If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his time
The players looked very slow last week and I'm sure that its all the beards that are slowing them down.
With the colder weather in Tasmania and subsequent increase in density of the surrounding air, can only mean won thing.......................they will run out of puff and the travelling Shinboneheads will win.
Poor old Goodesy has as much chance of catching the ball at the moment as he has catching a Brownlow date.
Spose his Mum will have to go with Brett this year.....
Ha ha can it get any worse when you can't even take your Mum.
I still think the Swans missed out on a major fund raising opportunity by not having a $50 lottery " Go to the Brownlow with Adam". Marketing just has no vision.
Scary stat. Especially with the way North move the ball.
...the Swans have maintained their No.1 ranking in key areas such as tackling and scores conceded per entry inside their defensive 50, albeit against the bottom two from last year.
But they have fallen considerably for intercept marks around the ground and in defence, where they are ranked last - down from third and sixth respectively.
I think so too, but I am concerned that the Shaw for Armstrong swap on top of the LRT for AJ swap means our backline is considerably slower than before. Hope legspeed doesn't prove a problem in Hobart, I've never seen it, is it a big playing surface like Launceston?
Last edited by Ruck'n'Roll; 12 April 2013, 09:52 AM.
Im not so convinced that is such a problem. In rd 1 the game was an absolute slogfest, with not much particulary clean ball movement, hence not many opportunities for 'intercept marks.' Last week with the exception of the first quarter we generally had good control of a lot of the game and dominated late. Thus those stats might just be a cast of a lack of opportunites to take such marks more than anything else. We still look short of fitness, but generally our defence has looked ok.
No doubt we need to play a lot better tomorrow, but we will need to rank it up a few notches from our early performances if we are to take the four points.
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
Im not so convinced that is such a problem. In rd 1 the game was an absolute slogfest, with not much particulary clean ball movement, hence not many opportunities for 'intercept marks.' Last week with the exception of the first quarter we generally had good control of a lot of the game and dominated late. Thus those stats might just be a cast of a lack of opportunites to take such marks more than anything else. We still look short of fitness, but generally our defence has looked ok.
You've said really well what I was thinking but couldn't put into words - I think the stat is more indicative of our first two opponents as you say. I wouldn't hang my hat on any stats after 2 rounds anyway....
I'm excited for this game. Without disrespecting the giants and suns, who played admirably, it feels like our season really starts with this game. And we will have to bring our A game for four quarters if we're to avoid getting a whacking from the Roos
Still they won't give us any credibility. Nothing wrong with Tony, he will be just fine.
Wouldn't be surprised to see Birdy in the green jacket.
The backline is missing some great talent, but lets see, LRT, NicMal (2 goals grand final...), TedBear, Smooch, plus Tony and a drifting Goodsey/Everett/Jett combo. Oh and Marty and Reg. Hmm. Yep, I am terrified. We are going to get hammered......the media say so.
I think so too, but I am concerned that the Shaw for Armstrong swap on top of the LRT for AJ swap means our backline is considerably slower than before. Hope legspeed doesn't prove a problem in Hobart, I've never seen it, is it a big playing surface like Launceston?
175m x 133.5.m it is not a huge ground. 5m longer and 20m wider than the SCG. So it is very short but with wider pockets. I have seen footy played there years ago when we used to play State footy but only on telly. If it is windy it is hard to score in one of the pockets I believe. I'm pretty certain it is the end closest to the bay as the wind swirls in the pocket. I think it is the right hand pocket at the southern end.
Last edited by wolftone57; 12 April 2013, 04:31 PM.
Comment