#AFL Round 2 Swans vs Crows Fri 29-Mar at SCG #AFLSwansCrows @sydneyswans

[Steve]

I don't buy into the "game plan" issue as much as others. I think that's more about tweaking than the fundamentals of the game. Where the team has really dropped off in the last couple of seasons is in applying pressure. All teams try to do this but for some it's more critical than others, and some are better at it than others. From 2012-2016 - the period when we made three grand finals - the team was consistently able to apply immense pressure all over the ground. Those teams weren't any more skilled than our current one, but turnovers matter less because they were able to win the ball back, frequently in the front half of the ground. And pressure can be a positive feedback system - if a team applies sufficient physical pressure, the inferred pressure on the opposition develops to the point when they create turnovers for the other team without much physical pressure.

That physical pressure has dropped right off. The team does it for short periods, but can't sustain it over a game. That might be personnel (ie younger players) but I doubt that's the only explanation. I think they've "forgotten" what it means and feels like to apply sustained pressure over the course of a whole game. Get that back and the team will start winning again.

The other main variable is an ability to win contested ball, which we are significantly weaker in compared to years gone by. If you're winning at least your share of that, and then are applying immense pressure to the opposition when they have it, you're in a strong position. In fact, the turnovers can often be a result of your pressure causing the ball to go back into a contested situation, which you then win - not necessarily the ball just dropping free and you running off with it.

Otherwise, as is what we're finding now, we just don't win enough of the ball - so opposition are in control more often (and to a greater extent when they are). It's almost impossible to apply enough pressure across a whole game if you're not in control of enough ball. And in terms of field position, even when you cause turnovers, they will generally be in weaker positions limiting how much damage we can do.

That would be my biggest concern moving forward - our recruiting has focused on outside players and 'pressure forward' types, so for all the exciting youth, there aren't enough good inside prospects. Rowbottom actually looks OK but we can't expect too much too soon, but otherwise we're really relying on the likes of Heeney and Mills becoming permanent midfielders right now.

[liz]

The other main variable is an ability to win contested ball, which we are significantly weaker in compared to years gone by. If you're winning at least your share of that, and then are applying immense pressure to the opposition when they have it, you're in a strong position. In fact, the turnovers can often be a result of your pressure causing the ball to go back into a contested situation, which you then win - not necessarily the ball just dropping free and you running off with it.

Otherwise, as is what we're finding now, we just don't win enough of the ball - so opposition are in control more often (and to a greater extent when they are). It's almost impossible to apply enough pressure across a whole game if you're not in control of enough ball. And in terms of field position, even when you cause turnovers, they will generally be in weaker positions limiting how much damage we can do.

That would be my biggest concern moving forward - our recruiting has focused on outside players and 'pressure forward' types, so for all the exciting youth, there aren't enough good inside prospects. Rowbottom actually looks OK but we can't expect too much too soon, but otherwise we're really relying on the likes of Heeney and Mills becoming permanent midfielders right now.

I agree with you in part. I don't think we've ever been as good a contested ball winning team as some (particularly in the media) thought we were. I reckon we've always just been middle of the road. But because we were able to neutralise the situation enough when we lost, we landed up with sufficient absolute numbers of contests won over the course of the game.

I think we've dropped off a little in this area but not drastically. People can quote where we are on the league ladder of contested ball winners, and I'd agree we need to be higher, but it's based off a small sample so far this game, and I suspect most teams are fairly bunched together. Furthermore, we just need a small number of players to up their game in this department to move closer to the middle of the pack. Pressure, on the other hand, is something the whole team needs to apply as a group. Even if you have 16 players doing their bit, it only takes one or two not delivering in this department to negate the efforts of the rest.

[crackedactor]

Have the AFL admitted the first 50m penalty was incorrect.

First time ever Longmire has had a go at the umpiring. If you pay a free kick one way you must pay the free kick to the opposition team as well. It's about time the rub of the Green goes our way. I remember at one stage it was 11 to 1 ratio. Guess even he is getting fed up with the same story. I wonder if the swans will ever get 11 frees to the opposition's one? Yep not in my lifetime. When pigs start flying.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MattW]

This is largely why when I watch games on TV/Internet the sound is all but muted, and during Swans’ games it is always muted.

Yeah, still hanging out for the option to mute commentary but retain ambient crowd noise.

I generally listen to the Fox Footy commentary of Swans' games when Hudson is the sole caller. Channel 7 is very hard work for Swans games, with Saturday night better than Friday night. If Basil is calling, there is no question.

