Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 42

Thread: Are our losses due to the team not gelling well?

  1. #1

    Are our losses due to the team not gelling well?

    Now that I've calmed down a bit from the loss, I'm thinking that maybe the loss itself is not due to:

    a) Game-plan
    b) Players lack of match fitness
    c) Recruitment of Buddy causing internal problems

    ...rather, I think it may be due to the fact that we've got a few new players and have a major shift in personnel. This has thrown the whole team out of whack and they're still getting used to the new players.

    Perhaps we don't need to radically change our game-plan or increase the players workload, but rather the team just needs a few weeks to 'gel' and get some actual game-time together. Only three NAB practice matches and 2 home and away games isn't that much.

    Anyone else agree or am I just being crazily optimistic and naive?
    Last edited by bloodsbigot; 30th March 2014 at 03:09 AM.

  2. #2
    Goes up to 11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,954
    Optimistic and naive - we played a team in Collingwood who were supposedly torn apart with delistings and forced retirements last year - if anyone should have looked bad it was them. We made them look pretty darn good....

  3. #3
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Rai
    Posts
    5,669
    It was the established players, who have played years together, that couldn't coordinate their game, unless the players thought that Lumumba and Maxwell were their new Swan teammates and not Franklin.

  4. #4
    the positives for me

    1. we were ahead in all stats at half time and at the end of 3qtr time

    2. our game plan the first half was working and Macca took the pressure off Mal nicely off the HBF.....this is critical given the way some teams have shut down Mal

    3. the progress of our younger players looks good which is critical with players like Shaw, ROK, LRT, Goodes etc having most likely peaked

    Jetta 21 disposals,
    Rampe looked like he hasnt missed a beat,
    Harry for a 19/20 yr old looked good the first half,
    Reid looked fantastic,
    Rohan looked his best for years in the first half,
    Parker and Mitchell hooked in but didnt impose themself.......against Beams, Pendles, Ball, etc


    For me if Jack continues to get shut down like against Freeo last finals and last night with only 14 disposals etc we are in trouble.......teams know that when he is limited we loose that 2 on 1 type player

    ie you have to have players in your inside midfield who can truly give and go and he is the only one with enough speed to do it and naturally does create 2 on 1s....

    When you think of champion inside mids they impose themself on games via winning the ball and then being the link on the next play by shaking off their tagger.......Gary Ablett, Pendles last night etc etc they win the ball then get past their man to link the play and draw another defender to them because they have already beaten their own tagger...........ie last night Gary Ablett had still 24 disposals agains the best tagger in the comp Crowley who only had 10

    i know this sounds so simple but last night we really lacked those inside midfielders who win the ball then create 2 and 1 s which force the backlines of the opposition to make mistakes.........therefore the Pies backline could peel off against ordinary entries ..........

    Jack was shutdown and against the teams like Freeo, Hawks and maybe even the bombers etc Keiran is vital unless we have players like Hanes start to dominate in their run
    "everybody loves somebody..........sometimes"


  5. #5
    Suspended by the MRP
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,802
    The major problem I believe are the Swans midfield are not being allowed to play to their strengths.

    They are a strong in close contested midfield who enjoy competing when the ball is being kicked down the line. They are not a gut running fast midfield like a Port Adelaide.

    On many occasions last night the Pies defence and midfield was able to switch the play and force the Swans midfield to move across the ground. Doing this depletes the midfield's energy and causes them not to be as effective and the next stoppage. Guys like Kennedy, Parker, Bird and ROK at this stage of his career, are not elite runners and will be worn out by the opposition switching the ball.

    A huge problem is that our key forwards are not playing well defensibly. In 2012 our key forwards were Goodes, LRT and Reid and they did not allow the opposition to switch the ball, which meant they had to kick the ball up the line and play to the Swans strengths. Buddy and Kurt Tippett are better offensive threats than LRT, Goodes and Reid, but they don't have the same desire to stop the opposition switching the ball. Buddy allowed the ball to be switched a couple of times last night and it wore down our midfield, because they had to work across the ground.

    Our forwards need to force the oppositions defence to kick up the line, and play to our midfield strength!

  6. #6
    All good posts here but to answer frankly it's not due to the team not gelling or anything to do with buddy! It's because we can't do a supposedly basic thing which is kick a football to a team mate! Pretty simple really. Do that and we might win a game!

  7. #7
    Regular in the side.
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by troyjones2525 View Post
    All good posts here but to answer frankly it's not due to the team not gelling or anything to do with buddy! It's because we can't do a supposedly basic thing which is kick a football to a team mate! Pretty simple really. Do that and we might win a game!

    I agree with some of the above posts. But until we hold our forward structures and not have Buddy one out on 2-3 defenders we will struggle. Plus some of our turnovers last night were really bad.

  8. #8
    buddy is not to blame!! everyone just sucked. its like they're all in a simultaneous form slump

  9. #9
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Lake
    Posts
    1,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludwig View Post
    It was the established players, who have played years together, that couldn't coordinate their game, unless the players thought that Lumumba and Maxwell were their new Swan teammates and not Franklin.
    Spot on Ludwig. I thought we had a pretty good team on the ground - on paper at least. We were doing well and it fell away. To lose to them after the loss they had is shameful. I think some heads should roll - should have last week but a statement needs to be made now!

  10. #10
    Travelling Swannie!! mcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,862
    Quote Originally Posted by Foreign Legion View Post
    Spot on Ludwig. I thought we had a pretty good team on the ground - on paper at least. We were doing well and it fell away. To lose to them after the loss they had is shameful. I think some heads should roll - should have last week but a statement needs to be made now!
    +1 to a good team on paper. I thought the balance was reasonable, and better than the GWS game. But the performance on the park left a hell of a lot to be desired.

    Me and my friend that went with me think they should drop McVeigh. I know it'll never happen, but he was utterly appalling in his use of the ball last night, for the second week in a row. By his standards, his start to the season has been very ordinary to say the least.
    "You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."

  11. #11
    I think the game plan last night played into Collingwoods hands. We kept bombing the ball straight to unmanned Collingwood defenders. Playing our own loose man in defence and most likely another around the ball did not work. Buddy was often 3 on 1. In the 2q of the 2012 gf we played 1 on 1 and it worked after a poor q1 when the hawks played a loose man. We did not even try that last night. Think we were out coached to a one style game plan.

  12. #12
    Travelling Swannie!! mcs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,862
    Quote Originally Posted by sfan View Post
    I think the game plan last night played into Collingwoods hands. We kept bombing the ball straight to unmanned Collingwood defenders. Playing our own loose man in defence and most likely another around the ball did not work. Buddy was often 3 on 1. In the 2q of the 2012 gf we played 1 on 1 and it worked after a poor q1 when the hawks played a loose man. We did not even try that last night. Think we were out coached to a one style game plan.
    I don't understand why we didn't try 1 on 1 last night either. I spend most of the night screaming for us to man up on the loose tosser in black and white and make him accountable. At very least, make the big lump up forward at the time pull him back to the goalsquare, so that at least we would have some space at the front of the 50 to get into. Our game plan was non existant last night - if we think just bombing it forward at will is going to win games in 2014, we are in for an exceptionally long year! And that is before you even think about our complete lack of forward structure, and a complete inability to hit a player in red and white.
    "You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO