if we cant beat hawthorn

[swansrule100]

if we dont win next week we will be 5-6 at the break. I know we have shown we play better in the 2nd half of the year and we will probably make the 8. But if we go in at 5-6 i think any chance of a flag this year is gone.

The players will need to cut out the mistakes if we are going to win this game, it wont be easy. Any thoughts?

[liz]

Any thoughts?


yep - its a day game:D

One issue we might face is that Sam Mitchell will undoubtedly have much more of an idea of how to shark Spida's taps than any of our mids.

On the other hand, maybe Spida knows exactly how he does it and can help nullify Mitchell.

[Lucky Knickers]

Kirk will have to bring his A game for Sammy next week. Good point re Spida.

[Robbo]

It will be a tough game.

The Hawks are genuine contenders this year.

[nat]

I'm already getting nervous about this match!

[BeeEmmAre]

One umpire inspired loss and we are gone again...... :rolleyes:
I love the positivity on this board.

[NMWBloods]

One umpire inspired loss and we are gone again...... :rolleyes:
I love the positivity on this board.
I think this thread is for you... (http://www.redandwhiteonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20875) :rolleyes:

[573v30]

If we have McLaren again, pencil it as a loss.

[swansrule100]

One umpire inspired loss and we are gone again...... :rolleyes:
I love the positivity on this board.

umpires can be crap, but i can honestly say i have never seen a game they actually changed the result of. If your good enough you will win.

I started the thread because i believe if we lose to hawthorn we cannot win the premiership. I felt after we lost to the saints we had to win 3/4 minimum. If we lose to the hawks and have the week off we will be 5-6 facing an in form collingwood who are more than capable of beating us

[BeeEmmAre]

umpires can be crap, but i can honestly say i have never seen a game they actually changed the result of. If your good enough you will win.

Didn't you watch last night?


I respect your opinion on the rest of the comments, and I know that other thread is another of ROK's sarcastic classics.
I'm also fully prepared to criticise them when they deserve it - the loss to the Scum of the Earth (Norff Melburn Kangaspews) was gutless, pathetic and embarrassing. Still is.

I'm just sick of people getting on here and writing the team when they've proven over and over again that that is something you can NEVER do.

[swansrule100]

Didn't you watch last night?


I respect your opinion on the rest of the comments, and I know that other thread is another of ROK's sarcastic classics.
I'm also fully prepared to criticise them when they deserve it - the loss to the Scum of the Earth (Norff Melburn Kangaspews) was gutless, pathetic and embarrassing. Still is.

I'm just sick of people getting on here and writing the team when they've proven over and over again that that is something you can NEVER do.

im not saying the umpiring wasnt bad, but it didnt cost us the match, an endless supply of clangers cost us.

I am backing the team this week as i will every week, im too one eyed if anything, but last night should of been a 30-40 point win, then the umps wouldnt matter.

[annew]

We were 5 wins and 5 losses after round 10 in 2005 and that turned out to be a great year!!! I think last night's crowd reaction an d1 point loss to Essendon is our turnaround.

[NMWBloods]

Yet another wake-up call match...?

[Xie Shan]

Yet another wake-up call match...?

They must keep hitting the snooze button...

[Industrial Fan]

We were 5 wins and 5 losses after round 10 in 2005 and that turned out to be a great year!!! I think last night's crowd reaction an d1 point loss to Essendon is our turnaround.Smells more like vs Richmond circa 2004 to me....

[goswannie14]

umpires can be crap, but i can honestly say i have never seen a game they actually changed the result of. If your good enough you will win.

I started the thread because i believe if we lose to hawthorn we cannot win the premiership. I felt after we lost to the saints we had to win 3/4 minimum. If we lose to the hawks and have the week off we will be 5-6 facing an in form collingwood who are more than capable of beating usYou obviously didn't watch Saturday night. It was a 1 point loss after a goal that shouldn't have been a goal.:rolleyes: I have been to plenty of games (not just Swans) that have been decided by the blow of the umpires whistle. It unfortunately is a growing reality, to deny it is sticking your head in the sand.

[swansrule100]

You obviously didn't watch Saturday night. It was a 1 point loss after a goal that shouldn't have been a goal.:rolleyes: I have been to plenty of games (not just Swans) that have been decided by the blow of the umpires whistle. It unfortunately is a growing reality, to deny it is sticking your head in the sand.



yeh but the team should of been in front and it wouldnt matter. Yes there are terrible decisions and you can say they shouldnt of got this goal or that. But the fact is we had too many players make mistakes and play poorly.

[NMWBloods]

You obviously didn't watch Saturday night. It was a 1 point loss after a goal that shouldn't have been a goal.:rolleyes:
It was a 1 point loss to a side we should have been 5 or more goals in front of! :rolleyes:

[goswannie14]

yeh but the team should of been in front and it wouldnt matter. Yes there are terrible decisions and you can say they shouldnt of got this goal or that. But the fact is we had too many players make mistakes and play poorly.
You didn't respond to the rest of my comment. Many games apart from Saturday night have been decided by the blow of the umpires decision. To deny that is just stupid.

[goswannie14]

It was a 1 point loss to a side we should have been 5 or more goals in front of! :rolleyes:That's a little off topic as I was only commenting on the umpiring.:rolleyes:

[swansrule100]

You didn't respond to the rest of my comment. Many games apart from Saturday night have been decided by the blow of the umpires decision. To deny that is just stupid.


Sorry was pretending to work when i replied.

Which game has been decided purely because the umpires stuffed up?? and not because the team didnt play well enough. My arguement is the umpriring generally levels itself out and if your the better team you will win anyway.

[NMWBloods]

That's a little off topic as I was only commenting on the umpiring.:rolleyes:
SR100's point was that we lost the game because of the way we played not purely because of the umpiring.

I really hope the players aren't thinking like many of the people here or we are in trouble!


BTW - you really are overusing :rolleyes:

[goswannie14]

SR100's point was that we lost the game because of the way we played not purely because of the umpiring.

I really hope the players aren't thinking like many of the people here or we are in trouble!


BTW - you really are overusing :rolleyes::rolleyes: I don't know what you mean.:rolleyes:

I'm not disputing that we played crap, but in the context of the match that decision cost us the match. If we had lost by more than 5 points it wouldn't be an issue, but the fact is we didn't so it is.

[Industrial Fan]

Sorry was pretending to work when i replied.

Which game has been decided purely because the umpires stuffed up?? and not because the team didnt play well enough. My arguement is the umpriring generally levels itself out and if your the better team you will win anyway.2005 QF vs West Coast?

Two howlers decided that game.

[liz]

SR100's point was that we lost the game because of the way we played not purely because of the umpiring.

I really hope the players aren't thinking like many of the people here or we are in trouble!


Of course the way they played was the main reason. But that is not the same as denying that umpiring ever impacts the result.

Does everything now think that the late umpiring decisions in the 2005 QF didn't strongly influence the result?

[NMWBloods]

:rolleyes: I don't know what you mean.:rolleyes:

I'm not disputing that we played crap, but in the context of the match that decision cost us the match. If we had lost by more than 5 points it wouldn't be an issue, but the fact is we didn't so it is.
But it is a bit simplistic to point to an umpiring decision 7 minutes before full time, when a lot of things occur after it, and then try to extrapolate a change in that decision out to the finish.

[NMWBloods]

Of course the way they played was the main reason. But that is not the same as denying that umpiring ever impacts the result.

Does everything now think that the late umpiring decisions in the 2005 QF didn't strongly influence the result?
I'm not saying (maybe SR100 was) that the umpiring doesn't impact the result (best example I can think of was '05 Bulldogs v. Demons). However, it is rare that it's the main difference and I don't think Saturday was one of those cases. Yes, with better umpiring we may have won, but playing better would have had a bigger impact.

[Vivien]

If we have McLaren again, pencil it as a loss.

I doubt it. McLaren would be treading on eggshells if we had him again this weekend. We may even get favourable treatment from the umpires. They'll be out to save face after Saturday night.

[swansrule100]

im not saying umpring does affect a result. Its like a stupid kick or a dumb handball or a missed shot it can affect a result. I meant ive never seen a game the umpires changed the result of. They make a dumb decision and in a close game you can say well there 6 points that should of been different, but then the rest of the game can change anyway.

We had enough chances to pass better or kick goals and win the game, thats what cost us.


In close games you can say one decision cost a team the game or if its at the end it costs teams (like that stupid one in 2005 qualifying final), but really ive never seen the umpires give a team that didnt deserve to win, a victory. It like if a player misses a shot at goal after the siren to win the game is it their fault we lost??

The umpires are woeful, but it tends to go both ways, yes it influences a game, but doesnt really change the result.

[swansrule100]

Of course the way they played was the main reason. But that is not the same as denying that umpiring ever impacts the result.

Does everything now think that the late umpiring decisions in the 2005 QF didn't strongly influence the result?

they did strongly influence it, but do we think it was why we lost? we could of won that game and had it sown up before that dud call at the end.

I just think as bad as umpires are too much is made of it, other teams supporters reckon we get a gifted run.

[goswannie14]

I doubt it. McLaren would be treading on eggshells if we had him again this weekend. We may even get favourable treatment from the umpires. They'll be out to save face after Saturday night.You're kidding right? The only way that would happen is if Roos or Hall or whoever came out, bagged the umpires, copped a $20,000 fine. That's what Essendon did a few years ago, and they are still looked after. I am referring to all of their games, not just against the Swans.

[Industrial Fan]

Yes, with better umpiring we may have won, but playing better would have had a bigger impact.That is a very aggravating point of view.

Of course we can play better than Essendon. And we can play much better than we did on the night. That doesn't change the fact that we did enough to win - except for the intervention of the umpires.

[NMWBloods]

That is a very aggravating point of view.

Of course we can play better than Essendon. And we can play much better than we did on the night. That doesn't change the fact that we did enough to win - except for the intervention of the umpires.
I don't think we did do enough to win.

[liz]

I don't think we did do enough to win.

Two inches shorter padding and we would have won. So in that sense they did do enough to win. But of course they didn't actually win so in that sense they didn't do enough.

Does any of this make sense:confused:

[NMWBloods]

Two inches shorter padding and we would have won. So in that sense they did do enough to win. But of course they didn't actually win so in that sense they didn't do enough.

Does any of this make sense:confused:
Maybe! :)

I reckon the ball still would have hit the post anyway, given its direction.

As for the umpiring, even if the ball had been called out, it doesn't mean that everything else would have occurred the same and hence we win.

[Eala ?ireann]

I have to say the umpiring cost me my night's sleep and probably a year off my life-expectancy. It was horrendous (as is the rule they're being compelled to enforce), but the Bombers beat us, NOT the men in yellow!

We delivered the ball badly and had a real lack of intensity for much of the game. Often, people were completely static when the ball carrier was looking for an option upfield.

Umpires = fools, yes. Swans however, need to get their act together, pull their finger out, pull up their socks..........

[Bleed Red Blood]

Which game has been decided purely because the umpires stuffed up??

2004 - Essendon VS Sydney at the Telstra Dome.

- Craig Bolton takes a mark, Dean Soloman is given a free kick, goal.
- Nathan Lovett-Murray throws the ball to Lloyd, goal.
etc.

[Industrial Fan]

2004 - Essendon VS Sydney at the Telstra Dome.

- Craig Bolton takes a mark, Dean Soloman is given a free kick, goal.
- Nathan Lovett-Murray throws the ball to Lloyd, goal.
etc.Worst umpiring decision I have seen yet.

That game is burnt in my mind.

[NMWBloods]

That was one of the worst displays of umpiring I can remember, but again it wasn't why we lost. Giving the Bombers a 7 goal break had more to do with it!

[DeadlyAkkuret]

I'm so tired of hearing "It's not the umpires fault, we were beaten by a better team" etc etc. Was the scoreline not 11.8 to 11.7? so Essendon have one more point than us, yet some people are acting like they had 20 more scoring shots and we should be lucky we only lost by a point. I admit Sydney played sloppy, frustrating football, but i still think we deserved the win, and there were too many blatant umpire 'errors' to just put it down to the umpires having a bad night.

[liz]

That was one of the worst displays of umpiring I can remember, but again it wasn't why we lost. Giving the Bombers a 7 goal break had more to do with it!

err...they never had a 7 goal break. That is a 42 point lead. I don't think their lead ever got up much further than 24 points and that was in the first 10 minutes. The Swans were well back into the contest by midway through the first quarter, even though they still lagged by just under 3 goals on the scoreboard.

[Triple B]

NMW is talking about the MCG game in 2004 when he talks of the 7 goal lead. You guys need to keep up. :D

[NMWBloods]

Thank you! :)

[goswannie14]

NMW is talking about the MCG game in 2004 when he talks of the 7 goal lead. You guys need to keep up. :DI thought it was TelstraDome.:confused:

[NMWBloods]

I thought it was TelstraDome.:confused:
That was 2006.

[liz]

Sorry. My mistake. Can be a bit confusing sometimes.:o

[Triple B]

I thought it was TelstraDome.:confused:

Na, MCG for sure. My wife and I were in transit to the US for a holiday so left a day early and flew via Melbourne to take in the game.

That Craig Bolton/Solomon decision was truly one of the worst decisions in the history of the game at a crucial time.

[goswannie14]

I might be thinking of one where Solomon took a grab in the last minute of the game to pinch a win after we had led all day.:o

[reigning premier]

yeh but the team should of been in front and it wouldnt matter. Yes there are terrible decisions and you can say they shouldnt of got this goal or that. But the fact is we had too many players make mistakes and play poorly.


I agree but disagree......

An umpire doesn't change the result of the match. Only poor play or exceptionally good play does. had we played properly, we should of won by 30+. However, when lose by the smallest of margins when we are victim to such atrocious decisions, well it does tend to shake your confidence.

At the same time. I'm not complaining about losing to the illegals or the Crows and they were pretty tight margins as well. We got beaten by the opposition in those games!

[Triple B]

I might be thinking of one where Solomon took a grab in the last minute of the game to pinch a win after we had led all day.:o

You're not thinking Alessio by any chance? :p

[DeadlyAkkuret]

You're not thinking Alessio by any chance? :p

Oh god:o

[Industrial Fan]

I might be thinking of one where Solomon took a grab in the last minute of the game to pinch a win after we had led all day.:oKelly missed a sitter in that game just before 3/4 time from right in front after a great mark, the ball came straight back for an essendon goal. Changed the momentum. Alessio marked with four seconds left to kick the winner.

[goswannie14]

You're not thinking Alessio by any chance? :pThat's the one.:o

[Triple B]

That's the one.:o

I can't criticise you for wiping it from the memory. Apologies for bringing it back :p

[ScottH]

That's the one.:o
That was 2001.

The Solomon one was a disgrace.

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

I'm not saying (maybe SR100 was) that the umpiring doesn't impact the result (best example I can think of was '05 Bulldogs v. Demons). However, it is rare that it's the main difference and I don't think Saturday was one of those cases. Yes, with better umpiring we may have won, but playing better would have had a bigger impact.

