Plan B?

[Go Swannies]

So we've now learned that if the opposing team mans up then even the Cats can nearly beat us. If we're allowed to run, we look great. But what can Paul Roos do to give us a chance when teams man up, as the Bombers did today - and every other team will do for the rest of the season now they've seen its effectiveness?

[dendol]

It really does look ugly when we hold it up and just chip it short. If this was clearly effective in winning us games, then I wouldnt care. However, I really dont think that is our problem. We would be winning games if our clearances improved even slightly.

[swans_premiers]

Our midfield is not consistent enough if it were we wouldn't need a plan B.

[midaro]

Cresswell's retirement may just hurt us more than Lockett, Kelly, Schwass and Dunkley combined. ;)

[Nico]

What gets me is that we didn't play like this last year.

If it aint' broke don't try to fix it.

What happened to our run on style. This is now smacking of the Eade style of running it to the boundry. Heaven help us if it is.

The lack of breaks through the centre today were few and far between. When we did run at all costs guess what happened. Must have some dumb footballers.

[chammond]

If we're looking at who's underperformed during the past two games, you'd have to put Paul Roos on that list.

He's been out-thought and out-manoeuvred by both Daniher and Sheedy in two games that we could have won.

[Charlie]

Originally posted by chammond
If we're looking at who's underperformed during the past two games, you'd have to put Paul Roos on that list.

He's been out-thought and out-manoeuvred by both Daniher and Sheedy in two games that we could have won.

One thing I simply don't understand is why Goodes spends so much time at full-forward!

We NEED him in the middle. Does Roos realise that Adam doesn't have to ruck to play midfield?

[dendol]

Guys, I really dont think its solely a game plan issue. I think its mainly a clearance issue. If we cant win the ball, we cant run it, can we?

We got belted by Geelong in clearances for 3 qtrs, and we were losing. We win the clearances in the last, and snatch victory. Exactly the same thing today. We came within 2 kicks, only to be completely ****ED @@@@@@@ FUC*ED over by the umpiring.

Considering the clearances were about 30 to 10 (or there abouts???) against us at 3 qtr time, I thought our forwards were excellent with their limited opportunities. Something has to be done with the clearance structures, not the game plan, per se.

[dendol]

Originally posted by chammond
If we're looking at who's underperformed during the past two games, you'd have to put Paul Roos on that list.

He's been out-thought and out-manoeuvred by both Daniher and Sheedy in two games that we could have won.

The only thing you can fault Roosy for is maybe the clearance setups. Even then, it is probably out under-performing midfield who cant execute the plan.

What can a coach do when the opposition is continually winning clean ball after a goal is kicked? Flood? That will be going right back to the Eade era.

Im not an AFL coach, or an expert by any means. Im not sure what we can do to fix our problems, but I'd put my faith in Roosy for a little bit longer. Hopefully he'll sort something out soon.

[Diego]

Originally posted by Nico
What gets me is that we didn't play like this last year.

If it aint' broke don't try to fix it.

What happened to our run on style. This is now smacking of the Eade style of running it to the boundry. Heaven help us if it is.

The lack of breaks through the centre today were few and far between. When we did run at all costs guess what happened. Must have some dumb footballers.

I agree regarding the Eade comment. Today and the past weeks have Eade all over them. It's interesting to read Roos credits Eade as teaching him tactics.

A theory about your first comment might be maybe last year Roos didn't really have a game plan in place and let the boys create their own play out there. His philosophy was "go out there and play your natural game". Where this year there is and some of the boys have not adjusted. I can't believe how backwards we have gone with in regards to our skills. Players like Fosdike and Jude Bolton have taken a backward step again.

but i agree we did not play like this last year. Even the times where teams worked us out we still managed to get that run.

This chip style of football is really looking crap.

sigh.

[sharpie]

Even apart from our clearance failings, our midfield is not strong by any stretch of the imagination.

But our game plan is for lots of short possessions, both handballs and short kicks. This requires a highly skilled unit. Our midfield does not match this decription, so how can we continue to play a short possession game? It doesnt make sense. While our midfield skills are bad the sooner we get it away from the midfield the better. We must kick long.

If you have guys like Hall, Goodes, O'Keefe & Davis up forward, we must kick long to contests. These guys will take enough strong marks to score goals.

While the ball is kicked long to our forward line, it is spending less time about to be turned over and quickly go back to the opposition's forward line.

What really strikes me, and is starting to upset me a lot, is that it seems we have definitely not improved anything since last year. Same bunch of guys, but all a year older, and nothing looks better. Surely Roos's 4 year plan requires improvement each year, each week, each quarter? So where is it?

[dimelb]

I think we played something like our normal game in the last quarter. We ran, kicked long and quickly, scored goals and nearly caught the Bombers. If the umps had been up to scratch, who knows?
At the same time Essendon played better than we did for much of the match. As people have said, they manned up and they were harder at the ball than we were for most of the game.
The backs worked overtime and did well, the score slightly flattered the Bombers through umpiring blunders. The forward line did well with what they got. It's in the middle we are pulling up short. Let's hope Roos can fix it.

[sharpie]

All this talk of similarities between Eade and Roos has got me thinking now. Look at our losses this year: 1 point, 12 points, 10 points. It is all smelling a bit like 2 or 3 years ago, when we must have lost half a dozen games by less than a goal or something like that. The honourable loss. You know what honourable gets us? Sweet **** all. It has to stop.

We have to go out and play with no fear, just like last year. Either we win due to superiority, or we get blown away, and it is obvious what our shortcomings are. This would be acceptable for a young team. Instead we now more and more seem to head for the safe boundary line option, where alas we have to contest a clearance again. Sigh.

[liz]

I wonder if we're underestimating the impact of our half-back line being well down on form at the moment - thus we're lacking some of the "break the lines" run that might counteract the opposition's man-on-man tactics.

Barry has been OK this year without quite hitting the heights (yet) of last year and of course today he was well occupied with minding Lloyd (which he did pretty well).

Kennelly, on the other hand, is clearly struggling at the moment. Whether it's his knee (which I doubt) or his ribs / abs (which I suspect) he's not fit. He didn't participate in training last Wednesday, nor did he a fortnight earlier. I didn't see the week in between but there's a reasonable chance he didn't then either.

Had we had Schaubs to play on Lloyd, thus releasing Barry and/or were Kennelly playing well, we might have been able to bring the ball out of defence more quickly.

These are not meant to be excuses - if we are to be genuine contenders we need to have more flexibility / depth to cover things like this. However, they may partly explain why things aren't working as well as they were last year.

Finally, I did wonder at three-quarter time why James and Rogers had been given so little time on the ground (8 minutes each to that stage). Why pick two guys and then not play them, particularly when things weren't exactly going our way. James, in particular, seems pretty mobile and has a decent long kick on him so throwing him onto the half-back flank, maybe onto Solomon, might have made some sense.

[liz]

Originally posted by sharpie

We have to go out and play with no fear, just like last year. Either we win due to superiority, or we get blown away, and it is obvious what our shortcomings are.

I think Sharpie has identified another major difference between this year (so far) and last year, although bear in mind that it took the first third of the season to "grow" into this confidence last year. But certainly the guys don't seem to be as prepared to take as many risks at the moment as they were last year.

This may be because they don't have quite as much confidence in each other, or may reflect the fact that the likes of Goodes and Kennelly are well down on the level they can play at.

It's a shame because Bazza has certainly lifted to a new level and is getting great support from O'Keefe in particular.

Things can turn around very quickly. Last year it was that final quarter against the Dees that infused the whole team with the belief that they could do it. And while it is true that Essendon were the better team for much of the game yesterday, the same can be said of the Dees in that game. But we forgot that in the wake of that final term. Yesterday's fourth quarter was shaping up to be a similarly season-defining period had the umpires not intervened.

[chammond]

Originally posted by lizz


Finally, I did wonder at three-quarter time why James and Rogers had been given so little time on the ground (8 minutes each to that stage). Why pick two guys and then not play them, particularly when things weren't exactly going our way. James, in particular, seems pretty mobile and has a decent long kick on him so throwing him onto the half-back flank, maybe onto Solomon, might have made some sense.

That was really weird. I was too far from the dugout to make out who was on the bench, but I knew that I hadn't seen Rogers on the ground.

But I just had this nagging feeling all the time that we were playing a man short, and I was flabbergasted when James eventually came onto the ground.

What was the point in picking James if he didn't have a job to do in defence?

And playing Rogers up forward just meant he got in the way . . . he had no chance to pick up the pace of the game.

It would've made much more sense, for example, to rotate them down back, say on Lucas, and send Saddington into the forward line to help out BBB and ROK.

[liz]

Originally posted by chammond
What was the point in picking James if he didn't have a job to do in defence?

...

It would've made much more sense, for example, to rotate them down back, say on Lucas, and send Saddington into the forward line to help out BBB and ROK.

Or indeed to play one of them - James seems ideal - on Solomon who was one of the Bummers best players. On TV it's hard to work out match-ups sometimes but by a process of elimination (and also because I know he's played on him before) I assume Kennelly had Solomon. That clearly wasn't working from a defensive point of view, and nor was Kennelly able or willing to give Solomon something to worry about by playing off him and creating some offensive movement. Don't think anything would have been lost by giving him to James for a while and either moving Tiger up the ground where he might have been able to give us some more run through the corridor or sitting him on the bench which is where I think his physical wellbeing suggests he would have been better suited.

[NMWBloods]

I think everyone had a go on Solomon.

Rogers played a few minutes up forward and then went back onto Lucas.

James started in the backline on Murphy I think, but then disappeared to the bench and was even on the forward line for a short while. Just checked - 8 minutes total for the game - that seems rather strange. I would have thought perhaps putting him back on Lloyd and freeing up Barry may have been an idea.

I think "blaming" Eade for the Swans' tactics is a bit harsh. We are at a similar stage in some ways to 1997. In 1996 Eade took a team that was down, introduced some clever football, inspired the players, and took us to a grand final. After that time, he was under pressure to maintain the same level of performance, but we didn't quite have the personnel and we gradually fell backwards.

At this stage Roos is in much the same spot. A great first year, but now under pressure to perform where people notice us more. The question remains as to whether we have the personnel and does Roos have more tricks in his bag.

There have been quite a few pretenders shown up this year (eg: Hawthorn, Kangaroos, Collingwood), and at this point you would nearly put us in that category too.

[dendol]

Agree NMW. Our Jeckyll and Hyde performances are very worrisome. You cant really rate us as a premiership contender atm after our 3-3 start. We have to win the close games and not lose to teams we are expected to beat - starting with Richmond.

[liz]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
We are at a similar stage in some ways to 1997. In 1996 Eade took a team that was down, introduced some clever football, inspired the players, and took us to a grand final. After that time, he was under pressure to maintain the same level of performance, but we didn't quite have the personnel and we gradually fell backwards.

At this stage Roos is in much the same spot. A great first year, but now under pressure to perform where people notice us more. The question remains as to whether we have the personnel and does Roos have more tricks in his bag.



Agree with that. This is where Roos' coaching career really begins.

There are some differences however. In the years following 1996 we had a team built around 3 out and out champions, plus a few just a notch down in Dunks, Cressa and the emerging O'Loughlin. Some of our brighter young prospects (eg Grant, Heuskes, Rocca) decided they no longer wanted to be in Sydney. The club tried to support their star core with mediocre top up players. During 1997-1999 did we have any true young stars emerge? I know 1999 was Goodes' first year but it was only a taster until he really came of age last year.

I think our current top layer is slightly down on the Roos/Lockett/Kelly quartet but we are a far more even team. Bevan, McVeigh and Schneider look like they want to stick around the place and it is reasonable to expect that a few other pretty good players will emerge eventually from the Willoughby / Schmidt / Malceski / LRT / James (still a novice) / Powell / Dempster group.

What will be telling is whether the club really learned from 1997-1999 and sticks with the idea of building a list from the ground up, even if it means we take a backward step before we move forward.

The really important key difference IMO is Andrew Ireland. From everything he's said (eg at Redbacks brunches, the Canberra brunch) he is really committed to Roos' plan of building a list and his track record and experience with the Lions should mean that he is listened to if anyone else in the club tries to pressure Roos into changing course.

[NMWBloods]

I agree that over medium term we look much better than '97 because of our youth. Not sure if we look any better in the short term though.

[chammond]

I think the main difference is that we now have a squad that should give us a good shot at finals football for the next 10 years.

I'm not convinced that it's got what it takes to win a flag yet though.

[liz]

You can tell we lost yesterday!! How different is the mood from a couple of weeks ago?!!

WARNING - what follows is a bit long and rambling.

I'm still not sure we know how good a team we are yet. Remember that after round 4 last year we were all starting to ask who the top draft pick was going to be, that's how ordinary we'd been in rounds 2-4. Now after round 6 we are sitting on 3-3, the same as we were after round 6 last year, although admittedly the momentum is going in the wrong direction.

Last year our emergence was largely attributed to Goodes, Kirk, B1, Leo, Hall and Kennelly having their best seasons ever, plus to a certain extent the emergence of Schneider and recruitment of Davis.

Where are these players at the moment?

Goodes is clearly well well down on what we can expect. However, no-one produces the form he did over the whole of the previous 18 months if it is just a flash in the pan. Whether his problems are physical or psychological at the moment, I am confident he will turn it around.

Kirk is no longer tagging but has been a more creative player for us this year. To me that gives us better value. Yesterday was probably his most ordinary for the year.

Leo's form last year was actually a continuation of the previous two years, just stepped up a little. Even if he returns to his 2001-2 form he is a very handy player. Our structure down back has been affected by the loss of Schaubs and this has caused Barry to sacrifice his running game to a large extent. This does highlight a problem that we rely on Schaubs so much but James does offer some hope. Bear in mind that over the last two weeks we have been up against two of the absolute top FF's in the comp (and I reckon there are four at the moment - add Lynch and Gehrig to the list).

Hall, if anything, is playing better than last year.

Tiger and B1 are the two biggest concerns at the moment. Kennelly I'm less concerned with because his improvement last year can easily be interpreted as ongoing natural development of a young player.

How about the rest of the team. For me Crouch has been pretty good this year until yesterday - certainly a step up from last year. Maxfield and Willo are not having the impact we'd like over four quarters. I'm not sure yet whether they can get better or if we are seeing the decline of two older players. Ball possibly fits into that group too.

To balance the ledger of some of last year's bolters not quite maintaining their standard so far, we at least have O'Keefe and Bevan as real 'improvers'.

Add to this, we still have a senior coach on a steep learning curve. Remember he had very little grounding as an assistant coach. You have to learn fast in this caper, admittedly, but Roos himself is still working things out. I think he is smart enough to do this.

Also look at who we've lost to - Brisbane, Essendon (both small losses and at their home grounds) and the Dees who are currently thumping Carlton by over 100 points. These are three pretty decent teams and while we haven't played that well in any of the games, we have been disgraced in none of them.

So what am I actually trying to say?

- we are at the same win/loss ratio as this time a year ago
- there are some tangible reasons (largely Goodes) why our form is patchy at the moment
- we can reasonably expect (rather than just hope) that a couple of the 'down' players will get it together
-the team isn't stagnant - there is new talent emerging
- we can't blame an appalling injury run but, particularly with Schauble, they have hit us where we are most vulnerable
- we have lost to 3 good teams

So while it is clear that we need to get better, there are at least as many reasons to believe that we will as there are to believe we won't.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by chammond
I think the main difference is that we now have a squad that should give us a good shot at finals football for the next 10 years.

I'm not convinced that it's got what it takes to win a flag yet though.

Agreed - hence my medium term and short term comment.

[Schneidergirl]

Well.... aren't WE ALL the glass is half empty! :rolleyes:

It is only the 6th game in, we are still in the top eight with plenty of improving still do be done!

Let's not throw our premiership aspirations away with a couple of poor losses!

