Match Day. Round 1 Sydney V Port Adelaide SCG. 4.35pm.

[liz]

Well, I thought that the umpiring was crap, especially some of the soft frees given against defenders; but it was crap both ways, with each team being on the end of some mystifying decisions.

A bit too much umpiring for me, but we weren't hard done by imo.

It was a case of being outplayed. Port worked harder than we did.

The umpiring certainly left a lot to be desired but we were probably slightly benefited by it. The free to Tippo and one of the frees to Bud in front of goal were soft (at best - probably they were just not there at all).

Port were clearly the better side. We won't be kicking ourselves all season long for letting one slip away that really was there for the taking (like at least three games last season).

Buddy aside, our top tier of players didn't play well. If they had all played well and we'd still been soundly beaten, there'd be far more cause for concern.

Reid's return was very encouraging. Longmire's been talking him up all through the pre-season series but, while it was great to see him out there, his contributions were just decent, not outstanding. His first half yesterday exceeded all my expectations. He did dry up a bit after half-time but that can be attributed to a complete lack of quality supply from the midfield after half-time.

[707]

Haven't watched the game yet but noted Ried's solid day which is pleasing for the season outlook.

Gun Robbie Gray 92% TOG and only 8 possessions, he must have been tagged as that is a staggeringly low count for him. So who did this outstanding tagging job?

[dejavoodoo44]

In regards to our disappointing performance, I think that there are a number of things worth mentioning. Firstly, I think that we probably, yet again, played dumb wet weather football. The kick and handball stats suggest this. Port had 215 kicks to 124 handballs, while we had 208 kicks and 150 handballs. Which is a ratio of 65% to 58%. I suspect that this partly stems from from, the fact that we seem to have been working on moving the ball as quickly as possible out of defense, by playing on quickly to the first available option. The first seen option is often a handball to someone nearby. When this is working well, it can lead to some spectacular breaks out of defence, but it can break down into frustrating turnovers, especially in the wet.
One inclusion that will help rectify this is Aliir. He's someone who seems to sum up the situation at an elite level of mental processing. This means that he sees options that may not be apparent to other players, and that he'll move the ball almost instantly, often with a spear pass to someone in the clear. This should improve our movement out of defence.
Unfortunately, one player who doesn't see the game well is Towers. So often, you'll see him stop, when he should have attacked, assess the options, then move the ball to a situation where it's likely to be turned over. While he is a good kick and apparently an elite athlete, I really do think that he's not first team standard. And I say apparently an elite athlete, because I'm not sure that I've ever seen him break a line at full pace? Another that falls into the, apparently an elite athlete category, is Cunningham. Who also seems to rarely move at top pace. Yesterday, there were a number of times when he just seemed to run alongside an opponent with the ball, instead of trying to lay a tackle, or at least harassing the player. I wouldn't be unhappy if he also spent a fair bit of time in the ressies.
Another player that people have been singling out, is Foote. Personally, I think that he should be given a bit more latitude. While he did make a few errors early, he was better in the second half, and he did do plenty of tackling and chasing. As he's someone who has been on a long learning curve, since he was signed as a rough chance rookie, I still think that he'll improve with the more exposure to the game at the top level. He also seems to me, to be a player who would probably benefit from be given a lock down role. Perhaps a bit of advice from Kirky?
Probably another couple of reasons for the loss were the fact that Port are more advanced in their preparation and that we may have been a bit lazy and overconfident, coming up against our usual whipping boys. Both of these can be rectified as the season progresses, though I don't really like our chances against the Dogs next week. But hey, it's better to peak in September, rather than April.

[barry]

Re umpires, i thought you weren't allowed to Sheppard the man on the mark anymore. Seems to be back in force. I hate it.

[mcs]

After a bit of reflection on the game this morning, I still think yesterday has highlighted where our clear challenge will continue to lie in this season. Its simple - to take that final step, we need to find a way for our bottom six to be a lot better, week in, week out, and of course in the bigger games.

I think some are underplaying the importance to game plan and approach that some of our outs make. Heeney and Aliir speak for themselves in that regard, but Papley and Rohan were a substantial part of the forward pressure that, in general, served us exceptionally well last season. Our forward pressure yesterday for large parts was pathetic - indeed, more broadly around the ground, we gave port far too much time, too much respect, and failed to really force them into rushed decisions. There are few teams in the AFL that won't make you pay if you give them plenty of options and plenty of time to make the right decisions.

