Tweet
This has not been Mc Veigh's best year.However he was a major reason we won this game, organising the players at a stoppage,talking and encouraging when we were under the pump.A couple of extremely deft handpasses set up scoring opportunities.He showed leadership. A great win! Essendon were always going to mount a challenge and our boys had to fight desperately. We need to look carefully at who stood tall in the last quarter and who was not sighted. To hang on when 40,000 screaming fans were urging the Bombers on was a true test of character and we only won because we scored goals as well as defending.I'll take a win out of that game in which we played brilliantly for 3 quarters and toughed it out for one.
-
-
Don't really get fuss about Jetta / McV & contested marks. They are what they are, and that's pretty good players.
Often our kicking to "situations" is the problem...and that needs to be addressed. What a night!Comment
-
A bit disappointed with some of the negative comments in this thread about Everitt, Pyke, LRT and TDL. I thought Everitt played surprisingly well. He deserves to stay in the team on that effort. Has a bigger body than McGlynn and I would prefer Everitt to be given another chance before bringing McGlynn back. I thought LRT was terrific. He just gives a 100% contest every time and does a lot of things that don't get noticed much. He did a very timely tap over the boundary after a good aerial contest with Fletcher in the last quarter. In fact given the historically bad deliberate out of bounds the Swans have been given over the years (Kangaroos in THAT 2004 match) I thought that was a monty for a free to Essendon. Thankfully did not happen. TDL has given an extra "authorita" to the the forward line since he has been there the last few weeks. Is a terrific kick. And I thought Pyke did a good job again last night. He is a bit clumsy at times but has a great work rate.
Reg Grundy, Shaw, Teddy Richards, Jetta, Kennedy, Jetta -all of them- they were just fantastic last night (except last quarter)Comment
-
I thought our fadeout was less about us shutting up shop and more about how tired we were. We played brilliant footy the first 3 quarters because every player was running to the contests, swarming the Dons players and running to find space. They were buggered no doubt.
They showed this one shot in the coverage after the game where 3 Swans players hugged collectively, dropped their heads together and then ended up with their hands on their knees. Im sure we gave everything we had. The Bombers on the other hand did SFA for 3 quarters (in terms of making space, applying swarming pressure ect.) and so clearly when they applied themselves they had the legs.
That was a high risk game plan we had last night. Whether it is a fitness failure or not, I don't know, but that sort of play we aren't able to physically sustain for the whole game. Just a thought, but the 05/06 side had a great ability to play tempo footy for 2/3 quarters and keep in touch and control the speed of the play. However, usually in the 3rd/4th quarter, they would flick the switch and turn it on with break play, before holding a small lead to the finish.
I tend to think that perhaps we should implement something of a similar extent where we have the ability to control the game, but also are capable of turning the game on its head. I think (hope!) that is what Horse intends. He does seem to be slowly shaping towards a line-breaking type of attack.Comment
-
Funniest moment in the game: Fletcher trying to chase Jetta. What was he thinking?All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund BurkeComment
-
Yeah, you wouldn't catch Jim Main wasting his time talking to a reader!!
I also felt Connolly's report was Bomber-centric (and of course couldn't overlook that he's an Essendon supporter!) but he's very fair and in this case the real story was that amazing last quarter. Don't worry - there'll be plenty of Swans puffery this week, just like there was after the Hawks game and we'll probably be media favourite against the Cats.
I quite liked the Fox commentary yesterday. I hadn't heard commentators reading out fans' tweets during the game but it worked for me.
A milestone moment: someone mentioned the Swans would have Rohan and Jetta running around next year. BT said "wowee!" and for that second I even liked him.
Extraordinary game. I guess the key was our pressure and fast transitions in the first three quarters, plus the pressure the Dons put on themselves by poor goalkicking. When was the last time a team had 78 forward entries, and 28 more than the opposition, and still lost?The man who laughs has not yet heard the terrible newsComment
-
The story for me was the game plan. Was it deliberate to be un-Swans-like from the start:
a) because that was a reaction to having Parker and McGlynn out;
b) there is a Plan B gameplan for 'bigger' grounds;
c) it was an accident that developed
When I turned on the TV, there was the end of a Leigh Tudor segment on the Swan's midfield tactics. What did it say, and was there any hint of what was to come? (for 3 quarters!)Comment
-
I would argue that it was not a planned change. The biggest difference is that we could not win the clearances. Horse said during the telecast that it was not the plan to lose the clearances. It is true that Parker, Goodes and McGlynn get six-and-a-bit clearances a game. But Bolton, O?Keefe, Hannebery, Kennedy and Bird were under their averages. I don?t think you plan on that to happen. I think what happened was we applied good pressure, our defence played brilliantly, and our rebounders were on song. So despite getting crushed in the midfield, we reacted well enough to win, reacted being the important word. Though, reasonable minds will probably differ on this point.
What is exciting for me, is that there is no reason why we can?t do both. It is possible for us to win more clearances and keep the rebounding effectiveness because Goodes and McGlynn should add to the run with Parker not losing too much. And if we get that going, we will win the flag.Comment
-
Spot on - that is the challenge for our footy team. We need to mix the wonderful counter-attacking footy and ferocious attack and pressure on last night, with the performances this year where we have belted teams on the stats sheet. Do that, and we are as good a shot as anyone else at winning the flag. I'm not sure we are quite there in our development phase, but as this season goes on, I hope we see more signs each week of the team developing. And despite the lack of media praise overall, I'm starting to get bludy excited about our prospects. It's not 05-06 quality, nowhere near it yet, but by gee the upside potential in the team is much the same as it was in the couple of years before those two years.
The other thing I really liked last night, and it might seem a funny thing was the way that we hung in in the last quarter. 20 Minutes in when they had allt he momentum and all the answers, we looked dead and buried and I feared the worst. But from somewhere we dug deep and managed to hang on - only JUST of course. But that was a hallmark of the 05-06 team, finding a way to stop the momentum and hang in even when getting battered. It should never have got to that stage last night, but that is also in my book a sign the team is developing."You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."Comment
-
Was pretty annoyed with the last quarter and wanted to come on here and vent last night but thought better of it and now have a slightly different view about it.Yes we were tired but i think injuries to Smith[even though he played on],Hanners and Mcveigh surely played a big part.The subbing of Pyke seemed to free up Ryder as well.
Our gameplan seems to be evolving well,to me there was just a subtle difference last night,the long kicks we have been trying to get over the back of the press/defense of the opposition actually got over the top and quite a few times players were able to run onto the ball and mark in full stride and keep going.
Two things seemingly have improved here IMO.1st, we were using the ball a hell of a lot better,the rare occasions we got a centre clearance we hit up our forwards,and that kick out of the halfback line to the running forward in particular was the best ive seen so far this year.
2nd, coming out of defence and allowing that long kick over the defense was the fact we were alot more direct going up the ground,we played on and ran straight,didnt flinch or stop mid run we had purpose and ran that extra few metres out of defense and that to me made a big difference.
Against Richmond in particular we tried to play this type of game especially early on,the difference was we stuttered and seconed guessed coming out of defence,and we just didnt run as hard to create space and time.Quite a few times against the tiges as well we had the loose man over the back of everyone else only for the kick going out of our half to fall short or slew off the boot.
Armstrong played a big part in the way we attacked in the first half and hopefully can fill a void for Mal who sadly has lost all confidence.Great game by Dan Hannerbury who's subbing really hurt us,Craig Bird seems to fly under the radar alot but i think he had about 12 contested possesions out of his 24 last night, Fantatstic effort!!Last edited by On-Baller; 10 June 2012, 05:39 PM.Comment
The chips question is an easy one mate - totally geography related! That and gouge your market to the level you think they can bear! 
Comment