Originally Posted by
liz
A few random comments:
We were outplayed for most of the game but I'm not too concerned. The coaches won't be fooled and this game will receive a lot of focus in the review. Normally the losing side learns more from a game but the Crows will mostly learn that they need to kick straight. I think there is far more opportunity for the Swans to improve next time we meet, and I also believe they are capable of making tweaks that might make a difference.
The Heeney on Sloane match-up didn't work. Heeney couldn't quell Sloane and he gave us very little offensively. I don't think that one will be tried again, not this year anyway. Sloane was relatively subdued in the last quarter (I think with Jack mostly playing on him) so there are other alternatives.
There were two aspects to the free kick count. First was the number of holding the man frees that went against the Swans. That says that they need to be a bit smarter next time we play the Crows. I find it very hard to believe there weren't plenty of instances of Swans players being held but clearly none that the umpires saw. The second was the lack of HTB decisions that went the Swans way, particularly compared to some that were paid early against the Swans. There were several in the second half where a Crows forward took on more than one tackler before the ball was locked up. They were blatant HTBs but not paid. And I'll need to watch it again, but on live viewing it was hard to understand why the piece of play that led to the Papley point (where he hit the post) wasn't a free to the Swans. We did get a scoring shot away but a set shot from that position would most likely have been converted, rather than the rushed shot Papley took.
All the players were fumbly early on (from both teams) but as the game wore on, the Crows started handling the ball much better in the slippery conditions than the Swans did. I don't think our fumbling got much worse. It was just worse relative to the Crows. That may not be relevant to a game played in better conditions, but it's also something the Swans might want a refresher course on. They'll need to provide their own water, because it doesn't look like raining with intent in Sydney any time soon.
Some of our younger players are showing solid improvement (important on a night when our more senior mids were a bit subdued - other than Kennedy in the first half). Jones made a couple of blues but he also used his pace and aggression well to get the ball moving forward. Hewett was very solid, and Papley was very solid with the few goal scoring chances he got.
The comment about Hayward earlier in this thread is an abomination. Sure he didn't have a good game but he's an 18 yo kid. Maybe he's not ready for finals pressure (and maybe he is but just had a bad night) but the suggestion that his allegiance was with the Crows and that his heart wasn't in it is mean-spirited and spiteful (not to mention baseless).
I thought our rucks started well against Jacobs and that's part of the reason our midfield was on top early. Jacobs definitely responded and dominated the middle quarters. I think the coaches will be keen to get Naismith back in the side as soon as he's fit. He's still a work in progress and the lack of a pre-season hasn't helped him this year, but I still think he's our most competitive player at ruck contests.
I wouldn't have thought Jones has much to worry about with the MRP (though it's hard to tell sometimes). McGuire was arguing quite passionately that it wasn't a reportable action (and questionable whether it should even have been a 50m penalty, given the Crows player hadn't completed the mark when Jones collided with him. Dunstall thought that the lack of any spoiling attempt by Jones might count against him, but he wasn't very convincing with his argument. It's not the kind of "non-footballing" action that the MRP is really focussed on at the moment, and nor is there any question of high contact.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks