MOL

[liz]

Originally posted by j s
Interesting concept - using a forward to nullify a defender - other teams have started doing it to Tadhg though - drawing him downfield so he can't set up those defensive fastbreaks.

Definitely not in in the clasic old-style coaching manual - it just proves how much tactics and strategy have changed in recent years.

Teams have been doing it for quite a while now, recognising that a HBF can sometimes be a team's most critical attacking player.

But with O'Loughlin I wasn't suggesting that he should tag Clement, more than if he looms as a large enough danger Clement will have to play pretty tight on him, thus limiting his (Clement's) ability to either run out of defence or help out his fellow defenders.

[giant]

Originally posted by liz
Makes a big difference. In 2000 he was our main spearhead up forward. He's playing a different role at the moment, with far more genuine forwards in the team.

While his goals kicked are vital, his assists are just as crucial to the team. Having rewatched the weekend's game I've come to the conclusion that it was a pretty mediocre performance by our forward line but those two assists of O'Loughlin in the third quarter have me literally drooling!

Interesting you should say that Liz as I watched the replay & felt far more positive than when I watched the game live. I thought it was the most potent the forward line has looked all year tho admittedly against one of the weakest defensive units that we'll face.

But the second half in particular, there was some real structure at last to what we were doing down there - and Willo & Monty (& MOL) were finally providing us with someone at the fall of the ball.

[liz]

I may be being a little harsh on the forward line.

The final quarter frustrated me enormously. We had the Dockers on the ropes and against a fragile, inexperienced defensive unit (who had done pretty well to that point, all things considered), we should have been good for at least another 5 or 6 goals.

If the team had just taken their collective feet off the pedal, that would be one thing, but our midfield was still absolutely dominant for the first half of that quarter.

Having said that, while the midfield was still winning most of the ball, the delivery forward left something to be desired. They stopped looking for leads and unmarked options and were just bombing it forward aimlessly. So maybe it was as much the midfield's fault. Watching on TV it is very hard to tell whether the ball was being bombed forward because the forwards weren't working hard enough or whether it was just that the midfield turned their brains off.

I'm not going to let the forward line completely off the hook though - there was some pretty lazy kicking for goal during that quarter after they'd been reasonably switched on in this department early in the game.

[giant]

Actually this is where I 'fess up that I spent most of the last qr negotiating the purchase of two Teddies that play "Cheer Cheer" when you press their tummies (currently on high rotation in the Giant household). In retrospect (altho not necessarily at the time), it was a more fulfilling exercise than actually watching the game.

[OldE]

Erin says that is brilliant

[OldE]

I didn't write that

[Tuesday]

Perhaps Erin has multiple personalities?

[TheHood]

Originally posted by liz
I may be being a little harsh on the forward line.

The final quarter frustrated me enormously. We had the Dockers on the ropes and against a fragile, inexperienced defensive unit (who had done pretty well to that point, all things considered), we should have been good for at least another 5 or 6 goals.

If the team had just taken their collective feet off the pedal, that would be one thing, but our midfield was still absolutely dominant for the first half of that quarter.

Having said that, while the midfield was still winning most of the ball, the delivery forward left something to be desired. They stopped looking for leads and unmarked options and were just bombing it forward aimlessly. So maybe it was as much the midfield's fault. Watching on TV it is very hard to tell whether the ball was being bombed forward because the forwards weren't working hard enough or whether it was just that the midfield turned their brains off.

I'm not going to let the forward line completely off the hook though - there was some pretty lazy kicking for goal during that quarter after they'd been reasonably switched on in this department early in the game.

My feelings exactly.

I had this feeling at 3/4 time though that we'd take our foot off the pedal and painfully, I WAS RIGHT.

Think I have mentioned it before, wouldn't matter if we were playing the Werribee 2nds or the Lions at the Gabba, this Swans outfit aims only to win. Nothing aggressive about the margin whatsoever.

Humble goals maybe, but we should have had them by 10 to 12 goals.

The question remains, is our brand of footy such that we don't have the legs to take advantage of a situation as we had it going into the last? We only dig deep if there is a chance of losing?

To me, this means a team like the Saints who hasn't hit top form, maybe low of fuel right now but once they juice up, their motor will see them flog a side like ours come September.

I am still not convinced we're Top 4 material until we leave a team flat out lying on the canvas requiring an ambulance for transport home.

Sick of Points Decisions against "pub drunks". If I see a TKO, then I will change my tune!

[Sean]

Originally posted by TheHood
I am still not convinced we're Top 4 material until we leave a team flat out lying on the canvas requiring an ambulance for transport home.

Did we do that in 2003? Serious question - I can't actually remember but I'd say we had more big wins then.

In 2003 we were the best team in the AFL for 4th quarters - that has definitely changed.

It seemed to me that our attitude changed after MOL's injury in rd 22 2003. The game was won and he does his hammy. Maybe we could have made the GF if we'd taken it a bit easier in that 4th quarter. Since then we tend to just protect 3rd quarter leads.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it but it looks to be planned rather than just a case of the players taking their foot off the pedal.

[dread and might]

Clement has probably been the best matchup on MOL over the past few meetings, he must be one of the best at playing from behind and making up space on a lead.

I think Magic should start very deep and keep Clement as close to the goalsquare as possible. I also think we need a third tall in the F50 as much as possible as this may drag Fraser back.

Magic rocks.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Sean
Did we do that in 2003? Serious question - I can't actually remember but I'd say we had more big wins then.

4 wins of 50+ in 2003.
2004 = 2
2005 = 1