I'm a Towers fan, but thought his game was average.
I'm a Towers fan, but thought his game was average.
The difference between insanity and genius is measured only in success.
I loved Naismith's game last night, but I was continually frustrated by all of the dropped marks. At one stage I was calling him "Nearly" as his ruck partner is known as "Almost". OK, the conditions may not have suited, but if he can start clunking some of those then we have a real winner.Originally Posted by barry
Wow.
Totally wasn't expecting that.
Who kidnapped the bad swans team and replaced them with the good one?
Will the real swans please stand up.
There were a few mistakes, but I won't bitch about them... we won, no point.
Wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours, silly jokes and opposition delight in another's failures is what makes an internet forum fun.
Blessed are the cracked for they are the ones who let in the light.
As was going straight from work, then before left home on Thursday morning with pouring rain, cold, windy, etc I thought twice about taking my membership card and cold/wet weather gear. Anyhow took everything and went to game. On the rare post game kick to kicks the SCG surface can get slippery with dew so suspect last night was very, very greasy. Accordingy, maybe the slippages and missed goals can to some extent be put down to conditions.
Per some previous comments I totally support some basics used by the Swans last night like intensity, one up and one down, man on man, and just kick the ball. A lot better than the 20metres we gave to all opposition players in the Collingwood and Hawthorn games.
Naismith showed that he's the best at the ruck craft, but the opposition was very weak, and we need to take that into consideration. Both Naismith and Sinclair dropped lots of balls that should have been marked. What we may have learned is that if Naismith is fit, he should do the bulk of the ruck work and whoever else comes in to relieve him needs to play primarily another role in the side.
I thought Sinclair was fine in the ruck and his effort can't be faulted, but I can't see where he's added much of anything to the side. He's not taking contested marks or kicking goals. Even if we think he's okay, we have to take into account that he's keeping another player out of side. Would the team be better served with someone else, like Florent, Aliir or Rohan? Robinson and Cunningham should also be back in a few weeks.
I think Tippett, when in form, and perhaps Cameron, could be options for the ruck forward role, because they both are primarily forwards who can take marks and kick goals. It still may not be the best option and has to be weighed up against the alternatives.
Sinclair was powerful at and around the contest and applied good pressure including some good chase down tackles (which is great to see from a big bloke). So I would say he was valuable apart from his rucking. Arguably as valuable as another player might have been. He has the advantage of having a big, strong body to throw around and he was prepared to put in the effort and do that. I don't think he has to take lots of marks - that doesn't seem to be a great strength of his. Bringing the ball to ground and preventing the opposition from taking possession and giving our smalls a chance to get a hold of it is also important. That said, I agree, once we can start relying on Naismith to do the bulk of the rucking we need a 2nd ruck who does offer something different like goals and marks. At this stage I don't have confidence that Naismith can ruck a whole game. Naismith and Sinclair seemed to split it pretty evenly last night.
Incidentally, Ludwig, Beveridge made some interesting comments about the value of rucks in his post-match interviews. He made the point that they took Roughead away from the ruck contests and sent him down back to replace Adams because they weren't winning the hitouts anyway and thought that sending another mid would be more valuable. However he said it didn't work. He also said that when a midfield is well organised and playing with intensity, having a good ruck that can give the mids first use really is valuable. Since Bevo is one of the main poster boys for "no ruck theory" I think you would find those comments very pertinent.
I think it was a little from column A and a little from column B. But I also think that our preferred game style - based on keeping the ball in dispute for long periods of the game - works far better against the three teams we've looked impressive against (North, St Kilda, Bulldogs) because those teams like to run and carry the ball and use quite a lot of handball. That means that the ball is winnable via pressure far more than a team that likes to move the ball via short kicks, as Hawthorn has been doing for years, and how Carlton and Collingwood were able to sustain for decent periods of their games against us.
Defeating the Hawthorn style is hard, simply because it limits the amount of time the ball is in dispute. However, it's also a very hard style to execute for a whole game because you need an entire team with good kicking skills. That's what the Hawks had over their period of premierships and, while their team-wide kicking skills aren't quite that that level, they did execute well against us a couple of weeks ago. Sure, the Swans' pressure could have been better, but the Hawks still did their thing quite well. Despite that, the Swans were able to change the tempo of the game to one that suited their preferred style as that game progressed, but just didn't have the legs to hang on at the end.
