Changes for Rnd 2 V Port.

[Melbournehammer]

Not sure if Port will crush us!! Looked at replay and the bombers went defensive but they still looked to be running pretty well and did not look slow in the last quarter. The Swans fumbled the ball up to the 41 points behind mark and from then it seemed a different game (Apart from the Grundy usual fumbles). It seem very strange to go from fumbles to sure ball handling?? Next week could be a surprise.

To be honest I think we got absolutely belted in the first quarter but ted and reg as well as the much maligned shaw held it up.

I felt half way through the second quarter we were starting to get parity on the ball but our delivery was to a contested forward line while their forward line was open.

I do think on a dry track we are a 6 goal better team. ICAN see us giving them a very good game.

I have tipped us, but think it is likely that with Ryder Schultz westhoff monfries they have a very very good forward line and with Carlisle and Trengove back their defence is nearly at full strength.

[mcs]

Relax guys. I was not trying to offend. I just made up the phrase to describe a group of inside midfield extractors.

I'm a Swans member and will continue to support the Swans. My family is on board with the Swans as well.

Annie, please explain why my analysis of the respective Swans and Hawks inside midfield's is flawed. The margin was 60 points in the GF and in the words of Jasinta Cambell "the midfielders did not turn up. We then saw the Hawks midfield dismantle a Cats midfield which contains great players like Bartel, Selwood and Motlop.

I'll give you the call of 'great players' about Bartel and Selwood, but Motlop is a long way from that bracket to say the least.

[Auntie.Gerald]

Bartel, Selwood, Johnson aint bad though with a rotation of Motlop and Stokes

[Ludwig]

Unfortunately Matt80 is right in his comparison of the skills differential of the 2 sides. (And you can add Liam Shiels to the Hawks list of 'slow' inside mids). We can win the ball in the middle, but usually just bomb away and hope for the best. Hanners and Jack spread well from the congestion, but you know they are going left because both are one sided. Bird is somewhat better in this regard. McGlynn can win the ball or a free and run out of the congestion, but who knows where the ball is going next. McVeigh is skillful, but is not a great inside ball winner. Sam Mitchell and Hodge are equally good on both sides, so they don't have to be that quick.

One of the reasons we should try to fit Tom Mitchell into the side is that he can win the ball and get it to outside with his great handball skills. I think Heeney could be a good one, if only based on that great left foot snap for a goal. He's got great hands. One reason I was so looking forward to Hewett's development is that he's a good size, evasive and can kick well from both sides; I really hope he works out, because we need a player like that.

If you are skillful enough to consistently hit your lead up targets, then speed doesn't really matter that much. Some teams are physical, some are skillful. The Hawks are both, which is why they are so hard to beat. This is not just gratuitous praise for Hawthorn, just being realistic about the gap between their side and ours and trying to figure out what we can do to close that gap.

When we are on, we are probably the best pressure side in the game, along with Freo. We are a very good transition team. We have the best player in the game. If we can get our skill level up we might be able to match it with Hawthorn. But we still need to outdo them in our pressure footy and physicality. The way we played in the 2012 GF is the only way to beat them at this point in time.

[Scottee]

I think if you have played the game you will be aware of the need for there to be and "enforcer/equaliser" in the ball-ups. Hodges attack on the Geelong player in the first few seconds of the game the other day is a great example.There was a similar incident in the Richmond game.

Mummy was a great asset for us in these situations. Goodes could be very hard at the ball in the centre without being malicious or premeditated about the attacks on players going for the ball.ROK was also very tough and could handle the rough stuff.

The attacks on Hannebery that happened in the grand final were another good example. Pyke is not in that enforcer category but Toby might be.

The Hawks have a long tradition of taking out the opposition in any way possible in important games, it used to be kicking and tripping, now it seems to be to use of the head in tackles, the legal but questionable charging of players near the ball (eg Roughhead on Hannebery in the GF) and tackles that force players to land on shoulders or injure ankles or knees. None of this is new but I wonder how able the players and coaches are of the means of neutralising it with the current list and I wonder how much they rue the loss of Mummy.

Our players are exceedingly clean and fair in the packs, I think they need protection and it doesn't seem that its there. Rampe may help as a large midfielder, but we need some more protection in the middle because the umps are not protecting us from the head high stuff as much as I would have hoped.

The fact is though, with the list that Hawthorn have now developed there is not much need for the rough stuff. Pity the Swans have not been given the same opportunity.

[Matt80]

Unfortunately Matt80 is right in his comparison of the skills differential of the 2 sides. (And you can add Liam Shiels to the Hawks list of 'slow' inside mids). We can win the ball in the middle, but usually just bomb away and hope for the best. Hanners and Jack spread well from the congestion, but you know they are going left because both are one sided. Bird is somewhat better in this regard. McGlynn can win the ball or a free and run out of the congestion, but who knows where the ball is going next. McVeigh is skillful, but is not a great inside ball winner. Sam Mitchell and Hodge are equally good on both sides, so they don't have to be that quick.

One of the reasons we should try to fit Tom Mitchell into the side is that he can win the ball and get it to outside with his great handball skills. I think Heeney could be a good one, if only based on that great left foot snap for a goal. He's got great hands. One reason I was so looking forward to Hewett's development is that he's a good size, evasive and can kick well from both sides; I really hope he works out, because we need a player like that.

If you are skillful enough to consistently hit your lead up targets, then speed doesn't really matter that much. Some teams are physical, some are skillful. The Hawks are both, which is why they are so hard to beat. This is not just gratuitous praise for Hawthorn, just being realistic about the gap between their side and ours and trying to figure out what we can do to close that gap.

