Changes for Round 22 v North Melbourne

[crackedactor]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed elsewhere but I thought it was interesting on how the Swans game plan has changed. Between rounds 1-18 we were 2nd for long kicks into forward 50, now between rounds 19-21 we are 18th. For short kicks into Forward 50 we were 15th now we are first. For average marks we were 17th,now we are 6th and for goals per 50m entry as a percentage, we were 13th and now we are 2nd. This happened after the Hawthorn game, I am wondering if they decided to change their game plan so they can upset others in the finals, particularly Hawthorn? Maybe this decision was made long ago and only implemented from round 19 onwards? Just wondering what others think?

[liz]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed elsewhere but I thought it was interesting on how the Swans game plan has changed. Between rounds 1-18 we were 2nd for long kicks into forward 50, now between rounds 19-21 we are 18th. For short kicks into Forward 50 we were 15th now we are first. For average marks we were 17th,now we are 6th and for goals per 50m entry as a percentage, we were 13th and now we are 2nd. This happened after the Hawthorn game, I am wondering if they decided to change their game plan so they can upset others in the finals, particularly Hawthorn? Maybe this decision was made long ago and only implemented from round 19 onwards? Just wondering what others think?

It is quite a remarkable change in a short period of time.

I think they definitely tried to do something different for the Geelong game. It had been well publicised ahead of that game that the lower ranked teams who had beaten the Cats had done so by targeting short passes into their forward line, with an observation at how good the experienced Cats defence is at picking off the long ball forward. That game was clearly a success for the Swans, with Buddy kicking just the one but multiple other players chipping in with plenty of goals. And lo and behold, the team seems to have realised it's a game plan that can be effective against other clubs too, rather than just the blind hack forward.

The best teams can alter their style depending on what is working, how the opposition structures up, and the ground/weather conditions. I imagine we will see the long-bomb forward method re-emerge at some stage (especially against teams who put more pressure on the midfield) but it is certainly reassuring to see that the team can execute the skills to play other ways. The team seems to have realised that it has forward options apart from Buddy (and Tippett), who are better leading up towards the kicker rather than having a ball kicked on top of them.

[Ludwig]

It is quite a remarkable change in a short period of time.

What's really remarkable is how far ahead of the coaching staff we are on RWO. We've all been saying that we should stop bombing it into Buddy for a long. They're finally listening to us.

[veramex]

Am I the only one kind of hoping for mcglynn to prove his worth tomorrow? I still feel a bit sad for him (and Rohan) missing out on 2012, and I'm really hoping he can contribute well enough to keep his place in the team into the finals.

[AnnieH]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed elsewhere but I thought it was interesting on how the Swans game plan has changed. Between rounds 1-18 we were 2nd for long kicks into forward 50, now between rounds 19-21 we are 18th. For short kicks into Forward 50 we were 15th now we are first. For average marks we were 17th,now we are 6th and for goals per 50m entry as a percentage, we were 13th and now we are 2nd. This happened after the Hawthorn game, I am wondering if they decided to change their game plan so they can upset others in the finals, particularly Hawthorn? Maybe this decision was made long ago and only implemented from round 19 onwards? Just wondering what others think?

It was the changing of the ruckmen guard that turned our fortunes around.

[RogueSwan]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed elsewhere but I thought it was interesting on how the Swans game plan has changed. Between rounds 1-18 we were 2nd for long kicks into forward 50, now between rounds 19-21 we are 18th. For short kicks into Forward 50 we were 15th now we are first. For average marks we were 17th,now we are 6th and for goals per 50m entry as a percentage, we were 13th and now we are 2nd. This happened after the Hawthorn game, I am wondering if they decided to change their game plan so they can upset others in the finals, particularly Hawthorn? Maybe this decision was made long ago and only implemented from round 19 onwards? Just wondering what others think?

It is quite a remarkable change in a short period of time.

I think they definitely tried to do something different for the Geelong game. It had been well publicised ahead of that game that the lower ranked teams who had beaten the Cats had done so by targeting short passes into their forward line, with an observation at how good the experienced Cats defence is at picking off the long ball forward. That game was clearly a success for the Swans, with Buddy kicking just the one but multiple other players chipping in with plenty of goals. And lo and behold, the team seems to have realised it's a game plan that can be effective against other clubs too, rather than just the blind hack forward.
...

