Expectations for 2021 season

[Markwebbos]

Liz is essentially right about the history of the slingshot, and Longmire has often tried the quick movement game, but with limited success. The secret to success is that you need both speed and kicking skill, because once you run your distance you have to dispose of the ball somehow. In recent times we haven't been able to string together enough effective disposals to get the ball to goal kicking position. Richmond has succeeded by a frenetic attack on the player and the ball and moving the ball forward at all cost. It's been the synchronicity of their attack that has been the game changer. WB have had success by running hard and throwing the ball while shielding the vision of the umpire.

What has changed for the Swans has been the sheer number of players with both speed and skill that have come to the club through the last few drafts and have also been able to have an impact. I wouldn't call what we are doing a slingshot. The difference is now the quick ball movement permeates the whole team, so the ball is more likely than not to find itself in the hands of a player that can both run with it and then kick it long and accurately down field. Gone are the days when we would have 3 effective disposals, but just when we seem ready to get the ball to goal kicking distance, we have a turnover.

What has been impressive with the Swans this year is not the speed or skill, but the fact that we have both happening together. We drafted for it and got what we asked for. It's party time for our list managers.

It’s party time for us supporters too.

[Thunder Shaker]

Which AFL teams are winning and losing the early expectations game?

[liz]

I'm trying to keep a lid on my expectations thus far, because we've so far played:
1 A Brisbane team that couldn't be bothered to defend on the night; and
2 An Adelaide team whose endeavour (attacking and defending) couldn't be faulted but that was extremely young and inexperienced, especially in defence.

We are going to come up - soon - against far more accomplished sides, and opposition coaches will have had a chance to look at what we're trying to do and come up with strategies to mitigate it. I'm not convinced that our around-the-ground defence is yet at the standard it will need to be to fight back when our quick ball movement is thwarted.

To illustrate, the best goal (IMO) against Brisbane (Q3) started with a contest on the wing where Reid tapped the ball into Papley's hands. Papley delivered a blind kick across his body, not turning to look at what he was kicking to, but it fell into Mill's arms. He dished off a quick handpass to Florent, who steadied, took his time, and kicked deep to Heeney deep in the forward line in a one-on-one contest (having run hard from the contest that kicked the chain off). When I watched it on replay (which I've done many times) I realised that it was only partly "luck" that Papley's kick found Mills in the corridor because there were five Swans players streaming through that part of the ground, and just one Lion, trailing a bit behind them. So while our success against the Lions was, I believe, partly because they didn't run especially hard to defend (Daniel Rich = Exhibit A), in part it was likely because the Lions weren't expecting us to use the corridor as much as we did, and just weren't set up to defend that part of the ground.

There was an interesting segment on AFL360 this evening, highlighting the Richmond team-defence method. The gist of it was that when the opposition has the ball in the back half of the ground, Richmond allows them to have a free player, usually wide, that they can execute a simple short kick to. And then another. As a result, the stats say that they concede a lot of uncontested marks. But while they are allowing the opposition to slowly zigzag the ball up the ground with those short, uncontested kick and marks, the team is moving back and creating an almost impenetrable web in its defensive third of the ground. As soon as the opposition approaches its forward zone, it finds the free targets have dried up, and launches a long kick to a contest that Richmond's web gobbles up, and then, whoosh, they rush the ball down the other end and invariably score.

The panel (largely David King) was daring the Swans to ignore the easy get out kicks that the Tigers will offer up, and to take the risks that we've been taking thus far, moving the ball quickly even if it sometimes comes unstuck.

Whether we do or not will probably depend on whether the quick attack method gets some early results in penetrating through Richmond's web, or whether we are scored against heavily in the early part of the game. And also on how often the ball is in the hands of Dawson/Campbell/Rampe vs Lloyd or Cunningham. (Not that Cunningham can't roost the ball when he wants to, but he's more likely to take the easier, short kick than Dawson and co).

[KTigers]

I wrote about that kick from Papley on the wing on RWO in the days after the Brisbane game. It was part of a piece of play that was
as scintillating and instinctual as you'll ever see in footy. We will need to take risks to beat Richmond as Kingy suggests. If we don't,
we have no chance. It's a pity we can't clone Dawson's left leg and graft it onto the other players.

[graemed]

There was an interesting segment on AFL360 this evening, highlighting the Richmond team-defence method. The gist of it was that when the opposition has the ball in the back half of the ground, Richmond allows them to have a free player, usually wide, that they can execute a simple short kick to. And then another. As a result, the stats say that they concede a lot of uncontested marks. But while they are allowing the opposition to slowly zigzag the ball up the ground with those short, uncontested kick and marks, the team is moving back and creating an almost impenetrable web in its defensive third of the ground. As soon as the opposition approaches its forward zone, it finds the free targets have dried up, and launches a long kick to a contest that Richmond's web gobbles up, and then, whoosh, they rush the ball down the other end and invariably score.

Looking at the down the field vision of the final stage was as you say fascinating and enlightening.
Another worrying element is that one of the main reasons we've been successful has been our ability to score from turnovers. Against Richmond recovering the football from them when they're in possession has proved to be the mission impossible of the past four years.
Everyone talks about a hard tag on Martin and Justin Leppitsch even offered advice on who that should be (Rampe) but in the games I've watched the key players in their transition footy are their half backs and their link mids. This means our defensive mode must include all 18 on the ground, Hickey notwithstanding anything less and they will gobble us up.
Last year Longmire did not fall into the trap of following their forwards into our attacking 50, choosing rather to leave our defensive structure in place. This lead to the famous "horrible" game scenario. This year with the statue law we must be vigilant that if they stream out of our A50 our spare defenders collect them on the way through.

[Markwebbos]

I'm trying to keep a lid on my expectations thus far, because we've so far played:
1 A Brisbane team that couldn't be bothered to defend on the night; and
2 An Adelaide team whose endeavour (attacking and defending) couldn't be faulted but that was extremely young and inexperienced, especially in defence.

We are going to come up - soon - against far more accomplished sides, and opposition coaches will have had a chance to look at what we're trying to do and come up with strategies to mitigate it. I'm not convinced that our around-the-ground defence is yet at the standard it will need to be to fight back when our quick ball movement is thwarted.

To illustrate, the best goal (IMO) against Brisbane (Q3) started with a contest on the wing where Reid tapped the ball into Papley's hands. Papley delivered a blind kick across his body, not turning to look at what he was kicking to, but it fell into Mill's arms. He dished off a quick handpass to Florent, who steadied, took his time, and kicked deep to Heeney deep in the forward line in a one-on-one contest (having run hard from the contest that kicked the chain off). When I watched it on replay (which I've done many times) I realised that it was only partly "luck" that Papley's kick found Mills in the corridor because there were five Swans players streaming through that part of the ground, and just one Lion, trailing a bit behind them. So while our success against the Lions was, I believe, partly because they didn't run especially hard to defend (Daniel Rich = Exhibit A), in part it was likely because the Lions weren't expecting us to use the corridor as much as we did, and just weren't set up to defend that part of the ground.

There was an interesting segment on AFL360 this evening, highlighting the Richmond team-defence method. The gist of it was that when the opposition has the ball in the back half of the ground, Richmond allows them to have a free player, usually wide, that they can execute a simple short kick to. And then another. As a result, the stats say that they concede a lot of uncontested marks. But while they are allowing the opposition to slowly zigzag the ball up the ground with those short, uncontested kick and marks, the team is moving back and creating an almost impenetrable web in its defensive third of the ground. As soon as the opposition approaches its forward zone, it finds the free targets have dried up, and launches a long kick to a contest that Richmond's web gobbles up, and then, whoosh, they rush the ball down the other end and invariably score.

The panel (largely David King) was daring the Swans to ignore the easy get out kicks that the Tigers will offer up, and to take the risks that we've been taking thus far, moving the ball quickly even if it sometimes comes unstuck.

Whether we do or not will probably depend on whether the quick attack method gets some early results in penetrating through Richmond's web, or whether we are scored against heavily in the early part of the game. And also on how often the ball is in the hands of Dawson/Campbell/Rampe vs Lloyd or Cunningham. (Not that Cunningham can't roost the ball when he wants to, but he's more likely to take the easier, short kick than Dawson and co).

Thanks Liz that was a great insight.

[Auntie.Gerald]

like all great teams, Richmond tends to do everything just a few percent better then the rest. it is rarely one thing that the best do better. Think of Roger Federer...........he doesnt have a mono approach to tennis.

I would also add though that there is several teams who are a touch above in the key areas but Richmond prevent the easy longer ball in to a forward line because they push, stop, pull the opposition forwards as well as any team i have ever seen live.

I was absolutely astonished when watching live.

Hawthorn had as much opportunity last wknd but the Richmond forwards just simply negated effective balls into the 50 arc so well.........there wasnt a 50/50 even........Richmond made it 40/60 every time for the Hawks forwards.

Grimes is such an active, pestering player........ it is simply amazing how many times he pushes, pulls and side swipes his opposite number.......there is rarely separation the whole game when he is in defence. Think of the first 30 seconds of a game with a defender on a forward....... well that is Grimes all game.

So if you play fast and chance your hand it can go either way because playing fast and backing your ability to get ahead of the ball and be free is just as vulnerable to counter attack.........but if we can add that bit of "serial pest Grimes" style of manning up in defence..........well that can also be the difference for us in amongst doing everything else just a little better vs our opposition.

i cant wait to watch our smaller forward approach and see if this makes it more difficult for the Richmond defence to negate.

I have absolutely loved our Adelaide adopted style ie short sharp triangle this season........Pyke did this in spades a few years ago at Adelaide.....very much like watching the movement of top class soccer continually making triangles to minimise the ability of defence to man up.

[Mel_C]

This morning on SEN, Whately had someone on discussing coaching and tactics. One topic was Pyke joining the swans and that watching us he could see the influence of Pyke. He said that we split the ground into 5 swimming pool lanes...(I think he said 5). The player with the ball in the backline progresses forward and stays in his lane. If he approaches a wall he then disposes the ball to someone in the next lane or 2 lanes away. The process is repeated. There is always a player available to receive the ball. As he was describing this I was picturing some of our passages of play in my head and it made sense. I will be looking out for this on Saturday watching at the ground.

[mcs]

This morning on SEN, Whately had someone on discussing coaching and tactics. One topic was Pyke joining the swans and that watching us he could see the influence of Pyke. He said that we split the ground into 5 swimming pool lanes...(I think he said 5). The player with the ball in the backline progresses forward and stays in his lane. If he approaches a wall he then disposes the ball to someone in the next lane or 2 lanes away. The process is repeated. There is always a player available to receive the ball. As he was describing this I was picturing some of our passages of play in my head and it made sense. I will be looking out for this on Saturday watching at the ground.

Very interesting - will have to have a good look when watching on Saturday, will be intriguing to watch.

[Ludwig]

This morning on SEN, Whately had someone on discussing coaching and tactics. One topic was Pyke joining the swans and that watching us he could see the influence of Pyke. He said that we split the ground into 5 swimming pool lanes...(I think he said 5). The player with the ball in the backline progresses forward and stays in his lane. If he approaches a wall he then disposes the ball to someone in the next lane or 2 lanes away. The process is repeated. There is always a player available to receive the ball. As he was describing this I was picturing some of our passages of play in my head and it made sense. I will be looking out for this on Saturday watching at the ground.

In other words, the Pyke plan is to go forward as long as you can, and when you can't go forward any longer, you go diagonally. Ingenious.

[aardvark]

AFL news 2021: Sydney Swans finals odds, predictions, tips, Champion Data, Champion Index

[barry]

There was an interesting segment on AFL360 this evening, highlighting the Richmond team-defence method. The gist of it was that when the opposition has the ball in the back half of the ground, Richmond allows them to have a free player, usually wide, that they can execute a simple short kick to. And then another. As a result, the stats say that they concede a lot of uncontested marks. But while they are allowing the opposition to slowly zigzag the ball up the ground with those short, uncontested kick and marks, the team is moving back and creating an almost impenetrable web in its defensive third of the ground. As soon as the opposition approaches its forward zone, it finds the free targets have dried up, and launches a long kick to a contest that Richmond's web gobbles up, and then, whoosh, they rush the ball down the other end and invariably score.

.

And the only finals game I can remember them loosing was to Collingwood where big mason cox was clunking those contested kicks into the forward line.

[liz]

And the only finals game I can remember them loosing was to Collingwood where big mason cox was clunking those contested kicks into the forward line.

Did they not lose to Brisbane in the first week of the finals last year? I don't remember much about the game, or how Brisbane went about it. But I do recall them losing.

[Thunder Shaker]

Did they not lose to Brisbane in the first week of the finals last year? I don't remember much about the game, or how Brisbane went about it. But I do recall them losing.

Correct. Brisbane defeated Richmond in week 1 of the finals.

[dejavoodoo44]

Quite a good article from the AFL site. Although I have the minor quibble, that the numbers that they're using are from a small sample size.

It's showtime in Sydney: The numbers behind the Swans' stunning revival