Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 132 of 202

Thread: Rnd 15 vs St Kilda @ SCG

  1. #121
    The stand out in this game for me was our defensive pressure and contested work was right up when compared to the previous game. This meant that the Saints players were always kicking under pressure and so they found it hard to hit targets. It was a whole of team effort to provide this outcome. It shows we will most likely be a finalist again this season. I was really encouraged by the performance of Stephens. Clarke should also get an honourable mention for his defensive work as well as bobbing up with a goal or two.

    I think there will be little reason to change this winning team for next week. Only possibilities are McDonald out for Armetey and McInerney in for a fringe player.

    If I was a Saints' supporter, I would have been bitterly disappointed with that performance. They had everything to play for but did not step up at all. We could have won that game by even more but it still gives us a welcome percentage boost. Bring on Essendon, where there will be a big Melbourne Swans contingent in attendance.

  2. #122
    I wonder how much of the difference in our performance from one week to the next is our opponent and how much the Swans?

    I think we played way better because the Saints pressure and work rate was way below ours whereas last week it was the other way around after the misleading first 15 minutes.

    I wonder if some of our slightly kamikaze plays from the back half would have made it through a team that applied more pressure?

    Not trying to knock the team after rebounding so effectively. But was our defensive solidity a product of Saints being so poor

    Where was that Ollie, Lloyd, Lizard etc last week?

    I agree hard to drop too many after that. Surely Clarke and Fox stay? But you could make a case for JMac, Harry, Amartey and Ladhams to come in.

    Stephens best game but will it be good enough? How do they balance player development / retention with putting out the best team? Dylan would benefit from being told he’s playing for the next month as he is a (lack of) confidence player

    Does Campbell keep his spot after 9 touches? You can see his potential but he’s not quite there yet.

    JMac for Campbell
    Amartey for MacDonald
    Ladhams to the VFL for a week or two

  3. #123
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,560
    Quote Originally Posted by Matty10 View Post
    They said the same thing in the broadcast, although they called us, ‘Sydney’. According to AFL Tables it was their lowest against us since 1955.
    The "match fact" on TV was that the Saint's Q3 score (2.6.18) was their lowest vs the Swans since Round 16 1920. That is true, the Q3 score in the 1920 game was 1.11.17.

    Sydney and South Melbourne are usually lumped together for stats purposes, though it was obviously a very different game back then. 18 a side for one thing.
    Fun fact: the 1920 South Melbourne team featured another pair of brothers at the back: Stan and Arthur Hiskins.

  4. #124
    Warming the Bench
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    474
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBloods View Post
    In my opinion our fast ball movement was back because of the fitness of some of our players , Blakey, Lloyd , Clarke , Stephens, Florent, Chad, Fox some of them arent the most skillful but they always stay moving and stay involved . They get a few touches in a single passage and carry the ball because of it . All of them had over 300m gained . Its so important in todays game especially the way we play
    That is a very good point. With the inclusions it would probably be our hardest running line-up this year. Personally I'd be greedy and swap Campbell for McInerney next week.
    Also - kudos to the fitness staff. We are still the best second half team, and are especially dominant in the last quarter where we have won 12 of the 14 games.

  5. #125
    Veterans List Ludwig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chiang Mai
    Posts
    8,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Aprilbr View Post
    The stand out in this game for me was our defensive pressure and contested work was right up when compared to the previous game. This meant that the Saints players were always kicking under pressure and so they found it hard to hit targets. It was a whole of team effort to provide this outcome. It shows we will most likely be a finalist again this season. I was really encouraged by the performance of Stephens. Clarke should also get an honourable mention for his defensive work as well as bobbing up with a goal or two.

    I think there will be little reason to change this winning team for next week. Only possibilities are McDonald out for Armetey and McInerney in for a fringe player.
    There's no response against pressure, except to counter with pressure, which is why we got the game we did. The Saints were countering well, and especially stood up in their defensive zone. But eventually we broke them around the middle of the 3rd qtr.

    It was pressure that got us over the line in 2012. We beat one of the best teams we've ever seen with pressure. This Swans' team can bring other things to the table, like quick ball movement, but we will probably fall short if we don't bring our pressure game. The question is whether we can bring this kind of game every week, something I'm sure Longmire will be highlighting.

    I'm not being critical of McDonald's game, but swapping him for Amartey would be the one move I would be making. It should be good for McDonald to play the main forward target in the VFL and have a big game, even at a lower level. Our last 5 games aren't that tough and we can bring Logan back and give Reid and Franklin rest weeks leading into the finals.
    Last edited by Ludwig; 26th June 2022 at 02:27 PM.

  6. #126
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Sydney, NSW
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by bandwagon View Post
    That is a very good point. With the inclusions it would probably be our hardest running line-up this year. Personally I'd be greedy and swap Campbell for McInerney next week.
    Also - kudos to the fitness staff. We are still the best second half team, and are especially dominant in the last quarter where we have won 12 of the 14 games.
    Fitness , its crucial how many times have i said it . The way we play we need fit players who can run give and keep running to get it back . I wouldnt drop Campbell , he has shown he can do this . 72% tog so might not have the tank to stay on ground for long but hes got the tank for repeat efforts and sprints when he is out there . Thats more of what we need , covered the 5th most distance at high speed , had the 2nd most total sprint efforts and the most repeat sprint efforts on ground . We dont need him to get much of the ball if he is involved in these passages with his speed and gut run . He cant be dropped .

  7. #127
    Senior Player Matty10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Southbank, VIC
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by neilfws View Post
    The "match fact" on TV was that the Saint's Q3 score (2.6.18) was their lowest vs the Swans since Round 16 1920. That is true, the Q3 score in the 1920 game was 1.11.17.

    Sydney and South Melbourne are usually lumped together for stats purposes, though it was obviously a very different game back then. 18 a side for one thing.
    Fun fact: the 1920 South Melbourne team featured another pair of brothers at the back: Stan and Arthur Hiskins.
    I think the problem was the ambiguous language used by the commentator in the TV broadcast (which I think was Luke Darcy) and then this being carelessly edited (and then not fact-checked) by the author of the afl.com match report.

    It was clearly the Saints lowest score against the club since their move to Sydney (which is bad enough on its own), it’s just that it stretches back a few more decades when all match records are taken into account..

  8. #128
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    15,408
    The commentator did explicitly say "Sydney Swans". Was it Darcy? As a piece of (mildly) interesting trivia, the comment had more relevance than I'd normally associate with him.

  9. #129
    Pushing for Selection
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    I wonder how much of the difference in our performance from one week to the next is our opponent and how much the Swans?

    I think we played way better because the Saints pressure and work rate was way below ours whereas last week it was the other way around after the misleading first 15 minutes.

    I wonder if some of our slightly kamikaze plays from the back half would have made it through a team that applied more pressure?

    Not trying to knock the team after rebounding so effectively. But was our defensive solidity a product of Saints being so poor

    Where was that Ollie, Lloyd, Lizard etc last week?

    I agree hard to drop too many after that. Surely Clarke and Fox stay? But you could make a case for JMac, Harry, Amartey and Ladhams to come in.

    Stephens best game but will it be good enough? How do they balance player development / retention with putting out the best team? Dylan would benefit from being told he’s playing for the next month as he is a (lack of) confidence player

    Does Campbell keep his spot after 9 touches? You can see his potential but he’s not quite there yet.

    JMac for Campbell
    Amartey for MacDonald
    Ladhams to the VFL for a week or two
    Honestly how @@@@e Saints were last night quite surprised me considering they are fighting for the same position in the 8 as we are.

    Brad Crouch 4 tackles
    Jack Billings 3 tackles
    Ben Long 2 tackles
    Marcus Wyndhager 2 tackles
    Hunter Clarke 2 tackles
    Rohan Marshall 1 tackle
    Jack Sinclair 3 tackles
    Tim Membrey 0 tackles
    Ryan Byrnes 1 tackle
    Zack Jones 2 tackles

    Indicates to me their pressure was hardly there for whatever reason, against the better sides we really need to get more value for reward that first half was terrible efficiency and it probably would of cost us the game against a better side.

    3rd quarter is what the 2nd quarter should of been taking advantage of our dominance and putting it on the scoreboard.

    Stephens better not get dropped after that performance, Fox has to stay in it was a terrible decision to drop him last week against Port Clarke is a viable role player if there is a role available for him against Essendon he will play.

    That being said i lost my @@@@ when Heeney lethargically played on and almost had his snap touched.

  10. #130
    I think what was impressive about this game was the team aspect. They all worked hard and everybody had a decent game. However, St Kilda were not very good opposition. Essendon will be a good test for us next week.

  11. #131
    Didn’t the Bombers just get their pants pulled down by the Weagles? Don’t want to take them lightly but I’d be appalled if we lost to them

  12. #132
    Senior Player Matty10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Southbank, VIC
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    I wonder how much of the difference in our performance from one week to the next is our opponent and how much the Swans?
    This is a really interesting question, and not one that I feel can be definitively answered.

    If anyone had suggested prior to the game that we could walk away with a 51 point win over the Saints I would have thought it unlikely and would gladly have taken the result if it was offered to us.

    Now that the game is done and won, I feel a little underwhelmed at the performance. The second half was clearly much better, and there are positives that we can take, but I thought the Saints seemed quite dreadful throughout the game.

    Which leads us back to the question that Mark posed (although perhaps in an inverted sense), did we cause that dreadful performance put up by the Saints or did they offer it all by themselves?

    I wonder also what Essendon will offer up next week, and what level of energy and skill execution we will bring.

    It would seem logical that nearly all games are a mix between the two (what the opposition brings to the game vs what level of commitment we show up with), but I think it is particularly difficult to discern the degree to which one affects the other.

    I made the case last week that Port only really found their energy for the contest upon realising that we weren’t up for the fight, but this is a subjective observation - others may have taken a different view (particularly from a non-partisan perspective). Who knows.

    Does this win offer us a genuine assessment of where we are at or is it an indication of false hope? Was last week the aberration or the reality check?

    Maybe it is somewhere in between or can only be calculated, again quite subjectively, at the end of the season in retrospect. I also wonder how the players feel and whether they have a different view (personally and collectively). It is their belief, after all, that must go some way to determining how they approach the contest and how they respond to whatever the opposition presents on game day.

Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... 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