Is Longmire cooked?

[Ludwig]

Our depth is quite poor which is obviously a major reason we've tried to pump as much experience as possible into our younger guys over the past couple of years. You can say the players may not have delivered as the club had hoped, but it now seems like poor list management to have guys like Robinson, Towers, Rose, Marsh and even Cameron on our list if we're not going to play them when they're available and young players have been tired. That would be $1M that we could have spent on keeping Tom Mitchell and/or getting someone else in. If we don't use those guys, we may as well fill their list spots with late draft picks who we delist after a couple of years, but save on the salaries.

I think we re-signed those guys on modest AFL wages on the basis they'd be handy depth players, given the amount we spend on our top-liners and the fact we have a lot of kids as well - but it has been a waste given we don't want to use them.

Our game plan is ultra defensive / risk averse, and the difference between backing yourself to outscore your opposition versus trying to keep the opposition to a low score and finishing ahead of them is actually more than a subtle one.

We do move the ball very slowly / cautiously - mainly because our defenders don't trust themselves (or those given them directions don't trust them) to hit targets - you compare that to a team like Hawthorn (even with young and inexperienced players now), who still back themselves to quickly move it on and hit up a 15-20m target which opens things up dramatically. That's why someone like Aliir is so important, as he does that - and why he should have been playing a lot sooner.

We are also incredibly reliant on our midfield to either win the ball or constantly apply enormous pressure - and if we don't the game is just played in our back half which we flood, rather than letting our defenders try and win their contests and then rebound the ball with more open options up the field.

You could see the difference last week, albeit under unfortunate circumstances - two defenders who turn the ball over a lot by foot went off, and we relied more on guys like Newman and Florent who can actually be creative. We look shakier defensively but our ball movement opens up dramatically.

Regardless of the reasons behind it, it is just completely unsustainable to consistently lose the I50's as we have been. My concern is that the response is to be more defensive, which ends up making it worse - given we then have no forward structure and at times just set up to play the game in our defensive half.

We've actually only had more scoring shots than our opposition 6 times this year (which includes the Fremantle, Carlton and St Kilda games which should have been a given) - which even by simple logic is saying we are giving the opposition the chance to outscore us if they're good enough.

I think more teams are looking toward game plans / structures that stand up no matter who is playing (within reason of course), but for the last 6 years we've been making excuses as to why our rigid approach has been thwarted by injuries and players in certain games not bringing enough pressure/effort etc.

I'm definitely supportive of Longmire but there's no doubt we need to change / evolve more than we have been if we're to take any further steps forward.

• Our depth is not poor, just young. If we upgrade our mature player depth, it would have to be at the expense of recruiting quality players for the future. Eventually you get to the point where your mature players retire and there's no one available to take their places. That conforms with the strategy of going to the bottom to rebuild. The Swans have chosen to rebuild on the run and trying to stay competitive every year at the expense of having the ultimate team for a short period of time.
• The fact that we are not playing guys like Towers and Robinson regularly is a testament to the success of our policy in that our young recruits are doing well enough that we don't have to play our top up mature depth players as often. The fact that Towers was a regular last year and can't make a depleted Swans this year means that the transition with our younger players is working. Would we rather have Hayward in the side or Towers, if they produce similar outputs?
• We just can't delist these players and find a bag full of money to keep another high quality player, like Tom Mitchell, because we would still have to fill those depth player spots with other depth players, probably of similar quality and compensation. If we paid our top 20 players an average of $700kpa it would consume the entire salary cap. So how would be pay the remaining 26 players on our list. It's a tricky business getting the right distribution of the salary cap. The more successful clubs often find that the top players take unders to keep the team together.
• Recruiting quality young players, usually meaning high draft picks, redistributes the salary for high end players, like Mitchell, to these young players that we hope will become high end players in due course. An error at the top end can hurt a lot and for a long time. For us, it turned out that we had a lot invested in just 2 players, Franklin and Tippett, and one of them didn't come good, albeit due to injury. From the salary perspective, that was the prime reason we lost Mitchell, we had to carry a non-performing Tippett instead.
• The other reason we let Mitchell go was to accelerate the transition of our game plan. We want to move the ball more quickly and with more precision but don't have the players to do it. Experienced players that can move the ball quickly with precision are highly prized and don't come cheaply. The alternative is to draft those kinds of players, which is what we have done in the past few years. Time only moves so quickly.
• Every good team relies on the midfield to compete hard to win the ball and defend they don't have the ball. Our forwards apply good pressure, but are finding it hard sticking tackles, but that should come in time
• From what I can tell, we are trying to move the ball as quickly as possible without just turning it over. Sometimes we have to slow things down because we are kicking wildly to the opposition. That's a common complaint on this forum. So what do we do; move the ball slower or kick it to the opposition? The answer is to move the ball quickly without turning it over. When we can do that we will win another premiership.
• Considering all the factors, I think we've got the balance right. We just happen to be in a bit of a trough right now because the Florents, Haywards, Ronkes and McCartins of the club are still a couple of years away from matching it with the best of other clubs, while we've lost a bit of top end quality through injury and form slumps.
• We all recognise that being a slow contested team just won't cut it these days, so we had to do something to change things. We want to play like Richmond with 4 quarter pressure, an offensive mindset and quick ball movement.
• Richmond have a core of a dozen players in the 25-30 age group in top form and this is reflected in their performance. Our core demographic of quality players are under 26, so logic says that we will find it hard to match them. But our time should come in a few years. Meanwhile, we have set in motion the foundations of this transition and we can still compete for the flag, albeit a bit feebly.

[Ludwig]

I know you are all sick to death of me saying it, but percentage means everything, especially at the pointy end of the season. The only way you're going to get percentage is to kick goals. That's the way it works!

Winning a game 50-37 is a bigger percentage booster than winning 100-75. Given the same points differential, the lower the score, the greater the percentage.

But if agree that we need to score more and become a more offensive team.

[Blood Fever]

• Our depth is not poor, just young. If we upgrade our mature player depth, it would have to be at the expense of recruiting quality players for the future. Eventually you get to the point where your mature players retire and there's no one available to take their places. That conforms with the strategy of going to the bottom to rebuild. The Swans have chosen to rebuild on the run and trying to stay competitive every year at the expense of having the ultimate team for a short period of time.
• The fact that we are not playing guys like Towers and Robinson regularly is a testament to the success of our policy in that our young recruits are doing well enough that we don't have to play our top up mature depth players as often. The fact that Towers was a regular last year and can't make a depleted Swans this year means that the transition with our younger players is working. Would we rather have Hayward in the side or Towers, if they produce similar outputs?
• We just can't delist these players and find a bag full of money to keep another high quality player, like Tom Mitchell, because we would still have to fill those depth player spots with other depth players, probably of similar quality and compensation. If we paid our top 20 players an average of $700kpa it would consume the entire salary cap. So how would be pay the remaining 26 players on our list. It's a tricky business getting the right distribution of the salary cap. The more successful clubs often find that the top players take unders to keep the team together.
• Recruiting quality young players, usually meaning high draft picks, redistributes the salary for high end players, like Mitchell, to these young players that we hope will become high end players in due course. An error at the top end can hurt a lot and for a long time. For us, it turned out that we had a lot invested in just 2 players, Franklin and Tippett, and one of them didn't come good, albeit due to injury. From the salary perspective, that was the prime reason we lost Mitchell, we had to carry a non-performing Tippett instead.
• The other reason we let Mitchell go was to accelerate the transition of our game plan. We want to move the ball more quickly and with more precision but don't have the players to do it. Experienced players that can move the ball quickly with precision are highly prized and don't come cheaply. The alternative is to draft those kinds of players, which is what we have done in the past few years. Time only moves so quickly.
• Every good team relies on the midfield to compete hard to win the ball and defend they don't have the ball. Our forwards apply good pressure, but are finding it hard sticking tackles, but that should come in time
• From what I can tell, we are trying to move the ball as quickly as possible without just turning it over. Sometimes we have to slow things down because we are kicking wildly to the opposition. That's a common complaint on this forum. So what do we do; move the ball slower or kick it to the opposition? The answer is to move the ball quickly without turning it over. When we can do that we will win another premiership.
• Considering all the factors, I think we've got the balance right. We just happen to be in a bit of a trough right now because the Florents, Haywards, Ronkes and McCartins of the club are still a couple of years away from matching it with the best of other clubs, while we've lost a bit of top end quality through injury and form slumps.
• We all recognise that being a slow contested team just won't cut it these days, so we had to do something to change things. We want to play like Richmond with 4 quarter pressure, an offensive mindset and quick ball movement.
• Richmond have a core of a dozen players in the 25-30 age group in top form and this is reflected in their performance. Our core demographic of quality players are under 26, so logic says that we will find it hard to match them. But our time should come in a few years. Meanwhile, we have set in motion the foundations of this transition and we can still compete for the flag, albeit a bit feebly.

Excellent summary. Disagree on the 'feebly' bit for this reason: Almost every team in the 8 has injury issues and I reckon this opens up the opportunity for a number of teams, including us, to make the GF. Correct me if I'm wrong but we have beaten every team presently in the 8 besides Tigers and Port this season. We have beaten the Eagles twice. If Richmond and GWS had no injury issues, I agree we would struggle against them. We are a chance in a one off final against all other likely finalists including GWS with their current injury problems. Maybe I'm deluded and we still need to make the finals, but I am more hopeful because of our form the last two weeks and the number of injuries of a number of other teams.

[Ludwig]

If Richmond and GWS had no injury issues, I agree we would struggle against them. We are a chance in a one off final against all other likely finalists including GWS with their current injury problems. Maybe I'm deluded and we still need to make the finals, but I am more hopeful because of our form the last two weeks and the number of injuries of a number of other teams.

We might be the 3rd best side behind Richmond and GWS if we had most of our players on board and in good form. I didn't give us much hope against GWS, but now with Kelly and Shaw out, we have a good chance. Jack and Hanners made some progress last week, but it needs to continue. We may need Reid back for finals to have a realistic chance, and we also have to win the next 2 games and make the top 4.

We showed a lot of grit to win the past 2 games, but it wasn't all that convincing. Collingwood had more injuries than us and Melbourne have a record of falling over against the better sides. We now know that Hogan was playing with a broken foot, which probably explains his poor goal kicking and may have been the difference in the game.

These next 2 games will give us a better indication of where we're at. It's more than just making the finals, but also being in solid winning form going into the finals.

[Melbourne_Blood]

We might be the 3rd best side behind Richmond and GWS if we had most of our players on board and in good form. I didn't give us much hope against GWS, but now with Kelly and Shaw out, we have a good chance. Jack and Hanners made some progress last week, but it needs to continue. We may need Reid back for finals to have a realistic chance, and we also have to win the next 2 games and make the top 4.

We showed a lot of grit to win the past 2 games, but it wasn't all that convincing. Collingwood had more injuries than us and Melbourne have a record of falling over against the better sides. We now know that Hogan was playing with a broken foot, which probably explains his poor goal kicking and may have been the difference in the game.

These next 2 games will give us a better indication of where we're at. It's more than just making the finals, but also being in solid winning form going into the finals.

Speaking of Jack, i really noticed him at the game and he played quite well. His little dinky kicks along the wing worked very well for players running to the ball allowing more space and time for other guys to run past. Newman was similar. Instead of drilling a 20 mate past they popped it up a little so our guys had to run into the ball harder , and it created more gaps on the field for our guys to link up and run past.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stevoswan]

Winning a game 50-37 is a bigger percentage booster than winning 100-75. Given the same points differential, the lower the score, the greater the percentage.

But if agree that we need to score more and become a more offensive team.

True.....but if we lost the following game by 24 pts, the 50-37 suddenly becomes a very negative percentage whereas the 100-75 remains in the positive. So, and this we agree on, it is important to have higher scores leading to bigger winning margins to preserve a healthy percentage when we have an off game or two.

[Ludwig]

True.....but if we lost the following game by 24 pts, the 50-37 suddenly becomes a very negative percentage whereas the 100-75 remains in the positive. So, and this we agree on, it is important to have higher scores leading to bigger winning margins to preserve a healthy percentage when we have an off game or two.

Are you trying to say that we should win our games by the greatest margin possible and lose by the smallest margin possible? And that would give us a good percentage?

It's an interesting idea. I think it might work.

[stevoswan]

Are you trying to say that we should win our games by the greatest margin possible and lose by the smallest margin possible? And that would give us a good percentage?

It's an interesting idea. I think it might work.

I can't believe the sarcasm Ludwig.....are we not able to disagree with you, even if it is ultimately agreeing with you?

[Ludwig]

I can't believe the sarcasm Ludwig.....are we not able to disagree with you, even if it is ultimately agreeing with you?

Sorry. It sounded funnier in my own head. Don't take me too seriously.

[Hotpotato]

I thought it was funny but not hilarious .

[Ludwig]

I thought it was funny but not hilarious .

Me too.

My contract says that I only have to do hilarious 3 times a week.

[Matty10]

I thought it was funny but not hilarious .

For whatever reason, I think your comment was actually the funniest in weeks!

[Meg]

For whatever reason, I think your comment was actually the funniest in weeks!

Not as good as the Ugg boot/Moon boot post. That had me in stitches.

[stevoswan]

Sorry. It sounded funnier in my own head. Don't take me too seriously.

All good....it's easy to misread intention in posts. My bad too.

[Steve]

Is Longmire cooked?

• Our depth is not poor, just young.
  
• The fact that we are not playing guys like Towers and Robinson regularly is a testament to the success of our policy in that our young recruits are doing well enough that we don't have to play our top up mature depth players
  
• We just can't delist these players and find a bag full of money to keep another high quality player, like Tom Mitchell, because we would still have to fill those depth player spots with other depth players, probably of similar quality and compensation.
  
• The other reason we let Mitchell go was to accelerate the transition of our game plan.

The strategy around recruiting more young guys and playing them early has been very evident since 2016 - which I still maintain makes the retention of the guys I mentioned questionable. More so when we’re talking about a year where we’ve had numerous injuries and youngsters are getting tired - exactly when depth players are usually used.

Even examples like giving Stoddart a couple of games this year - that was clearly giving kid some exposure when there were better options at that point in time, but there was a bigger picture view to who we gave the 22nd spot in the team to those weeks.

It’s ordinary list management (re: those guys I classify as depth players) either way - i) we were always going to prioritise youngsters and the extra $1M is basically wasted, or ii) we genuinely saw them as being in our best 22 and got that very wrong.

Where is it mandated that you have to have x number of depth players in their mid to late 20’s on say $200-250K per year? My point is that if we save $1M+ on guys we seem very determined not to play, they can be replaced with draftees on $70K each (or whatever the minimum AFL wage is) which saves us ~$700K per year. Either way they’re playing NEAFL so we may as well save the money and if we hit the jackpot and one late draftee unexpectedly becomes a player, then all the better.

The reason Mitchell left was that Hawthorn offered a lot more money - in fairness at the time I agreed he wasn’t worth retaining on that money if it meant losing other players down the track and eating further into our depth. But our whole game plan is about winning the ball first, and we’re not using some of what might have been seen as depth, so in hindsight it would have been far better to pay Mitchell $150K more than we were offering and save on the depth players who are obviously not rated very highly.