Don't forget we are 3-3 which we were last year at the same time.

I also think Roos is a lot better than you're all giving him credit for!

[NMWBloods]

Good points Liz. One thing I take heart from is that there are only a few teams that look really good at the moment.

Looking through other teams in order of us playing them:

Richmond - Despite their win this weekend, they still look fairly ordinary and are a bottom 4 side still.

West Coast - Still a quality midfield, but lacking KPP and missing Gardiner a lot and probably not in the best 8 in the comp.

Hawthorn - Looking extremely poor and on form are easily bottom four, but have a potentially top 8 team on paper.

Western Bulldogs - Fighting hard every game, but not a great list. Bottom 8 side.

St Kilda - Obviously the form team of the year and looking very good, despite some people thinking they would not be much good this year.

Port Adelaide - A good football outfit, but having another bad run with injuries. Definitely top 8 and possibly still top 4.

Collingwood - Really struggling without a few of their big names. Generally competitive in each game but lacking class, and not looking like a top 8 side.

Carlton - All over the place, can threaten some teams and then fade away just as quickly. Looking around bottom 4-6.

Adelaide - Really struggling and may end up bottom 4.

Geelong - Also a bit everywhere, but gradually showing some better signs, but should finish out of the 8.

Fremantle - Young side looking better each week. Lacking a bit in quality key forwards, but definitely top 8 and pushing towards top 4.

Kangaroos - The great enigma of the competition, probably still looking like they are just on the edge of the top 8.

Brisbane - Still the benchmark, but facing more challengers.

Melbourne - Playing some great football and seem to have their act together this year. Improved back line, a couple more options up forward, and a hard working midfield makes them a top 8 and maybe top 4 contender.

Essendon - Still not playing outstanding football in my view, but have good talent and the return of the Johnsons and McVeigh help. Looking like top 8.

The way things stand at the moment, and trying to look forward, I see the 15 sides finishing roughly:

- Brisbane
- St Kilda
- Port Adelaide
- Fremantle
- Essendon
- Melbourne
- Kangaroos
- West Coast
- Collingwood
- Geelong
- Hawthorn
- W Bulldogs
- Carlton
- Richmond
- Adelaide

Looking through this list, I think we should be in the top 8 still, possibly top 4 as I haven't been overly impressed by the performance of a lot of other clubs, comparing to quality teams in past seasons. However, I think our performance has also been very poor, and if we are going to get that high then a lot of things need to improve, such as our skills, our game plan, our endeavour, etc.

[EMJ]

No doubt this thread does a lot to boost us up again and make us feel better. Well done to Lizz and NMWBloods - you wrote great articles and certainly made me feel better.
Just hope those mid range players pick themselves up and also we see Maxfield and Willo pick up - they are needed and we don't need them to go missing. Although I feel Stewie is definitely not feeling good at all - playing still with the pinched nerve.

[The Boot]

Statistically, there are 16 rounds left of which we need to win 9 to safely make the 8.

That's 9 wins out of 16 folks. Every loss from hereon in, tightens up the odds. Sitting at just over a 50% ratio - 56% in fact - to make it. If the unthinkable were to occur v Tigers next weekend, that would ramp it up to 62%. :(

Yes, lizz there is clearly something awry in the stable with regards to injury. Fingers crossed on all fronts.

[chammond]

Originally posted by The Boot
Statistically, there are 16 rounds left of which we need to win 9 to safely make the 8.


That's the easy bit.

Unless we have an absolute horror run with injuries, there's no way we'll miss the finals. Even when we've played badly this year, we've still been very competitive against good sides.

So far, we've played four teams that look like real contenders, plus one middle of the road, and one ordinary team, and we're 3-3. If I'd known at the start of the season how much the Dees were going to improve, I'd have settled for winning half of the first 6 rounds.

We'll win the next four games, and be 7-3 when we take on St Kilda at the half-way stage. After that match, and the Port game in round 12, we'll really be able to make an accurate assessment of how we're going.

Until then, the thing that matters most is that we continue to develop the depth that we're going to need for the run home. That's what will ultimately sort the pretenders from the contenders.