no idea how he missed that one...Originally Posted by AB Swannie
no idea how he missed that one...
I have been thinking the exact same thing......it really does show what a crock of a manufactured result that 2016 GF was. The Dogs are frauds......I think the reality of their charity flag may finally be dawning on them.
I saw the headline from the Port game: Ryder blow to spark ruck crisis
It's so nice to know that this will never happen to the Swans again. I just can't see a Sinclair blow to spark ruck crisis headline. More likely to be Sinclair blow opens the door for player X. Or perhaps Sinclair blows open the door for player X. That one makes for a better picture. There are other word plays, but not appropriate for this forum.
In our game v WCE all the talk was about how the Eagles' game plan revolved around Naitanui tapping the ball to the advantage of their midfielders. So their game falls apart if they lose one player. He's irreplaceable. It's one of the oddities of the game that so much of a game plan can revolve around just 1 of the 18 players on the ground who has a unique role to play. Part of Richmond's secret to success was to take that variable out of the game. They found a lot of ways to win a game. They just played hard and everyone bought in. I think the Swans are heading in a similar direction, but with different personnel and I believe a stronger list, although Richmond got plenty of return from their bottom few players.
I hate to say it but I think as good as players like Kennedy, Parker et al are, if we were to lose Buddy, we would be in just as much sh**.
They did play finals last year without Naitanui (just), so they aren't completely rubbish without him. He does make a huge difference though.
That was the first thing that sprang into my mind.
I thought about the Buddy analogy. Any team that loses its best player, especially when they are one of the all time greats, is going to suffer a bit. But we can win without Buddy, as good as he is. What we would lose would be the times when he wins games off his own boot. Maybe yesterday was one of those games. Hawthorn had just as good a record when Buddy was out injured as when he played.
The thing about basing a game plan around a great ruckman is that the whole plan has to change if he's out, because it's very unlikely that there will be a backup just as capable, especially these days. NM probably have the best 1-2 ruck combo in the game, but they both don't play in the same game.
With Tippett and Naismith we had 2 very capable ruckmen, but now they're both gone. Sinclair is the man now. He's not a great tap ruckman, so he knows he has to do other things to earn his pay. He had 7 clearance and 12 contested possessions out of his 21. A lot of talk about Nicnat, but Sinclair was the best ruckman on the ground.
I was impressed with Sinclair's game. I'd be happy if he could reproduce that each week, or even improve on it. Would be nice to see him compete in the marking contests a bit more with only Buddy as our tall forward, but against Naitanui you can't expect too much.
I've also been a proponent of keeping the ruckman out of the forward line where they just draw an extra defender and clog up space. Only Tippett made a contribution there. He could take a strong mark and kick a goal. Maybe Cameron or Amartey will develop into serious forward threats. Things worked very well giving Buddy lots of room to work in and compete 1 on 1. I wouldn't look to change that much.
Yes, it would be nice if the forward 50 areas at the SCG, became known as Buddy's Backyard.
I'm not opposed to that strategy. What I'm more concerned about is between the 50m arcs. Sometimes a long kick down the sideline to a pack is unavoidable, and we so often get beaten when that happens, or at best we knock it out of bounds. Remember how McEvoy destroyed us in that second game a couple of years back? If Sinclair could mark some of those kicks, it would make a big difference to our ability to bring the ball out of defence, or keep it in our forward 50.
In most games Buddy has 2 (or 3 or 4) defenders on him. Rance seems to do well against him but I think Rance hangs on a lot (could be just me though)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks