Malthouse says Swans are predictable and easy to stop

[BillyRayCypress]

I was listenening to Malthouse on 3AW today and he was asked why Collingwood had the edge over Sydney. He said this:

The Swans have not changed that much under Longmire in terms of the way they play.

Although Longmire has brought a faster game plan to Sydney, it is essentially still the same as what was under Roos.

The Pies stopped the Swans run up the middle and then blocked the exits to the sides. Quite siimple.

They have done this for the last 7 years and should have beaten them in 2005 if they hadn't run out of time.

He was fairly humble about it and I don't think nasty.

In his opinion, the SCG suits the Swans game plan better and the narrow wings at the ANZ doesn't suit their style.

The problem is that when they run into a skilled side like Collingwood, who know how to play them and can execute this, they they beat them.

The proof of what he says is that the Magpies scored 7 out of 12 goals off Swans turnovers. They blocked their run up the middle.

He thinks that it is a serious disadvantage for the SWans to play at ANZ with their current game plan. Especially in finals.

He also thinks Hawthorn will beat them as well.

After last night, you would have to agree with him. I don't think we should get excited about a GF this year.

Dawes took some very important marks out of the centre last night. We could match that with Reid but we don't have a full forward like Cloke.

Note: He doesn't blame ANZ, its the way the Swans play.

Any more Pies jokes this week? They were good last week.

[Shotties]

I'm obviously not in any great position to disagree, however the Swans had a decent number of breaks straight out of the d50 last night and into the f50 without a great deal of trouble from the pies, however the failure to mark or convert from the fall inside 50 was a bigger problem.

[jono2707]

Sounds like a pretty fair assessment to me, and I would rank Malthouse's footy knowledge and insight slightly above that of my own

[Cardinal]

IMHO, if we eliminate a couple of brain explosions/skill failures in the final quarter, get a decent from the refs, or kick just a bit straighter anytime in the game, this consternation about Collingwood would have ended last night - we were so close, we fluffed it and that's really frustrating.

Last night just means better odds for the Swans leading into the run to the finals.

Only real concern I have is that the ressies boys don't really seem to be pushing for a place in the firsts, given that our bottom few players don't seem to be setting the world on fire.

[GongSwan]

If Malthouse is so right about this, how have we won 15 games this year? Surely he's not the only person in football who can work this out

[swansrule100]

Who gives a @@@@ what he thinks.

[liz]

Malthouse may be right about the previous times the Pies have beaten us. But last night was the first time the Swans have had a case for winning - ie they matched the Pies in many areas and for large parts of the game were the better team at winning the ball. I thought they beat themselves last night, with a lack of composure at critical times, and generally woeful use of the ball going forward.

[Big Al]

The thing I find hilarious about this is that every team knows what every other team is going to do. As such every team is predictable. It's about execution and skill that ends up being the difference in the end. If we executed our game plan and skills last night we win the game and no one would be talking about predictability.

[BSA5]

If we'd kicked straight last night we would have won, so....

That's not to say we were the better side, bad kicking is bad football, but it wasn't to do with strategy or blocking our run. Collingwood took their chances, we didn't. Simple.

[swansrule100]

When u lose every expert knows why it was and knew it was bound to happen

[ShockOfHair]

If Malthouse is so right about this, how have we won 15 games this year? Surely he's not the only person in football who can work this out

+1.
We've lost to the PIes by a kick two games in a row. THat doesn't sound as though our game style is fatally flawed. Yesterday it was about not taking our chances.

In fact, when it comes to being predictable, it's actually Malthouse who refused to change. He made the same points at the start of the year and has had it quoted back at him a few times in recent weeks. We can read this as grumpy ex-coach trying to defend his original prediction that the Swans would go nowhere this year.

[Legs Akimbo]

I think he is right when considering our old game plan. But our new game plan is a lot hard to stop - WHEN WE WORK HARD AND STICK TO THE PLAN. For some reason, we went into our shell last night and our old game plan came to the fore and when that happens we are vulnerable. Collingwood are a very good side and that was there for all to see last night. But so are we when we play how we want to play not how the opposition wants us to. We did not lose by much. I do get the feeling that some of the team are starting to feel the effects of a long season and we can't afford to drop 1% or we lose. Simple as that. Yet, I am feeling zen like about the rest of the year. We are an honest side and what will be will be. Let the story play itself out...

[SwansFan1972]

Pies have more concerns out of last night's game than we do. We kick straight and execute better we win. And the maggots gave our forwards nothing last night - we were scragged and held all night with bugger all paid. And Grundy should've been paid an in the back when Cloke shoved him out to get a rather decisive goal! The 11 in a row is a mix of superstition, bad luck, bad play, Pies being a reasonably handy team during a time when we've rebuilt a bit and commercial considerations outweighing what's best for the team (playing them at the dump at Homebush each year). Oh - and a sign that the footy gods are perverse sometimes. As much as last night sucked, we're another game closer to when we will beat them (and perhaps can take some inspiration from the Hawks - it ain't neccessarily the number of games racked up by or against an opponent, but which ones they are that can count the most). I hope we get the pies in a final, because we won't kick 9-16 against them next time!

As for Mick - who cares what the number one ticket holder on the bus to Irrelevance has to say. Dropped like a hot spud from his last club and screaming for the last twelve months at the injustice of it all, he'd be a bit ticked off that Brett Ratten is looking more and more likely to dodge the axe (and well he should - he's got half a list playing well enough to win some games)!

Mick has always been an angry bitter pill, so watching his one shot in the locker coaching wise disappear would have him more bitter than a bag of lemons. He's pretty much declared that he will only coach in Melbourne (he could actually do something good for Port, but wants it a bit easier than that), but only for a 'suitable' club (read Carlton, or he'd probably be happy to take on the tough job of managing the Hawks*). Without wanting to get his coaching hands dirty anywhere else, his job opportunities other than sniping in the media appear rather limited at the moment! If he thinks the Swans are playing the same as under Roos, he's the only one in the footy world who does.


* when the Hawks were just going earlier in the season, a few nuff nuffs in the media had Clarkson on the chopping block (ridiculous really).

[MattW]

Malthouse's comments will just make it even sweeter when we beat them next month.

[bloodsman]

Collingwoods pace hurts us and has for years. We don't take easy marks on the lead against them. Also the swans strength is hand balling from congestion, with the slippery conditions this skill was made very difficult. We failed to get the ball into the open to aid better disposal into the forward line.