[MattW]

The players we have recruited has also, to an extent, been determined by our access to early draft picks. The other teams who have been up towards the top of the ladder for a sustained period in Geelong and Hawthorn - have been better able to attract mature talent to their lists to make up for lack of early draft pick access. Having said that, we have been fortunate to have access to three players who, under normal drafting circumstances, we wouldn't have had access to. One is still too new/young to make a big difference but the other two should be capable of injecting some class into the middle of the ground.

I don't buy into the "game plan" issue as much as others. I think that's more about tweaking than the fundamentals of the game. Where the team has really dropped off in the last couple of seasons is in applying pressure. All teams try to do this but for some it's more critical than others, and some are better at it than others. From 2012-2016 - the period when we made three grand finals - the team was consistently able to apply immense pressure all over the ground. Those teams weren't any more skilled than our current one, but turnovers matter less because they were able to win the ball back, frequently in the front half of the ground. And pressure can be a positive feedback system - if a team applies sufficient physical pressure, the inferred pressure on the opposition develops to the point when they create turnovers for the other team without much physical pressure.

That physical pressure has dropped right off. The team does it for short periods, but can't sustain it over a game. That might be personnel (ie younger players) but I doubt that's the only explanation. I think they've "forgotten" what it means and feels like to apply sustained pressure over the course of a whole game. Get that back and the team will start winning again.

I agree largely. However, I'm less of the view they've 'forgotten' and more that we lack ball-winning mids to set a standard. No one has replaced Hanners and Mitchell. Heeney and Jones aren't an inside players (Heeney has disappointed me a little in that regard), we are not playing Mills there, Hewett lacks mongrel, and Dawson hasn't brought his clearance winning ability in the NEAFL to the AFL. We've also recruited almost entirely key position and outside players. Rowbottom is the first genuine ball winner we've recruited for a while.

[AnnieH]

First time ever Longmire has had a go at the umpiring. If you pay a free kick one way you must pay the free kick to the opposition team as well. It's about time the rub of the Green goes our way. I remember at one stage it was 11 to 1 ratio. Guess even he is getting fed up with the same story. I wonder if the swans will ever get 11 frees to the opposition's one? Yep not in my lifetime. When pigs start flying.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Discipline under frustration is rearing its ugly head.
A lot of the free kicks we give away are legit.

[wolftone57]

On current form it's only a 50/50 proposition!

I'd say 25/75. We are showing far less than Carlton.

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

[wolftone57]

Swans won many of the key stats v Adelaide including disposals, inside 50s

Yes we won both of those but we were disposing out of defence and the ball was coming back a lot. As for inside 50's, you can have a million of those but if you constantly kick to players with multiple opponents you might as well have no only a few entries, those you actually score from. We can't kick a score. Why? Dumb footy. Bombing in to Bud and Ried instead of passing to free players. Indiscriminate bombs into the forward 50. No forward system.

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

[dejavoodoo44]

Interestingly, in the AFL Coaches Association votes, both coaches thought that Josh Kennedy was BOG. I thought that he had a pretty good game, but I'm not sure if I would go that far?

[wolftone57]

The players we have recruited has also, to an extent, been determined by our access to early draft picks. The other teams who have been up towards the top of the ladder for a sustained period in Geelong and Hawthorn - have been better able to attract mature talent to their lists to make up for lack of early draft pick access. Having said that, we have been fortunate to have access to three players who, under normal drafting circumstances, we wouldn't have had access to. One is still too new/young to make a big difference but the other two should be capable of injecting some class into the middle of the ground.

I don't buy into the "game plan" issue as much as others. I think that's more about tweaking than the fundamentals of the game. Where the team has really dropped off in the last couple of seasons is in applying pressure. All teams try to do this but for some it's more critical than others, and some are better at it than others. From 2012-2016 - the period when we made three grand finals - the team was consistently able to apply immense pressure all over the ground. Those teams weren't any more skilled than our current one, but turnovers matter less because they were able to win the ball back, frequently in the front half of the ground. And pressure can be a positive feedback system - if a team applies sufficient physical pressure, the inferred pressure on the opposition develops to the point when they create turnovers for the other team without much physical pressure.

That physical pressure has dropped right off. The team does it for short periods, but can't sustain it over a game. That might be personnel (ie younger players) but I doubt that's the only explanation. I think they've "forgotten" what it means and feels like to apply sustained pressure over the course of a whole game. Get that back and the team will start winning again.

Liz I think that is too simplistic. To say it is all about pressure is a cop out. I think our team is far more skilled now than in either 2005 or 2012 across the board. Those teams had a small group of highly skilled players and the rest were grafters who as you say applied huge pressure. But to say that instituting a new game plan would not solve our problems and that applying pressure is the only problem is niave.

Our game plan is old, super defensive and I would question the player's belief in this plan. Thry all state 'we just have to get back to playing our game plan. Swans footy' so that is the same Swans footy we have been seeing now since 2011 with a few tweeks? The game plan that relies on starting every play from the back line? Sorry but every team is a wake up to that plan and under the new rules to try and play thst style is suicide.

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

[caj23]

Liz I think that is too simplistic. To say it is all about pressure is a cop out. I think our team is far more skilled now than in either 2005 or 2012 across the board. Those teams had a small group of highly skilled players and the rest were grafters who as you say applied huge pressure. But to say that instituting a new game plan would not solve our problems and that applying pressure is the only problem is niave.

Our game plan is old, super defensive and I would question the player's belief in this plan. Thry all state 'we just have to get back to playing our game plan. Swans footy' so that is the same Swans footy we have been seeing now since 2011 with a few tweeks? The game plan that relies on starting every play from the back line? Sorry but every team is a wake up to that plan and under the new rules to try and play thst style is suicide.

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

Agreed, I think the assertion that the players have "forgotten" how to apply pressure is an overly simplistic take on our current situation, particularly in the forward line. Our ball movement is so slow that most of our players are behind the ball and our forwards are outnumbered, hence even if they are applying that pressure, it doesn't achieve anything.

There's probably an element of fatigue as well as its much harder work when you haven't got the ball, particularly when it spends so much time in our backline

[liz]

The game plan that relies on starting every play from the back line?

I think we have fundamentally different conceptions of what our game plan is. By game plan, I'm referring to what the team is trying to do, not simply what we observe actually unfolding. The latter is an interaction between game plan, execution, and the opposition.

I don't for one moment think our game plan "relies on starting every play from the back line". Any coach who came up with that plan would be mad. And if you look at periods during previous years when we have been considered one of the top sides, I think you'll find scant evidence for a plan that "relies on starting every play from the back line".

[Blood Fever]

Liz I think that is too simplistic. To say it is all about pressure is a cop out. I think our team is far more skilled now than in either 2005 or 2012 across the board. Those teams had a small group of highly skilled players and the rest were grafters who as you say applied huge pressure. But to say that instituting a new game plan would not solve our problems and that applying pressure is the only problem is niave.

Our game plan is old, super defensive and I would question the player's belief in this plan. Thry all state 'we just have to get back to playing our game plan. Swans footy' so that is the same Swans footy we have been seeing now since 2011 with a few tweeks? The game plan that relies on starting every play from the back line? Sorry but every team is a wake up to that plan and under the new rules to try and play thst style is suicide.

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

Who consciously has a game plan starting from backline? If this the case, we would start all our mids, and maybe the whole team, in our back 50!

[aardvark]

Last year we had the least inside 50's of any finalist since 2001. That says to me our forwards make the most of scant opportunities and we need to find a way to win more clearances. The key to fixing our problems is finding a couple more mids who can win the ball and a decent ruckman who can tap to advantage.

[Markwebbos]

Last year we had the least inside 50's of any finalist since 2001. That says to me our forwards make the most of scant opportunities and we need to find a way to win more clearances. The key to fixing our problems is finding a couple more mids who can win the ball and a decent ruckman who can tap to advantage.

Maybe. Against the Crows we won inside 50s and contested possessions (narrowly) and lost clearances by 2, but got beaten by 4 goals.

The Swans have played a rope-a-dope style of game, prepared to absorb inside 50s and then slingshot out of defence. In the past it was often coupled with a high scoring first quarter, so we were defending from a position of strength for the last 3 quarters, whereas now we score one goal before going into our shells. I know this is stating the obvious, but other teams try to lock the ball inside their forward 50 and win turnovers there. The Swans have never really developed a forward "press" or played that territory game.

I also think we need to change our game plan because teams get worked out, and we've been worked out by the competition. If you watched Pies v Tigers on Thursday night, the Pies (who have totally worked Richmond out) kept possession coming out of defence by kicking and marking (they almost broke the record for marks), denying the Tigers the opportunity to scrap for the loose ball. Teams play possession football against us to deny us stoppages and as others have remarked, know they can get us on the outside, if they get enough ball.

We are being beaten all-ends-up at the moment (with the exception of the Crows game): can't win the ball, can't get the ball back, can't move the ball (both out of defence and inside 50 - how that kick from Blakey to Hayward stood out on Friday night because it so rarely happens these days). Liz, it is definitely partly about execution, but its also about how we are trying to play the game in the first place.