Match thread. THE GRAND FINAL!!! Swans v Cats.

[MattW]

Or maybe mostly physical. The Cats were simply bigger, stronger and fresher.

I'm not sure it was that simple. If it was, they'd be unbeatable. It's also belied by our 21yo, 82kg mid finishing with 18 contested possessions and a game high 10 clearances. Also by Geelong only scraping home against Collingwood, having conceded more inside 50s.

Our selection, on John's admission, was mistaken. Our mindset and preparation was off. There was very little resistance.

We performed badly. It was disappointing.

[Mr Magoo]

Or maybe mostly physical. The Cats were simply bigger, stronger and fresher.

Yes and if you looked purely at a player stats it seemed to me we were let down the most by our mid age 22-26 years plus half back / midfield group of players. Not one of them lifted on the day and few could say they beat their opponent on the day.

Mills, Heeney , Florent , Blakey, McInerney, rowbottom , stephens provided little to no run, made countless skill errors and were just monstered by their more mature opponents. The amount of times that they were broken down before they could even get inside 50 was incredible and left little opportunity for buddy or any forward to have any meaningful impact.

Credit to Geelong they just were ferocious but it was amazing that unlike other games we didnt try to slow things down and just pick apart the defence by working it upfield methodically.

Anyway the reality is that we far exceeded mine and I think most peoples expectations so cant whinge about the year overall. I just hope we dont let this performance get into our heads mentally as it often has for big GF losers in the past.

[liz]

They had a physical game against the Pies in the QF and then a week off to recover. We had a physical game against the Pies in the PF and not a week off to recover.

They had the luxury of resting Stanley in rounds 20 and 23. Hickey, who was huge for us in the PF but had little help in the ruck after quarter time, and who had knee issues during the year that he maybe didn't have the right time to recover from as a result of injuries and two suspensions to Ladhams, looked spent at the start of the game. Sometimes just one or two players physically struggling, especially when they are the bigger guys in an otherwise fairly diminutive team, can make a big difference.

Reid was clearly not right. It's entirely valid to question the decision to select him, but I doubt Logan or Joel would have made a huge difference, given their ages and relative inexperience. For a squad that didn't have anything like the depth and experience of Geelong's, he was a cruel player to suffer an injury in the PF.

They had the luxury of resting Mitch Duncan and Isaac Smith in round 22.

Dangerfield had a five week break midway through the season, with the chance to do a second "pre-season".

Geelong played a style of football throughout the season that relied far more on their skills, big bodies, strength and depth of squad than we did. I believe that they were in the bottom handful of clubs for applying pressure over the course of the season. In contrast, our style always relied more on applying pressure, and we only got to the GF on the basis of ramping up that pressure even further in the block of games after the Essendon defeat. It's a taxing style to play, especially when so many of the team are young.

Ludwig (I think) provided a link to an article before the game that showed how the Geelong midfielders play a lot fewer minutes per game than their Sydney counterparts. That speaks to a forward and backline that are able to absorb more game time, which is likely in part due to older, bigger, stronger bodies, and partly due to a game style that they were able to develop over the season. As the Swans regroup from this game and plot their way forward, that's one thing the coaches might want to think about trying to emulate going forward, to the extent the squad at the disposal permits it. It's not new for defenders, in particular, to spend predominantly all the game on the ground. We've certainly had defenders in past iterations who have spent substantially all the game on the ground (Kennelly and Grundy - in their mature years - are two that spring to mind).

I don't think we went into that game abnormally fatigued or banged up for a team at the end of the season. But I do think we faced a team abnormally unfatigued and banged up.

I am not suggesting there are no lessons to be learned from that game. Or that some mistakes (notably the Reid selection) seem especially ill-advised. But I also reckon that if that game were played 10 times in parallel universes, we'd probably lose at least nine out of ten. Maybe ten. That's not something I'd say about any of our other GF losses.

[i'm-uninformed2]

They had a physical game against the Pies in the QF and then a week off to recover. We had a physical game against the Pies in the PF and not a week off to recover.

They had the luxury of resting Stanley in rounds 20 and 23. Hickey, who was huge for us in the PF but had little help in the ruck after quarter time, and who had knee issues during the year that he maybe didn't have the right time to recover from as a result of injuries and two suspensions to Ladhams, looked spent at the start of the game. Sometimes just one or two players physically struggling, especially when they are the bigger guys in an otherwise fairly diminutive team, can make a big difference.

Reid was clearly not right. It's entirely valid to question the decision to select him, but I doubt Logan or Joel would have made a huge difference, given their ages and relative inexperience. For a squad that didn't have anything like the depth and experience of Geelong's, he was a cruel player to suffer an injury in the PF.

They had the luxury of resting Mitch Duncan and Isaac Smith in round 22.

Dangerfield had a five week break midway through the season, with the chance to do a second "pre-season".

Geelong played a style of football throughout the season that relied far more on their skills, big bodies, strength and depth of squad than we did. I believe that they were in the bottom handful of clubs for applying pressure over the course of the season. In contrast, our style always relied more on applying pressure, and we only got to the GF on the basis of ramping up that pressure even further in the block of games after the Essendon defeat. It's a taxing style to play, especially when so many of the team are young.

Ludwig (I think) provided a link to an article before the game that showed how the Geelong midfielders play a lot fewer minutes per game than their Sydney counterparts. That speaks to a forward and backline that are able to absorb more game time, which is likely in part due to older, bigger, stronger bodies, and partly due to a game style that they were able to develop over the season. As the Swans regroup from this game and plot their way forward, that's one thing the coaches might want to think about trying to emulate going forward, to the extent the squad at the disposal permits it. It's not new for defenders, in particular, to spend predominantly all the game on the ground. We've certainly had defenders in past iterations who have spent substantially all the game on the ground (Kennelly and Grundy - in their mature years - are two that spring to mind).

I don't think we went into that game abnormally fatigued or banged up for a team at the end of the season. But I do think we faced a team abnormally unfatigued and banged up.

I am not suggesting there are no lessons to be learned from that game. Or that some mistakes (notably the Reid selection) seem especially ill-advised. But I also reckon that if that game were played 10 times in parallel universes, we'd probably lose at least nine out of ten. Maybe ten. That's not something I'd say about any of our other GF losses.

And this goes back to something I posted earlier during lead in games with their midfield depth and flexibility (largely derived from Blicavs).

David King again raised time on ground and rotations. Apparently at half time, their four main mids of Guthrie, Atkins, Danger and Selwood had averaged 40-42 mins on ground. Chad (which makes sense as he's more explosive so you need to ration him a bit) had similar, but each of Parker, Mills and Rowbottom had approx 50 mins.

So both during that first half, but particularly when it came to go again in the big third quarter, who had energy and who didn't?

Adding to our midfield rotations and depth with the likes of Sheldrick, getting McInerney's body in a state where he can pinch hit in there again, and continuing to rotate our small and medium forwards through there at times, will be important.

[Ludwig]

I don't agree with this comment on several levels. As noted by many commenters, the Swans were out-muscled by Geelong. From my perspective, the team needs more physical players in the ruck (maybe Ladhams will fill this role), in the mid-field, and in defence. I have felt that for some years, the club's recruiters have been too focussed on selecting more lightly framed, speedy types. To think that Saturday was a "one off mauling" may well turn out to be wishful thinking. The reality is that each year other teams pay careful attention to the methods employed by the premiers.

The Swans actually have a core of 4 quite physical midfielders, and 5 if we add Papley at centre bounces, although short, is also very physical. Sometime soon Sheldrick, another shortish, but powerful player, will likely join the midfield group. Successful teams of the recent past, like Richmond and Hawthorn, didn't have a particularly hefty midfield group, and probably smaller than ours.

Geelong had a unique situation, with a couple of mature and powerful midfielders in Dangerfield and Selwood, along with Mark Blicavs, a player without equivalent in the league.

Even if we wanted to, we couldn't really acquire the kind of players to match the Geelong setup, or it would take so long, that Chad Warner would be ready for retirement.

Every club is competing for those big, powerful and skillful players. They're not easy to find.

The same goes for the ruck position. Everyone wants a big strong and mobile ruckman, but they are few and far between. I'm sure we are on the lookout for one every year.

The focus the club had on acquiring quick and skillful players has paid off. It's allowed us to develop a game style that's hard to match, even if it does mean that we sacrifice something in other areas. Some of the problems will be resolved with maturity, as these younger players become more physical, like Florent and Hayward have done, who are now in their 6th year.

I hope we go after a few bigger types in this year's draft. It won't help much next year, but should pay off down the road.

It's been well discussed that we have been forced down the path of rebuilding through the draft because of large contract commitments and loss of COLA, so we are a club that will be going through an evolution rather than a revolution. There's not much we can do about that now. Long-term contracts are in place which restrict how quickly we can change course. In any case, I'm pleased with the way we've rebuilt the team since our last peak in 2016. I expect that we still have plenty of growth and development left in a team that just finished 2nd best in the AFL.

[707]

Have been a reader but very small contributor over the years and have been a Swans member for most of the Sydney journey and have played AFL from juniors and to a high level in Sydney as well as coached juniors for many years and I have to say Ludwig’s post is one of the most balanced and sound view’s I have read. He is spot on about the KPP renewal in a couple of positions.

Also wanted to build on the thought if you don’t win the big prize then your season is a failure. This mentality has permeated a lot of junior clubs to the point that it is overwhelming the ability of kids to enjoy football and the love of the game and participating in what I think is the greatest team sport in the world. I see this a lot with the Swans and Giants Academy prospects and their journey as they are identified as part of a large pool of kids who are gifted runners with solid skills and many don’t cope well with being cut when the real squads are rationalised at Mid teens. Many parents also see this as a failure. It would be great if we could just focus on some of the other achievements that are made over a season both on and off the field for all levels of the sport we all love. Otherwise I think we risk losing a great aspect of our game that we embrace all shapes and sizes, abilities, backgrounds and orientations to come together on the field as one.

Let’s all get behind the boys and back them to go again in 2023.

Good post. Let's hear more from you NSBear :-)

[MattW]

And this goes back to something I posted earlier during lead in games with their midfield depth and flexibility (largely derived from Blicavs).

David King again raised time on ground and rotations. Apparently at half time, their four main mids of Guthrie, Atkins, Danger and Selwood had averaged 40-42 mins on ground. Chad (which makes sense as he's more explosive so you need to ration him a bit) had similar, but each of Parker, Mills and Rowbottom had approx 50 mins.

So both during that first half, but particularly when it came to go again in the big third quarter, who had energy and who didn't?

Adding to our midfield rotations and depth with the likes of Sheldrick, getting McInerney's body in a state where he can pinch hit in there again, and continuing to rotate our small and medium forwards through there at times, will be important.

Never mind the third quarter, how about the opening bounce? They dominated us from the first moment.

[TheBloods]

Midfield is a huge concern . Its going nowhere fast. Gus and Roberts need to be there rd 1 next year. Cop the losses if they come, it will be worth it in the long run !

[stevoswan]

So much conjecture and theorising on here in the post GF washup....some of merit, a lot not IMO.

My take is and some have touched on this but many seem to have missed this point.....and I think it was the main reason we capitulated.....WE WERE GASSED. The writing was on the wall after the Collingwood prelim. We stumbled over the line looking knackered and had nothing left, physically or mentally, for the big one. A fast and brutal start from the Cats and with Reid looking totally ineffective, we were done in mind and body.

Another 'bulk up' pre-season followed by sensible player management during the season should have us better prepared for the entire 28 weeks of the season....this should be the main aim of the coaching and medical staff next year. Some canny trades and drafting after identifying needs will help. I trust our recruiters to get this right. The natural progression of our younger players with a fresh GF learning experience in their minds should steel them all for what's expected.

Also important is consistency of match preparation all the way to the finals and GF.....if what got you there isn't broken, don't fix it.

The off season will also be so important regarding mind health.....we have proven that we as a club can regroup in the face of previous finals disasters to challenge strongly again and I believe this will be the case in 2023. Brett Kirks 'special brand of crap' as another poster so eloquently (and stupidly) put it may be our greatest asset over the long summer.

I'm also sure that the mind strength of our players is far stronger than some of the 'doom and gloom' posters on RWO. There is always lessons to be learned after such a brutal loss but it really is all about staying calm and positive (and adult) in the face of massive disappointment.

[stevoswan]

Midfield is a huge concern . Its going nowhere fast. Gus and Roberts need to be there rd 1 next year. Cop the losses if they come, it will be worth it in the long run !

We'll revisit this.


You may well be right TB but I'm struggling to see how 2 basically first year players are going to be the difference between this GF loss and winning it all.

[royboy42]

So much conjecture and theorising on here in the post GF washup....some of merit, a lot not IMO.

My take is and some have touched on this but many seem to have missed this point.....and I think it was the main reason we capitulated.....WE WERE GASSED. The writing was on the wall after the Collingwood prelim. We stumbled over the line looking knackered and had nothing left, physically or mentally, for the big one. A fast and brutal start from the Cats and with Reid looking totally ineffective, we were done in mind and body.

Another 'bulk up' pre-season followed by sensible player management during the season should have us better prepared for the entire 28 weeks of the season....this should be the main aim of the coaching and medical staff next year. Some canny trades and drafting after identifying needs will help. I trust our recruiters to get this right. The natural progression of our younger players with a fresh GF learning experience in their minds should steel them all for what's expected.

Also important is consistency of match preparation all the way to the finals and GF.....if what got you there isn't broken, don't fix it.

The off season will also be so important regarding mind health.....we have proven that we as a club can regroup in the face of previous finals disasters to challenge strongly again and I believe this will be the case in 2023. Brett Kirks 'special brand of crap' as another poster so eloquently (and stupidly) put it may be our greatest asset over the long summer.

I'm also sure that the mind strength of our players is far stronger than some of the 'doom and gloom' posters on RWO. There is always lessons to be learned after such a brutal loss but it really is all about staying calm and positive (and adult) in the face of massive disappointment.

Agreed.

[Rod_]

Thanks Swans for a fantastic season.

Not our best day on Saturday. Sometimes we get that, and it's alright.

I support the Swans football club. That is our part of the game, to support you when we win, or not!

Looking to 2023 and hope we can go one more step!!

Rod _

[Captain]

The midfield will be fine, plenty of youth coming through there. Likewise the backline.

Our lack of a strong ruckman and key forward are the bigger issues. Hickey, Buddy and Reid are all the wrong side of 30 and injury prone. Not much is coming though to replace them aside from Logan. All 3 were terrible in the GF.

I would love to see no more Buddy and make Logan the main man. Amartey needs more of a run as well. We also need to trade for someone like Brodie Grundy (though I appreciate that is unlikely).

[MattW]

They had a physical game against the Pies in the QF and then a week off to recover. We had a physical game against the Pies in the PF and not a week off to recover.

They had the luxury of resting Stanley in rounds 20 and 23. Hickey, who was huge for us in the PF but had little help in the ruck after quarter time, and who had knee issues during the year that he maybe didn't have the right time to recover from as a result of injuries and two suspensions to Ladhams, looked spent at the start of the game. Sometimes just one or two players physically struggling, especially when they are the bigger guys in an otherwise fairly diminutive team, can make a big difference.

Reid was clearly not right. It's entirely valid to question the decision to select him, but I doubt Logan or Joel would have made a huge difference, given their ages and relative inexperience. For a squad that didn't have anything like the depth and experience of Geelong's, he was a cruel player to suffer an injury in the PF.

They had the luxury of resting Mitch Duncan and Isaac Smith in round 22.

Dangerfield had a five week break midway through the season, with the chance to do a second "pre-season".

Geelong played a style of football throughout the season that relied far more on their skills, big bodies, strength and depth of squad than we did. I believe that they were in the bottom handful of clubs for applying pressure over the course of the season. In contrast, our style always relied more on applying pressure, and we only got to the GF on the basis of ramping up that pressure even further in the block of games after the Essendon defeat. It's a taxing style to play, especially when so many of the team are young.

Ludwig (I think) provided a link to an article before the game that showed how the Geelong midfielders play a lot fewer minutes per game than their Sydney counterparts. That speaks to a forward and backline that are able to absorb more game time, which is likely in part due to older, bigger, stronger bodies, and partly due to a game style that they were able to develop over the season. As the Swans regroup from this game and plot their way forward, that's one thing the coaches might want to think about trying to emulate going forward, to the extent the squad at the disposal permits it. It's not new for defenders, in particular, to spend predominantly all the game on the ground. We've certainly had defenders in past iterations who have spent substantially all the game on the ground (Kennelly and Grundy - in their mature years - are two that spring to mind).

I don't think we went into that game abnormally fatigued or banged up for a team at the end of the season. But I do think we faced a team abnormally unfatigued and banged up.

I am not suggesting there are no lessons to be learned from that game. Or that some mistakes (notably the Reid selection) seem especially ill-advised. But I also reckon that if that game were played 10 times in parallel universes, we'd probably lose at least nine out of ten. Maybe ten. That's not something I'd say about any of our other GF losses.

Liz - that's an excellent description of Geelong's outstanding preparation.

But I disagree with the last part, marked-up red.