When we are on, we are probably the best pressure side in the game, along with Freo. We are a very good transition team. We have the best player in the game. If we can get our skill level up we might be able to match it with Hawthorn. But we still need to outdo them in our pressure footy and physicality. The way we played in the 2012 GF is the only way to beat them at this point in time.

Yes Ludwig. Maybe the reason the Swans can't afford to play more than three inside midfield extractors is that the disposal is not going to be Hawthorne standard, and you need fast chasers to make tackles, put pressure on, and keep you in the game.

Maybe if the delivery was more pin-point and there was less need for manic tackling pressure, then you could afford to play an extra inside extractor like Mitchell.

In my opinion if Alastair Clarkson was looking at our midfield, the two players he would take if given a choice would be Lloyd and Heeney. Those guys are both brilliant by foot, tough tacklers and would keep the existing class in the Hawks midfield.

I really rate Brad Hill. I wish Jetta could be as good as him consistently.

[aguy]

I don't deny how good hawthorn are playing at the moment and the quality of their list. However you have to remember that form can ebb and flow. Also remember that they were pushed all the way and nearly beaten by port adelaide in the preliminary final last year. A couple of extra minutes and we could have been playing port in the grand final and who knows

It is a fickle game. Hawthorn are very very good but they are not unbeatable

[jono2707]

"Extraction Units" - sounds like we have a bunch of dentists playing in midfield

I was thinking they were something from Star Trek.

Or Red Dwarf perhaps.

[DK_]

Relax guys. I was not trying to offend. I just made up the phrase to describe a group of inside midfield extractors.

I'm a Swans member and will continue to support the Swans. My family is on board with the Swans as well.

Annie, please explain why my analysis of the respective Swans and Hawks inside midfield's is flawed. The margin was 60 points in the GF and in the words of Jasinta Cambell "the midfielders did not turn up. We then saw the Hawks midfield dismantle a Cats midfield which contains great players like Bartel, Selwood and Motlop.

To be fair, the Swans midfield dismantled the Geelong midfield last year in an even more comprehensive fashion. Their stars were a bit younger back then too and they were considered a genuine premiership chance, which I don't think is the case this year.

Still, love the thought that's gone into your analysis. I think the Swans midfield was soundly beaten in both of the last two games against Hawthorn last year. My personal opinion is we've sacrificed too much inside grunt for outside run. I think we've got the cattle, but need a new plan, particularly for Hawthorn.

[joemoore12]

To be fair, the Swans midfield dismantled the Geelong midfield last year in an even more comprehensive fashion. Their stars were a bit younger back then too and they were considered a genuine premiership chance, which I don't think is the case this year.

Still, love the thought that's gone into your analysis. I think the Swans midfield was soundly beaten in both of the last two games against Hawthorn last year. My personal opinion is we've sacrificed too much inside grunt for outside run. I think we've got the cattle, but need a new plan, particularly for Hawthorn.

Could not agree more DK.

[Ludwig]

It appears at this stage that Macca, Benny and Mitchell will all be available for selection this week. I think all belong in our best 22. But who could we drop?

For mine, the first 2 to go would be Cunningham and Goodes based on Saturday's performance. But Harry's pace is useful against a quick side like PA, and Goodesy, you know, will be hard to drop. Laidler had a good game on the weekend, but could we be excluded due to his lack of pace or a good matchup.

[aguy]

It appears at this stage that Macca, Benny and Mitchell will all be available for selection this week. I think all belong in our best 22. But who could we drop?

For mine, the first 2 to go would be Cunningham and Goodes based on Saturday's performance. But Harry's pace is useful against a quick side like PA, and Goodesy, you know, will be hard to drop. Laidler had a good game on the weekend, but could we be excluded due to his lack of pace or a good matchup.

Ludwig. You have succinctly summarised the whole thread in your two paragraphs there.

I would be a little worried about bringing Macca and benny back at the same time. Herein lies the selection problem for next week.

[RogueSwan]

... a quick side like PA...

Why does everyone think PA are a quicker side than others? Because the media says so? They aren't any faster on their feet than most top teams, they are quicker at getting the ball to their runners (and they believe their own hype).
If we can win some clearances this week and handball cleanly away from the contest we look very quick.
Those advocating Macca coming back in won't solve any leg speed issues, he is one paced but can keep up that pace the whole game, but his kicking should speed up our transitions.
FWIW: out: Parker (probably won't happen) in: Mitchell out: Towers in: Macca. I won't be disappointed if there are no changes. I would like to see Jones get a run when he is fit, either for Shaw or taking Rampe's position and push Dane into the midfield.

[Melbourne_Blood]

I like the move of Rampe to the middle, but to suggest that Jones could slot right in and play Danes role is pretty optimistic. Rampe has become pretty much our best player in the back 6 IMO. Rarely gets beaten, provides drive out with his long kicking and with his pace and is super consistent.

[Ampersand]

It appears at this stage that Macca, Benny and Mitchell will all be available for selection this week. I think all belong in our best 22. But who could we drop?

For mine, the first 2 to go would be Cunningham and Goodes based on Saturday's performance. But Harry's pace is useful against a quick side like PA, and Goodesy, you know, will be hard to drop. Laidler had a good game on the weekend, but could we be excluded due to his lack of pace or a good matchup.

I'd get rid of Reid and Towers before Laidler. I noticed Goodes inexplicably playing in the midfield for the first 3-4 centre bounces (we, of course, failed to win a single clearance) so he can make way for Mitchell.

Out: Reid, Towers, Goodes
In: McVeigh, McGlynn, Mitchell

Laidler to perform Reid's swingman role. I'd prefer to keep Cunningham in to play a tagging role where required.

For mine, this is a much more balanced squad for height, speed and hardness at the ball.