If we only had a Plan B when playing against teams insisting on flooding back to stifle our forward line, we mightn't have played like crap in matches like against Adelaide St Kilda & Essendon.If Barry Hall could take a mark when playing at night with a yellow pill, then guess what, he'd have more marks than he has now. :rolleyes:
If a chicken was chosen to be taken as as egg, it could well have been in somebody McDonald Value Meal rather than clucking around the farmyard. We have to worry about playing games to our strengths, like we did against Port & the Doggies to get back into the thick of things, not cast up silly hypotheses about what could have happened if the cosmic biorhythms of the world were different.

Those saying we are without a chance of winning the flag if we fall to 5-6 on Saturday may as well hop off now. Because we have had similar seasons in 2005 & 2006 and are a finals-hardened September specialist.

I thinks the issues with the players at the moment are A) a mental issie with several of them & B) a lack of a Plan B when playing teams who opt to flood.

JF
PS:- By the way though, do you know that if Buchanan's kick was at another ground, we'd more than likely have won. Because the padding at the SCG is 15 odd feet up whilst at other grounds it is only 10 feet odd. ;)

[ROK Lobster]

If we only had a Plan B when playing against teams insisting on flooding back to stifle our forward line, we mightn't have played like crap in matches like against Adelaide St Kilda & Essendon.

If Barry Hall could take a mark when playing at night with a yellow pill, then guess what, he'd have more marks than he has now. :rolleyes:

If a chicken was chosen to be taken as as egg, it could well have been in somebody McDonald Value Meal rather than clucking around the farmyard.

We have to worry about playing games to our strengths, like we did against Port & the Doggies to get back into the thick of things.

Those saying we are without a chance of winning the flag if we fall to 5-6 on Saturday may as well hop off now. Because we have had similar seasons in 2005 & 2006 and are a finals-hardened September specialist.

I thinks the issues with the players at the moment are A) a mental issie with several of them & B) a lack of a Plan B when playing teams who opt to flood.

JFAgree with you JF and some highly original insights there too. Sadly I think that some of the players have been playing on their premiership credits for far too long. It's time to repay the faith the club has shown or run the risk of becoming bad debtors. For those bankrupt in the skills department it's time for the leadership group to realise that in continuing to play them at the expense of the youngsters they are only robbing Peter to pay Paul and that it is time to come good on the investment that the club has made in youth, or ensure that some of the other mainstays get off their underperforming arses and paid their own way.

[hammo]

Agree with you JF and some highly original insights there too. Sadly I think that some of the players have been playing on their premiership credits for far too long. It's time to repay the faith the club has shown or run the risk of becoming bad debtors. For those bankrupt in the skills department it's time for the leadership group to realise that in continuing to play them at the expense of the youngsters they are only robbing Peter to pay Paul and that it is time to come good on the investment that the club has made in youth, or ensure that some of the other mainstays get off their underperforming arses and paid their own way.
If this season falls by the wayside, then the coaching staff must bite the bullet, cash in the premiership credits and trade some premiership players for early draft picks. We'll be cannon fodder in a couple of years without some serious rebuilding.

I'll return to this topic, if required, in round 15. I still believe we can make the top 4 once Goodes and Hall (and Roos!) get back to their best form.

[RogueSwan]

I'll return to this topic, if required, in round 15. I still believe we can make the top 4 once Goodes and Hall (and Roos!) get back to their best form.
Roos' has been in great (media) form. Just needs to bite the $20k bullet. :eek:

[hammo]

Roos' has been in great (media) form. Just needs to bite the $20k bullet. :eek:

I'm more worried about his form in the coaches' box.

[ScottH]

I'm more worried about his form in the coaches' box.
He's actually been showing some emotion of late, which cannot be good.

[NMWBloods]

He's actually been showing some emotion of late, which cannot be good.
Yes - I noticed that. More this year than in the past four combined!

[RogueSwan]

Yes - I noticed that. More this year than in the past four combined!

I dunno, "Here it is!" contained a lot of emotion