sharp9
5th May 2008, 01:46 PM
I didn't see the game but listened to nearly all of it on ABC. I have been wondering whether or not the glass might actually be half full. It sounded like we just sucked, but then, on the other hand we won 3 of the 4 quarters, we had more possessions, more inside fifties, significantly more scoring shots and shots on goal, more clearances, higher efficiency, more contested marks......shaded in contested ball and slightly more clangers.
Obviously we must have had more endeavour and more of some other things I can't think of to lead those stats in that manner. If we had kicked "normally" for goal (by AFL standards) we would have won, almost certainly. If we had kicked normally for goal and they had kicked normally for goal we would have won pretty easily. We dominated large chunks of the game....more than they dominated, for sure.
So the glass is half full, right? Just kick a bit straighter, think a bit clearer with disposal into the fifty. Quite possible, right?
WRONG!!! You know it and I know it. Instinctively we all know that the glass is half empty.
The game has changed since 2005. Nowadays you can't be a contender without CLASS and we have none on the field at the moment. NONE.
Took me a while to think this through. We have lots of players getting close to their best out of mediocre talent. We also have quite a few players capable of brilliance. We have lots of good players trying their hardest. Why do we keep losing....and particularly why are we losing in the manner that we are to high ladder teams?
Answer - We have no CLASS on the park. None. Nowadays you can't beat top sides without some class of your own.
What's class? Class means you have quality skills that STAND UP UNDER PRESSURE.
CLASS is not the same as BRILLIANCE or TALENT. Consistency is far too boring a word, because it doesn't reflect the ability to kick accurately under pressure....physical or mental.
Adam Goodes is a genius, but he has no CLASS. He cannot be relied upon when the game is in the balance. He cannot be relied upon in front of goal unless we are five goals behind or five goals in front. the same can be said for every single Swan for the last 2 and a half years.
For the opposition coach the job is simple. Put the Swans under pressure and they will crack. They CANNOT play well in pressure situations. They can do stunning things when five goals down or five goals up, but NEVER when the game is in the balance (margin under 3 goals in the second half).
We have 2 classy players. Nick Malceski and Nick Davis. For some bizarre reason, Davis is out of form, but 18 months ago he was in the top 3 "who would you have kick for your life" players in the AFL. He was pure CLASS. He was reliable. He came through. You KNEW he would come through if he got the chance.
I know nothing about HOW to coach AFL players, so I don't know if it is possible to teach class or merely nurture it, but I suspect it is the latter. And for that reason, we are in deep, deep do do. The four top picks we have on the list are four who comfortably fit into the category of "no class, but can be effective," (Fosdike, Bolton, Crouch and McVeigh) so we have missed the normal opportunities to draft for class. These days it is increasingly rare to find class outside the top ten picks. Far more worrying is that even when class is present it (almost) always takes years of footy to to come good. See Cooney and Marc Murphy.
Buchanan is a brilliant player....kicked six in the kids final, won the 2005 GF. He is my favourite Swan. He lacks CLASS. He is brilliant but completely unreliable. CLASS doesn't fret when the game is in his hands. My gut is that players like him and Goodes have so much talent that they could be taught to be reliable as well. Here's hoping.
I can cope with not brilliant. After 3 years, McVeigh is averaging 107 Supercoach points and may well have (finally) turned into a solid, reliable contributor. Maybe even Bevan will work out. I think his efficiency rate is 80% - but then again nearly all of that is to a player completely in the clear.
It would seem that the coaching staff agree with me to some extent in that over the last 2 years the young kids we have recruited (DOK, Vezpremi and Meredith) have had the word CLASS bandied about them...if only we can get them on the park and showing enough grunt. So that's good. Moore, Jack and Bird win significantly more contested ball than is average for such young players, but are a couple of reliable seasons away from demostrating the reliabilty under fire that would see them labelled "CLASS." The odds are that that will not happen.
CLASS equals QUALITY plus RELIABILITY. The Quality may be grunty, unflashy hard ball get type of stuff, or it maybe flashy, outside, high-flying, impossible angles sort of stuff - but the key is that the QUALITY (which encompases any or all of talent, brilliance, vision, hardness) must be matched to reliablity to win big in 2008.
Yesterday the Dogs were lacking in many areas compared to the Swans, but the one area there was no question was class. They had the class of Ackermanis (who wasn't required!!) Murphy, Cooney, Johnson and Gilbee. In the end, that was enough.
CLASS was the difference and unless we demonstrate it we will not contend this year (or any year fopr the forseeable future). Our QUALITY should still win us enough games to make the finals - but that will be it.
Obviously we must have had more endeavour and more of some other things I can't think of to lead those stats in that manner. If we had kicked "normally" for goal (by AFL standards) we would have won, almost certainly. If we had kicked normally for goal and they had kicked normally for goal we would have won pretty easily. We dominated large chunks of the game....more than they dominated, for sure.
So the glass is half full, right? Just kick a bit straighter, think a bit clearer with disposal into the fifty. Quite possible, right?
WRONG!!! You know it and I know it. Instinctively we all know that the glass is half empty.
The game has changed since 2005. Nowadays you can't be a contender without CLASS and we have none on the field at the moment. NONE.
Took me a while to think this through. We have lots of players getting close to their best out of mediocre talent. We also have quite a few players capable of brilliance. We have lots of good players trying their hardest. Why do we keep losing....and particularly why are we losing in the manner that we are to high ladder teams?
Answer - We have no CLASS on the park. None. Nowadays you can't beat top sides without some class of your own.
What's class? Class means you have quality skills that STAND UP UNDER PRESSURE.
CLASS is not the same as BRILLIANCE or TALENT. Consistency is far too boring a word, because it doesn't reflect the ability to kick accurately under pressure....physical or mental.
Adam Goodes is a genius, but he has no CLASS. He cannot be relied upon when the game is in the balance. He cannot be relied upon in front of goal unless we are five goals behind or five goals in front. the same can be said for every single Swan for the last 2 and a half years.
For the opposition coach the job is simple. Put the Swans under pressure and they will crack. They CANNOT play well in pressure situations. They can do stunning things when five goals down or five goals up, but NEVER when the game is in the balance (margin under 3 goals in the second half).
We have 2 classy players. Nick Malceski and Nick Davis. For some bizarre reason, Davis is out of form, but 18 months ago he was in the top 3 "who would you have kick for your life" players in the AFL. He was pure CLASS. He was reliable. He came through. You KNEW he would come through if he got the chance.
I know nothing about HOW to coach AFL players, so I don't know if it is possible to teach class or merely nurture it, but I suspect it is the latter. And for that reason, we are in deep, deep do do. The four top picks we have on the list are four who comfortably fit into the category of "no class, but can be effective," (Fosdike, Bolton, Crouch and McVeigh) so we have missed the normal opportunities to draft for class. These days it is increasingly rare to find class outside the top ten picks. Far more worrying is that even when class is present it (almost) always takes years of footy to to come good. See Cooney and Marc Murphy.
Buchanan is a brilliant player....kicked six in the kids final, won the 2005 GF. He is my favourite Swan. He lacks CLASS. He is brilliant but completely unreliable. CLASS doesn't fret when the game is in his hands. My gut is that players like him and Goodes have so much talent that they could be taught to be reliable as well. Here's hoping.
I can cope with not brilliant. After 3 years, McVeigh is averaging 107 Supercoach points and may well have (finally) turned into a solid, reliable contributor. Maybe even Bevan will work out. I think his efficiency rate is 80% - but then again nearly all of that is to a player completely in the clear.
It would seem that the coaching staff agree with me to some extent in that over the last 2 years the young kids we have recruited (DOK, Vezpremi and Meredith) have had the word CLASS bandied about them...if only we can get them on the park and showing enough grunt. So that's good. Moore, Jack and Bird win significantly more contested ball than is average for such young players, but are a couple of reliable seasons away from demostrating the reliabilty under fire that would see them labelled "CLASS." The odds are that that will not happen.
CLASS equals QUALITY plus RELIABILITY. The Quality may be grunty, unflashy hard ball get type of stuff, or it maybe flashy, outside, high-flying, impossible angles sort of stuff - but the key is that the QUALITY (which encompases any or all of talent, brilliance, vision, hardness) must be matched to reliablity to win big in 2008.
Yesterday the Dogs were lacking in many areas compared to the Swans, but the one area there was no question was class. They had the class of Ackermanis (who wasn't required!!) Murphy, Cooney, Johnson and Gilbee. In the end, that was enough.
CLASS was the difference and unless we demonstrate it we will not contend this year (or any year fopr the forseeable future). Our QUALITY should still win us enough games to make the finals - but that will be it.