A really good small forward will read the play and adjust accordingly - but maybe modern players are a bit too 'programmed' for that.
I think Reid will need 4-5 weeks to get back to the top level.
A really good small forward will read the play and adjust accordingly - but maybe modern players are a bit too 'programmed' for that.
I think Reid will need 4-5 weeks to get back to the top level.
I didn't see anything much to indicate that we spent the off season addressing our major concern from last year - delivery into the forward 50. It was pretty poor.
Otherwise it was ok as far as a first hit out and a decent cobweb-clearing exercise I suppose.
I thought the Swans looked as rusty as if they'd played in the Grand Final last year and had a short pre-season. And our game plan seemed unchanged. Even Parker said in his interview "we managed to slow them down and gained control" or the like - it'd be nice if we backed the players and played on occasionally. I found it quite depressing.
The new kick out rule did not seem to benefit us. I'd be surprised if we had more than 1 or 2 instances where it was kicked out after a behind and marked by us outside 50 metres. Lots of 20M chips to the back pocket. We need to adapt to this change quickly as other clubs seem to have run with it. Maybe have Dawson handle the kick ins?
When asked who might be back next week Longmire mentioned McVeigh Jones and Jack trained well today but added for Jack that he wasn’t sure he would play
JLT I know but serious lack of much to be excited about tonight. Allir looked good at times , Pink showed a little. Heeney ok, Lloyd and Rampe solid ish. Mills looked pretty average and I don’t know what to say about the rest , Cunningham was good. Foot skills atrocious , centre clearance work poor, around the ground clearance work poor, spread poor . Worried slightly
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Swans never go well in the pre-season comp. And senior players don’t play anywhere near 100%.
Don’t panic just yet.
My take on the game was that I was looking for evidence that the injection of players like Mills and Papley into the midfield would revitalize it. Sadly there was no evidence that this was the case. Ball movement was lacklustre. Our passing going forward was also abysmal. There were few stand out performers for us on the night (plenty for GWS). We can only go up from here!
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
My worry is for Kennedy. He looked slow in the midfield and I fear that the modern game has changed sufficiently that his style is no longer helpful to us. He is mostly very good at getting the ball from a stoppage and then dump kicking it Forward quickly without looking for a target so hopefully another stoppage ensues and the same happens again. Contrast that to Mitchell at the hawks ( admittedly not this year). But Mitchell extracts the ball elitetely. Then he handballs to an outside player who has time to hit up a target forward.
This is not a comment that we should have kept Mitchell at all costs but more that our style is not effective anymore and sadly our Kennedy is made for our old ineffective style.
I’ve actually wondered if we need to start swapping Parker and Kennedy. Play Kennedy more forward and play Parker more midfield instead of the other way around. I know Parker currently plays midfield but he does spend a decent amount of time in the forward half. I think he was starting there last night but maybe that was just to give the new guys some experience in the centre. Kennedy across half forward has been quite good in the past and it could be good for him as he gets older
Apart from the first quarter, I thought there were some good things to take out of the game.
Considering how young the team is, I thought they did well to get back into the game rather than it be a blow out and to me it looked like our players were trying to get used to playing in their new positions and this will take time to gel and get used to.
Heeney was outstanding and there were some good cameos from others such as Cunningham and COR who I thought gave plenty to be considered for a round 1 spot, Mills got better as the game progressed as did Papley and Sinkers.
GWS' kicking is sublime and yet we were able to force enough errors to keep the game competitive and we out-scored them after 1/4 time.
I know last night was only a trial, but a few of our defiencies, which will hold us back this year were highlighted.
1) Inability to win contested ball cleanly. Coniglio and Taranto dominated inside and their first year draftees, Hately and Caldwell more then held their own against more experienced players.
2) Lack of pace across the park. If you were to rank the top 10 runners from last night, we would be lucky to have one player there. This lack of pace translated into a lack of time to execute skills.
3) Poor skill execution. See above
On the plus side, Sinclair looked pretty good in the ruck. Heeney was great, especially when forward and I thought young McInerney looked composed off half back. I think as a matter of priority, we need to get time into him, Ling, Stoddart and Rowbottom as we desperately need these guys to come on.
In summary
1. The GWS list is extremely deep and they have some seriously exciting young strong athletic bodied players to call upon this season when injuries strike
2. Secondly the GWS game plan with their exits via HBF are seriously exciting and clean. They had us moving around like sheep. In comparison our exits looked terrible
3. Our entries only started looking better when the Giants better players left the ground which was quite disturbing.
Long season I think especially given two of our three new recruits looked average in particular Clumsy Clarke and our youth looked a level down compared to the youth of GWS
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks