Rd 16 v Essendon Bombers @ MCG

[111431]

And I do think that Hickey had a stinker. Looked like he couldn't get off the ground at centre bounces, and disappeared in general play after a strong first quarter.

Further, we are past using the age and inexperience of the team as an excuse. And we should neither play underdone players returning from illness/injury, nor drop players who are in form and adding value. JMac for Clarke was a shocker.

i think Draper was very physical with Hickey (ie jumping into him etc) so by the last qtr poor Big Tommy had no jump left. They cleaned us up in the middle in the last qtr

[Ocker]

And I do think that Hickey had a stinker. Looked like he couldn't get off the ground at centre bounces, and disappeared in general play after a strong first quarter.

Further, we are past using the age and inexperience of the team as an excuse. And we should neither play underdone players returning from illness/injury, nor drop players who are in form and adding value. JMac for Clarke was a shocker.

In hindsight, agree with your comment on JMac, but we should expect the coaches to be aware that he was underdone. His form was down before the break, but I guess he now stays in and builds on his form. We are aware what he gives at his best.

Your other comment on our failure to close down space when the opposition is looking to rebound from defence makes sense and explains how other teams get a run on against us. Problem is who do we bring in to do this, if we don't like what Bell and Wicks have achieved in this role? Maybe Cunningham?

[Nolie]

Absolutely. Essendon are better than 4-and-11, …..
there is actually another team on the field out there. They have their own ideas about how the game should go. It's unfortunate.

There are no easy beats in the. AFL . While it was highly disappointing the result could have been different but for a few dumb decisions and poor conversion. The decision of Florent to paddle the ball towards the centre instead of heading to the wing (third qtr) led to a direct goal. Gulden kicking to a contest in the 50 m when Reid was 10 further on on his own last quarter. Maybe he didn’t see him. The list goes on. I am hoping Robbie Fox does not cop the penalty. I thought he did some good things. I thought McInerney played well too and his tough running and sneaky kicking looked to open up opportunities.

[barracuda]

I don't understand the obsession with Clarke. I've watched his extended highlights twice from his game. He got 10 touches and 1 tackle. One of his goals was solid, the other a gift. The other thing was that St Kilda were putrid. McInerney comes from Covid and immediately gets 14 touches. To say bringing in McInerney was a shocker seems a bit much

[ugg]

I don't understand the obsession with Clarke. I've watched his extended highlights twice from his game. He got 10 touches and 1 tackle. One of his goals was solid, the other a gift. The other thing was that St Kilda were putrid. McInerney comes from Covid and immediately gets 14 touches. To say bringing in McInerney was a shocker seems a bit much

I think the main point from Clarke's performance was that he restricted the highly-touted Sinclair to just 17 touches. The goals were a bonus.

[barracuda]

I think the main point from Clarke's performance was that he restricted the highly-touted Sinclair to just 17 touches. The goals were a bonus.

I kind of get that. But if so, then it should have been Campbell who went out not McInerney. Poor old Campbell looked lost, and Hind had 25 disposals. Speaking of Campbell, do the swans keep him in the side? He has an amazing left boot, but he seems to lack explosiveness. I am sure he will be shattered by his game on the weekend. I am sure he is going to be a gun, but somethings wrong, for him to have so little impact.

[neilfws]

Not the result I wanted from my first game at the MCG, but we enjoyed our Melbourne weekend trip anyway. Saw the team at Sydney airport and wished a few of them well.

We sat next to a friendly Bombers family (originally from Wollongong). Their first words: "I think you'll have more to celebrate than us today." My response: "I wouldn't be so sure, we have a tendency to drop these kinds of games!" I hate being right sometimes.

After a good Swans Q1 and a good Bombers Q2, felt like it all came down to Q3. 8 behinds later, starting to get that feeling. By Q4 it felt like the Swans were on the back foot and mostly just defending - Blakey dropped back to help out, so none of his customary running.

In the end it just felt like the Bombers made the most of every chance they had, and the Swans failed to follow suit with almost all of their chances. The inconsistency and unpredictability is certainly frustrating, but the Bombers had a good day and looked better than their ladder position.

Swans highlights: Warner. The McCartins toiling away as ever. Not too much else.

The roar of a Melbourne crowd is certainly something else, and we enjoyed the "footy army" walk back over the bridge to the city. Beautiful day on Sunday too, a good day not to be in Sydney.

Overall then: footy - disappointing, Melbourne visit - very enjoyable. Wouldn't surprise me if the Swans bounce back and beat the Dogs this week.

