Swans' Pre-season 2019

[liz]

Buddy doesn't count among mere mortals.....he is a freak. I think those 'wishes' are made in 'a perfect world' (with no injuries)....which we all wish for.

It has to be said, if the club does achieve the above 'goals', we will go a long way this season.

As for Plan A and Plan B, sure it's been done to death but strangely it still hasn't been successfully achieved by our team.....and this is totally Horse's responsibility and has little to do with injuries......all the players either buy in or they don't, whether they are experienced or not.....if indeed there is an alternative gameplan. I still don't think any Swans fans can identify if a Plan B actually exists.....except maybe 'play Plan A harder'.

I think playing with Buddy struggling is one of the biggest challenges for the team. If you look over the last few seasons, we've generally done OK when Buddy has been out injured. Not great, but OK. In 2018 we beat Geelong in Geelong and Hawthorn at the MCG, and narrowly lost to Hawthorn at the SCG. We also lost narrowly to North at the SCG in probably the most frustrating, over-umpired game I saw last year, where both teams struggled to get going (Higgins aside).

When he plays and plays even decently well, we are usually in the match.

But some of our most disappointing performances have come when he's been in the team but unable - due to injury - to perform to anything like his normal standard. Think of the 2018 and 2017 finals exit games against GWS and Geelong respectively. He had a groin injury in the former and a massive thigh cork in the latter (which he picked up the previous week and you could see badly hampered him during that game). Or the Essendon game this year. You could even throw the 2016 Grand Final into the discussion, where he hurt his ankle in the first few minutes and could barely run for the rest of the game. For all the commentary on the umpiring in that game, and the injury to Hanners, and the fact the team took a few not-quite-ready players into the game, I still reckon we would have overcome all that had Franklin been able to perform.

The fact he often performs when not really fit shows how difficult a selection decision it is for the club. I'm not advocating him being picked less often when not fully fit. But I do think the team (and Buddy) need to adjust during games when he's out there but not performing. I think the coaches get tactically more adventurous when he's not there - as we saw during this year's Geelong game when they tried something different in the final quarter and it worked out. But when he is out there, there often seems to be a belief that he'll pull something out of the bag even when he's struggling. It may be that it's Buddy that needs to adjust as much as the coaches, and learn to play more sacrificial roles to open up space and opportunities for other players.

As for the Plan B versus Plan A discussion, I will go further than you. I don't think most people know what Plan A is. Or rather, they confuse poor execution with how the team is trying to play. Anyone who suggests the team should try to play less in its back half is prime example. No team tries to play in its back half. That's just dumb. In an ideal game, the team wins every centre bounce clearance, gets the ball forward, and either scores, or locks in forward until they score. Unfortunately there's always another team out there trying to doing the same and it gets in the way of a team executing its perfect plan.

[Markwebbos]

Liz, I think your comment about playing in the back half completely misses the point.

The question with game style is where teams try to win the ball back when they don’t have it.

Richmond and others try to win the ball back in their forward half so they don’t have to defend a mountain of inside 50s.

The Swans tend to end up trying to win the ball back in their defensive half.

Which means more inside 50s and having to move the ball further to score.

The Age says this should be our New Years resolution:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-new-year-s-resolutions-your-afl-club-should-be-making-for-2019-20181225-p50o5l.html

Sydney: Stop flogging dead Horse tactics

The Swans’ sagging defence, where they absorb repeat inside-50s and attempt to slingshot forward on the counter attack, is no longer working.

The old hands down back, including Heath Grundy and Nick Smith, aren’t able to intercept the way they did several years ago.

For the Swans to continue their nine-year finals streak, John Longmire needs to start playing the game in the Swans' forward half, lessening pressure on his backline and allowing Lance Franklin to spend more time in the orbit of the Sherrin.

[liz]

Liz, I think your comment about playing in the back half completely misses the point.

The question with game style is where teams try to win the ball back when they don’t have it.

Richmond and others try to win the ball back in their forward half so they don’t have to defend a mountain of inside 50s.

The Swans tend to end up trying to win the ball back in their defensive half.

Which means more inside 50s and having to move the ball further to score.

The Age says this should be our New Years resolution:

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/the-new-year-s-resolutions-your-afl-club-should-be-making-for-2019-20181225-p50o5l.html

Sydney: Stop flogging dead Horse tactics

The Swans’ sagging defence, where they absorb repeat inside-50s and attempt to slingshot forward on the counter attack, is no longer working.

The old hands down back, including Heath Grundy and Nick Smith, aren’t able to intercept the way they did several years ago.

For the Swans to continue their nine-year finals streak, John Longmire needs to start playing the game in the Swans' forward half, lessening pressure on his backline and allowing Lance Franklin to spend more time in the orbit of the Sherrin.

It was partly that Age article I had in mind when I made the comment. As before, there's a difference between trying and succeeding.

If you look back to recent seasons past (ie before 2018) when we had a pretty good midfield and a more experienced forward line, our forward and midfield pressure was pretty good. When the ball got into our defence it did often stay there for a while (leading to comments that the Swans were good at absorbing pressure in their defence) but I believe this was more because we weren't very good at rebounding the ball quickly out of our defence, rather than because it got there a lot. The Swans have recognised that they lack rebound out of defence and have addressed this in the draft in recent seasons. But the players they've drafted aren't yet ready to make an impact.

In 2018 our midfield was a liability. Neither Parker nor Kennedy was at their best, Hanners was a shadow of his former self (when out there, and, IMO, worse than in 2017, when out there), Jack continued his gradual decline, and we had a lot of light bodies who couldn't make their tackles stick. Our forward line pressure was also down on prior years, partly related to the midfield decline (since midfielders usually contribute to the forward press), partly because Buddy's fitness was patchy (his defensive play is underrated by many) and Rohan's absence didn't help either. I know Rohan has never got high disposal statistics but he was pretty good at cutting off opposition forward exits via his positioning and ability to run quickly to certain spots on the ground.

I'm not suggesting that things don't need to change. More challenging this belief that it's part of Longmire's philosophy on how to play the game that we should just allow the ball to get to defence and bank on winning it back there. Prior years' patterns of play under his tutelage don't support this.

[Auntie.Gerald]

we All know there is nothing new under the sun re football and minimal injuries and building a squad that we suspect will match the constant AFL rule adjustments are a fine art and a lot of luck

So for me the arguement is never about plan A vs B

It is about being “FLEXIBLE” to adjust to what works against certain teams and on certain grounds

And then having a squad with the attributes to be able to adjust game plans week to week or inside a game that is critical

I have been lucky enough to chat to the players about this and our mantra has been if we can crack in harder and longer then the opposition then generally this style of footy wins out

Well that isn’t quite true and the hawks were fantastic exponents of very “flexible” game plans

Our backline over the years suited defending from our back half because we had a slow backline and no space with huge numbers of players allowed our backs to not be singled out one on one as easily

It also prevented the run and carry teams taking on our backline with large space behind them ie defending in our half created congestion and nothing to run at

I like uncontested footy like the hawks were brilliant at for many years and somewhat west coast posting up a lot last season in attack

I like contested footy like we , tigers and bulldogs have done very well in recent times right from the midfield to large amounts of players in tight

I like defending at both of ends of the ground

These are all fundamental areas of footy

We just need to be more “FLEXIBILE” ingames and we need a few more players especially on our wings and HBFs who could player the outside

We may now have this combo in the squad close to right for 2019 and to be a top 8 team again

But I don’t think we improved our list in comparison to other teams fighting for the top8

[Blood Fever]

It was partly that Age article I had in mind when I made the comment. As before, there's a difference between trying and succeeding.

If you look back to recent seasons past (ie before 2018) when we had a pretty good midfield and a more experienced forward line, our forward and midfield pressure was pretty good. When the ball got into our defence it did often stay there for a while (leading to comments that the Swans were good at absorbing pressure in their defence) but I believe this was more because we weren't very good at rebounding the ball quickly out of our defence, rather than because it got there a lot. The Swans have recognised that they lack rebound out of defence and have addressed this in the draft in recent seasons. But the players they've drafted aren't yet ready to make an impact.

In 2018 our midfield was a liability. Neither Parker nor Kennedy was at their best, Hanners was a shadow of his former self (when out there, and, IMO, worse than in 2017, when out there), Jack continued his gradual decline, and we had a lot of light bodies who couldn't make their tackles stick. Our forward line pressure was also down on prior years, partly related to the midfield decline (since midfielders usually contribute to the forward press), partly because Buddy's fitness was patchy (his defensive play is underrated by many) and Rohan's absence didn't help either. I know Rohan has never got high disposal statistics but he was pretty good at cutting off opposition forward exits via his positioning and ability to run quickly to certain spots on the ground.

I'm not suggesting that things don't need to change. More challenging this belief that it's part of Longmire's philosophy on how to play the game that we should just allow the ball to get to defence and bank on winning it back there. Prior years' patterns of play under his tutelage don't support this.

Agree with this. Swans have surely never gone into a game saying -'Ok, lets wait till the ball is in our backline and then win it back there'. Which team deliberately allows more inside50s? Hopefully, our aim is to play more games in 2019 like we did in 2018 against St Kilda at Etihad for example where our ball winning and movement was outstanding as well as our defensive work. Hopefully, our young developing team can achieve this more often, especially our midfield and forward line.

[S.S. Bleeder]

I think playing with Buddy struggling is one of the biggest challenges for the team. If you look over the last few seasons, we've generally done OK when Buddy has been out injured. Not great, but OK. In 2018 we beat Geelong in Geelong and Hawthorn at the MCG, and narrowly lost to Hawthorn at the SCG. We also lost narrowly to North at the SCG in probably the most frustrating, over-umpired game I saw last year, where both teams struggled to get going (Higgins aside).

When he plays and plays even decently well, we are usually in the match.

But some of our most disappointing performances have come when he's been in the team but unable - due to injury - to perform to anything like his normal standard. Think of the 2018 and 2017 finals exit games against GWS and Geelong respectively. He had a groin injury in the former and a massive thigh cork in the latter (which he picked up the previous week and you could see badly hampered him during that game). Or the Essendon game this year. You could even throw the 2016 Grand Final into the discussion, where he hurt his ankle in the first few minutes and could barely run for the rest of the game. For all the commentary on the umpiring in that game, and the injury to Hanners, and the fact the team took a few not-quite-ready players into the game, I still reckon we would have overcome all that had Franklin been able to perform.

The fact he often performs when not really fit shows how difficult a selection decision it is for the club. I'm not advocating him being picked less often when not fully fit. But I do think the team (and Buddy) need to adjust during games when he's out there but not performing. I think the coaches get tactically more adventurous when he's not there - as we saw during this year's Geelong game when they tried something different in the final quarter and it worked out. But when he is out there, there often seems to be a belief that he'll pull something out of the bag even when he's struggling. It may be that it's Buddy that needs to adjust as much as the coaches, and learn to play more sacrificial roles to open up space and opportunities for other players.

As for the Plan B versus Plan A discussion, I will go further than you. I don't think most people know what Plan A is. Or rather, they confuse poor execution with how the team is trying to play. Anyone who suggests the team should try to play less in its back half is prime example. No team tries to play in its back half. That's just dumb. In an ideal game, the team wins every centre bounce clearance, gets the ball forward, and either scores, or locks in forward until they score. Unfortunately there's always another team out there trying to doing the same and it gets in the way of a team executing its perfect plan.

Would it be fair to summarise it as follows? Buddy is an absolute gun but opposition teams know that we focus on him too much. As a result we are too predictable. What we need is another forward target to; 1) take the pressure of Buddy, and 2) to give us another avenue to goal. This is where Reid is so important. The trouble is that Reid rarely plays.

Our backup plan for this is Blakey. I can see a window opening for us in 2-4 years time (fingers crossed).

