We need..

[Diego]

...a new game plan.

This is the second game this season where our game plan has become useless due to the opposition coaching staff formulating a plan which shuts our run down.

Without the run from half back we are useless.

This was the case against Geelong and also last night. To be honest I thought that Laidley would have done the same last week.

Paul Roos and the coaching staff really need to sit down and create something new.

We have been found out and the signs are not good.

Melbourne are a good side, but Geelong isn't. Same scenario. ;)

[liz]

What do you suggest. Kick it long and hope?

Our game plan requires good skills and hard running. Against the Dees our skills were very ordinary. Against the Cats the hard work/running was missing. Against the Roos we both worked hard and mostly used the ball exceptionally well.

It is a game plan that can look ugly if not properly executed, and sometimes the differences between it working and not can be slight. But it's really the execution rather than the conception that is the issue IMO.

[swans_premiers]

Wat we need is another quality in and under midfielder

[dawson]

*Against the Roos we had multiple options to goal and it all looked so good with the inclusion of Davis - but last night it seemed to be one dimensional going forward.

*We are notorious at letting sides off the hook when we have them for the taking. For mind, Goodes incredible miss from 5 metres out was the turning point.

*We needed someone infront of Neitz to cut off his space in which to lead.

*I'd love to know how many of their goals came directly from our errors.

*LRT is not ready for league football.

*Where would we be without Ryan O'Keefe????????????

[liz]

Originally posted by dawson
*Against the Roos we had multiple options to goal and it all looked so good with the inclusion of Davis - but last night it seemed to be one dimensional going forward.



Agree with most of your comments, to some degree, but I thought our forward set-up was anything but one-dimensional. They were looking for Hall a lot, but Davis and O'Keefe were genuine - not to mention productive - targets. I thought our forward line was more varied than theirs, particularly with Holland nowhere to be seen. Their midfield, however, worked harder to contribute goals than our's did, with only Kirk and Crouch kicking goals from the midfield.

[DST]

We don't need a new game plan, the one we have has been proven to work.

I am starting to think that people on this board totally underestimate the standard of this compertition, and that includes everyone from 1st to last.

If we are not at 100% each week (that includes intesity, skills, match-up's etc) then we are (like everyone else) able to be beaten.

All those games you mentioned were lost not as a result of our game plan being wrong, but because we were unable to implement or be allowed to implement our game plan.

This competition is tough and last night showed that if we are off our game slightly or the opposition turn up and do everything right we will lose games.

Then again we will also win our fair share of games playing our brand of football as well.

DST
:D

[Diego]

Originally posted by lizz
What do you suggest. Kick it long and hope?

Our game plan requires good skills and hard running. Against the Dees our skills were very ordinary. Against the Cats the hard work/running was missing. Against the Roos we both worked hard and mostly used the ball exceptionally well.

It is a game plan that can look ugly if not properly executed, and sometimes the differences between it working and not can be slight. But it's really the execution rather than the conception that is the issue IMO.


And what continue with our obvious game plan and let other teams shut us down?

If a side like Melbourne, which is pretty good side and Geelong which has a pretty ordinary list can do it, other coaches will catch on.

Sorry but we have been found out and against dud coaches like frawley it will work, but against more astute coaches we are gone.

[Tooth Fairy]

It's not the game plan. It was the player's inability to carry out the skills needed to polish the plan off. The players themselves are to blame not the tactics used.

[Tooth Fairy]

Originally posted by lizz
Agree with most of your comments, to some degree, but I thought our forward set-up was anything but one-dimensional. They were looking for Hall a lot, but Davis and O'Keefe were genuine - not to mention productive - targets. I thought our forward line was more varied than theirs, particularly with Holland nowhere to be seen. Their midfield, however, worked harder to contribute goals than our's did, with only Kirk and Crouch kicking goals from the midfield.
Exactly right Lizz

[Cheer Cheer]

Diego -

What Lizz is saying is that we dont neccesarily need a new game plan - the other teams didnt shut us down - we shut ourselves down.

If our game plan is executed correctly it has been shown we will generally win the game, however when certain parts arent executed properly as Lizz eluded to, we are vunerable.

[Diego]

Originally posted by Cheer Cheer


If our game plan is executed correctly it has been shown we will generally win the game, however when certain parts arent executed properly as Lizz eluded to, we are vunerable.

Hello pressure from the opposition...made us come up with clangers. Pressure from opposition=clangers.

So what you are saying is..the demons didn't really play well we played poorly?

The demons are a strong side and played very well last night..don't take that way from them.

[liz]

Originally posted by Diego
Hello pressure from the opposition...made us come up with clangers. Pressure from opposition=clangers.

So what you are saying is..the demons didn't really play well we played poorly?

The demons are a strong side and played very well last night..don't take that way from them.

I think most would agree that the Demons played well. And they did put pressure on us. But any half decent team will put pressure on you, regardless of game plan.

Not all of our ordinary skill level can be attributed to their pressure. I lost count of the number of times passes landed at feet or just skidded along the ground. And even with some degree of pressure, an AFL team with serious aspirations has to do better than they did last night.

