Swans V Bombers

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Sanecow
I don't know that "losing the midfield battle" cost us the game. Straighter kicking and better defense would have won the game just as much as winning more centre breaks. Two non-midfield factors that lost the game (if either of them were different by a couple of goals...):

Goodes: 0 goals 3 behinds
Nietz: 6 goals 2 behinds

If this week it says:

Goodes: 0 goals 3 behinds
Lloyd: 6 goals 2 behinds

then I doubt the midfield was our problem.

It's just that people like to say "won or lost in the midfield" as much as they like to say "law of averages"

Perhaps if we put Schneider in the ruck we would lose the game in the midfield but I don't believe we were rubbish in the middle last week.

Have a look at how Melbourne kicked their goals. Three of Neitz's goals were from great passes into space from a midfielder unchecked, that most defenders could not stop. Two of Green's goals were from quick centre breaks. One of Thompson's goals was from a quick centre break. Yze's goal was due to being unmarked. Johnstone's goal was due to being unmarked.

Their delivery into the F50 was very good because for periods of the game the Swans did not put enough pressure on Melbourne's midfield.

Two poor misses by Goodes were also very costly, and a couple of misses by Davis, Hall and O'Keefe also hurt, and contributed to the loss.

However, I think our weak effort in the midfield for about 2 qtrs was costly.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by hird_god
ditto, also hoping to see our side continue to kick the ball longer like they have been starting to. pisses me off players with such accurate long kicks like Lucas, Rioli, McPhee and Fletcher ****ing around looking for the dinky short pass. (except when that pass is to Hird ) and with guys around the park who can take contested grabs, its obvious the long kick will create a lot more opportunity

Yep - I hate Essendon's game plan. It's so strange considering the kicking and marking ability you have.