[O'Reilly Boy]

I don't understand the obsession with Clarke. I've watched his extended highlights twice from his game. He got 10 touches and 1 tackle. One of his goals was solid, the other a gift. The other thing was that St Kilda were putrid. McInerney comes from Covid and immediately gets 14 touches. To say bringing in McInerney was a shocker seems a bit much

Perhaps this is a case in point of statistics getting in the way of seeing the role. I missed having a good, game-sacrificing defensive forward closing off exit channels, and, of course don't see McInerney as a like for like in for Clarke. But I guess that that's the problem: I am firmly against the 'pick the best 22 players' camp, and see things in terms of 'select a team that is able to execute a plan by committing to their role'. McInerney in for Clarke messes with structure.
That defensive forward role is not a tagging role, and I don't think that Clarke was putting that tight a tag on Sinclair, but would have to look at the game again to see what he was doing.

[111431]

I think the main point from Clarke's performance was that he restricted the highly-touted Sinclair to just 17 touches. The goals were a bonus.

I kind of get that. But if so, then it should have been Campbell who went out not McInerney. Poor old Campbell looked lost, and Hind had 25 disposals. Speaking of Campbell, do the swans keep him in the side? He has an amazing left boot, but he seems to lack explosiveness. I am sure he will be shattered by his game on the weekend. I am sure he is going to be a gun, but somethings wrong, for him to have so little impact.

poor Campbell is running on and off the ground in a variety of positions and up and down from the ressies. I suspect he has little confidence and is not sure what he is meant to be doing when he is out on the ground

[H2F]

You mentioned trading Papley, so I'll say it again.....ridiculous.

Not once have i said to trade Papley do you have me mistaken with somebody else ?

Would be a different story if he actually wanted out again.

[stevoswan]

Not once have i said to trade Papley do you have me mistaken with somebody else ?

Would be a different story if he actually wanted out again.

I think I did H2F....it was Merlo555 I should have aimed my comment at.

[Jimitron5000]

With Campbell, I think the coaches want him in the team (fair enough, I think he will be a gun), but are unsure where to put him. Hence he plays all over the park and appears to not know what to do.
He looked decent earlier in the year as a small defender.

[Ludwig]

With Campbell, I think the coaches want him in the team (fair enough, I think he will be a gun), but are unsure where to put him. Hence he plays all over the park and appears to not know what to do.
He looked decent earlier in the year as a small defender.

Nick Hind plays a similar role to Sinclair who was tagged successfully by Clarke last week. I wanted Campbell to play on Hind, who is exceptionally quick, but Campbell is also very quick and could stay with him. It's not easy to play a small forward behind Papley. Similar to playing a tall forward behind Buddy.

It was worth trying Campbell as a small defender. Although I don't think he played that poorly, there are certainly better options in defence for us. IIRC,, Campbell played as a forward at times for the Allies or similar combined teams, and played well. I think he can play the position. There's really not a spot for him in the midfield while we have a nearly full list to choose from. Quite often a VFL player coming in the side takes up a small forward role. I think Campbell will have to try to break into the side on a regular basis by playing that role.

[Kafka's Ghost]

Maybe there is something in how much TOG players have. Will Hayward had 89% TOG and had 8 kicks, no handpasses, 6 marks, That's not much value for money. So if he kicked the ball from his 6 marks he found the ball only twice more. Ollie had 8 kicks and no handballs and 86% TOG. On SEN they had a close look at us and we had 7 players with under 10 possessions, Essendon 2. They said that can't continue and they too questioned our inconsistency. Too many players are not getting to the contest. They had the ball 82 times more than us. Essendons possessions for the quarters were 92, 90, 94,104. Ours were 94, 74, 71, 59.

In the 3rd quarter we had 23 less possessions but outscored them 2 goals 8 to 2 goals 1. Comment has been made about poor kicking for goal but those 3rd stats tell me we were under pressure in the forward line that caused poor goal kicking.

Efficiency: Papley 56%, Blakey 67%, Rowbottom 64%, Stephens 67%, Gulden 57%, Reid 57%, Campbell 33%. So combine this with 82 less possessions and we simply kept them in the game.

Anyone got any thoughts on this stuff.

At least four of our misses in the third quarter were from set shots, 40m or less out from goal. Only one was on an angle, so we weren’t under a lot of pressure all the time. Except maybe between the ears. We hit the post 3 times during the course of the match, and didn’t score at all from 4 shots. Two of those were within 40m on no angle. As they say in the classics, bad kicking is bad football, but given we were down across the park, Warner excluded, perhaps it wasn’t our day by any measure.


Gesendet von iPad mit Tapatalk

[i'm-uninformed2]

Well deserved Chad

Warner polls votes from the coaches