Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.
"[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."
And in the case of Kirk, it shows that footspeed is far far less relevant than determination and sheer hard work.
In 2005 and 2006, savvy commentators labelled the Swans as the team that worked the hardest when they didn't have the ball. They don't deserve that label at the moment. The question is whether it's because not enough players are able to work as hard as they were (either through injury or ageing), whether it's because they aren't willing to work as hard as they were, or in the case of the younger players, it's because they don't yet know when or where to run to provide maximum benefit to the team.
But that's why you have 22 players in a team - and a mix of them. Kirk won't win a game off his own boot, but he might inspire enough of his team mates to lift to get the team over the line. He came within one point of achieving that with a supreme second half in the 2006 GF.
The 2005 SF is always going to be remembered for Nick Davis but it was Crouch who almost singlehandedly kept the Swans in the game in the first half, and then Kirk who took over in the 3rd quarter. Without those two, it would taken another half dozen goals from Davis to win the game.
i think theres a reluctance for change around the club. Maybe its because this group of coaches and players are basically the ones who finally got us a premiership, and we are not moving on.
I guess looking for massive changes in a side that is 4th on the ladder seems silly. I think thats the problem with the club. Yes we are 4th but with a normal draw we would be lower i imagine and the teams around us have beaten us easily.
But the club internally seems to hang on to us being 4th and the fact that yes we did lose to other top teams, but not by much. Geelong only beat us by 40 odd and we were within 10 at 3/4 time we got back into the hawks game, it was only a 30 point loss, the dogs 12 or 18 or whatever, even collingwood was not a flogging. I think thats the problem, the game plan is grinding and wearing on even the best opponent that we dont ever get smashed.
We all know that in the four games ive mentioned (less so in the dogs) we were essentially flogged and out of the game for most of it, just the old late charge or grinding game plan flatters the team.
I think that stops any real change instead its just this attidude where if only a few things went our way or if hall was fit in body and mind, or we had fosdike or whoever.
I think until we start getting thrashed we wont see any change, because the club thinks its all fine, and just luck and persistance will switch it around
Theres not much left to say
If Buddy could kick straight we would have lost by 60.
"As everyone knows our style of football is defensive and unattractive, and as such I have completely forgotten how to mark or kick over the years" - Brett Kirk
spot on analysis. only point i would make is that the problem lies in the midfielders who are appointed to get back and across the ball when in the opposition's forward line. For example, there should always be someone free at the back of a defensive contest who a player under pressure knows he can give off to. That player is normally a Malceski who then relieves pressure by giving off to a running defensive midfielder with 1 or 2 midfielders in support (handball give/short pass etc). Those players (McVeigh in particular) aren't there and it's left to individuals to just try and work their own way out of trouble. They then have to give the ball to the best available one on one and hope it doesn't come back.
So, the run doesn't develop and skills begin to look ordinary cos they're being executed under pressure. Often on Sunday the ball then came back into the defensive zone to one on ones (Franklin/Bolton, Mattner/Williams etc) where the defender will always be at a disadvantage.
I think Roos is being a little disingenous by saying the defenders are the problem here. Collingwood had no trouble running groups between each end of the ground, but Sydney seem to have stopped to a walk. No-one is presenting as options at the grunt end of the ground and there should be a lot of finger pointing at team meetings this week. Many of those fingers should be pointed at McVeigh, Ablett, O'Keefe and Bird.
There seems to be a recurrent theme on here that we can create a run in the second half of the game and that if we were closer we would have a chance of winning.
I actually think that the reason we often have a strong run in the second of a game, chasing a big lead, is more because the other team has taken their foot off the pedal than anything we do. The opposition then goes back to playing how they should and win the game.
"Fortunately, this is the internet, so knowing nothing is no obstacle to having an opinion!." Beerman 18-07-2017
The major area we were killed on the weekend was the midfield and it wasnt just our inability to get forward fifty entries but also our defensive pressure and tackling on the Hawks midfield.
For a team that seemingly is renowned as a midfield defensive unit , I couldnt believe how many times hawks players broke through our tackles or ran from the midfield uncontested.
In these circumstances it is nigh impossible to defend against as a forward gets on their bike and leads to a nice pass coming in from the uncontested midfield possession.
Even if we are to maintain the same game plan, we are not executing it well enough. Roosy is probably somewhat right in saying it wasnt the forwards fault on the weekend although I believe our missed shots on goal were significantly easier than many of franklins . Where I believe he was wrong was the problem didnt lie in the defense of the back line but moreso the defense of the midfield.
What I am at a loss to work out is who could come in to overcome the midfield problems. Besides Kirk, no one is really starring at the moment but having read the injury problems with the next gen in the magoos, I cant see any easy solution to this.
The only players in the magoos who seem to perfrom consistently in the twos (and I am basing this on ROW reports) is Grundy, Schmidt and Currie. The others seem to be up and down. Even considering the three above , if I was a selector, I dont know really how much Grundy would bring to the side over LRT, nor schmidt over buchanan or even currie over everitt.
Just a product of where things are right at this moment. By round 22 we will have had a 'normal draw' (in fact, marginally harder than the average), and we'll see where we are then. If we're 4th it's because we deserve to be; and if we are, we'll have a genuine shot at the flag that we won't have if we're 5th or worse.
No. It's all about W/L. Fremantle have barely been thrashed all year, and there's a consensus they need some pretty fundamental changes. The Swans percentage in 2002 was pretty good (for a team that was something like 3-1-9) when Eade got the bullet (i.e. we'd had a lot of close losses). If we keep losing, changes will come, whether those losses are by 1 point or 101 points. In the meantime, it's naive to think that the senior players who have got us to 9-1-5 (and a very good percentage) won't be given a chance to turn it around.
The way that the Swans rarely get booted off the park is a deeply admirable quality, as I'd hope anyone who's followed a team that has gotten regularly thrashed would agree. Especially if it happens over a long period and/or predictably, it saps all enthusiasm from the fan-base.
Bookmarks