Martin Blake on the Swans' approach to footy

[liz]

Seems to be in vogue to write articles about the Swannies' style of football. Hinds a week ago, now Martin Blake. Doesn't say much that's new but at least he shows some semblance of having watched our boys play. And a pretty balanced article too.

Sydney's positive pressure - realfooty.com.au (http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/sydneys-positive-pressure/2008/05/10/1210131325991.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2)

PS Who's his nephew? I have a feeling it might be Jude. Anyone able to confirm?

[Legs Akimbo]

I had not realised that Cornflakes had called our Premiership an 'anomoly'. I guess saying these sorts of things takes the edge of the bitterness for a man who achieved NOTHING.

[goswannie14]

For me, this is the most interesting quote from the article.


Having watched the Swans closely, I have come to realise why opposition supporters hate their style. It's because the fans go to see their own stars perform and it doesn't always happen because a Brett Kirk or a Jarrad McVeigh or a Luke Ablett is sitting on him. Those guys aren't chasing their 30 touches a game; they are accountable for a man and happy with 20.

[Reggi]

Seems to be in vogue to write articles about the Swannies' style of football. Hinds a week ago, now Martin Blake. Doesn't say much that's new but at least he shows some semblance of having watched our boys play. And a pretty balanced article too.

Sydney's positive pressure - realfooty.com.au (http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/sydneys-positive-pressure/2008/05/10/1210131325991.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2)

PS Who's his nephew? I have a feeling it might be Jude. Anyone able to confirm?

Pretty sure Jude

[TheGrimReaper]

The picture says a lot about our game-plan. We man-up and play one on one football. We never flood, teams flood against us, but funnily enough, we always cop the blame for the flooding, hence we cop flake for the so-called boring football. It is the opposition that should be copping the flack for flooding, why is it ok for them to do it, but we play man on man, we cop flack for it? :rolleyes:

[ROK Lobster]

we cop flake for the so-called boring football. What do you serve you Geelong fans? :D

(I did read here that you have a fish and chip shop - I think. If not, ignore the above comment)

[Nico]

Alan Jeans, who by the way is about the best speaker I have heard, says that Aussie Rules is very simple from a coaching perspective.

Either we have the ball, they have the ball or it is in dispute (more than 50% of the time). He says what a coach needs to do is work out how to get the disputed ball more than the opposition, then use the footy to his advantage.

Our problem is, from the stats that Blake quotes, we need to use the footy better. We get it more than the opposition, win 64% of the contested footy but butcher the disposal. Hence Roos's comments last week that we have to move on players with poor disposal. I'd like to see that.

So it could be assumed that Roos follows the Jeans mantra, he just has to get the right cattle and they do say they are recruiting players with superior disposal.

[ROK Lobster]

Alan Jeans, who by the way is about the best speaker I have heard, says that Aussie Rules is very simple from a coaching perspective.

Either we have the ball, they have the ball or it is in dispute (more than 50% of the time). He says what a coach needs to do is work out how to get the disputed ball more than the opposition, then use the footy to his advantage.

Our problem is, from the stats that Blake quotes, we need to use the footy better. We get it more than the opposition, win 64% of the contested footy but butcher the disposal. Hence Roos's comments last week that we have to move on players with poor disposal. I'd like to see that.

So it could be assumed that Roos follows the Jeans mantra, he just has to get the right cattle and they do say they are recruiting players with superior disposal.The perception is, however, the blokes that can get in 64% of the time, are not the best disposers of the football. Could it be that this is why Geelong, and increasingly Hawthorn, are so good at the moment. The have tough hard ball getters who also have, on the whole, excellent disposal skills. The Swans developed the short, uncontested game to overcome their skill deficiencies - the observation being that a 20m chip to a man in the clear does not require a lot of skill. That side of our game has increasingly been closed down by oppositions - we have all noticed the floods employed against us. Hence we still get it a lot, but cannot control it long enough to win as much as we did a few seasons ago?

[NMWBloods]

Yes - that's a major reason IMO why our game has struggled in the past season and a bit.

[TheGrimReaper]

What do you serve you Geelong fans? :D

(I did read here that you have a fish and chip shop - I think. If not, ignore the above comment)

What do you serve you Geelong fans?

That sure made a lot of sense, did it? :rolleyes:

In case you didn't notice, I did try to edit my post! :rolleyes:

[ROK Lobster]

What do you serve you Geelong fans?

That sure made a lot of sense, did it? :rolleyes:

In case you didn't notice, I did try to edit my post! :rolleyes:I thought it was funny. You know, we cop the "flake", from a fish and chip shop guy. I am more than happy for people to poke fun at my typos, which I am sure your's was.

[Mike_B]

We get it more than the opposition, win 64% of the contested footy but butcher the disposal.

I don't think we do win it 64% of the time. I'd guestimate somewhere around 45% with the other 20% not resulting in a ball won, but rather another stoppage!

[Nico]

The perception is, however, the blokes that can get in 64% of the time, are not the best disposers of the football. Could it be that this is why Geelong, and increasingly Hawthorn, are so good at the moment. The have tough hard ball getters who also have, on the whole, excellent disposal skills. The Swans developed the short, uncontested game to overcome their skill deficiencies - the observation being that a 20m chip to a man in the clear does not require a lot of skill. That side of our game has increasingly been closed down by oppositions - we have all noticed the floods employed against us. Hence we still get it a lot, but cannot control it long enough to win as much as we did a few seasons ago?

Yep pretty much what I said and you can add in the inabilty to kick goals from 30 metres dead in front. Did you see O'Keefe go back and slot one last night yet when he puts on the red and white he gets the DT's. I hope he is in the queue to the shrink after Bevo and Davo, or maybe he should shoulder them out of the way and take first dibs at the couch.

I reckon it might be pretty crowded in the waiting room with Jude, Buchy, Leo (must be at least weekly) Goodes (female problems) Hall (anger management) and LRT.

Meanwhile Mathews, Everitt, MOL and Crouch trot off to the club financial planner for some retirement planning.

Otherwise we are running pretty smoothly at the mo.

[dawson]

A nephew's progress, backyard to big time (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/16/1063625037846.html?from=storyrhs)

[Nico]

"First kick was a dreadful turnover", golly gosh.

"Accidently handballed to Carey", must have a thing about North, did it this year too.

"Missed a shot for goal", I don't believe it.

Some things never change.

[bandwagon]

ROK Lobster - I think your observation is spot on. If the opposition works hard enough to stop a man getting loose for that 20m chip pass, they have a good chance of forcing a turnover. Then quick movement into our undersized backline and goodnight!

[royboy42]

Nico...u need a Bex and a good lie down!

[connolly]

Yep pretty much what I said and you can add in the inabilty to kick goals from 30 metres dead in front. Did you see O'Keefe go back and slot one last night yet when he puts on the red and white he gets the DT's. I hope he is in the queue to the shrink after Bevo and Davo, or maybe he should shoulder them out of the way and take first dibs at the couch.



I'm genuinely puzzled by the Bevo reference. The kid is playing with a ton of confidence, is a goal kicking machine, hits red and white chests lace out and appears to have no relationship problems. And is universally admired by knowledgable Bloods supporters.

[ScottH]

I'm genuinely puzzled by the Bevo reference. The kid is playing with a ton of confidence, is a goal kicking machine, hits red and white chests lace out and appears to have no relationship problems. And is universally admired by knowledgable Bloods supporters.

There was an article a week or so ago, where it was mentioned that he is seeing a shrink to help him realise he is part of the team. To help with his lack of confidence.

[Mike_B]

I'm genuinely puzzled by the Bevo reference. The kid is playing with a ton of confidence, is a goal kicking machine, hits red and white chests lace out and appears to have no relationship problems. And is universally admired by knowledgable Bloods supporters.


There was an article a week or so ago, where it was mentioned that he is seeing a shrink to help him realise he is part of the team. To help with his lack of confidence.

Obviously the shrink is earning his keep then ;)

[ScottH]

Obviously the shrink is earning his keep then ;)

Well before the North game, he must have given him a double dose of counselling.

[SimonH]

Probably the best mainstream media article I've read on the Swans' playing style. So many of those who comment on how Sydney, give no appearance of having actually watched the Swans regularly, rather than just having seen a replay of the most boring quarter of our most recent heavily-criticised match.

Roos was on record way back in 2005 saying (I'm paraphrasing) that it was his job to coach, not his job to lecture those who didn't 'get it', on the style that Sydney are actually trying to play. He's pretty much stuck to that line ever since. Perfectly reasonable, but it does mean that Sydney lose the 'ugly footy' media debate where their style is IMO little or no 'uglier' than a dozen or so other teams in the competition.

In terms of our success, I would have thought the most important observation is as follows:


Sydney's opposition hit its targets with only 71% of disposals, the lowest in the competition. Forward thrusts break down under pressure. Opposing teams score from just 20% of inside-50s against Sydney, the lowest in the competition.

While I haven't seen the figures from 2005-7, as long as we stay #1 in the competition in lowest effective disposal stats for our opposition, we'll be travelling well. Of course our skills always need to be sharper, neater and cleaner-- just like every player needs to be as good as Adam Goodes when he's on song. But in the real world where not everyone is perfect all the time, if we stay #1 in that statistic, we know that we are hitting our targets more often than our opponents are hitting theirs.

Teams that can beat us consistently are teams that are very tough at the footy so cut down on our advantage there (the difficult part) and dispose of it better than us (sadly, for many other teams that's the easy part). This is why the Dogs' victory was something of an anomaly. They lost the tough footy, but were so much better than us in ball use when they did get it (including the most important kind of ball use-- kicking for goal), that they more than made up the difference. Only a very talented team of disposers of the footy, on a very good day out, can beat Sydney that way.

Generally, you have to have the first part where you get down and dirty in the packs and go at least 50/50 with JBolt, Kirk et al. Collingwood is a good case study because their recent dominance of Sydney has been regardless of form or ladder position. It's because they've had this in-close toughness with the likes of Burns, O'Bree, Lockyer and until 2007 Buckley. Gets their midfield pilloried as too slow against other opponents, but works a treat against Sydney. Even Harry O'Brien had 9 tackles in the 2007 elim final which was defined by a 68:37 tackle-count thumping in Collingwood's favour (compared with a relatively even 321:298 possession count).