I heard those stats on one of the AFL podcasts this week, I think it was The Roar or the Superfooty podcast. We often hear how it is difficult for teams to change tactics and style mid way through a season so it is very impressive that the boys have been able to change the game plan "on-the-run" so to speak.

[CureTheSane]

Am I the only one kind of hoping for mcglynn to prove his worth tomorrow? I still feel a bit sad for him (and Rohan) missing out on 2012, and I'm really hoping he can contribute well enough to keep his place in the team into the finals.

Probs.

I'm hoping that Naismith is able to climb a few more rungs and keep Sinclair at bay.
Not because I don't like Sinclair, but i see Naismith as having been more valuable, but worry that Sinclair is more of an automatic 'in' when fit.

[Steve]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed elsewhere but I thought it was interesting on how the Swans game plan has changed. Between rounds 1-18 we were 2nd for long kicks into forward 50, now between rounds 19-21 we are 18th. For short kicks into Forward 50 we were 15th now we are first. For average marks we were 17th,now we are 6th and for goals per 50m entry as a percentage, we were 13th and now we are 2nd. This happened after the Hawthorn game, I am wondering if they decided to change their game plan so they can upset others in the finals, particularly Hawthorn? Maybe this decision was made long ago and only implemented from round 19 onwards? Just wondering what others think?

I doubt that will continue - certainly we've tried hitting shorter targets I50 recently, but that 3-week sample also reflects 90, 67 and 70 point wins against bottom-10 teams.

We've run riot in those 3 games, and with the exception of the first half against St Kilda, with virtually no opposition pressure. So I think as Liz alludes to, it is a dramatically different story when we are against the pressure of quality opposition, particularly in finals. When under immense pressure you're obviously going to be more likely to kick long and not find those shorter targets as easily.

We're just not good enough by foot to try and slice up quality teams like Hawthorn have done. Nevertheless I think we are far less one-dimensional up forward given the current personnel there, which is important for the finals.

[crackedactor]

I doubt that will continue - certainly we've tried hitting shorter targets I50 recently, but that 3-week sample also reflects 90, 67 and 70 point wins against bottom-10 teams.

We've run riot in those 3 games, and with the exception of the first half against St Kilda, with virtually no opposition pressure. So I think as Liz alludes to, it is a dramatically different story when we are against the pressure of quality opposition, particularly in finals. When under immense pressure you're obviously going to be more likely to kick long and not find those shorter targets as easily.

We're just not good enough by foot to try and slice up quality teams like Hawthorn have done. Nevertheless I think we are far less one-dimensional up forward given the current personnel there, which is important for the finals.

I think bombing in long against Hawthorn has been our downfall, with Gibson, Frawley and co sitting back there waiting. Often buddy facing a 2 or 3 on one scenario. What makes it interesting in my opinion is we starting doing this after the Hawks game. Next time we face them it will be very interesting. They will not be use to our different style of play and how will they adjust???

[Steve]

I think bombing in long against Hawthorn has been our downfall, with Gibson, Frawley and co sitting back there waiting. Often buddy facing a 2 or 3 on one scenario. What makes it interesting in my opinion is we starting doing this after the Hawks game. Next time we face them it will be very interesting. They will not be use to our different style of play and how will they adjust???

My main concern would be that if we try and hit all these shorter targets against the pressure of a Hawthorn, we'll turn the ball over repeatedly and they will tear us up the other way.

I don't know the exact stats, but we are still right down the bottom (ie. worst) in terms of turnovers - it's just that our defence has been so good, we've won so much contested ball through the middle, and our forward line (when functioning) is dangerous, that our lack of polish by foot and resulting turnovers haven't hurt us as much.

But that has been playing a certain, fairly conservative way - I think that changes if we try and get too fancy trying to pick off short targets all the time once we're up against decent teams.

It needs to be a balance, but Hawthorn are actually vulnerable against tall forward lines so long as you can get the ball in there quickly enough, and have forwards who can take contested marks. It's only when you give them time to get numbers back and/or zone off by moving the ball too slowly that they are dangerous in that regard.