A flag from nowhere

[NMWBloods]

I commented in another couple of threads how amazing I find it that we really came from nowhere in the last third of the season to grab the flag. When I watched Sensational Swans last week this was reinforced - we were pretty much just another middle level side up until rd 15.

In rd 14, we lost by 1 pt to a poorly travelling Richmond in a fairly insipid display.

This made us 8-6, with a percentage of just 99.1% and in 6th place.

Looking back I am amazed how poorly placed we were at the time.

However, maybe the last quarter against Richmond inspired the team and showed the guys what they could do if they get it together.

For the rest of the season we went 10-2, with a percentage of 142.1%, and of course finishing first!! Indeed, over that time the highest score against us was just 98 while we scored over 100 six times.

Given such a dramatic turnaround in form, I was curious to look back at the position of other premiers in rd 14 (2/3 of the way through the H&A season).

We were the worst-placed eventual premier since West Coast in 1992.

In most cases the premier had won 9-11 games and had a healthy percentage of at least 115%, and were usually in the top 4.

In 1997 and 1998, Adelaide had also won only 8 games, but was placed 3rd and had percentages of 122% and 113%.

In 1992, West Coast was only in 5th place (final 5 system) with 7.5 wins, although they had a good percentage of 122%.

To find another team with low wins and low percentage, you have to go as far back as 1975, when North Melbourne was in 4th place (final 5 system) with just 7 wins and a percentage of only 101%.

So 2005 is a bit reminiscent of 1975 - neither eventual premier looked likely to win a significant way into the season and both broke huge droughts by their win and both had to get to the GF the tough way by playing each week of the finals and both were associated with Barassi!

[OldE]

It's strange: watching the St Kilda Round 10 match again, it's virtually impossible to believe the same team won a flag.

[hammo]

I watched the DVD last night and had exactly the same thoughts.

We were struggling for the first third of the year, just keeping our heads above water for the second third (Collingwood win), and awesome in the run up to the finals.

I wonder if people will keep this in mind if our early season form next year is a bit scratchy??

[Sanecow]

The team I watched lose to West Coast in round 6 was depressing as hell (and wet too). Matera kicked 3.2 but apparently Woosha didn't notice. :D

[giant]

Agreed. For me, the differences were:
- started kicking straight
- Goodes made a huge difference as the link man in midfield
- team & coaching staff started getting a real level of self-belief
- luck + desperation = PREMIERS!

It was a staggering transformation - I don't mean to degrade their effort - for me, the Swans were the best team in the competition in 2005, no disclaimers necessary.

[j s]

Originally posted by Sanecow
The team I watched lose to West Coast in round 6 was depressing as hell (and wet too).
Ditto

Started promisingly but then faded badly.

WC fans were ungracious winners that night. The media had hyped the game as revenge for the 2004 EF.

[stevej]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by giant
[B]Agreed. For me, the differences were:
- started kicking straight


Very true Giant--- How many games early in the season did we kick 7.17 or 8.18. Turn that early season poor kicking around and the first half of the season may not have looked that bad!!

[liz]

Doesn't it just go to show that early season form means little (so long as a team can scrape enough wins together to keep itself in contention)?

[Bear]

Originally posted by liz
Doesn't it just go to show that early season form means little (so long as a team can scrape enough wins together to keep itself in contention)?

I think you've answered your own question. Clearly early season form is important as you need to keep in touch to enable a good finishing position. You don't win many games with consistently bad form.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
Doesn't it just go to show that early season form means little (so long as a team can scrape enough wins together to keep itself in contention)?
No - because as Bear says you've answered your own question.

Also, as I noted and it's one of the key parts of my post, it's rare for a team to turn around their form so dramatically. If you're not performing well by 2/3rds of the way through the season, the odds are you're not going to win the flag.

[liz]

Originally posted by Bear
I think you've answered your own question. Clearly early season form is important as you need to keep in touch to enable a good finishing position. You don't win many games with consistently bad form.

But surely the Swans didn't have consistently poor form for the first half of the season. Apart from the string of three losses (Crows, Dees, Wiggles) they were generally getting by without necessarily impressing. They were arguably mediocre for that part of the year but not poor.

[Nico]

Interesting NMW that you mentioned Barassi.

The hallmark of his teams was versatility. He liked players to play in a variety positions and take on various roles. He was the inventor of versatility.

Ditto Paul Roos's style of coaching. The master at mixing things up.

[Bear]

Originally posted by liz
But surely the Swans didn't have consistently poor form for the first half of the season.

I agree, hence early season form (on the whole rather than individual games) is actually important as it keeps you in with a chance to be a real contender.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by liz
But surely the Swans didn't have consistently poor form for the first half of the season. Apart from the string of three losses (Crows, Dees, Wiggles) they were generally getting by without necessarily impressing. They were arguably mediocre for that part of the year but not poor.

Which is what was said - they were just another middle level team, and it's rare for middle level teams to win flags!!

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Which is what was said - they were just another middle level team, and it's rare for middle level teams to win flags!!
Methinks we're going round in circles here but...

hence my comment that it's more relevant the form a team is in at the end of the season than at the start of the season.

[NMWBloods]

Later season form is more important naturally given it's the business end of the season, but that doesn't mean that the early season form means little.

But - I think we are going in circles and it seems a case of semantics through misunderstanding now. :)

[Destructive]

Originally posted by hammo
I watched the DVD last night and had exactly the same thoughts.

We were struggling for the first third of the year, just keeping our heads above water for the second third (Collingwood win), and awesome in the run up to the finals.

I wonder if people will keep this in mind if our early season form next year is a bit scratchy??

Our motto should be: Never ever give up!

If last year proved anything, which it did, that would be in there somewhere.

[Big Al]

Originally posted by NMWBloods


Also, as I noted and it's one of the key parts of my post, it's rare for a team to turn around their form so dramatically. If you're not performing well by 2/3rds of the way through the season, the odds are you're not going to win the flag.

It's the reason I'm still pinching myself to make sure Im not dreaming. If someone had told me as I was walking out of the Dome after the Round 10 debacle that we would only lose another 3 games and win the comp I would have had them locked up in a rubber room and have the key thrown away.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Big Al
It's the reason I'm still pinching myself to make sure Im not dreaming. If someone had told me as I was walking out of the Dome after the Round 10 debacle that we would only lose another 3 games and win the comp I would have had them locked up in a rubber room and have the key thrown away.
Exactly - I still find it hard to believe! I have to convince myself that we actually won the real one and not some pretend thing like the Wizard Cup! :)

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Exactly - I still find it hard to believe! I have to convince myself that we actually won the real one and not some pretend thing like the Wizard Cup! :) :D :D ...me too:D :D

[dimelb]

Back in September I nominated five players who I thought could lift, and they all delivered in spades. Only one (RyanO) could have been considered anything like a star at that stage, and I think their contribution, along with the consistent top efforts from the usual suspects (Hall, Crouch, Leo, Davis, O'Loughlin, Kirk, Tadhg, Mathews, B1, B2, Goodes, Williams and Ball) got us to the flag. The four? LRT, Buchy, Schneider and Fosdike. It's what others have referred to as the overall consistency of the team. As (I think) Malcolm Blight said, it's not the top six who deliver you a premiership, it's the bottom six.
Although these guys were not bottom six, they were definitely lower in the pecking order, but over the last third or so of the season they played the football of their lives.

[Big Al]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
Exactly - I still find it hard to believe! I have to convince myself that we actually won the real one and not some pretend thing like the Wizard Cup! :)

I think there were some misguided people in this forum earlier on in the year complaining about the fact we do not take the Who gives a rats Cup seriously. I dare say no one will be saying that this next year.

[SimonH]

To summarise (well, at least summarise what I think):

1. Form going into the finals is crucial. You absolutely cannot win a flag if you're not batting over 50% in the last 8 rounds of the season, and you'll struggle to win one if you're not closer to 75%. I haven't looked at all records, but I'd warrant you'd have to go back a long way to find a flag-winner who proves me wrong there. Just to go back all the way in history to the ancient times of 1996: Port in 2004 were 7/8; the Blions in 2003 were 5/8 (but losing in R16 by 8 points and R17 by 1 point means that this raw figure obscures their general good form); the Blions in 2002 were 7/8 (losing in R22); the Blions in 2001 were 8/8; the Dons in 2000 were 7/8 (their only loss for the year being R21); the Roos in 1999 were 7/8; Adelaide in 1998 were 5/8, but again two of those losses were 4 points in R16 and 1 point in R17. The closest to 'exceptions' are Adelaide in 1997 with 5/8, and North Melb in 1996 also with 5/8*, both of whom did have genuinely up and down form.

2. Performance over the first 14 rounds is, numerically, only relevant to get you to the finals in a strong enough spot to give you a decent chance of making the GF. I say 'numerically' because obviously a different team doesn't take the park for the first 14 rounds; if you're regularly getting flogged by 10 goals, it is likely to point to some structural problem in your side that will be exposed in the pressure-cooker of finals, even if you are in good form come R22.

3. Accepting that Blighty's "bottom six" argument is actually right, the thing about Sydney was that it was such an even contribution by the whole team that it was very difficult to work out who the bottom six were. Bucky would have well and truly been in them at the start of the year, and ultimately was a crucial difference between success and failure, and finished 4th in the B&F. LRT would have been at #22 in most fans' list of 22 performers after about round 10, but improved out of sight and was one of our best in the GF. Similar things could be said about any other 'bottom 6' candidate: Schneider, Dempster, Fosdike, LAblett, the unlucky Vogels. Only really Bevan kept his powder dry for 2006, but in such a stable side he wasn't required to play any more than a pinch-hitting role. By way of contrast, almost all other teams have at least 3 players who keep getting a game due to the lack of a superior alternative, but whose contribution is pretty marginal: they're clear "bottom 6" players.

* Actually, The Myth of Carey, coupled with good performances before and after 1996, makes people believe that the Roos were the standout side of 1996, but looking at the results, it was a more even year than 2005. You could throw a blanket over the top 7 teams: 3 games between 1st and 7th at the end of the year, and 2 games between them after R21. Sydney would have finished 4th if it had lost its final round game to WCE. The Bears (that's right, the Bears) were the true form team of the comp, having won 7 in a row to reach top after R21. They dropped to 3rd only because they choked in the final round against a Collingwood team that was out of the running to make the finals. That was their death-knell. The Bears then beat 6th placed Essendon by 1 point in a meaningless final, before demolishing 5th placed Carlton by 97 points. However, under the old system, finishing 3rd and winning 2 finals in a row did no good for you-- and playing experienced finals campaigners North, away from home, with an extra week's rest under North's belt, was always going to be too much.

[Gary]

Good analysis.
With regard to "bottom 6" contemplations, I'm still trying to work out what was different about Fosdike when he came back mid / late season. He played so consistently for the rest of the year, with occasional brilliance that suggested a new man.
He did look a bit bigger to me...bu whatever, I still don't think he has received the plaudits due to him.

[TheHood]

Not much has been said about it, but we benefited hugely from the inconsistent seasons that the rest of the comp had.

If you weren't in the bottom 8, then you got into the top 8 with some patchy form yourself, ie Port, Geelong, St Kilda, Dees & Roos.

Each of those teams suffered from sudden losses or long losing streaks.

The consistent teams over the majority of the season were the Eagles, the Crows and Sydney to a lesser extent. But even when we had the odd loss, we got the benefit of another loser above us.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by TheHood
Not much has been said about it, but we benefited hugely from the inconsistent seasons that the rest of the comp had.
Definitely correct there. I haven't mentioned it here, but it's actually been a consistent theme of mine over the past three years. The flag has been fairly open for much of that time due to general inconsistency and/or lack of genuine talent of most sides at most times. This was why it was so great we took advantage of it this year before the competition improved again.

[punter257]

we took advantage of the window of opportunity thats for sure

i'm just glad that it can't be taken away from us now and personally its going to be a weird feeling next season if we exit the finals in straight sets - i dont think i'm going to stress out about it as much and let it give me the depressions

i'm just bloody happy that I got to witness a flag but I'm hopeful there may be another one in 06 :)

[giant]

Originally posted by liz
Methinks we're going round in circles here but...

hence my comment that it's more relevant the form a team is in at the end of the season than at the start of the season.

Bulldogs should've been premiers on that count. On a similar vein, suggesting you need to be in top nick leading into the finals is somewhat negated by the Eagles who were awful in July/August but lost the flag by 4 pts.

In short, being in the right place at the right time & having the right mix of skill, luck & desperation are the best chance you can have of winning a flag.

[dawson]

How come no one has mentioned the Round 3 game against Brisbane????

After the match Tim says to Malcom, "Seasons are built on wins like that."

Malcolm agrees.

I have watched that final quarter over and over and over again and still can't believe we won.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by giant
In short, being in the right place at the right time & having the right mix of skill, luck & desperation are the best chance you can have of winning a flag. Agreed.


Originally posted by dawson
How come no one has mentioned the Round 3 game against Brisbane????
Because it was 'fairly meaningless' in the overall scheme of things, except it was a win.

We barely managed to beat a side that really struggled in the first half of the season. And then we continued to struggle for the rest of the first half as well.

Of course, some people prefer to be rude than think...

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by dawson
How come no one has mentioned the Round 3 game against Brisbane????

