time for a change

[Melbournehammer]

This ongoing debate about entertainment versus results is one where I contentedly find myself adopting the pragmatic results based approach.
I don't do this lightly. Our style in 2003 was amazingly exciting but the feeling I had walking away from Telstra stadium was nothing but despair.

I think our side is vastly overrated rather than underrated. Our defence consists of an ex rugby player who can't hit a target by hand or foot, an essendon cast off, a brisbane cast off (who i am willing to say must be in the top 3 medium sized defenders)) a failed forward who also plays above himself but against large forwards always struggles (think Bradshaw, gehrig, rocca, richardson), a hawthorn cast off, a player who is regularly lambasted on these pages and an Irishman who is a superstar.

The defence with the exception of bolton and kenneally cannot win one on ones and has not been able to for some years whenever they are exposed in this way

The midfield consists of a lot of cortinas. Correctly. Goodes is a star but is an enigmatic one. He has never been able to play a key position well, bolton fosdike, matthews crouch, buchanan, schneider,kirk all try incredibly hard. Only goodes and kirk appear to be able to get the ball for themselves, the rest rely on the tackling and getting the ball after their opponent has lost it

Our forwards consist of an aging but mercurial full forward who when he had knees was able to play half forward flank but is now largely stuck in the forward 30, a CHF who is fabulous on the lead but is unable to take strong contested marks, a half forward flanker who has an amazing engine and can take a great contested mark but has never been a great kick at goal, another half forward flanker who has a fabulous kick but a poor workrate and is not a great contested mark.

The team in my view in part because of the game plan has played in a way which has been greater than the sum of its parts. We have had older harder bodies and by playing a close checking style which tackles hard and ensures there are few free possessions we win. On the other hand when teams play fast open footy with good forwards (collingwood is the best example of this) we just cannot cope. and thats because we can't do it as well as the opposition. Think of the 2003 side and we had maxfield, cresswell, paul williams, who were all great at getting the ball and delivering the pill long accurately and fast. Who is there replacing them and think about this

[ScottH]

That Norm Smith wasn't bad...

Don't recall him ever coaching the Sydney Swans.

[goswannie14]

He coached the first game I ever went to, when Skilton was captain.

[ScottH]

He coached the first game I ever went to, when Skilton was captain.

For Sydney?

[NMWBloods]

For Sydney?

Oooh - now you're saying that the South Melbourne Swans aren't the same as the Sydney Swans!

[NMWBloods]

I think our side is vastly overrated rather than underrated.

I think there is an element of truth in this, particularly when they talk about our exquisite ball skills and ability to hit targets. Also about how good we are in clearances.

I think the rest of your post makes pretty good sense (with just the odd minor disagreement).

[thejones,s]

Lets be REAL here ok...roos is not out there playing ok..


Why is people always suggest sacking the coach,he is only as good as the players on the ground ok...same in any code..1st thought..sack the coach...

Why not sack the coaching staff,runners,,the local laundry..come on...catering staff they all are involved in getting the players on ground..

[bandwagon]

Great post MelbourneHammer!

I also lean towards the pragmatic over the entertaining. And looking as a whole over all our matches this season I'm not too disappointed. However, having wasted 3 hours of my life watching that tripe I'm not entirely satisfied either.

WRT to the 2005 premiership I believe a lot of things fell our way - including good luck (why did Worsfold pick Gardiner?) and good coaching. Of course we had a handy team but they were not the 'best'. But maybe the coach v. players argument can never be won. After all if Geelong really are a team of champions, why didn't they play that way a couple of years back?

[ScottH]

The best coach Sydney swans have ever had and we keep on bagging him.

Oooh - now you're saying that the South Melbourne Swans aren't the same as the Sydney Swans!

No, just clarifying the statement.

[cressakel]

I think our side is vastly overrated rather than underrated. Our defence consists of an ex rugby player who can't hit a target by hand or foot, an essendon cast off, a brisbane cast off (who i am willing to say must be in the top 3 medium sized defenders) a failed forward who also plays above himself but against large forwards always struggles (think Bradshaw, gehrig, rocca, richardson), a hawthorn cast off, a player who is regularly lambasted on these pages and an Irishman who is a superstar.

