Official Round 1 Melbourne Game day thread

[31 hard at it]

Shaw's tap on late in the last quarter and then taking a full on hit was a very courageous act.
He like Ted risked their lives on the field today. Ted going back into a pack and taking the mark.

The determination to try to break free in the last 2 minutes showed how desperate (and exhausted) the players were.
They may not be the most talented footballers but they are brave !.

[liz]

...

Nico

You and I often see things quite differently, but I pretty much agree with all your assessment of the game. Though when you're used to watching a game sitting on the wing at the SCG, it takes a bit of adapting to watch it from the Ponsford game at the MCG - much harder to see many of the angles, or much of anything happening down the other end of the ground. There's a replay starting on Fox in about 20 minutes so I shall sit and watch that to find out what I missed.

From my vantage point, I thought Ted, McGlynn and Mummy were the three standouts, though as the game went on, the Melbourne mids started sharking too many of Mumford's taps. His around the ground stuff was pretty good, though, and I expect he'll be better for the run. Ted was just a rock back there, while many of the other defenders missed the good with the flaky. I think we missed Malceski and/or Kennelly at times. They have been the most creative bringing the ball out of the backline for us, and no-one today seemed to have as much poise or purpose as they frequently do.

Sumner looked a little lost at times - but then so did Jack and Smith in their first couple of games and we love'em both now.

Reid and White both did some good stuff, but the midfield was far too Goodes conscious at times, kicking to him when he had three defenders surrounding him. But hopefully the rest of the team will figure out that Reid is a very viable tall forward target as well and start sharing the love around. Would help Goodes too, if defences can't concentrate entirely on him.

One thing very noticeable about Melbourne today was how good they are at releasing the ball to a team mate when they get tackled. Not sure if it was just that the Swans weren't tackling effectively enough, but the Dees rarely looked under pressure. Geelong were like that in their heydey too.

I'll reserve judgement on who most needs to lift until I've watched a replay, but McVeigh did seem a little soft and flabby out there today.

[Young Blood]

Great to have the footy back. I think we put in a pretty good performance - on another day we would have kicked one or two more in the 3rd quarter and that would have been the ball game.

A few thoughts:
Ted was great at FB - if he keeps this up LRT may struggle to get back, except to match up the big men.
Marty Mattner was terrific, would love to see his 1%er stats.
Everitt showed enough as 3rd tall down back.
Rohan at HBF is going to cost us goals, but that may be a necessary evil to get some run in absence of Kennelly and Malceski (not that he gave us a lot of run today).
Shaw did a good job on Davey.
A little surprised that Sumner is in our best available 22 - but hope he gets another chance.
Good to see ROK fit again.
I just love Benny McGlynn. And Jude - showed he's still got a bit to offer.

One tall too many today. With Reid showing so much promise, either White or Seaby may have to make way. Pregame Longmire said they wanted the option of moving Goodes to the midfield, but he didn't pull the trigger when we were getting belted in the last quarter.

[Steve]

It will be interesting to see whether today's gameplan will be used the same way all year - I have a suspicion it was to a fair extent tailored to suit playing Melbourne at the MCG. Particularly with Frawley out and the way they dismantled us last year. Selection did highlight our concern over running/speed - Meredith, Bird and Dennis-Lane (who was going to be an emergency before getting injured) overlooked with Sumner preferred.

For us (a team unlikely to have a huge %) a draw is probably as good as a win - takes % out of the finals equation in any case (in all likelihood).

We did have 10 players 23 or under in the team today - even though Melbourne had 14, I reckon 10 is high by our standards so not a bad sign given we would have had a solid win had we converted chances in the 3rd quarter. It's hard to reconcile how Melbourne had 29 scoring shots given their complete lack of forward structure - which I suppose is somewhat concerning for us in a way. Although Tadhg and Mal provide a lot of composure, and unnecessary errors and turnovers really hurt us today.

I could see the logic in using Seaby as the sub - we already had enough talls up forward with Reid, Goodes and White, so we chose to have all our runners contribute (and share the rotations) over the whole game, rather than hold a fresh player back who might only come on for less than a quarter (and everyone else be proportionally more buggered for that one-player benefit). It is a @@@@ rule though - however much you plan for it you're at the mercy of so many variables that can throw it out completely.

[neilfws]

I thought there was plenty to like in the first half. That 3.9 third quarter was costly, then they stopped hitting targets in the fourth and just started hacking it forwards randomly, like so much of last year. It was there for the winning but I guess 2 points better than zero.

C7 commentary picked up where they left off too. For the hundredth time Bruce, we have Lewis. Essendon have Leroy.

[anniswan]

we will be killed by Essendon next week\

[DeadlyAkkuret]

A few people thought Melbourne would kill us today.

[unconfuseme]

Why, when they have a draw, do half the players carry on like they just lost a Grand Final??? ... it seems somehow expected now, for players to slump on the ground like they just lost their best friend if you have a draw ... they look happier after a loss!! I don't get it.

[Primmy]

Uncon, because its a nothing feeling, as they say like kissing your sister. And you have been belted from pillar to post and lost by "this" much, or won by "this" much so to speak. Its a sudden adrenalin block that leaves you flattened.

[stellation]

C7 commentary picked up where they left off too. For the hundredth time Bruce, we have Lewis. Essendon have Leroy.

I appreciate they'll be a bit rusty too, but I think Dennis appears noticeably down on last year- when I saw him doing a pre-match earlier in the round he looked a little frail and he threw out a couple of oddities in the game that were more dottering old man than standard Dennis oddities. Tim Watson also made me chuckle a bit, at one stage McVeigh was "one of the best midfielders on the Swans" whilst not long after Sylvia was "one of the elite midfielders in the competition".

[andyn]

what can you say ... first points in round 1 since 05. Also was the statistic that we'd only won 1 game out of the past 11 games at MCG? Also, I honestly think we looked the more likely team most of the game. I think the Dees would have beaten most teams yesterday. No excuses, we should have won the game, but I don't think we should carry on too much because the overall season perspective looks ok and we did nearly steal it back yesterday when I thought we were gone.

[swansrule100]

SR, Shaw had a shut down job on Aaron Davey and did it; Davey was quite well held. Its not his usual position, and as with Smiffy the shutdowners kind of disappear on the stats sheet, just show up on the oppositions stats as being trouble.

And here's another thing about this draw. We were tipped to lose. And we didn't. Glass half full?

if we are going to be a top side we need to be able to hold on and win games we have full control of.

Shaw shut down davey? he still got 21 possies, shaw could do more the other way.

[gumby_bolts]

The AFL highlights video for the game says Mumford was reported for a hit on Sylvia but there is no mention in the official report?

[swansrob]

Last year, Collingwood drew with Melbourne and went on to win the premiership.
Clearly, we are following the same path.

[RogueSwan]

I have read a few posts bagging Horse for having Seaby as the Sub and not a runner. If they had gone with Seaby from the start then they wouldn't have had to worry about when to bring him off.
In the third quarter when Mumford was looking tired it was too late to think about replacing him. Seaby and Mummy should have both rotating for the whole match. Jamar is a very good ruckman and his offsider also good.
We got flogged in the centre clearances and having two ruck-man would have given Horse more options.
Rohan should have been the sub IMO.
I would also like to say that I though Teddy had a good game on one of the most impressive/skillful forwards going around and Bevo did what he was supposed to except for not kicking a set shot goal, he is normally a shoe-in for those six points.