I like the look of Florent, but what he is clearly missing at this stage is anything approaching a tank big enough or good enough for the elite endurance required for AFL footy. What I found promising though was a lot of the time yesterday he was trying to get into the right spots, work hard without the ball to make space etc, but his tank simply isn't there. It cost us dearly on a couple of occasions where we either had an attack break down, or the 'out' it would of provided didn't eventuate. That is certainly not having a go at Florent, just a clear area where he will need to improve.

Some of the other fringe guys were disappointing - Robinson wasn't able to replicate what he showed in pre-season. Towers was the same old towers, with decision making letting him down as per the norm, Laidler struggled, and I'm not quite seeing it with Foote at the moment - he still looks a rung below an AFL player at this time to be perfectly honest. I like his endeavour, but I just don't see it - yet.

We need 2 or 3 guys to come into the team and have a similar impact to what AA and Papley had last year, if we are going to remain consistent and stay up there across what promises to be an even season.

Naismith and Tippett got better in the ruck as the game wore on - I was surprised that in the end we won the hitout count quite comfortably. Some are being overly critical of Naismith I feel - it took him some time to get grooving last season, and he has had another interrupted pre-season. We need more from both of them around the ground however.

On the positive, it was great to see Sammy Reid come back as well as he did - and his kicking looks like it is already benefitting from slimline Tony's instructions and help

[mcs]

The umpiring certainly left a lot to be desired but we were probably slightly benefited by it. The free to Tippo and one of the frees to Bud in front of goal were soft (at best - probably they were just not there at all).

Port got a good run of it early - Dixon and Wingard both got what appeared to be some exceptionally soft free kicks in the first half, but as you say, we had more than a few soft ones go our way later on.

The point in the game where we really lost our way was either side of Halftime. Those 2 stupid goals right before the break and then conceding two very early in the second half really hurt us. That four goal swing put the game in a position where we were never able to get it back on our terms again.

- - - Updated - - -

Re umpires, i thought you weren't allowed to Sheppard the man on the mark anymore. Seems to be back in force. I hate it.

I don't agree with you on a great number of things Barry, but this one I definitely do I absolutely hate shepparding on the mark, but it seems back in vogue and being allowed again.

[mcs]

Unfortunately, one player who doesn't see the game well is Towers. So often, you'll see him stop, when he should have attacked, assess the options, then move the ball to a situation where it's likely to be turned over. While he is a good kick and apparently an elite athlete, I really do think that he's not first team standard.

I hate to get on the back of any player that wears the red and white of our club, but I just don't get it with Towers. He has plenty of attributes to be a quality footballer, but doesn't seem to have the decision making needed to make it at AFL level. That moment in the 4th quarter is something we've seen far too often in the past, and it just isn't improving. I want to see him succeed and prove us all wrong, but how long can the club keep on waiting for that to happen? He isn't a 21 year with a couple of years in the system and time to mature.

[dimelb]

I was at the game, now read the thread. A couple of brief observations.

Port are being undervalued. They have experience, talent and a good coach. They positioned themselves well when they had the ball and stood up close to their opposition player when we had it, which makes a significant difference on a wet ground.They are a few places higher than a mid-table team. A bit of respect wouldn't go astray.

Hanners, Parker and Jones all had ordinary games. You can't have that happen and expect to win.

Towers has to go back to the NEAFL where he is suited. Cunningham had his good moments and is useful as a backup player, as is Laidler. The newbies deserve a bit of patience, especially Florent.

Our back six had perhaps the worst game collectively I have seen us play. Some improved as the game progressed. And I agree with annew's post on the previous page.

And for what it's worth, we didn't start season 2005 all that well either. So no wrist slitting when the Doggies beat us next week!

[goswannies]

Poor Florent can divert some of the responsibility on Mills & Heeney for his potentially premature debut. For many years, Swans' draftees could expect to do a 1-2 year NEAFL apprenticeship before injuries & looming finals series (ie we had secured a finals berth) tended to give them an opportunity for a senior debut. Fast forward to 2015&16 and the early debuts (& successes) of Heeney & Mills & it seems a first round pick might be granted an early senior game. Having said that, who would have been selected in Florent's place?