In an absolute sense, there were a fair number of handling errors but, given the conditions, I thought the skill level was reasonable enough. Hanners, in particular, execute some handballs that were really creative, and opened up play for team mates. Indeed, I had him as my BOG watching the game live and even after watching a replay, I'm not sure I've changed my mind. Though I've noticed a lot more of the great stuff Kennedy did, on replay, and was reminded on how much of an influence Heeney had throughout the game.)Some people say we played skilfully, others not so much.
Watching live, I thought Towers was just OK. A contributor but not much more. On replay I've seen a few really lovely things he did in traffic. He seems to be more comfortable in contested situations than earlier in the year. He's never going to be one of our top dozen or so players, when the stars are playing well, he's a good foot soldier to have. When he was dropped after round 1 his first couple of NEAFL games looked like those of a man completely bereft of confidence so I'm really happy to see him contributing positively to the team.I didn't have an overall sense of Towers' game and would love to review it. I noticed him do a couple of nice things but didn't take in his entire performance - so I'm glad others have pointed it out.
I thought Bevo's comments were interesting. A lot of 'pundits' thought it was strange that Bevo played Tim English and many expected that Honeychurch would replace him in the final team (and I did as well). The Dogs were also without Liberatore, which made for a complete stoppage dominance from us. When English took over the rucking in the 2nd half, the disparity really blew out. You could imagine what I would have said on a Bulldogs forum about Bevo's selection of Tim English.
The Dogs played poorly and were unlucky in a sense that they have a number of important players injured or out of form. I'm happy to celebrate a well-played victory, but we still have a lot of work to do to make finals from the position we find ourselves. We need to find a few more advantages that can take us to another 8 victories in 11 games. Our list is in pretty good shape now, but we still can make a few improvements.
On another observation, some of the things that Newman did while playing through the midfield were impressive. His laser kicking was incredibly damaging. I'm starting to see our best back line as Reg, Melican, Aliir, Rampe, Smith and Lloyd, with Newman, Jones and Mills playing primarily through the midfield and rolling back in defence. Aliir can also be an option on the wing.
Great team effort last night and great coaching by Horse and his team. I criticised Horse last week after the Hawks loss as it seemed his tactics were set in concrete, but last night we played closer to the opposition and shut them down when they did get the ball. Plus we put more pressure on the opposition than what I have seen all year.
Lloyd and Newman are playing great footy - all I would like to see is Lloyd take more care with his kicking - he kicks into the man on the mark more times than any other player - but that aside a great game last night.
Hopefully we can take the same game style and pressure to the Tigers next week and climb up the ladder with a great win.
liz, I think I have made it clear already that I am an unabashed fan of your posts and the sense they make (and love the fact that they have recently been feistier than I had noticed before too). But this post goes further and is actually illuminating (for me). It also raises questions. How did we change the tempo of the game to get it on our terms against the Hawks? Why, if the Hawks' style is so effective, don't more teams try to emulate it (despite its difficulty)? What do you see as our path to victory against that gamestyle? Do you think our current gamestyle is up to it? Also how about v Richmond? They are quite good at using short passes. Do you think they will be a sterner test for us than the Bulldogs?
Thanks for sharing your insights. I realise you're not an oracle but I find them valuable.
The team had a generally excellent disposal efficiency, especially considering the conditions last night, but even still Lloyd was top 10 and went at better than 80% (as he should, given his outside role and his typically unambitious kicks).
I wonder if Towers is overthinking things. Only saw the game on tele, but it seems his best play is in contested situations, or in fluid play where the right option is immediate. When he gets the ball in space with time, he seems to make more errors.
Also, Heeney has not been much talked about on this forum, but he was fantastic last night, and has been all year. Joey, Hanners et co are great, but I think Heeney adds a level of class we haven't had for a while. I would expect him to be up there in the best & fairest count.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks