The Hall decision

[caj23]

the game was lost in the midfield, Teddy gave Hall a bath in the 2nd half of the game

[liz]

Correct Liz; for some reason we went wide. Both Kennedy and Jack were clear in the centre and went sideways to a lead far to the flank. At one point ROK was all on his own in the centre and calling for the ball but the defender ignored him and went wide.

Maybe I've never really paid attention before, but it suddenly struck me last night just how wide the MCG is. People go on about how the SCG is nearly circular and it is possible to get lost on the wngs, but surely the same applies to the MCG, albeit on a longer and larger scale.

[liz]

I agree with most of what I've read here.
One more thing though to take into account. Didn't we get JPK (BOG last night) for him in a roundabout way?

We did, though it was also tied up with the Buchanan / Staker / Seaby multi-deal. And we had pick 38 so we could have traded that for Kennedy instead of 39. Though 38 turned into Reid so happy we still had it.

[Badger]

Good for both the Swans and Barry that they parted ways. Barry looks to be enjoying his footy more now and the Swans have had a chance to move on with their player development. Although the Swans do miss out on some of the interest in the club that was generated by the Sydney league centric media when Barry was still there.

[BeeEmmAre]

I agree with most of what I've read here.
One more thing though to take into account. Didn't we get JPK (BOG last night) for him in a roundabout way?

[Matty10]

Correct Liz; for some reason we went wide. Both Kennedy and Jack were clear in the centre and went sideways to a lead far to the flank. At one point ROK was all on his own in the centre and calling for the ball but the defender ignored him and went wide.

I remember that piece of play, but I don't think anyone saw ROK once in space - the ball had already been switched (which focussed the direction of the ball-carrier away from the centre) and all movement was then out to the flank.

[Nico]

I think part of the Dogs' problem this year is that they have changed from having multiple options to looking for Hall too much of the time. When we had Bradshaw we tended to do the same. Three months without him taught the forward line to be more flexible. Last night we were back to seeking out Bradshaw to the extent that TDL became non-existent.

In any case, we didn't lose the game because they had Hall and we didn't. Even with one knee, we created as many chances to Bradshaw to score as they did for Hall. We lost because in the first half, when we were dominating contested ball (or so it seemed to me) our field kicking let us down and we didn't create as many chances as we could. We lost because of a drop in concentration late in the second quarter. We lost because the team stopped being so bold through the middle as it has been during the past 5 weeks.

Correct Liz; for some reason we went wide. Both Kennedy and Jack were clear in the centre and went sideways to a lead far to the flank. At one point ROK was all on his own in the centre and calling for the ball but the defender ignored him and went wide.

[rojo]

I don't think Hall playing for the Doggies and not for us cost us the game. It is interesting as Liz has said that when there is a big dominant forward he becomes the sole focus for the team. However, that may be different when there are are 2 strong, classy forwards. One of the commentators last night kept on calling for another effective forward to be moved forward to help Barry Hall and in the second half they did move someone, was it Giansiracusa (spelling??) and it did provide an alternate focal point for them. Who did the Swans have in the forward line as a 2nd focal point? Except when Goodsie was up there there was ROK, Moore, TDL, all of whom were outplayed. If White had been there too it might have been quite different.

[liz]

Early in the game the doggies fans behind us were lamenting how Hallcentric they were last night.
It's hard not to look for your main man.
But when they got other options they killed us.

Intersting, but I think we are better off without him.

I think part of the Dogs' problem this year is that they have changed from having multiple options to looking for Hall too much of the time. When we had Bradshaw we tended to do the same. Three months without him taught the forward line to be more flexible. Last night we were back to seeking out Bradshaw to the extent that TDL became non-existent.

In any case, we didn't lose the game because they had Hall and we didn't. Even with one knee, we created as many chances to Bradshaw to score as they did for Hall. We lost because in the first half, when we were dominating contested ball (or so it seemed to me) our field kicking let us down and we didn't create as many chances as we could. We lost because of a drop in concentration late in the second quarter. We lost because the team stopped being so bold through the middle as it has been during the past 5 weeks.

[ScottH]

Early in the game the doggies fans behind us were lamenting how Hallcentric they were last night.
It's hard not to look for your main man.
But when they got other options they killed us.

Intersting, but I think we are better off without him.

[Matty10]

The big difference about the Swans this year is that they have not been one player (Hall) focussed, week-in, week-out. He had become a distraction.

There was always something when he played for us - can't mark, gives away too many free kicks, not getting enough free kicks from the umpires, losing his temper, not playing with the same aggression, head is not in the game, team mates kick to him too often, team mates ignore his leads, stops competing when out of position, fractured relationship with the coach, etc, etc.

Most of that frustration was clearly expressed on a daily basis by Swans fans (perhaps a great deal of it [or most] was unwarranted) and it is difficult to assess if it was similar at the club - although based on the fact that player and club parted ways you would assume that it was. The more sensational aspects, of which there were a few, were also played out regularly in the media.

This year was different. There was a freshness to the Swans, and to Hall. The Swans resurgence largely came about through some big contributions from new players in Kennedy, McGlynn and Mumford (not to mention the good late form of newcomers TDL and Jetta) as well as improvement from Grundy, Jack and Hannebery. I suppose this could have all come about with Hall in the team, but I think the chances of the Hall focus / distraction would have stayed and eventually eaten away at the overall excitement and positivity.

The other aspect is whether Hall would have been able to play to his 2010 level of output while still at the Swans. While his presence may have been a distraction for the club, the negativity was probably felt just as much, if not more, by Hall himself. He has relished the new opportunity at the Bulldogs. It would have just been more of the same at the Swans.

It is all subjective of course.

[satchmopugdog]

I am happy he is gone. It is all hypothetical to think of what might have been...that is not good cognitive behaviour therapy ROK...stop doing my head in.

[dimelb]

Without getting into the why's and wherefore's of his move, the fact was that he was not happy being at the Swans and it was better for both parties for him to move on. He was and is happy with the Doggies, and had a very good season, nearly getting the Coleman and rated by many as the draft of the season. I don't think that would have happened if he'd stayed with us.
I think on balance we have done better without him than we would've done with him; Bradshaw is a class act, and we got a lot out of the mysterious synergy that developed between Jesse White and TDL, and Benny Mac probably as well. Baz's absence was one of the factors that sparked the biggest and most successful trading/drafting period the club has seen in a long while, perhaps in its history. So all round we came out a bit in front.

[Bleed Red Blood]

I was wondering this too. The commentators didn't say anything like that at all, or even suggest maybe we should have got a better price for him than a 3rd round pick.

[ROK Lobster]

In the end we lost last night because Hall was playing for the Bulldogs and not for the Swans. But, if Hall was playing for the Swans would we have been there at all?

I think that the Swans had a tremendous season, and a far better one than I was anticipating. How much, I wonder, did the Hall trade contribute to that, and how much did it hold us back? I will be interested to hear people's thoughts.