swans versus Collingwood game thread

[SimonH]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned, but if you believe that we match up poorly on Collingwood (and you should!), it's worth noting for this week that we match up well on Hawthorn. A 6-game winning streak is even longer than our 5-game losing streak v the Woods.

I picked Collingwood last weekend and (barring mass injuries, regardless of whether BBBH gets another holiday) I'll pick Sydney this weekend.

Despite all of the 'sack/retire X' threads, this game didn't show up any grave flaws in our personnel. (Although I would agree with ROK that Malceski looks well short of full confidence in his fitness.) It showed up flaws in our ability to execute our gameplan (in particular to run through HB) against sides who have, and stick to, a disciplined plan to shut us down. Historically, Hawthorn are not that side.

Would rather play Hawthorn in a final than the Woods, any day of the week, and regardless of ladder position.

[T-bag]

Fractionally better.

hahaha nice one

[NMWBloods]

I'm still interested to see how we go against Hawthorn's 'cluster'. This is the first year they've really implemented this properly and it has worked against all but a couple of teams. The ones it hasn't worked against have kicked it long and accurately, and have moved the ball on quickly. That's not really the Swans. I suspect that if we beat the Hawks at the MCG it will be a low-scoring, grinding affair as it was last time.

[goswannie14]

I'm still interested to see how we go against Hawthorn's 'cluster'. This is the first year they've really implemented this properly and it has worked against all but a couple of teams. The ones it hasn't worked against have kicked it long and accurately, and have moved the ball on quickly. That's not really the Swans. I suspect that if we beat the Hawks at the MCG it will be a low-scoring, grinding affair as it was last time.

The round 11 game where we won 11.9 to 9.12 or the round 22 game where we won 22.9 to 10.9?

EDIT: Just re-read the post, but it wasn't a real low scoring game.

[johnno]

I flew up from Melbourne for this game, and midway through the 3rd quarter, I was thinking to myself, what the hell am I watching? 2 goals to this point? What I cant believe is how does Collingwood make us look so foolish, so second rate, i dont mind losing and playing well, but losing like this is sad, and only collingwood is able to this to us, we have actually played the same way against them in the previous 5 losses. I'm sorry to say this but, until we beat them, I will not be tipping the swans in the office tipping comp anymore when we play Collingwood, I really do believe it psychological for the boys against the pies, its all in their heads. Thats my 2 bobs worth.

[NMWBloods]

The round 11 game where we won 11.9 to 9.12 or the round 22 game where we won 22.9 to 10.9?

EDIT: Just re-read the post, but it wasn't a real low scoring game.

11.9 -- 9.12 is a low scoring game.

[SimonH]

I'm still interested to see how we go against Hawthorn's 'cluster'. This is the first year they've really implemented this properly and it has worked against all but a couple of teams. The ones it hasn't worked against have kicked it long and accurately, and have moved the ball on quickly. That's not really the Swans. I suspect that if we beat the Hawks at the MCG it will be a low-scoring, grinding affair as it was last time.

Haven't seen much of Hawthorn this year, but both their 'cluster' (if they played it) and their entire game vs the Weagles was pretty unimpressive last-up.

The thing that struck me on Sat night was that 'flooding' (in the 2003/4 sense of the word-- dropping large numbers a kick behind the ball carrier) works very poorly against a side like Sydney. All it does is create space for our defenders to make options, transfer the ball sideways, then run forward and put the ball over the flooders. What the Woods have worked out is that where your bodies should be 'flooding' is actually the 15-20 metres around and in front of the ball carrier, so that even if a man gets free to receive a handpass, he'll have nowhere to go, and ultimately will have to either take on multiple tacklers and probably lose, or do what the Swans hate doing: bomb it long to a one-on-one contest further up the ground.

No matter how you define Hawthorn's 'cluster' it seems to involve the movements of their back 6. Who pretty much by definition are incapable of stopping our run from HB (unless they move a truly absurd distance up the ground). So it probably won't be terribly relevant to who wins the game.

[connolly]

Haven't seen much of Hawthorn this year, but both their 'cluster' (if they played it) and their entire game vs the Weagles was pretty unimpressive last-up.

The thing that struck me on Sat night was that 'flooding' (in the 2003/4 sense of the word-- dropping large numbers a kick behind the ball carrier) works very poorly against a side like Sydney. All it does is create space for our defenders to make options, transfer the ball sideways, then run forward and put the ball over the flooders. What the Woods have worked out is that where your bodies should be 'flooding' is actually the 15-20 metres around and in front of the ball carrier, so that even if a man gets free to receive a handpass, he'll have nowhere to go, and ultimately will have to either take on multiple tacklers and probably lose, or do what the Swans hate doing: bomb it long to a one-on-one contest further up the ground.

No matter how you define Hawthorn's 'cluster' it seems to involve the movements of their back 6. Who pretty much by definition are incapable of stopping our run from HB (unless they move a truly absurd distance up the ground). So it probably won't be terribly relevant to who wins the game.

Spot on - quick, hard tackling and pressuring of our set up off the quarter back and half back lines is what works against us (and Geelong). Hawks don't have a forward line that can do that. They can kick goals but they can't do that.

[NMWBloods]

Haven't seen much of Hawthorn this year, but both their 'cluster' (if they played it) and their entire game vs the Weagles was pretty unimpressive last-up.

The thing that struck me on Sat night was that 'flooding' (in the 2003/4 sense of the word-- dropping large numbers a kick behind the ball carrier) works very poorly against a side like Sydney. All it does is create space for our defenders to make options, transfer the ball sideways, then run forward and put the ball over the flooders. What the Woods have worked out is that where your bodies should be 'flooding' is actually the 15-20 metres around and in front of the ball carrier, so that even if a man gets free to receive a handpass, he'll have nowhere to go, and ultimately will have to either take on multiple tacklers and probably lose, or do what the Swans hate doing: bomb it long to a one-on-one contest further up the ground.

No matter how you define Hawthorn's 'cluster' it seems to involve the movements of their back 6. Who pretty much by definition are incapable of stopping our run from HB (unless they move a truly absurd distance up the ground). So it probably won't be terribly relevant to who wins the game.

The game against WC was unimpressive but they still won comfortably by 10 goals.

Their cluster is actually about zoning off space from the centre back, not flooding. It takes out the kick from half back to wing. It includes a mix of the backmen and the midfielders.

[reigning premier]

Meh....

We played @@@@ and were beaten.

But just looked at the ladder. We've played 14, Won 9, lost 4 and drawn 1. That's a hell of a lot better than I would of expected at the start of the year....

Next....

[AnnieH]

Meh....

We played @@@@ and were beaten.

But just looked at the ladder. We've played 14, Won 9, lost 4 and drawn 1. That's a hell of a lot better than I would of expected at the start of the year....

Next....

... and Goodesy signed my guernsey (and allowed me to give him a kiss).

(Yes, I'm still the happiest swannies supporter that the left the stadium on saturday night.)

[NMWBloods]

I'm still interested to see how we go against Hawthorn's 'cluster'. This is the first year they've really implemented this properly and it has worked against all but a couple of teams. The ones it hasn't worked against have kicked it long and accurately, and have moved the ball on quickly. That's not really the Swans.

It's certainly not and the cluster totally stuffed us up.

[ScottH]

It's certainly not and the cluster totally stuffed us up.

Hmm. Looking at it from behind the goals it looked like an arrow all fwds and centres in the middle of the ground then the D50 are had the arrow head. Worked to @@@@ing well!!