- - - Updated - - -

Towers has to go back to the NEAFL where he is suited.

He's with us for another 2 years. With hindsight, should we have re-signed Towers or Xav?

[dejavoodoo44]

Imagine this, you are a team that cannot play a large number of your senior and best players for 12 months, their bodies get rested cos they are not injured (look how good Sam was after a year out and he was injured), you play your second tier players for 12 months, with no pressure to win, in the seniors, what an amazing learning experience, you get the first draft pick cos you finish bottom and you get a soft draw cos of finishing bottom, you are a big Melb team with a lot of fans, your senior players return - how good can you be? Then imagine this, you have played finals forever, you lost last years GF in part due to bad umpiring but the game was there up until the last 10 minutes, you are the 3rd youngest team, you have a few critical players out injured, you are 4 weeks behind a team that finished 10th who are playing for their lives, in a couple of years you have lost a heap of experience and been handed unfair trade bans, you have a shocker of a game BUT is the season over or are you simply a great team that wasnt quite ready for round 1? I remain positive and I know
I would rather support the second team than the first. Sick of hearing about all the advantages swans have been handed over the years what about the other teams in the comp that have been handed advantages?

Yes, I was always of the opinion that Essendon didn't deserve last year's number one pick. That is, the main reason for the draft order is to correct for a weak list. Whereas, Essendon had a good list: it's just that most of them were suspended.

[dejavoodoo44]

- - - Updated - - -



He's with us for another 2 years. With hindsight, should we have re-signed Towers or Xav?

Possibly should have bundled them as a package deal and maybe got a mid range draft pick?

[MattW]

Possibly should have bundled them as a package deal and maybe got a mid range draft pick?

I got the impression they tried everything they could.

[liz]

Poor Florent can divert some of the responsibility on Mills & Heeney for his potentially premature debut. For many years, Swans' draftees could expect to do a 1-2 year NEAFL apprenticeship before injuries & looming finals series (ie we had secured a finals berth) tended to give them an opportunity for a senior debut. Fast forward to 2015&16 and the early debuts (& successes) of Heeney & Mills & it seems a first round pick might be granted an early senior game. Having said that, who would have been selected in Florent's place?

- - - Updated - - -



He's with us for another 2 years. With hindsight, should we have re-signed Towers or Xav?

We tried to resign X, remember. He declined. Towers didn't resign until very late in the piece, and it is possible that he was only offered a contract (or that the club increased their interest in him, possibly financially) once X had walked out.

I don't agree with your assertion re Florent. It's a myth that the Swans have routinely expected draftees - even high picks - to do a 1-2 year apprenticeship in the NEAFL. Mills and Heeney are far from alone in making early debuts. You only have to go back to last year to see Papley debut in round 1. Craig Bird was a round one debutant. Alex Johnson, Luke Parker, Dan Hannebery, Zac Jones are others who have debuted sometime in their first season, albeit not in round 1.

Based on pre-season form, Florent earned his spot. Sure, yesterday suggested he might not be ready (or maybe he just had a poor first game and will show a bit more if he gets another outing soon). The fact he won a spot says less about expectations created by Heeney and Mills and more about how very young and inexperienced our squad is. The fact that Rose and Dawson both spent most of the pre-season on the sidelines, or slogging around in the boundary line doing laps in an attempt to get their fitness up, rather than participating with the main squad, didn't help. They the alternates that might well have pushed Florent down the pecking order but neither had done the work necessary to warrant a spot.

[dejavoodoo44]

I got the impression they tried everything they could.

Yes, but unfortunately, if there was a chance to have traded Towers for something useful, I suspect that it's gone now. Especially if he spends most of the season in the NEAFL.
Though we could offer Towers and Cunningham as a package, and see if we could get Erin Phillips in return? Would probably add a bit more toughness to the team?

[dejavoodoo44]

The umpiring certainly left a lot to be desired but we were probably slightly benefited by it. The free to Tippo and one of the frees to Bud in front of goal were soft.

Yes, it was the frees paid against the defenders, that I found to be the most head scratching. If that game was an indication of how they're likely to umpire for the rest of the season, then I think there will be many times, when I'm feeling Reg's pain.