that every other coach was forced to sit up and realise he needed a hard tag. And while he's still been working very hard and had the odd exceptional game, he's found much less space than in past years.

I'm not arguing that the Swans can expect to do exactly the same as in past years and expect to win a premiership. Clearly they need to mix up the personnel a bit, find alternatives to Kennelly, O'Keefe and Hall so when they're not available or are below par, things don't fall apart. Finding a way to work through the flood would be nice - faster ball movement would help but in past years they've managed to work in congestion far better than this year.

Adding just one more quick player through the middle would be nice (come on down, Jack or Laidlaw - though Barlow may also be part of the solution).

And of course, if we could get our hands on even one gun midfielder, things might change. (And Roos has already signalled that Malceski will play more in the midfield next season.)

My arguments are just against what I consider to be a nonsense comment that the game has changed in 2 years to such an extent that the fundamentals of the Swans' game plan are now obsolete - particularly when at least a couple of the clubs still in this year's premiership race have emulated them and are executing them particularly well.

[NMWBloods]

I still maintain that our game plan is not about getting the ball forward quickly. Except for the occasional rapid rebound through the centre in short bursts, this has been relatively rare.

Teams have worked out that if they flood they can stop teams who build up slowly.

They have also worked out that if they get the ball forward quickly they can beat the flood.

This is where I think the game has moved into another direction and the Swans have not moved.

[liz]

I still maintain that our game plan is not about getting the ball forward quickly. Except for the occasional rapid rebound through the centre in short bursts, this has been relatively rare.

Teams have worked out that if they flood they can stop teams who build up slowly.

They have also worked out that if they get the ball forward quickly they can beat the flood.

This is where I think the game has moved into another direction and the Swans have not moved.

Can't agree. I think every single game plan aims to get the ball forward quickly. It is a no-brainer. Get first hands on the ball in the middle and either kick it forward to a marking forward or just "do a Goodsey".

If only things were that simple...

[bennyfrou]

well said buddy and pretty much spot on.
you're an avid watcher of the swans game play vs other premier sides and the current climate of footy

our game plan is dinosaur now and at best it will allow us to stumble our way into the finals.

we need to take a leaf our of geelong, port adelaide, wce book and get some quality players like goodesy in the midfield and mobile tall forwards and backmen.

it's so frustrating and roos needs to develop another "ingenious" style or be taken as a one-trick pony and no re-sign with us when his contract expires...which i think he will do.

as for retirees and trades/delistings...

hall has to play as a true centre half forward and nick davis needs to be blooded as a full forward (fevola would have been prefect) otherwise retire and go to boxing

matthews, leo, jude bolton, doyle, everitt plus a wealth of others need to go

LRT is alot like dunkley but he reminds me of cletus the slack jawed yokel from the simpsons. he's a dopey bugger and needs more under pressure training. or be traded.

im not sure why we got rid of scott stevens and jason saddington

our rookie and emerging list has too many small type players eg, phillips, jack and co. we only need buchanan and schneider but not both playing at same time.

what ya'll think?

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.

[NMWBloods]

Can't agree. I think every single game plan aims to get the ball forward quickly. It is a no-brainer. Get first hands on the ball in the middle and either kick it forward to a marking forward or just "do a Goodsey".

I think this is the fundamental difference in our thinking of the game plan. Yes, they aim to get the ball forward, but they do so in a very precise, ordered, and slow way. If they can't get that perfect pass then they chip sideways until they do. They don't rush the ball forward from a stoppage or from a mark. They take their time moving it foward.

[ROK Lobster]

From the precious little football I have seen this season I would suggest that the fundamental difference between the Swans' gameplan and that of Geelong and COllingwood in particular is that over the last 4 seasons the Swans have been very keen to create contests and, moreover, stopages when the opposition has the ball. That has been the focus of the pressure. Geelong (and to a lesser extent Collingwood) seem to me more inclined to pressure sides into turning the ball over and gaining possession for a quick counter attack. The Swans focus seems to have been to have numbers at the ball, these other sides seem to go more man on man and force sides into poor decision making. I am not sure if what I am saying is even possible, but that is the impression I have had watching them play.

BTW, I think that nothing can be taken from the Hawks game. I watched the first half of that and the Hawks absolute lack of pressue made Sydney look very good. A number of times the ball went to ground, marks were dropped, kicks went over heads etc and there was no Hawthorn pressure to speak of. Sydney players had acres of room - Hawthorn were, IMO, non existent.

[liz]

BTW, I think that nothing can be taken from the Hawks game. I watched the first half of that and the Hawks absolute lack of pressue made Sydney look very good. A number of times the ball went to ground, marks were dropped, kicks went over heads etc and there was no Hawthorn pressure to speak of. Sydney players had acres of room - Hawthorn were, IMO, non existent.

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.