[Legs Akimbo]

I see things a bit differently. There is plan and then there is execution. The game plan is about how the play is directed through the players' behaviours. For example, how we transition from defence to attack. It comprises tactics e.g. do we play a zone defence at kick outs or the huddle (does anyone do that anymore). Do we play a spare man in defence. It starts at the selection tabke e.g do we play a tall forward line or short forward line. How many and which players play inside at stoppages and how many and play outside. It manifests in innumerable decisions in a game e.g. play through the corridor or down the boundary line, given the choice and upfield player leading patterns. All of this and more constitutes a game plan. I guess the proof of the gameplan's coherence is how well one could one describe it without oversimplifying or reducing it to just a long set of rules to guide decisions in situtations. Think Pagan's Paddock or Clarkson's Buddy's box I haven't seen anyone really describe our gameplan that isn't overly simplistic. I really am not sure what is, which isn't to say it doesn't exist.

In any case, as Mike Tyson said 'Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth'.

I think more than our gameplan, the issue has been executing it. We've not always had the right players (dream on) or we've simply not done the small things well. Sometimes the wheels fall off. Gold Coast Suns. Shudder

My observation from 2018 is that we lost when we didn't work hard enough. Specifically, didn't push back and forward or spread outside at stoppages.

The manifestion of that is when you see the ball get bottled up in the backline, turnovers, poor pressure kicking to contests. In that sense I think Longmire is right. Working hard and sustaining it over the season with the personnel at hand trumps gameplan. Perhaps this has more to do with culture, leadership and resilience.

In regards to flexibility, I interpret that as simply being able to switch from playing offensively to defensively when needed, for example bottling up the play to prevent an opposition run on or kicking down the line.

[wolftone57]

I see things a bit differently. There is plan and then there is execution. The game plan is about how the play is directed through the players' behaviours. For example, how we transition from defence to attack. It comprises tactics e.g. do we play a zone defence at kick outs or the huddle (does anyone do that anymore). Do we play a spare man in defence. It starts at the selection tabke e.g do we play a tall forward line or short forward line. How many and which players play inside at stoppages and how many and play outside. It manifests in innumerable decisions in a game e.g. play through the corridor or down the boundary line, given the choice and upfield player leading patterns. All of this and more constitutes a game plan. I guess the proof of the gameplan's coherence is how well one could one describe it without oversimplifying or reducing it to just a long set of rules to guide decisions in situtations. Think Pagan's Paddock or Clarkson's Buddy's box I haven't seen anyone really describe our gameplan that isn't overly simplistic. I really am not sure what is, which isn't to say it doesn't exist.

In any case, as Mike Tyson said 'Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth'.

I think more than our gameplan, the issue has been executing it. We've not always had the right players (dream on) or we've simply not done the small things well. Sometimes the wheels fall off. Gold Coast Suns. Shudder

My observation from 2018 is that we lost when we didn't work hard enough. Specifically, didn't push back and forward or spread outside at stoppages.

The manifestion of that is when you see the ball get bottled up in the backline, turnovers, poor pressure kicking to contests. In that sense I think Longmire is right. Working hard and sustaining it over the season with the personnel at hand trumps gameplan. Perhaps this has more to do with culture, leadership and resilience.

In regards to flexibility, I interpret that as simply being able to switch from playing offensively to defensively when needed, for example bottling up the play to prevent an opposition run on or kicking down the line.

OK. Then you don't see a coach going to a negative plan that doesn't work if that is what the opposition wants, GCS was a good example, as a problem and being predictable? I have watched that game again and I'm sure every coach in the AFL has. Woosha certainly did as the Bombers used the same tactics and were even more successful than the Sun's. Longmire again retreated into a totally defensive pattern and got flogged.

The opposition starts this at centre bounces where they block Kennedy. If Parker is not in there the chances of them getting a clearance are pretty high. All they have to do is get hold of the ball. We play a forward at the defensive end of the square, they don't match him up. Instead the play a loose in defence. He is a runner and they get hold of the ball out of the centre square and run it by this player and other HB's running.

Once a few goals have been kicked Longmire then swings one extra into defence and stops attacking. He goes into a holding pattern, holding onto the ball, not taking any risks, predictable footy. This is exactly what the opposition wants. They have an extra on the ball and at centre bounces an extra on the defensive side. We can't penetrate our forward line because our ball movement is too sliw. This is a part of our defensive game plan. This was exposed by Sun's and even more by Bombers.

This was not an execution based problem. This was a coaching mistake. A defensive game plan that is a fallback every time the opposition gets a run on or start to win the clearance battle. The other thing that happens here is all the forwards are sucked up the field, the flood is a game plan, to flood the back line. What happens is that when you try to extract there is no option to kick to or of there is he is surrounded by opponents who simply outmark or spoil and bang the ball back.

So don't tell me the Sun's or Bombers matches were just bad execution of the game plan. They were examples of a coach panicking. A coach going totally defensive to the detriment of the team.

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

[707]

6-6-6 starting positions at centre bounces, playing on from the goal square without the need to kick the ball, full possesion by ruckmen allowed, other rule changes I've forgotten - a lot to work on for all teams over summer. Some will work it out and get an advantage, some will be be slow to adapt ....

[Legs Akimbo]

OK
So don't tell me the Sun's or Bombers matches were just bad execution of the game plan. They were examples of a coach panicking. A coach going totally defensive to the detriment of the team.

The Sun's and Bombers matches were bad execution of the game plan

[barry]

6-6-6 starting positions at centre bounces, playing on from the goal square without the need to kick the ball, full possesion by ruckmen allowed, other rule changes I've forgotten - a lot to work on for all teams over summer. Some will work it out and get an advantage, some will be be slow to adapt ....

None of these are startling, but things to practice or be wary of.
6-6-6 . This is only going to happen roughly 25 times a game, so not that big an issue. If a team is trying to stop a run on, they will need to quickly dispatch a midfielder or wingman back. Expect a 2005-like multiple ball up scenario to get around the 6-6-6 restriction. If on a roll, worth putting your forwards deep so the hole in front will stay open longer.

Playing on from goal square. Just takes a small risk away. No big deal.

Full posession by ruckman. need to keep an eye on the big strong ruckmen like niknat. But again, not much effect unless near goal. maybe a midfielder is ready for the smother.

[KSAS]

In depth article on Menzel in lead up to being drafted by the Swans, his medical, saying goodbye to Geelong and his groin op.

Outline - Read & annotate without distractions

"They saw that I had an instability imbalance in my pubic joint and that’s what was causing my inflammation and pain the last couple of years,” he said.

“I could have trained and played this year without the operation but I was very happy to have the surgery to take away the pain I’ve had for a couple of years.”

[MattW]

In depth article on Menzel in lead up to being drafted by the Swans, his medical, saying goodbye to Geelong and his groin op.

Outline - Read & annotate without distractions

"They saw that I had an instability imbalance in my pubic joint and that’s what was causing my inflammation and pain the last couple of years,” he said.

“I could have trained and played this year without the operation but I was very happy to have the surgery to take away the pain I’ve had for a couple of years.”

Cheers, enjoyable read.

[Markwebbos]

I probably sound like a broken record, but I wish that the Swans had an injection of fresh blood and tactical nous in the offseason a la Matthew Nicks.

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2019-01-07/the-assistant-coaches-making-an-early-impact-at-their-new-clubs

MATTHEW Nicks may lay claim to the best job in football.

Charged with Greater Western Sydney's ball movement, the new senior assistant coach has already put kicking weapons Josh Kelly and Lachie Whitfield to work this summer.

In a major coup, the Giants set out to add senior experience around Leon Cameron and landed their man in Nicks, after eight years at Port Adelaide.

Regarded as an AFL coach in waiting, Nicks has already made an immediate impression with his leadership and understanding of game analytics.

[barry]

Giants probably had a greater need for Nicks than we have. We have had a fair injection of new assistant coaches last year. Plenty of new blood around.