Early in the season I was expressing frustration because the season was so open and we were wasting the opportunity. The Lions win gave some self belief - and the feeling that we could get over the line in the tight ones (wasn't that useful in the finals?). However, the Saints game suggested to most Swans fans that we were a mediocre team at best.

Good thing that, when we were saying "the team is crap" they themselves were saying "we're better than that!" And set out to lift their game. So now we are premiers.

We go into 2006 as one of the best teams in the comp - and with fewer flaws than others. We have yet to see how the new fitness staff at the Saints will go - and they still have GT. The Eagles seem to have team issues and few forwards. The Doggies lack our experience. Imaging the GF score if Magic hadn't had the yips - presumably he has that monkey off his back. If our reborn players (Fossie, Nicky D, LRT, Amon, etc) continue as they left off then we are in the running for BTB.

And the wonders of medicine mean we don't face the prospect of seeing Baz in coke bottle glasses.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Go Swannies
We go into 2006 as one of the best teams in the comp - and with fewer flaws than others.
This continues to be a fantastic opportunity for us, perhaps a lucky golden era. We have our team in good form and firing while there are no dominant teams out there such as we saw in past years.

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
This continues to be a fantastic opportunity for us, perhaps a lucky golden era. We have our team in good form and firing while there are no dominant teams out there such as we saw in past years. I said to a few friends during the year that the Swans had to win the flag this year or in the next 2-3 years to capitalise on our players etc, otherwise we would miss the premeirship boat like Collingwood did. I hoped, but never dreamed that we would actually do it in 2005. But I agree that we are possibly in a golden era for the Swans if we can keep it together for the next 2-3 years.:D

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by eirinn
It's strange: watching the St Kilda Round 10 match again, it's virtually impossible to believe the same team won a flag.

I was becoming extremely disillusioned about everything around that time. I recall a rather empassioned discussion by Pete myself Robbie and his parents at their place before heading back up the Hume the day after that match. Robbie's mum was even saying that she couldn't watch us any more on TV. To be honest, I didn't blame her. Not just losing, but scraggly dreary ball-up riddled football. Depressing to watch, and giving little hope of things changing in the future. I had gone to the extent of watching SFL matches in an attempt to re-gain faith in the sport of Australian football. I had started to question Roos as coach.

Six month later the same Roosey is fighting a losing battle against rather over-zealously applied red and white confetti. Conquered have been St Kilda, arguably the MOST talented team in the competittion, and the Eagles with by far the best midfield. And he is holding a Premiership Cup in his hands.

Just astounding to be honest, that turnaround. That is probably why I'm find it so hard still to grasp that we ARE Premiers. Because unlike 1996 we were NOT the best team in the comp. And for the most part were struggling just to compete.
:eek: :confused:

But that somes up our little football club to be honest. We never have wraps on ourselves whereever we go. We just go and do our job. We play against far far far more talented teams than us, yet win. And end up with premiership medallions around our necks as a result.

JF

[j s]

Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
And end up with premiership medallions around our necks as a result.

JF
YEEEEEESSSSSS!!!!!

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Originally posted by dawson
How come no one has mentioned the Round 3 game against Brisbane????

After the match Tim says to Malcom, "Seasons are built on wins like that."

Malcolm agrees.

I have watched that final quarter over and over and over again and still can't believe we won.


Man, that was one of the BEST nights I have had at the footy. Just unreal. we celebrated hard too!

That win gave us the confidence to back ourselves. Last quarter rallies, even after playing 3 quarters of utter rubbish have indeed become a trademark of the Sydney Swans in season 2005.

JF

[Bart]

Originally posted by JF_Bay22_SCG
Last quarter rallies, even after playing 3 quarters of utter rubbish have indeed become a trademark of the Sydney Swans in season 2005.JF

We were behind at some stage in all 4 finals matches in the last quarter. This IMO makes our premiership even more remarkable

[Go Swannies]

Originally posted by Bart
We were behind at some stage in all 4 finals matches in the last quarter. This IMO makes our premiership even more remarkable

We may not be the most talented team in the comp. but we're certainly the fittest. And that was true all season - from when we won over Brisbane in R3 to grinding the Cats down in the finals. I doubt if we'll get such a distinct advantage again - but increased confidence and skills may make up for it.

I think we have the Brions of 2003 to thank for that. In the last quarter they lifted and we couldn't match them. I think Roos and the team decided that was an effective game plan. It certainly worked against the Saints in the finals - they should have been more rested so when we increased the intensity in the last quarter, they dropped their heads and gave up.