Thing is, we know they can. The skill level is the one aspect of the Swannies' game that has improved out of sight since Roos took over. Last night was not typical of how they normally use the ball - and it is certainly not the first time we have been put under pressure.

[dawson]

Originally posted by lizz
Agree with most of your comments, to some degree,

Lizz does that mean you agree with what I said about LRT....

[liz]

Not really, though I can understand where you're coming from. He's shown a bit in some of the game's he's played and struggled to have an impact in others. But he's fit enough and strong enough and will learn more by playing in the seniors than in the reserves I suspect. He did receive a RS nomination last year remember - they don't hand these out to duds. And I thought he looked comfortable in both our finals matches last year, which is a good sign from a youngster.

He's clearly not yet in our best 22, but I doubt there was anyone running around in the reserves yesterday - with the possible exception of Nicks, who is seeking fitness - who is "more ready" at the moment. We need to be patient. He probably won't really come into his own until 2006 or so.

[swan_song]

I thought the Dees played very well last night and managed to shut down our run. They wanted the win more than we did...It was well worked out and executed. The reason they were able to do so, I believe, is that we were down maybe 10 to 15 percent on our skill level on the night, and that is enough these days to turn what looked on paper to be 4 points in the bag to another mised opportunity. It's early season for sure, but this is the time when we need to deliver on those "expected" victories. With the exception of one team at the top and one or two at the bottom, the competition is quite unpredictable -- "even" some would say... we have to be in the top 4 to have any chance in September...and with another tough assignment next week, we can't afford to drop too many points behind...

[Reggi]

This is the problem we seem to have. Are we putting the best team we can on the field or re-building. LRT will be good in the future (a couple of years). ATM he is a bit unreliable.

He is too good for ACTAFL, but not for AFL.

[Nico]

Any game plan will be severely comprised when a side is belted on centre clearances as we were, when the delivery to the forwards is abysmal, and we insist on short dinky little kicks to forwards under the hammer after we have allowed the opposition to flood back by holding on to the footy for an eternity.

Look at the Saints. It is mark and run on at all costs. They simply run the opposition into the ground then finish them off in the last quarter.

Also agree with another post that we do not have the killer instinct.

[CureTheSane]

Personally, I think Diego MAY have a point.

Time will tell.

[taurus]

I think our current plan is very good for the team. It is suited to our strength, as Lizz mentioned in previous thread. However we do need Plan B, if opposition shuts us down.

Long, direct kicks into the forward line may also be suitable given our tall and mobile players.

[Diego]

Originally posted by taurus
I think our current plan is very good for the team. It is suited to our strength, as Lizz mentioned in previous thread. However we do need Plan B, if opposition shuts us down.

Long, direct kicks into the forward line may also be suitable given our tall and mobile players.

That's what worries me, a lack of plan B.

Really if you were a coach coming up against the swans all you have to do is watch last nights game and the game against the cats and presto you have the plan to beat us.

Someone mentioned a thank you to cressa for exposing us. Well i agree. Thanks cressa..hope you go far with the cats. ;)

We have a potent forward line with good marking options and a few crumbers. Maybe plan b could be kick it long at a contest..but how good are we at taking contested marks or winning the ball in contested situations?

Our play is a mixture of basketball and netball..and roos being a fan of both i can see where he was influenced with this game plan. Have a look at how many handballs we have..just like a game of basketball.

[Diego]

Originally posted by CureTheSane
Personally, I think Diego MAY have a point.

Time will tell.

Don't tell any of the experts around here that..might have them in a huff and puff. ;)

[liz]

Originally posted by taurus

Long, direct kicks into the forward line may also be suitable given our tall and mobile players.

My interpretation of our game plan is that it is to kick long and direct into the forward line, but only when we've got the ball there quickly. Once the opposition has managed to get men back you need to have exceptionally good pack markers (ala WC) to make it a percentage play just to bomb into the forward line.

[sharp9]

Originally posted by Diego
And what continue with our obvious game plan and let other teams shut us down?

If a side like Melbourne, which is pretty good side and Geelong which has a pretty ordinary list can do it, other coaches will catch on.

Sorry but we have been found out and against dud coaches like frawley it will work, but against more astute coaches we are gone. Not true to say that they "shut us down," sure they put pressure on and the skills buckled and the decision making was poor, but the game plan wasn't the problem, it was the execution.....ie kick it to a team mate on the run instead of into the ground......kick between the big sticks from directly in front...that sort of stuff.

Also, keep the intensity in the middle at 100% because if it drops to 95% against a team playing well then you look like also rans, when you are not really.

Losing by 2 kicks in a performance labelled a "comedy of errors," has to have some upside to it. Last year (even) we got thrashed by Hawthorn (twice) and the Roos and Adelaide and Collingwood when we put in similar performances....so I'd (again) say that there is some upside.

[Diego]

So...

Plan B anyone? ;)

[dendol]

Plan B would be the win some freaking clearances.