Tweet
No, the scores get closer because the scores are LOWER. However, it would not surprise me in the slightest if the percentage, in other words, how much better a side is, is generally accentuated. So rather than a margin of 125-100 (difference of 25 points, 125%), it's a margin of 70-50 (difference of 20 points, 140%). In the wet, ball-handling (not necessarily disposal) skills become all important. Skilled players don't let the wet affect them as much as unskilled players.
-
Officially on the Reid and Sumner bandwagon! -
Cousin Neville just played a pretty good game in the rain, let's hope the wet weather genes run through the Jetta clan (excluding Leroy of course)Comment
-
Don't baffle me with clever statistics when I know Eade is a very poor coach and poor judge of character. If he is right on this its pure luck! If we kept him then no Kirk. I was friends with a couple of Swannies regulars back then (yes really) and he irritated them with his constant criticism. They were so happy when Roos took over!Comment
-
I can find you a fair few players from the past 7 years who don't rate Roos. It's the nature of the business when 20 odd players miss out on a weekly basis and all have different needs and expectations.
Leigh Matthews lost two playing groups during his career, at Collingwood in spectacular fashion and in a more dignified way at Brisbane, but does that seriously mean he can't coach??
Eade is a fantastic coach, he had run his course at the Swans and of course his more emotional style isn't going to suit a range of players and in 2002, he was fairly unpopular with the group (which let's face it, we were disgraceful in the 1st half of the year so it's not unusual to have grumblings), but I really don't rate the notion that he can't coach, he is a great student of the game, understands tactics more than most and has learnt over the years to simplify his demands and even temper his reactions to particular players (Luke Darcy has often said he has been impressed by Eade's ability to go at players that react to it, but deal with players like Adam Cooney, who doesn't react to sprays, in a different way)
In terms of Kirk though, the advice to keep him came from Stewart Maxfield, so while Roos made the list decision in the end, his initial thinking was to send him back to country footy.....Pure luck for Roos maybe? Surely not.
(Apologies for the O/T in the thread!, I just don't understand the Eade bashing 7 years on when the Dogs have been smashing us for the past few years and he has had the Dogs in the elite level since his 2nd year with them AND is one of only two coaches to actually coach winning finals for us since WW2)Comment
-
I think 4 premierships in that time says he CAN coach. Malthouse won 2 at the Eagles but still trying to find the premiership cake walk in 10 years.
Blight was flogged at Geelong then 2 premmies at Adelaide. Does the team make the coach or the coach the team? I think it is another one of the those premiership X factors.
I thought Eade was good and we will never know what went on behind the scenes. I loved his on field sprays.In memory of my little Staffy - Dicey, 17.06.2005 to 1.12.2011- I'll miss you mate.Comment
-
The funny thing about Blight is that his time at Geelong was much much much more successful in terms of winning games, plus he made 3 Grand Finals during that time, however for whatever reason, the Crows were able to click in September in 97/98, and managed to get two teams who got stage fright in St Kilda, and then North Melbourne (who suffered the Geelong 08 fate of missing 1000 shots). Premierships can be born from great luck, so many things have to go right, it annoys me that seems to be the only judgement we use these days for coaches (rebuilding Melbourne club coaches seem to get an exemption from this!)
I was just annoyed at the "a very poor coach and poor judge of character" comment from above, Eade has coached two clubs who under him were and are a chance to win every week, and his work with the Bulldogs has been exceptional, taking on a club with smaller resources than most who were out of the finals for a few years prior to him coming in, required some great coaching and management.
Compare him to an Ayres, who managed a Grand Final appearance in his first year with Geelong in 95 (which was basically the same team that Blight had lost 3 GFs with), failed to build anything at Geelong after that and then used his GF experience to get a great contract with the Crows and failed miserably.
As for Malthouse, I do think he can coach, but gee it makes me happy that his only two Premierships were with a club that had a team built off very generous WA draft concessions!
Ok, I'll leave this topic now, and back to the good stuff. Didn't rain in Sydney today, hopefully it will hold off and the ground should be OK.....Swans by 25
Comment
-
I think we saw in Judd's performance today for Carlton (and to a lesser extent Neville Jetta's for Melbourne in the third quarter) just how important clean ball-handling skills are in the wet.Officially on the Reid and Sumner bandwagon!Comment
-
The bolded comment (which isn't necessarily accurate-- soccering, slapping and knocking the ball on are far more valuable in the wet than the dry, meaning that you don't have to take possession to move the ball to advantage) involves an agreement that some skills (e.g. precise kicking to position) are less important in the wet. There are particular basic skills which are more important to execute in the wet than the dry (uncontested marking particularly leaps to mind, because if the ball hits the ground your chances of recovering and retaining possession are far lower).
But when you talk about the entire range of skills executed by players across the ground, anyone who's watched Aussie rules played in all conditions over a period of years, and feels the need to maintain that more skilled sides' advantage over less skilled sides is accentuated in the wet, is in denial (or an amazingly poor judge). It's not just Richmond v Port Adelaide; I have seen dozens of times, sides that would have struggled on a dry day compared with their opponents, winning (and frequently winning handsomely, esp in a percentage sense) because they've been harder at the footy, harder at the man, have placed constant physical pressure on their opponents (further reducing the odds of a precise pass to advantage by hand or foot), and have taken advantage of the massive benefit conferred on spoiling defenders in the wet to annul their opponents' marking forwards.
To say 'skilled players aren't as much affected by the wet' is therefore far too broadbrush. It depends which skills the player excels at. Plugger Lockett remained as much of a threat in the wet as the dry (large number of his marks were chest marks, not dependent on massive aerobic ability beyond his pace on the lead), whereas when the greatest 10 matches ever played by Adam Goodes are compiled, I don't think that wet-trackers will feature too heavily in them.
Happy to be corrected, but from 2007-present I don't think our wet weather record would be much worse than our general W:L record. Prior to that there were a number of poor wet-weather results because we persisted mystifyingly long with the idea that you can stitch together 4-or-5-long chains of handpasses on slippery days.Comment
-
This example does highlight that just talking about 'the wet' can be a little simplistic. A game where it's 'merely' slippery and/or raining, is often quite different in style and desirable tactics, from an old-fashioned quagmire (of the sort that we see less in AFL these days, with masses of cash spent on ground preparation). And there are a number of gradations of wet (e.g. light mist vs torrential downpour) between the two extremes. The tipping point at which certain players start being less effective, can vary from player to player.Comment
-
From the start I was talking about ball-handling and evasive skills. O'Dwyer's kicking skills aren't anything special. Kicking skills are less important in the wet, it's more of a kick long and hope game in those conditions. And the reason Melbourne got back into the game was because they were picking the ball up cleanly and booting it long, despite Carlton having the bigger and stronger bodies. Then Judd came along at the start of the last quarter, and when no other Carlton player could, he was picking the ball up clean as a whistle, dodging opponents and delivering it long and strong into the forward 50, and suddenly Melbourne were no longer in the game.Officially on the Reid and Sumner bandwagon!Comment
-
What's the weather like near the SCG? It's very sunny here in the northwestComment
-
do you reckon a dry SCG and sunny weather will suit essendon?Comment
Comment