What the @@@@ was that?

[johnno]

I hate to say this, but it now is a case of its in their heads now, it is psychological, they cant beat them.

[connolly]

Bevan was not our worst player last night - and i am not a fan of his. But that game shows his limitations. He is a good tackler, hard at it, a reasonable kick in space. but his decision making in close is bad and he hasn't improved much here. and against collingwood who give us no space and put a player in front of our leads because they know lrt can't hurt them and leave him free, bevan is lost.

but so were keneally, barry, malceski, mattner, bird, jack etc.

they expose our absence of a game plan when we can't switch the ball or hit a leading forward.

All the defenders turned it over under pressure. Two things contributed to this -
Collingwood have real speed and strong tacklers on their half forward line and they block the space of the Bloods running out of defense. But the second and main reason was the abysmal failure of our mids (apart from Kirky) to make position for the defenders. Have a look at the stats of the midfield.

[connolly]

To be fair to Bevan, I don't think it was ever a good matchup.

There was no way Bevan was going to be able to compete with him in the air.

Daisy kicked three in the first half. Two in the first quarter on Mattner who he took apart. Thomas could have had four goals in the first quarter. Bevo kept Medhurst in his box in the first quarter. He was switched onto Thomas in the second quarter when he took a screamer on his back. Thomas did little else inthat quarter. On the interpretation of some here the great Jock Mc Corkill of North Melbourne was a hack because John Coleman used to step ladder him.

[NMWBloods]

Roos moved Bevan off Thomas because he was doing such a good job...?

Thomas had 4 possessions in each of the first two quarters.

Medhurst also kicked a goal on Bevan.

Bevan also gave Collingwood a goal assist.

Quite simply he struggled quite a bit.

[goswannie14]

Yeah, why else would you move the premier defender in the league?

[connolly]

Roos moved Bevan off Thomas because he was doing such a good job...?

Bloods haven't had a chance to look at the replay yet but from my imperfect memory he was switched back to Medhurst after half time. Medhurst kicked a goal on him. He may have been switched onto Medhurst after he got busy in third quarter. I'll have a look at the download and get back to you. The point is that focussing on any of our defenders game is pretty much missing the point. Our weakness wasin lack of hard running into space to create targets for under pressure defenders. Goodsey plays that role as link man/leading mid for the defense and no one steppined into that role. In hindsight there is one tall (out of form) player who could have done that aerobically - Eddie Barlow. If he was fit maybe he should have been brought in and Buchanon dropped. But thats hindsight of course but could be a clue for what do about the Collingwood curse for the finals. Maybe we should be discussing how to beat the Malthouse chocker hold that he puts on our running out of defense game?

[NMWBloods]

Our weakness wasin lack of hard running into space to create targets for under pressure defenders.

I agree with that.

I mention Bevan because of your one-eyed defence of him even when he plays poorly. I don't think he was one of our worst, but he still had a poor game.

[ecap]

Not sure why...

I am a new Swans fan... I am not sure why the Swans played the way it was in the last game vs Collingwood. I can tell we are not as fast not as good...

Was what we were doing on Q4 is the true Swans way?

Also, can anyone tell me where I could get last mins tickets (in case some member cannot make it to the game) from? Is there a notice board in this site or somewhere else?

Many thanks...

I am still learning to appreciate the Swans... hope we will do better next time.

- ecap -

[connolly]

I am a new Swans fan... I am not sure why the Swans played the way it was in the last game vs Collingwood. I can tell we are not as fast not as good...

Was what we were doing on Q4 is the true Swans way?

Also, can anyone tell me where I could get last mins tickets (in case some member cannot make it to the game) from? Is there a notice board in this site or somewhere else?

Many thanks...

I am still learning to appreciate the Swans... hope we will do better next time.

- ecap -

Mate there could be some torn up memberships outside ANZ and with some Scotch tape and the Bloods spirit you could be in. Good on ya.

[SimonH]

Was what we were doing on Q4 is the true Swans way?

