Coaching panel

[Merdo5555]

Now to move on Stuart Dew we can have that fresh start we need. Horse also needs to take a step back and let the new coaches take control and implement changes in how we play so we have a Plan A, B and C.

[dimelb]

Yay. Just as I was hoping.

I was hoping the same thing - a master for each area. I particularly hope that Kirk can work out with the mids why they go into decline occasionally, with particular reference to Grand Finals, and can reverse the trend. We would (and can) do better.

[Markwebbos]

Who replaces Dew as strategy / midfield coach if he gets the Gold Coast job? Feels like we?d need to recruit a replacement

[stevoswan]

Just saw on the swans site that Francou has departed. They have confirmed that:
- Forward Coach is Johnson
- Midfield & Stoppages Coach is Kirk
- Defence Coach is Shaw

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

Very happy with that set up....

[stevoswan]

Now to move on Stuart Dew we can have that fresh start we need. Horse also needs to take a step back and let the new coaches take control and implement changes in how we play so we have a Plan A, B and C.

Exactly....as much as it's great to have versatility in our players, what we need most is versatility in the coaches box. They have been exposed too frequently in recent seasons. I feel the same way about Dew too, part of his title is "strategist" and as it seems we have always lacked said plan B, C etc, for too long now, it appears we need a new strategist.

[Blood Fever]

Exactly....as much as it's great to have versatility in our players, what we need most is versatility in the coaches box. They have been exposed too frequently in recent seasons. I feel the same way about Dew too, part of his title is "strategist" and as it seems we have always lacked said plan B, C etc, for too long now, it appears we need a new strategist.

Happy to see some changes but pressure and effort needs to be paramount if any plan or strategy works.

[Nico]

Exactly....as much as it's great to have versatility in our players, what we need most is versatility in the coaches box. They have been exposed too frequently in recent seasons. I feel the same way about Dew too, part of his title is "strategist" and as it seems we have always lacked said plan B, C etc, for too long now, it appears we need a new strategist.

Bit tough on the coaching panel Stevo. What we need is more player versatility. You can only do what you can with what you have. Parker to the forward line is hardly versatility. Easily beaten one on one. Yes can take a mark but limited forward pressure. We can rotate the likes of Papley through the midfield but are the likes of Lloyd and Hanners versatile? No. Reid goes back for the last 5 minutes of a quarter but very questionable as to any longer. Rohan the enigma; has proved, regardless of his perfect build as a utility, that he has no versatility. So from my view it becomes a list management thing as to why we couldn't change it up in the semi. Maybe this why, apart from 2016 (finals injuries), we haven't been able to pull of another premiership. Good enough to finish top four in the normal season.

Look at Dangerfield to FF. Worked one off against us but failed miserably against Adelaide. Now that was poor coaching because that was telegraphed all week leading up to the game, and Adelaide was ready for him.

Richmond has a very very good blend of mid sized players who can switch roles. They will be hard to beat, big time, next year.

[liz]

Richmond has a very very good blend of mid sized players who can switch roles. They will be hard to beat, big time, next year.

I don't agree with your assessment of Richmond as being especially versatile. They were the best team in 2017, especially when it counted, and are deserved premiers. But their game was based on lots of mediocre players applying huge amounts of pressure, surrounding one superstar midfielder, a couple of other good to very good midfielders, a decent tall forward and a great defender.

In many ways the style of their triumph was the same as the Bulldogs in 2016. The Tigers' top end talent was better but I think the Bulldogs bottom handful were stronger. I think that the bottom half dozen or so of the Tigers team would struggle to get a game in pretty much any other of the 17 sides.

Just because the Dogs fell back in 2017 doesn't mean that the Tigers are destined to do the same, but it is very hard to maintain that level of pressure and even a small drop off will see their more ordinary players exposed. In the QF against Geelong they really struggled to score until the final quarter, despite controlling the game in the first half. They were somewhat fortunate that the Cats, too, were unable to score when they took control of the midfield in the third quarter.

[stevoswan]

Just an aside to our coaching chat. Here's an update fron afl.com.au on Ben McGlynn, whose been at the Saints, teaching them how to kick straight......"St Kilda is taking steps to address its goalkicking woes and has appointed Ben Dixon, former Hawthorn sharpshooter and now a set-shot whisperer (and Fox Footy boundary rider) to its coaching staff. Former Sydney and Hawthorn player Ben McGlynn was in charge of those duties in 2017, when the Saints were one of the most inaccurate teams. On 12 occasions they kicked more behinds than goals." Poor Ben, just can't quite get it right.....wonder where he'll go next, if anywhere.

[Ludwig]

I don't agree with your assessment of Richmond as being especially versatile. They were the best team in 2017, especially when it counted, and are deserved premiers. But their game was based on lots of mediocre players applying huge amounts of pressure, surrounding one superstar midfielder, a couple of other good to very good midfielders, a decent tall forward and a great defender.

In many ways the style of their triumph was the same as the Bulldogs in 2016. The Tigers' top end talent was better but I think the Bulldogs bottom handful were stronger. I think that the bottom half dozen or so of the Tigers team would struggle to get a game in pretty much any other of the 17 sides.

Just because the Dogs fell back in 2017 doesn't mean that the Tigers are destined to do the same, but it is very hard to maintain that level of pressure and even a small drop off will see their more ordinary players exposed. In the QF against Geelong they really struggled to score until the final quarter, despite controlling the game in the first half. They were somewhat fortunate that the Cats, too, were unable to score when they took control of the midfield in the third quarter.

I am trying to find a reason to disagree with you on this, but I can't. What it does say is that Richmond's coaching panel, which was pilloried last year, turned things around in one season to become the most creative in the league. I expected Richmond to lose every time they played in the finals. I constantly undervalued what they could achieve with their group.

Every team tries to apply pressure. It's longtime been central to the Swans' credo. So how can one team, Richmond this year and the Bulldogs last year, raise the pressure bar so high for one season to enable them to win the premiership?

I haven't heard a good answer on this one yet? I don't have one.

[liz]

Every team tries to apply pressure. It's longtime been central to the Swans' credo. So how can one team, Richmond this year and the Bulldogs last year, raise the pressure bar so high for one season to enable them to win the premiership?

I haven't heard a good answer on this one yet? I don't have one.

Hunger, desperation, high-team cohesion, good run with injury, lack of a team that stands out on talent, and a healthy modicum of luck.

Although pressure levels have increased across the board over the last decade or so, I'd argue that our 2005 victory was similarly achieved. Unlike the 2016 Bulldogs we managed to sustain that into the following season. Then our talent level started to drop off as players like Kirk, Kennelly and Barry neared their end dates and Hall went off the rails.

Even in 2012 you can mount a pretty strong argument that it was desire and pressure that got us over the line in a tight game, with a little luck from some missed shots at goal by the Hawks.

The Bulldogs didn't have a great injury run in 2016 but they did get most of their players back towards the end of the season. Plus they had quite a deep list in terms of mid-range talent. Some of their luck came in the shape of what happened to us, injury wise. We had a very good run in 2016 until the final month or so of the season, when injuries to Mills, McVeigh, Parker, Aliir and Rohan forced them out of the team or hampered their ability to play to their normal standard. Add to that the injuries to Buddy and Hanners during the GF and it's not hard to understand how we lost. We didn't have a particularly deep squad - indeed, at the start of last year I thought we might sneak into the bottom of the top 8 - so these injuries did nit hard. I have little doubt that, with a better run, we'd have smashed the Bulldogs off the park. Indeed, even accepting all the injuries that occurred before the GF, I reckon that if you replayed that final ten times with the Buddy injury being a variable (ie not something that happens in every re-run), we'd win more than we lose. Even up the umpiring and I think we'd win 8 out of 10.

[stevoswan]

I think both Richmond and to a lesser extent Footscray (they had the umpires as well of course) had a 'walk over hot coals for your mates mentality', which we had in '05 and '12 but now have, to an extent, lost. We, as a club, have been 'talking the talk' but not 'walking the walk' in the last few seasons. We cry 'Bloods culture' but it's just talk. When the pressure is really on, this culture is what often got us through and while we showed tremendous grit to make the finals after an 0-6 start, we failed to deliver when it counted. Back to the drawing board on team bonding and team first 'never say die' attitude I think. Yet again I ask.....where's Kirky's influence in this area?

[swansrob]

I don't agree with your assessment of Richmond as being especially versatile. They were the best team in 2017, especially when it counted, and are deserved premiers. But their game was based on lots of mediocre players applying huge amounts of pressure, surrounding one superstar midfielder, a couple of other good to very good midfielders, a decent tall forward and a great defender.

Slightly off topic, but I don't see how Richmond can be seen as the best team of 2017. The best team on Saturday afternoon, yes, but of the year? Surely the team that never finished a round lower than second on the ladder and finished the H&A season on top of it were better than a team whose grip on the top 4 was tenuous pretty much right up until the end

[Merdo5555]

I think changing Dew is important not just for the chance to develop Plans B and C but also because the players need to hear a new voice. This is why Horse needs to take a step back and let the other coaches stand up and take more ownership. I think the players will respond positively to new voices and ideas. My biggest hope is that this may be the spark to those players who haven't performed in finals and the team as a whole.

Richmond have shown that you can create a successful team by giving each player a role that are to perform without question in every game. Under performers such as Rohan need to have another string to their bow so that they are contributing to the game even when they aren't getting the ball. I think we have more talent than the Tigers but do we have more contributors? Probably not yet.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Slightly off topic, but I don't see how Richmond can be seen as the best team of 2017. The best team on Saturday afternoon, yes, but of the year? Surely the team that never finished a round lower than second on the ladder and finished the H&A season on top of it were better than a team whose grip on the top 4 was tenuous pretty much right up until the end

AND played all finals matches on their home ground. Had they played in Adelaide they would have lost the GF.