The New Fab Five

**DeadlyAkkuret** · 27 May 2009, 03:20 PM

Agree except for the wouldn't trade for anyone part. Well, besides Kirk and Goodes.

P.S. Were you talking Jude Bolton?

**staple** · 27 May 2009, 04:19 PM

McVeigh, Goodes, Kirk are the un-trade-ables. McVeigh is fast becoming our most important midfielder (bar Kirk) with his ability to attack the opposition's best midfielder and apply scoreboard pressure. He kicked the most goals of any midfielder last year in the comp, and doesn't look like letting up this year. Can he live up to last year's game at manuka when he kicked 6 on the Brownlow Medallist (Cooney) ?

**Bloody Hell** · 27 May 2009, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by DeadlyAkkuret

Agree except for the wouldn't trade for anyone part. Well, besides Kirk and Goodes.

P.S. Were you talking Jude Bolton?

Kirk Goodes and the other AA - O'Keefe.

He's only been in the midfield for a couple of weeks, but he's all about going forward. Not sideways, not backwards - just get the ball and go, whether running or bombing it long.

It's like he's sick of the midfield delivery and he's showing them how to do it. Think by the end of the year people will be looking at him in a completely different light. Opposition supporters still look at him as a leading HFF. Will hopefully be considered in a different stratisphere by the end of the year. (then he'll probably be traded

)

I'd trade McVeigh for GAJ or Judd....that's about it.

Bolton has great value to us, but probably to few others going forward.

Kirk is the Swans. Untradeable partially because of ability, but more for what he brings to the team.

Goodes - 2 time Brownlow Medalist....I'm waiting for his third. Got to be in the running thus far. (Has anyone got a hypothetical running count going?)

Been almost 10 years since the Swans have had a midfield to excite.

Here's hoping Bird steps up to form a Super Six!

**Bas** · 27 May 2009, 08:50 PM

Very long bow --------------------------> TWANG!

**DeadlyAkkuret** · 27 May 2009, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Bas

Very long bow --------------------------> TWANG!

Please explain.

**Darren Thomson** · 27 May 2009, 09:10 PM

One game does not a season make, but the midfield was sensational weren't they? The move of ROK into the middle, I have said before, is the best thing Roosy has done for a while, his long penetrating kick and extra run is fantastic, they are now appearing to strike a balance with the hard in and under stuff and the outside guys running ala Goodes and O'keefe. McVeigh has really come iinto his own now and just has to keep it up, he may even improve over he next year or two. I personally wouldn't trade B1 for anyone, well almost anyone, he's a hard nut who never gives up and gives his all every week, how much more can we ask for

**dimelb** · 30 May 2009, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Bloody Hell

Let me draw a very long bow here....

KIRK, BOLTON, O'KEEFE, GOODES, McVEIGH

To me that looks very good on paper.

There are some good midfields at the moment (particularly the two occupying the top of the tree) but there are 3 of those 5 I wouldn't trade for any player in the comp.

Can't describe how good it is to see O'Keefe in the midfield. Hopefully they haven't been put together too late to have a serious impact - shame alot are coming to the end of their careers.

Am I being blinded by Red and White???

Interesting. After today, we can say that four of those five acquitted themselves well, and in Goodes's case, exceptionally well. But what happened to McVeigh? I saw him do some useful things but mostly I didn't see him. I think Eade saw him as a danger and gave Cross the job on him and pretty much shut him down - how did others see it? In any case, we lost some of our attack because he wasn't able to contribute as he has done in the past. I just hope he wasn't nursing an injury and will resume normal service in the near future.

**Nico** · 30 May 2009, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Bloody Hell

Let me draw a very long bow here....

KIRK, BOLTON, O'KEEFE, GOODES, McVEIGH

To me that looks very good on paper.

There are some good midfields at the moment (particularly the two occupying the top of the tree) but there are 3 of those 5 I wouldn't trade for any player in the comp.

Can't describe how good it is to see O'Keefe in the midfield. Hopefully they haven't been put together too late to have a serious impact - shame alot are coming to the end of their careers.

Am I being blinded by Red and White???

If they are the Fab 5 then the rest of them are the Flab 17.

**Nico** · 30 May 2009, 09:52 PM

You cannot call them a Fab 5 if they continually get flogged at centre clearances.

The stats I believe were 7 to 1 in the Doggies favour in the second quarter. There in lies the story of the game. Everytime we have a really poor quarter we have a shocker out of the centre.

This has been going on since 2005 and yet the coaching staff continue to play a negating game at centre bounces and go for the secondary ball up. I believe it is the strategy, set up and the players they have in there that are the problems.

**Midfield** · 30 May 2009, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by Nico

You cannot call them a Fab 5 if they continually get flogged at centre clearances.

The stats I believe were 7 to 1 in the Doggies favour in the second quarter. There in lies the story of the game. Everytime we have a really poor quarter we have a shocker out of the centre.

This has been going on since 2005 and yet the coaching staff continue to play a negating game at centre bounces and go for the secondary ball up. I believe it is the strategy, set up and the players they have in there that are the problems.

Who should we have in there?

**Playsmart** · 30 May 2009, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by Nico

You cannot call them a Fab 5 if they continually get flogged at centre clearances.

The stats I believe were 7 to 1 in the Doggies favour in the second quarter. There in lies the story of the game. Everytime we have a really poor quarter we have a shocker out of the centre.

This has been going on since 2005 and yet the coaching staff continue to play a negating game at centre bounces and go for the secondary ball up. I believe it is the strategy, set up and the players they have in there that are the problems.

Agree. Centre clearance is shocking consistently in past games when the games needs to be won. I wonder who has been responsible in the centre. A need to change the coach for the center. If it has been changed before, time to change again.

To top it off, simples mistakes were made in all parts of the ground early of the game. For some reasons, we dont have the self belief playing against top teams. There was much talk of doggies just losing to Geelong - and hence the creation in our sub-mind their "to-be-feared" status.

I give full credit to the Swans and coach for going direct the whole day. We have to analyse where we went wrong in the shocking second quarter. It is all in the tape. Remember, dogiges/Geeleong have played this way many times more than us, probably more than 10:1 ratio (?).

I rather lose by 50 against an experienced running direct team by playing direct and learn well from it, rather than winning by 5 playing crabbing, hugging the boundary, tight forward corner footy. The same for multi-dimension attack, rather than depending on one forward.

We can only benefit from this daring new plan B direct approach.

But we got to practice alot more on the back-to-basic play reducing simple mistakes, play smarter, such as those shown by Goodes again side-stepping opponent and very smart handpass to space and own advantage, and go for accerelated triple speed learning on direct play.

Catch up footy in second quarter should be thrashed with first quarter catchup footy. We dont like it one bit.

The New Fab Five

The New Fab Five

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment