Is Longmire cooked?

[Plugger1300]

You can't just say we won - So Longmire is right
Just like it doesn't work the other way.

All i'm saying and i can only speak for myself is that on game day Horse has been too slow to make changes
and has always had faith that our players will win with the set game plan
Which is admirable but outdated as our team evolves and gets younger.

I'm not sure we saw anything yesterday than the team spirit get us over the line
(which is also down to Horse) not sure anything coaching wise was apparent

[caj23]

Throwing Heeney back is not a plan B.
It's just player movement that worked.
I am seeing changes to our game style. Again, not a plan B

Do we need a whole separate game plan (plan B)?
I think most were frustrated that more player movements weren't initiated earlier in the season when it was obvious that what we were doing wasn't working.

Not sure if say Heeney going back is something that is practised and planned for, or just a whim.
Keep in mind that it could have backfired, which is always the risk when making these kinds of changes.
Then it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I like what I'm seeing though.
Rathr than reactionary "we have to do something different" it seems to have been given thought and tweaking, which is the best way to move forward into finals.

Great post CTS

[mcs]

Agreed.

Throwing Heeney back yesterday proved to be a master stroke. Something for the "no plan B" complainers to think about.

Not sure that really was a Plan B to be honest, more a move out of necessity and with Heeney as the only obvious candidate to do it (gosh he did it well though). At the end of the day, the question marks are around our broader approach/gameplan, rather than necessarily individual decisions about individual players within a game, are likely to remain. Lets see if Longmire can adopt our gameplan as the broader characteristics of our team change with our younger brigade coming through - as several of them are very different players to what our recruitment has focused on previously.

[Agent 86]

Throwing Heeney back is not a plan B.
It's just player movement that worked.
I am seeing changes to our game style. Again, not a plan B

Do we need a whole separate game plan (plan B)?
I think most were frustrated that more player movements weren't initiated earlier in the season when it was obvious that what we were doing wasn't working.

Not sure if say Heeney going back is something that is practised and planned for, or just a whim.
Keep in mind that it could have backfired, which is always the risk when making these kinds of changes.
Then it's damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I like what I'm seeing though.
Rathr than reactionary "we have to do something different" it seems to have been given thought and tweaking, which is the best way to move forward into finals.

Agreed. I’m Sick of hearing about Plan B.

If Plan A is not working then you tweak Plan A until it does.

As for the changes, we ‘have’ blooded a lot of kids this year, but as we saw when more changes were forced upon us, we really struggled & fell away badly. This has been turned around somewhat with the return of those much maligned senior players.

Hanners and Jack have clearly struggled this year, but experience also counts when transitioning.

My key gripe is still with the AFL trade ban where we lost a number of key players and were denied the opportunity to compete for replacements. I thought our administration didn’t fight this hard enough.

[CureTheSane]

I think people use the term plan B out of frustration to things not changing when it's not going our way.
I wonder if during those games some players were moved around and we still lost if the commentary may have changed to "yes we lost, but horse did all he could to change things up and it didn't work"
It's the perception that Longmire is sitting there scratching his head thinking "this is all we've trained for, I don't know what else I can do" that gets people upset.

Allir is a good example.
I've said before that it had to be disciplinary in 2017. Either that or he was way out of the game plan and needed to be reeled in.
Otherwise why wasn't he played?
Transparency, Swans. Just tell us.
His form before injury was great. Played well in the NEAFL. Came back and is starring.
One of life's mysteries...

[liz]

All i'm saying and i can only speak for myself is that on game day Horse has been too slow to make changes
and has always had faith that our players will win with the set game plan
Which is admirable but outdated as our team evolves and gets younger.

I'd argue that with a younger team (not necessarily looking at mean age but with a sizeable number of inexperienced players), it's harder to move the team around mid game, or make changes to the method or structure. When you have mostly experienced players, they can make calls themselves and cope with more complexity.

I find the discussions around game day coaching frustrating because they invariably arise after we lose. But in most games we've lost this year (and in recent years), it's been what the team hasn't done that has been most telling, not what the coaches have or haven't done. It's been the players not tackling, not spreading, not attacking the ball on the ground. It makes no difference what game plan the coaches try to implement when the players aren't executing fundamental skills/actions.

There have been some games we've lost recently where it's been a game style issue as much as a skills issue - notably losses to Hawthorn (last year), Collingwood (last year), maybe the Geelong final last year (though skill execution was a big issue in that game too). The keepings-off style that Hawthorn was so good at is the best way to take Sydney's game style away from them. (And not just Sydney's - any team that likes to see the ball contested for large portions of the game.) The problem is that when a team executes it well, it's a hard style to counter. Fortunately it needs excellent footskills and most teams don't have good enough footskills right across their team to implement the style well for a full game. And even in the two Hawthorn losses and the Collingwood loss last year, the Swans got back into the game and only lost by close margins, indicating that they were able to eventually break down the keepings-off approach.

[Agent 86]

Allir is a good example.
I've said before that it had to be disciplinary in 2017. Either that or he was way out of the game plan and needed to be reeled in.
Otherwise why wasn't he played?
Transparency, Swans. Just tell us.
His form before injury was great. Played well in the NEAFL. Came back and is starring.
One of life's mysteries...

I don’t think any club would be fully transparent (publicly) about the fitness, form, confidence level or discipline issues with a particular player. But reading between the lines, there was probably a bit of each of these with AA last year.

[neilfws]

Not sure that really was a Plan B to be honest

Oh I agree. I think it was a good move, not a "plan B". Just saying, there are those who seem to think we go out with "one plan" and never adapt during the game.

[CureTheSane]

I don’t think any club would be fully transparent (publicly) about the fitness, form, confidence level or discipline issues with a particular player. But reading between the lines, there was probably a bit of each of these with AA last year.

Some more than others.
Swans seem to keep all their cards pretty close to their chest.

Whilst I call for transparency, that is said as a fan.
On the other hand I respect the business decision to not tell us anything.

[caj23]

I'd argue that with a younger team (not necessarily looking at mean age but with a sizeable number of inexperienced players), it's harder to move the team around mid game, or make changes to the method or structure. When you have mostly experienced players, they can make calls themselves and cope with more complexity.

I find the discussions around game day coaching frustrating because they invariably arise after we lose. But in most games we've lost this year (and in recent years), it's been what the team hasn't done that has been most telling, not what the coaches have or haven't done. It's been the players not tackling, not spreading, not attacking the ball on the ground. It makes no difference what game plan the coaches try to implement when the players aren't executing fundamental skills/actions.

There have been some games we've lost recently where it's been a game style issue as much as a skills issue - notably losses to Hawthorn (last year), Collingwood (last year), maybe the Geelong final last year (though skill execution was a big issue in that game too). The keepings-off style that Hawthorn was so good at is the best way to take Sydney's game style away from them. (And not just Sydney's - any team that likes to see the ball contested for large portions of the game.) The problem is that when a team executes it well, it's a hard style to counter. Fortunately it needs excellent footskills and most teams don't have good enough footskills right across their team to implement the style well for a full game. And even in the two Hawthorn losses and the Collingwood loss last year, the Swans got back into the game and only lost by close margins, indicating that they were able to eventually break down the keepings-off approach.

I guess the key question is does the current game plan give us the best opportunity to win a premiership with the current group?

I don't think you could confidently reply in the affirmative as the best teams (and even some mediocre teams) know how to counter it.

Hopefully the existing coaching group can come up with an answer because they're going to be there next year

[mcs]

Hewett is fast becoming an invaluable midfielder.
Doesn't get the accolades of some of the others, but like Smith, goes about his job, usually does it well and seems to fly under the radar.
Some of his work yesterday was outstanding, when we were under the pump early in the game.

Hewett was superb yesterday imho, really really good. He seems to be developing the McVeigh ability to really negotiate through traffic, and he was super important early in particular. Really like how he is coming along.

[mcs]

Oh I agree. I think it was a good move, not a "plan B". Just saying, there are those who seem to think we go out with "one plan" and never adapt during the game.

I've never had significant concerns about Longmire as a 'match day coach' - i.e. he doesn't seem any better or worse than most other coaches at being able to adapt during a game as need be. I'm not convinced he is overly good at adapting to change during a game, but there is no significant evidence he is any worse than anyone else in that regard.

[sprite]

Agreed. I’m Sick of hearing about Plan B.

If Plan A is not working then you tweak Plan A until it does.

Unlike basketball, where you can quickly transition to different plays and strategies, football due to the number of players and size of grounds make this extremely difficult.

A coach can plan for match ups and work on structures within in the game plan. When a match up doesn't work or heaven forbid the opposition coach make changes to his structures then all the coach can do is switch his players to counter this.

[liz]

I guess the key question is does the current game plan give us the best opportunity to win a premiership with the current group?

I don't think you could confidently reply in the affirmative as the best teams (and even some mediocre teams) know how to counter it.

Hopefully the existing coaching group can come up with an answer because they're going to be there next year

What changes - given current personnel - would you make such that it would be harder for other teams to counter it?

I contend that we are far from the most talented or complete team. Almost half our best 22 (or at least the team field each week) started life as rookies, and while several of them have become very decent footballers, we've had very limited access to the highly skilled players who tend to get selected in the first handful of picks each week. Compare the make-up of our midfield with the one we played yesterday, which included Brayshaw, Petracca, Tyson and Oliver who were all top five picks in their time. Or our opponents next week who, even with all their injuries, can still put a midfield out comprising Coniglio, Kelly, Shiel, Taranto and Hopper and have Whitfield running off a half-back flank.

Richmond have shown that you can build a very successful team with a small handful of stars and lots of moderately talented role players so long as you have a game plan that everyone understands and buys into. At present, the Swans players don't have the same level of confidence in their game plan as the Tigers. Maybe it's not yet as well tweaked to the available personnel. Ours is still a work in progress (which it surprises me that fans calling for change can't observe) but the Tigers play the same way each and every match, having faith in their game plan to stand up. They don't tweak from week to week, and I think this is a major factor in their success.

The Swans have had game plans (subtly) changing from year to year that have proven good enough to get to the grand final. Three times they've achieved this while Longmire has been at the helm. While acknowledging that two of those occasions were disappointing, that had little to do with the game plan.

[Markwebbos]

Horses set move was to send a spare tall - Reid - back for the last 5 mins of each quarter and in times of crisis. He was using Heeney in that role.

Allegedly Clarko uses Gunston in the same way.