Match Thread: Swans v Demons.

[SwanSand]

Let’s give credit to Melbourne that they were better at shutting down our offence even though we had heaps of the ball. That is what good teams do. Our defence on the other hand was good at the back half but at times in the middle of the ground we let them waltz through it a bit too easily. This must be related to positioning, running a certain line in offence and defence etc.
We missed extra marking target in the forward half who can take a screamer - Heeney. We had too many players who could not take a mark in f50 but we kept bombing the ball. I reckon atleast 20 entries were bombing the ball.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

What we do with the second ruck is a big issue. Sinkers just isn't good enough, McLean is not a ruckman and Reid is made of tissue paper and should never be risked in the ruck again. Maybe when Naismith is ready we play him and Hickey and drop Sinkers and McLean.

Weather wise, it was not a god night to play both Sinkers and McLean. But leaving the wet aside, I wonder whether we can play two guys that are so limited when the ball hits the ground.
FWIW Sinkers one handed marking attempts made me wonder if he had a hand injury. Horrible.

Buddy may be better for the run, and he'll have less capable opponents than May, so hopefully feel less need to stage for frees.

[gloveski]

Weather wise, it was not a god night to play both Sinkers and McLean. But leaving the wet aside, I wonder whether we can play two guys that are so limited when the ball hits the ground.
FWIW Sinkers one handed marking attempts made me wonder if he had a hand injury. Horrible.

Buddy may be better for the run, and he'll have less capable opponents than May, so hopefully feel less need to stage for frees.

Agree as much as he has been a warrior for us I think it’s time to move past Sinclair. He dropped some easy marks and he just doesn’t have soft hands in the Ruck . Might have been better to play the lizard as our second Ruck in hindsight.
I also think we will play McDonald going forward as another target the bombing it down the line just played into Melbourne’s hands .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gloveski]

Let’s give credit to Melbourne that they were better at shutting down our offence even though we had heaps of the ball. That is what good teams do. Our defence on the other hand was good at the back half but at times in the middle of the ground we let them waltz through it a bit too easily. This must be related to positioning, running a certain line in offence and defence etc.
We missed extra marking target in the forward half who can take a screamer - Heeney. We had too many players who could not take a mark in f50 but we kept bombing the ball. I reckon atleast 20 entries were bombing the ball.

We have completely stopped hitting that short option inside 50 like we done so well the first few rounds


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nico]

Agree as much as he has been a warrior for us I think it’s time to move past Sinclair. He dropped some easy marks and he just doesn’t have soft hands in the Ruck . Might have been better to play the lizard as our second Ruck in hindsight.
I also think we will play McDonald going forward as another target the bombing it down the line just played into Melbourne’s hands .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As I said in my post, they took away those options 30 metres out. I don't know that players out of the midfield had much option. We got our hands on the ball up forward but couldn't clunk the marks. They were able to get quick transition into an open forward line a few times for goals, which was almost the difference in the game.

[Wardy]

I’m sorry. I don’t like it when players abuse umpires and give away
50s.

This happened didn’t it?

I’m sorry, I don’t like it when umpires continually make bad decisions.

This happened didn’t it??

As you say umpires are humans - last time I looked so are players.

But to appease you we should trade Papley - yeah rightio.

[Ralph Dawg]

I’m sorry, I don’t like it when umpires continually make bad decisions.

This happened didn’t it??

But to appease you we should trade him - yeah rightio.

Papley is our only small forward to consistently have impact. Wicks and Errol are drifting in and out of the game currently. Ronke is just either injured or not playing well. Bell just not quite up to AFL standard, let alone anywhere near elite. And God forbid if we have to depend on Gray or Squiz.

But sure, let's trade Papley because he occasionally loses his cool, largely I suspect because he is so passionate about contributing to us winning.

[gloveski]

As I said in my post, they took away those options 30 metres out. I don't know that players out of the midfield had much option. We got our hands on the ball up forward but couldn't clunk the marks. They were able to get quick transition into an open forward line a few times for goals, which was almost the difference in the game.

Yes there transition from our bombs forward was a massive difference . That’s we’re a good leading forward like Heeney or even McDonald might have made a difference . They drag the defenders out of the hole


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Wardy]

I’m sorry. I don’t like it when players abuse umpires and give away
50s.

This happened didn’t it?

Papley is our only small forward to consistently have impact. Wicks and Errol are drifting in and out of the game currently. Ronke is just either injured or not playing well. Bell just not quite up to AFL standard, let alone anywhere near elite. And God forbid if we have to depend on Gray or Squiz.

But sure, let's trade Papley because he occasionally loses his cool, largely I suspect because he is so passionate about contributing to us winning.

Agree - the suggestion from BS to trade Papley is just ludicrous. Every player loses their cool at some stage, it’s not pretty but geez It’s not a reason to trade them.

We also have to stop encouraging kids to look up to sportsmen as role models. A role model should be parents or people who do something worthwhile to help others in the community and make the world a better place, not some bloke who kicks a footY around an oval.

[Ralph Dawg]

Agree - the suggestion from BS to trade Papley is just ludicrous. Every player loses their cool at some stage, it’s not pretty but geez It’s not a reason to trade them.

We also have to stop encouraging kids to look up to sportsmen as role models. A role model should be parents or people who do something worthwhile to help others in the community and make the world a better place, not some bloke who kicks a footY around an oval.

Totally agree. My son loves Footy and I always make it clear to him that these guys are flawed humans, just like the rest of us. It's also important to put their in game behaviour and intensity in context. Playing U10s on a suburban ground has completely different stakes as compared to the G on a Saturday night. To date, my son has behaved with complete respect towards the umpires and officials, even though he tries to model his game on Pap's, even down to his kicking style (he's a little feisty dude!).

[bloodspirit]

I am with you all the way on the umpiring, COB.

Of our youth, I thought Rowbottom, Warner and McInerney were all terrific. RB faded towards the end, perhaps because of the hit he took. Gulden has been the best of our first year players but he hasn't been able to sustain his output from the first weeks of the season. Wicks gives his all but is less talented. May or may not be able to hold his spot long term.

Of our seniors, Mills, Rampe and Parker were huge. Cunningham and Lloyd also did very well.

Hickey has been our MVP all year. He is not our best player but he is the player who we can least afford to lose, and who makes the greatest difference to whether we win or lose.

Important debate about rucks. I don't favour playing two pure rucks. And none of our ruck-forwards are currently good enough. I think we should play Hickey plus bits and pieces (Reid, McLean, Blakey, Fox, whoever). When Naismith is fit, he can be our cover for Hickey. Sinclair is third choice. I was against playing Sinclair last night, and I haven't changed my mind.

I wonder if this off season we can go again at targeting a promising young ruck for trade. Are Ladham and Hayes at Port any good playing forward? We need to be able to offer a position in the best 22, and we can't do that unless they are. Now that we're no longer 16th in the comp, and we have cap space opening up, we're a better chance of bringing someone in. If not them, someone else. Plus another rawer prospect as well. Meanwhile I'm ready to retire Sinclair and delist Amartey at season's end, as things stand now.

Melbourne's defence was outstanding and Oliver and McDonald were the two best on ground. So impressive that we cleaned up the clearances 17-4. I would never have predicted that.

Overall I was really proud of the boys and heartened by our performance despite the loss. They are a very strong outfit, a little ahead of us in development, and we took it right to them.

I feel we have plenty of upside when you look at who we have not playing- whether due to injury or youth/inexperience: Heeney, Reid, Stephens, McDonald, Campbell, Blakey. Four of these guys are top 5 ND draft picks. Except for Heeney, they are all 1st or 2nd year. I haven't given up on Gould, Melican and Ling yet either. And we have players with currency (Hayward, Hewett) plus draft picks to keep improving our list. We're good now, and we're going to get even better.

[Markwebbos]

Re: The ruck, I like what the Bulldogs and Demons have done, which is recruit a young ruckman that can play forward as the second fiddle to someone like Hickey. Even if the Dogs tried to play English as the main ruck the setup now is one we could copy.

Would Naismith be any worse than Sinclair as a 3rd tall? We are very light on for talls at both ends of the ground. We need to start drafting / trading some in ASAP.

[aardvark]

I'd play Naismith as the main ruck, Hickey at full forward/2nd ruck and Reid at CHB.

[MattW]

I'd play Naismith as the main ruck and Hickey at full forward/2nd ruck.

Yes, maybe; although a fit Reid is sufficient.

I'm at Dean Towers levels of 'surely *this time* they won't pick him again' with Sinclair. Before the game, the main reservation I had about winning was Sinclair's selection. He's not 'serviceable'; he's a liability. Obviously.

John explained the reasoning after the game - Melbourne had two rucks, Hickey's PCL - but effectively acknowledged it was a mistake.

The problem is with Reid out, they don't have a decent resting ruck. McLean gets beaten in the ruck and is slow around the ground. They might need to roll the dice on Amartey. Otherwise, they could lean into the Blakey option.

[TheBloods]

FMD why would we move Hickey outbof the ruck ?? Best weve had since Jolly