Actually, no, although many fans wish it was. Q4 was the Swans making a conscious decision to over-react to the fact that their running game had been shut down, by playing on and running at every opportunity, even in high-risk situations. They normally play much more low-risk football (i.e. run only when they have created a true loose man, with the notable exception of Leo Barry, who like God moves in mysterious ways).

I think even worse than the result on Sat night (it was bad, but we were due for a loss esp against our bogy side), was the effect on the club and the AFL in Sydney longer-term from the way we lost. Those who went to see that as their first (or one of their first) AFL matches wouldn't be back, I wouldn't think. Apart from a bit of Dale Thomas in the 2nd and 5-10 minutes of Swans in the last, it was simply deathly boring to watch, and not even redeemed by being close.

And I'm not aware of any special means of accessing unused members' seats. I think they just return to the general pool that you get through Ticketek or whatever the agency is.

Welcome to RWO and to the Swans. And rest assured it's usually better than that.

[Danzar]

.......The finessing was appalling , esp in the first half , so we should have tried something different.

Would it have worked ? Dunno - but Roos seemed to break one of his own dictums : "Don't die wondering".

Just want to respond to this part of your post Swansinger. I reckon Roos had everyone set ready to start the third quarter with a very different strategy but Collingwood scuttled it before it even began. I'll explain.

Did anyone notice the Pies blatantly slow down the game immediately at the beginning of the third quarter? They chipped it around their back half, took as much time as possible with their disposals. It was weird - kind of thing you do in the dying minutes of the last quarter.

Then, ten minutes into that quarter, they put the foot back on the accelerator?

What I think they were doing was deliberately starting the quarter slow and retaining possession for as long as possible, and in doing so, scuttled any new game plan that Sydney would have intended on implementing. It's a lot harder to execute a new strategy when your thick in the middle of a quarter.

Contrast that with the beginning of the fourth, where Sydney got an immediate jump and the goals flowed, one quarter too late. I reckon that fourth quarter burst was the exact strategy that Roos was going to implement in the third quarter.

Sydney just never got that crucial first clearance in Q3 like they did in Q4.

[NMWBloods]

Actually, no, although many fans wish it was. Q4 was the Swans making a conscious decision to over-react to the fact that their running game had been shut down, by playing on and running at every opportunity, even in high-risk situations. They normally play much more low-risk football (i.e. run only when they have created a true loose man

I would think that the Swans are one of the most static and least 'play-on' teams in the comp. This seems to be the way of the future but the Swans are sticking to the game plan of a few years ago.

[SimonH]

I would think that the Swans are one of the most static and least 'play-on' teams in the comp. This seems to be the way of the future but the Swans are sticking to the game plan of a few years ago.

You say potayto, I say potahtoh. Crazily play-on-at-all-costs was the way of the Bulldogs 2006-- very entertaining to watch but you were never going to get close to winning a flag with it. They're still a fluid side, but have backed away a fair bit from the extremist approach.

The way of the near-future is the Geelong style. Coaches have to be attracted to it simply because it has worked so well. Its central motif: like a chessboard, control the central corridor and you win the game. The main difference of this model from the 'play on at all costs' model is that they won't run if it means running towards the boundary or into a pocket. They push bodies out and away to create space in the centre square, and then their runners swarm through it.

[NMWBloods]

I didn't suggest "crazily play-on-at-all costs" but rather, play on more often than not.

[Thunder Shaker]

The way of the near-future is the Geelong style. Coaches have to be attracted to it simply because it has worked so well. Its central motif: like a chessboard, control the central corridor and you win the game.

I think Paul Roos should play more chess.

Another bit of chess theory that would also be applicable is to make the moves that cause the opponent the most problems. The moves to be made would depend on the opponent. Stack the forward line with talls, then kick it long to the top of the goal square. Outrun the flood by playing on quickly with quick long kicks through the middle of the ground. Shift underperforming players to the forward pocket, especially if it's Leo having an off day (he can still kick goals). Take any dangerous rebounding defenders out of the play by moving their opponents to the goal square.

In chess, as in football, if you don't set an opponent any problems, you also limit the chance of the opponent making a mistake.