The defence with the exception of bolton and kenneally cannot win one on ones and has not been able to for some years whenever they are exposed in this way

Gary Ablett Snr was a CAST-OFF, ditto Greg Williams (Carlton U19's), ditto Tony Liberatore. These footballers became superstars in their own right and within their own limitations (although Gazza had no limitations). C.Bolton is a star in his current form, Richards is a solid contributor, Leo has rarely had bags kicked on him and provides endless run out of the backline (and he wasn't a failed forward, just an injury-prone forward that was best in the backline free of injuries), ditto LRT and, if you are referring to the "failed hawthorn cast off" as L.Brennan, spare me the bull***t - he hardly plays in the backline and/or gets a game.

Your argument about the backline is flawed. They regularly are in the best 2 or 3 backlines in the competition in relation to scores against because they work as a TEAM. It doesn't matter if they are so-called CAST-OFFS or have flaws, as long as they do their job, which is to restrict the opposition from scoring.

BTW and FWIW - I love Roosy in the way that he coaches to the limitations of the team and our strengths. Good coaches recognise this and act upon these limitations and strengths. I would far rather a tight, slow-tempo "Sydney" style of football than the fast-running, mistake-ridden, soft tissue injuries and leaking of goals when the opposition counter attacks style of football that the Bombouts and a few other teams play !! Roosy's game plan has had success, as evidenced by every full year in the finals under his tenure consisting of two GF's, one Prelim, one semi and one elimination final. I also believe defence wins flags these days and you will notice that the Swans struggle to kick a score (so does the opposition) and the game is reduced to a slow tempo "Sydney" style of football when BOTH teams have a strong emphasis on defence. When the opposition doesn't have a strong emphasis on defence, the Swans play their other style of football, which is attacked mixed with a bit of tempo football out of defence.

I also couldn't give a rat's tossbag what style of football we play, as long as we WIN - or are competitive and/or have a red hot go losing. I cannot recall a game we have lost in the last 4-5 years that we haven't been competitive, which is all you can ask from the lads. Far different from the rabble that was thrown up under the auspicious coaching of Kinnear, Buckenara and Eade.

I also don't think kids, new supporters of the Swans, punters betting on the Swans and the majority of the Swans supporters cares if we played "pretty" or "attacking" or "footy the way it should be played" as long as we win and/or be competitive. Give me a spell guys !!

BTW - what is the correct way to play footy ? Is their booked that outlines how football "should be played" ? Do we go back to the kick to kick, mongrel flat punts of the 60's & 70's or the 8 goals per game of the 10's and 20's or the king hit behind play days of the 30's and 40's !!!??? Someone please advise where I can collect that book on how to play the correct brand of Australian Rules football......

[NMWBloods]

I also couldn't give a rat's tossbag what style of football we play, as long as we WIN

This goes to my point of entertainment v. winning.

[swansrule100]

This goes to my point of entertainment v. winning.

and when we play like the weekend or round one we dont win, so we are boring and unsuccesful.

[NMWBloods]

and when we play like the weekend or round one we dont win, so we are boring and unsuccesful.

Yep.

Refining my thoughts some more, in the short term winning is clearly the most important. Over the longer term there needs to be a balance between entertainment and winning.

[swansrule100]

Yep.

Refining my thoughts some more, in the short term winning is clearly the most important. Over the longer term there needs to be a balance between entertainment and winning.

as far as i am concerned there doesnt need to be a clear effort from roos to make the game plan "entertaining" but if he makes it more direct and aims to win games by scoring, the entertainment will take care of itself. So as you say its about balance, essentially balancing our attack and defence.

Yes if we are under the pump bottle it up create stoppages and contain the opposition, but to do it the whole game is not the way to go from an entertainment and a success point of view

[NMWBloods]

as far as i am concerned there doesnt need to be a clear effort from roos to make the game plan "entertaining" but if he makes it more direct and aims to win games by scoring, the entertainment will take care of itself.

So as you say its about balance, essentially balancing our attack and defence.

Yes if we are under the pump bottle it up create stoppages and contain the opposition, but to do it the whole game is not the way to go from an entertainment and a success point of view

Agree entirely.