#AFL Round 4, Sydney Swans v Bulldogs, 4:35pm 14/04 Etihad @sydneyswans #AFLDogsSwans

[Scottee]

What was Luke Parker thinking? I'm not Maccas biggest fan but without him tonight we lose.

His thinking was right, it was just that he was having trouble carrying out the plan because of cramp.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

[Auntie.Gerald]

As we all know when u playing a big overlap running game it is very hard to sustain for 4 qtrs.

The dogs tired from this style of play and tried to go more direct as the game went on and we counter attacked well on these entries.

We hung in there and didn?t let them get to far ahead.

But quite frankly we should have been beaten.

Our backline transitions are still a major problem and when an opposition team comes at our slower backs we get found out as per the first two qtrs

The evidence is overwhelming in support of where the game has moved to and that is fast fast fast......we need to have a backline especially that can use this to our advantage

At the moment teams like the dogs are exposing our weakness of not having a fast enough team on the big fields like the MCG

We even got done on the small SCG by a fast flooding port backline rushing forward in numbers

We have to have the same mix players to take it to teams like this

Let?s be honest if we could flood forward as fast as say port or the dogs did to us then these type of teams would not push as high vs us because they won?t be able to chase as hard in defence when they are upfield to high

Opposition teams that have speed are not scared to push ahead in numbers vs us and see if they can get the reward for this separation from our slower players

Port were successful
Dogs almost as well exposing our style of play and slower backs

[stellation]

Just looked at the video of Florent?s goal. No way he ran too far - anyone saying that must have missed his early bounce.

Now Jetta in 2012 ...... but he was so brilliant the umps were too busy cheering along with the rest of us to count steps!

Both Florent's and Dickson's wonderful goal from a banana on the run are on the AFL summary page for the game below. I believe Dickson ran further- so if anyone is heartbroken over a potential too many steps by Florent (I agree, I don't believe it was) then it's probably even.

http://www.afl.com.au/match-centre/2018/4/wb-v-syd

[Blood Fever]

As we all know when u playing a big overlap running game it is very hard to sustain for 4 qtrs.

The dogs tired from this style of play and tried to go more direct as the game went on and we counter attacked well on these entries.

We hung in there and didn?t let them get to far ahead.

But quite frankly we should have been beaten.

Our backline transitions are still a major problem and when an opposition team comes at our slower backs we get found out as per the first two qtrs

The evidence is overwhelming in support of where the game has moved to and that is fast fast fast......we need to have a backline especially that can use this to our advantage

At the moment teams like the dogs are exposing our weakness of not having a fast enough team on the big fields like the MCG

We even got done on the small SCG by a fast flooding port backline rushing forward in numbers

We have to have the same mix players to take it to teams like this

Let?s be honest if we could flood forward as fast as say port or the dogs did to us then these type of teams would not push as high vs us because they won?t be able to chase as hard in defence when they are upfield to high

Opposition teams that have speed are not scared to push ahead in numbers vs us and see if they can get the reward for this separation from our slower players

Port were successful
Dogs almost as well exposing our style of play and slower backs

You make some fair points but Bulldogs helter skelter style relies on almost flawless execution as well the risk of tiring. If they are a little bit off, then it is a recipe for fatal turnovers that plagued them in rounds 1 and 2. Also, our style of play blew Port out of the water but we didn't convert just like Bullies yesterday. Almost every side has their time in a game and must take their opportunities. Understand your concerns but no team in comp is perfect.

[MattW]

Thought RWO whipping boys Towers, Sinkers and Cunningham all went OK

Yep, reckon you could say that about their first four weeks of footy.

Sinclair has become a valuable player for us. He has improved markedly since he arrived - his contested marking and kicking for goal in particular. Also his endurance. He tries hard too and it really means a lot to him.

Harry did some good things. That snapped goal out of the pack in the third was important. He made a bad error late, turning the ball over in our forward 50 when he tried batting it on, when he should have taken possession.

[Blood Fever]

Courageous win, although we didn't really play that well and probably stole it in end.

I think a key reason Allir was picked was to contest the long kick down the line out of defence - i.e. the second or third kick following a kick-in after a behind. Reid, Sinclair and Buddy tend to contest those (sometimes Rohan and Towers), and Aliir took Reid's role, particularly in the second half. I thought he did a good job contesting them - I don't think he conceded a contested mark in those contests and killed the ball in most of them.

I think most of us presumed Aliir was replacing Melican, but on reflection there was a tell in Longmire's interview at the beginning of the week. When he was asked who would replace Reid, he responded that Aliir was probably underdone. I thought it sounded a little strange at the time. They decided to go with him anyway - the leaping swingman, and I think it still turned out better than the alternatives. But yes, he's clearly rusty and needs games. It will be interesting to see whether he or Newman make way for Rohan next week, if he plays. Rohan is better than both in both roles.

I thought it was a toss-up between Parker and McVeigh for our best. Parker's late mis-kick late can surely be forgiven - he kept us in the game by being the most dominant inside midfielder on the night. He led us in clearances and contested possessions and kicked three goals to keep us in touch early.

McVeigh saved us several times, particularly late. He's playing his best footy for three years. Rampe and Grundy (in particular) probably played their best games of the year, with better footy to come.

Heeney was good again. I thought Towers was excellent - rucked well, broke away a couple of times, and of course took that excellent contested grab and converted it well in the last quarter.

We haven't hit the ground running this year - our wins have been scrappy, but hard fought. A lot of improvement to come.

Thoughtful and accurate post

[barry]

I think JPK has fallen out of the "elite" category of midfielders now.

Towers is proving an inspired mature draft choice.

[Sandridge]

The AFL website has a video of the last 2 minutes of the game. Have watched it several times. Just love the reaction in the coaches box when it's obvious we're going to hang on. John Longmire, Rhyce Shaw, Brett Kirk and Dean Cox are all obviously pumped!
GO SWANNIES!!

[crackedactor]

I don?t


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't . 100 percent certain. 12 free kicks to one in the second half. I imagine Stevic has been rewarded already and been promised the GF.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ludwig]

I think a key reason Allir was picked was to contest the long kick down the line out of defence - i.e. the second or third kick following a kick-in after a behind. Reid, Sinclair and Buddy tend to contest those (sometimes Rohan and Towers), and Aliir took Reid's role, particularly in the second half. I thought he did a good job contesting them - I don't think he conceded a contested mark in those contests and killed the ball in most of them.

I think most of us presumed Aliir was replacing Melican, but on reflection there was a tell in Longmire's interview at the beginning of the week. When he was asked who would replace Reid, he responded that Aliir was probably underdone. I thought it sounded a little strange at the time. They decided to go with him anyway - the leaping swingman, and I think it still turned out better than the alternatives. But yes, he's clearly rusty and needs games. It will be interesting to see whether he or Newman make way for Rohan next week, if he plays. Rohan is better than both in both roles.

I thought it was a toss-up between Parker and McVeigh for our best. Parker's late mis-kick late can surely be forgiven - he kept us in the game by being the most dominant inside midfielder on the night. He led us in clearances and contested possessions and kicked three goals to keep us in touch early.

McVeigh saved us several times, particularly late. He's playing his best footy for three years. Rampe and Grundy (in particular) probably played their best games of the year, with better footy to come.

Heeney was good again. I thought Towers was excellent - rucked well, broke away a couple of times, and of course took that excellent contested grab and converted it well in the last quarter.

We haven't hit the ground running this year - our wins have been scrappy, but hard fought. A lot of improvement to come.

I think you're right on all accounts here. It did look as Aliir was given a very specific role and instructions not to stray off the plan. He usually takes the game on, which he didn't even try to do this game. There may have been concern about his ability to handle the Dogs' pressure if played in defence, including his tendency to give away free kicks. I think we will have to go with him against a tall Adelaide forward line.

We've not been defending well around our defensive 50 arc this year, letting the ball come in too easily. We are also being hurt by the chaos ball. I'm not sure what the answer is, or if Aliir is the answer in this regard. The 60-42 inside 50s against us is a continuing worry. If we are not defending well inside 50 then we have to find a way to get the ball out of there better. It could be a classic a case of a the best way to defend is to attack. I think we were a better defence against the high ball coming in, but not so good against the quick and chaotic ball movement that the Bulldogs started and is trending in the game now. It's one of he reasons that the Bulldogs seem to play well against us.

I also thought Heeney, Parker, Macca and Towers were our best. Papley was good too. When we turned up the pressure in the 3rd qtr we looked very good, but you could say the same about the Bulldogs in the 1st qtr. It's hard to sustain that kind of effort for a full game.

[The Big Cat]

Thought the helmeted bulldog was auditioning for a boundary ump role the way he threw the ball over his head in the last couple of minutes.

[Agent 86]

His thinking was right, it was just that he was having trouble carrying out the plan because of cramp.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

Think he was exhausted? but that blunder nearly cost the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Papernick]

Thought the helmeted bulldog was auditioning for a boundary ump role the way he threw the ball over his head in the last couple of minutes.

I will never forget them being repeatedly allowed to blatantly throw the pill in the 2016 Grand Final.

In hindsight I?m glad we got knocked out last year, we would never have been allowed to beat the Tigers and I don?t think I could have handled another VFL stitch up

[Bill Posters]

Has that bulldog been reported for that punch to papley's head when he was on the ground? No lasting damage but that was a dog act.

[liz]

Has that bulldog been reported for that punch to papley's head when he was on the ground? No lasting damage but that was a dog act.

We won't find out until late Monday afternoon when the MRP findings are published. They've started reviewing Thursday and Friday games on Saturday but the Sat/Sun games are still left to Monday.