How can we be in a position to make that judgement when the Swans didn't give themselves a chance because of their acute underperformance? I think the question is: if we played at our best, were our chances 0-10%? In my view no, and I don't think extrapolating from that game provides an sound basis to make that assessment.

The preparation, size and experience of Geelong was clearly a contributing factor, but I don't think it's right to say they were impregnable. They were rendered mortal by both Collingwood and Richmond late in the season - we didn't put ourselves in that position.

I have done a roughish transcription of Longmire's press conference, and highlighted some key aspects.

We really let ourselves down and our supporters down. From the first bounce, the game looked a foreign as what we’ve played it this year. There was no element we got right. Full credit to Geelong, they played a fantastic game, but we just didn’t give ourselves a chance whatsoever.

Mentally and physically we weren’t in the hunt, and that was the disappointing thing.

No aspect of the game looked like the way we wanted to play. And we hardly got anything right, from the selection of Sam to the way the game looked. We just didn’t get it right.

I’s difficult. You have a performance like that; you let a lot of people down. It’s been a long time since we lost a game like that. Normally we give our supporters what I think is pretty good value for money. But physically and mentally, we didn’t give ourselves a chance today to do that.

But at the same time you step back and we have had a pretty good year. So it is a bit hard in the shadows of that defeat to think clearly about the season. That will come in time I guess, but it will take a bit of time to get over.

Question: Is there a chance maybe the size of the occasion overwhelmed a few players or is that hard to identify?

Answer: that’s what it looked like that. They had 12 players 29 and over, as an experienced hardened team as you’ll come up against, and they handled it that way. We didn’t, we just didn’t have our heads in the game from the very start.

When they were getting defensive stoppage goals like they did in the first quarter that we had planned for and done well before, it is one of our great strengths. And they were able to do it and we were not able to think clearly or perform at that level that we should have.

I mean they had eleven shots to one in the first quarter, it wasn’t a very good start. And some of the things we started with; you look for, the structural stuff, our intent from scramble; our shape. Normally the things that we look at a game we play, we have a very distinct way. We will look back on this in reflection, and it wouldn’t look anything like it.

I thought in the second quarter we got it back, and at halftime that we could get going again. And we were trying to get more aggressive in our ball movement and it just didn’t work. We got too aggressive at times. We were pulling off some of these options we shouldn’t have. In the first half, we had plenty of times to hit the easy one, we didn’t, we went long; in the second half, we got too aggressive sometimes.

Question: Did Geelong do anything to sort of mess up your systems which usually work for you?

Answer: I mean they played well, in all aspects. They had everything going. I don’t think there was anything they gave us that we didn’t expect, in terms of tactically, but they were very good, they executed a lot better than us. Their execution was outstanding. They were harder, cleaner; we were fumbly and weren’t as clean and didn’t give ourselves an opportunity.

You just take it as it is. Just a really disappointing game. You try and find the reasons why. Everyone wants a black and white answer – it was this it was that. It was never one thing. It’s a number of different things. We will look at the reasons why. I am confident in the playing group. We have had some wonderful achievements, taken some real steps forward as a footy team. Most of our players will have improved this year. We just buggered it up today.

We got a lot of younger players whop are coming through, who have showed great intent and great willingness. So when the dust settles on today, you reflect on that and the gains we have made as a team. But in the shadows of today, it takes a bit of time before the light to come up. But it will come up.

Question: And how are you personally feeling? [great question!]

Answer: personally, you feel like you let a people down. You let your players down, you let your supporters down, you let your staff down; that’s how you feel.

That last quote really moved me. I feel terrible for the guy.

But the take-aways from that for me were:

• He thinks Geelong were beatable
• Given our underperformance from the opening bounce, we didn't give ourselves a chance to do so.

I agree on both counts.

I don't think the team will sink; we are still a top four team. I expect the players will learn from it and challenge for it next year. I also agree we get *great* value for money as supporters. But sorry - for me at least, that was really disappointing, a massive low, and on us (the Swans).

[Aprilbr]

Midfield is a huge concern . Its going nowhere fast. Gus and Roberts need to be there rd 1 next year. Cop the losses if they come, it will be worth it in the long run !

Both of those guys have played one senior game from memory, TB. Their reserves form has been OK but not outstanding. Neither has been knocking down the selectors' doors in the second half of the season. That's hardly a body of work from which one can confidently see them as saviours of the midfield. They may well develop into stars, I sincerely hope they do, but its far too early to know. They both need a very good pre-season to threaten for senior selection in Round One, 2023.