Round 1 Match Day Thread. Sydney V Collingwood SCG.

[Meg]

Too true CTS, and as I mentioned our centre clearances were top shelf and we also went through the corridor at every opportunity. Add those 3 improvements and we become a vastly improved team. Also we have played the boundary for years and worked the stoppages, but we adapted quickly to new OOB rule and kept the ball in play, then moved it quickly inboard. Was exciting football.

I agree. I was critical of the changed rules when they were announced but after watching not only our match but several others on TV, I am warming to them. The OOB rule is really a 'you must attempt to keep the ball within the boundary' rule. I thought the Swans would have trouble adapting, given (as you have said) we have played along the boundaries in past years. But we actually adapted really well in our first match. Let's hope it continues!

[Triple B]

I think some of the OOB frees were a bit over the top. One against Ebert early in the Port match was ridiculous. That said, they seem to adjudicate new rules to the law rather than the spirit early on before some middle ground is reached. Hopefully this rule will sort itself out soon enough.

[Meg]

I think some of the OOB frees were a bit over the top. One against Ebert early in the Port match was ridiculous. That said, they seem to adjudicate new rules to the law rather than the spirit early on before some middle ground is reached. Hopefully this rule will sort itself out soon enough.

Yes I agree with all that as well 3xB. Which is why I am warming to the rule change rather than fully supporting it at this stage. But I could see the benefits once/when the umpires are more confident in adjudicating the 'middle ground' as you describe it.

[Ludwig]

I think some of the OOB frees were a bit over the top. One against Ebert early in the Port match was ridiculous. That said, they seem to adjudicate new rules to the law rather than the spirit early on before some middle ground is reached. Hopefully this rule will sort itself out soon enough.

Hayden Kennedy has admitted that was a bad call. Rules based on intent are always going to be difficult to adjudicate and there are bound to be errors. But the overall outcome of the rule change has brought us a more attractive game of footy.

I think something like the last 10 frees in our game were awarded to Collingwood. Many of them were poor calls and seemed to be given just to avoid more of a blowout.

[graemed]

...I think something like the last 10 frees in our game were awarded to Collingwood. Many of them were poor calls and seemed to be given just to avoid more of a blowout.

Apart from the Cunningham/Franklin decision which was an absolute clanger many of the decisions seemed reasonable and said more about our fatigue levels than poor or biased umpiring.

[dejavoodoo44]

The recent rule changes and the natural evolution of game style across the league have altered my analysis of the game.

There are now fewer stoppages and more continuous play with counterattacks. I think this will suit some of our traditional strong points, like contested footy, as well as our emphasis on conditioning, which has helped hard running players like Jake Lloyd.

Ruckmen will be less important for no other reason than there being fewer ruck contests, although with higher scoring, there will be more centre bounces, so centre clearances will remain an important aspect of the game.

Although there's been a tendency toward ever taller forwards, there also seems to be more clubs going with small defences, with good positioning, closing speed and team defence having a greater effect than height matchups. Geelong is one exception, going with a tall lineup around the ground, but many of their taller players are athletic, e.g. Blicavs. I think Sam Reid will be an important player for us as an athletic tall that can play all over the ground as required. Flexibility is the key, and we now have lots of players that can play many roles.

Tippett played more in the ruck and was useful in that he was better able to match the size of Witts in the ruck contests and allowed more space forward for our smaller players to operate. I like having Buddy in our forward line along with a bevy of smaller players in support; less predictable and more opportunities for players to pop up unmarked, one of the reasons for Hawthorn's success. It's going to be a big change having players like Hewett and Papley who can nail those kicks to the open man in the forward line. Jones also can kick the ball low and hard and is usually accurate. When he does hit them, his kicks are telling and often lead to good scoring chances.

There's no point in being critical about some of our missed field kicks and easy shots missed for goal, as that was the case in most of the games. Even Hawthorn were less accurate than usual.

I didn't rate Collingwood as high as many of the pundits and feel they won't improve over last year, especially now that Swan is out. The stretch of 3 games from round 3 vs GWS, Adelaide and WCE will tell us more about how we stand this season. But it was an impressive start.

Yes, I too like the new interpretation of the out of bounds rule. And it does fit in well with the reasoning behind most of the rule changes since the 19th century, that is, it's been introduced in an attempt to improve the flow and speed of the game.
And I also think that it will probably work to the Swans advantage. Especially if Kirky the new messiah, can keep the forward pressure working as well as it did against Collingwood. That is, without the option of taking the ball over the line for defenders, a high level of harassment should lead to more turnovers in scoring range. With this in mind, I did have a look at the statistics for round one and found out that 7 out 8 matches were won by the team that had more tackles inside the forward 50. Though obviously, it would require a much larger sample to properly conclude whether this is a new trend, or largely just par for the course?

[CureTheSane]

It's not often I'm inclined to praise the AFL recently but I must say that the rule changes and the interchange cap have IMO improved the game massively for the better. I'd still like to see interchanges reduced even further, 60 would be my ideal, but I think we've seen enough to say it has been a success.

I should go look for that rule changes thread.
I have a vague recollection of a disagreement there. I may be redeemed with the popularity of the new rule changes

[Bloody Hell]

On Mitchell; it doesn't matter that he has not a lot of strength in his kicking if he racks up 30+ possessions a week, and kicks 3 goals to boot. A superb performance.

Considering he kicked 3 goals from snaps, I'm not poo-pooing his shots on goals. He has shown a knack in the F50.

I'm talking about the huge up and unders from the back pocket that lands in the arms of the opposition just outside 50.

[707]

If anyone is wondering how they can make this good feeling last even longer, may i suggest a read of the Collingwood gameday thread on bigfooty? Perhaps the most poignant moment was when someone asked who they should choose with the number 1 draft pick this year when they were reminded that they have already traded their first pick to GWS!

LOL, I was thinking about looking at the Pies BF board but after that I definitely will!

[Dosser]

Talking about gamestyles, FWIW I was watching the replay last night and noticed that when the Pies were kicking in after a behind all of our forwards went man on man, but when we were kicking in all of their forwards set up a zone. We were able to pick apart their zone with ease which makes me wonder are we seeing the beginning of the end of the zone or was it an anomaly (or was Collingwood simply inept)?

[RogueSwan]

... We were able to pick apart their zone with ease which makes me wonder are we seeing the beginning of the end of the zone or was it an anomaly (or was Collingwood simply inept)?

Maybe the Pies were expecting the usual Swans kicking accuracy? Does this mean our field kicking has improved?

[stevoswan]

Maybe the Pies were expecting the usual Swans kicking accuracy? Does this mean our field kicking has improved?

It's only one game, but I thought our kicking on Saturday night was a huge improvement on last year. Hopefully it continues!

[Danzar]

Finally watched the replay and must retract my earlier comment about our Kicks. Much better.

[Beerman]

Talking about gamestyles, FWIW I was watching the replay last night and noticed that when the Pies were kicking in after a behind all of our forwards went man on man, but when we were kicking in all of their forwards set up a zone. We were able to pick apart their zone with ease which makes me wonder are we seeing the beginning of the end of the zone or was it an anomaly (or was Collingwood simply inept)?

You might have something there.

I noticed that as well and the commentators of the GWS game made special note that GWS used man on man to great effect against Melbourne.

[Doctor]

If anyone is wondering how they can make this good feeling last even longer, may i suggest a read of the Collingwood gameday thread on bigfooty? Perhaps the most poignant moment was when someone asked who they should choose with the number 1 draft pick this year when they were reminded that they have already traded their first pick to GWS!

The Giants board will be cheering every Collingwood loss even more than the rest of us are!