We seem to be able to win the 1st 3 qtrs, but by the last qtr we've run out of legs.
1st Qtrs won: 8
2nd Qtrs won: 7
3rd Qtrs won: 8
4th Qtrs won: 5
Games won 8.
2 of the games we lost the 1st qtr, we lost. Adelaide and Richmond
1 of the games we lost the 2nd qtr, we lost. Saints.
1 of the games we lost the 3nd qtr, we lost. Saints.
2 of the games we lost the 4th qtr, we lost. Adelaide and Richmond
Scott it is not running out of steam but not reacting to the opposition changing tactics. Our coaching staff and onfield leadership has been poor in responding to quick moves by the opposition. They also haven't pulled a few swifties ourselves like we could. Saturday night we could have put Drey on the ball for the last quarter as they had a player just as tall and a similar match. But we didn't. Some players did not play the game out. I thought Rhyce Shaw was good and he and Mal look good on the effective disposals but I don't know how they are rationalised. According to the stats Jetts had an effective disposal rate of 55.4% what crap! A few weeks ago the same applied to Benny and yet he was one of the major reasons we won. I don't get how they rate them. I know what they are supposed to mean but I get confused when a player has a brilliant game and then gets a poor disposal efficiency rating. Especially as the majority of the disposals hit their mark. The other thing is taps out of packs to set up goals as TDL did or Pykie last week, that was clever and will never get on a stats sheet. So what do stats really mean and who does them and do they really know much about the game? My brother used to do stats, he knew a bit but he said half the guys he worked with just did it for the money. I would like to see 'advantage to team' stats being taken, in other words all the little things like getting a ball out of a pack that results in a goal. I think Parker, TDL, Hannas, Bolts, Kizza & Joey all would do very well.
Dre would be horrible on the ball IMO, he is one of the worse contested ball players I've ever seen. Cannot win his own footy to save himself, looks scared of making contact with another player. Beautiful kick though...
Our team philosophy has changed a little.
I know for a fact we prided ourselves (several years ago) on being able to hang in tight with other teams then run over the top of them.
Now we seem to be aiming at overwhelming teams at the start and keeping the pressure on for as long as possible.
It would be great to have a team that could just demolish every other, but no such beast exists in the AFL.
Scott our fast spread did appear to have most of our team legless last qtr against the bombers.......but anyone behind on the score board can go for broke and push forward with numbers........the bombers had nothing to loose
overall i was very happy that we punished the bombers the first 3 qtrs and given Hannes was off the field and given the mix of less contested footy players on the field to win the hard ball in the last qtr when buggered we did very well i thought
in attack i believe you have to be able to play at least 2 styles of footy to compete and be top 4 unless of course you have a team full of superstars...........which we dont.........ie the fast spread and in close contested footy are obvious
also in defence man on man vs a loose defender is vital flexibility also.
but our slight variation of let the bombers get the ball first as it was tapped down and then tackle them to force turnovers was brilliant on sat night !
i know we worked on this a lot last year too........against teams such as freeo and WC with there dominant ruckmen ie let the opposition win the tap down...... but be on them like glue upon receiving the ball..........this works brilliantly when the opposition start spreading as soon as they receive the ball but then we cut off the first touch as they are vulnerable to us having numbers around the ball........we rushed for the tackles like clockwork
it is high risk footy because great players dont always get tackled....and or loose possession..........but it worked.......we capitalised on forcing turnovers and then spreading immediately !!!!!
luving it !
ps i didnt look at pykes stats but he appeared to tap it "straight down"........which appears to be by design and perfect for us to be the tackler rather then winning the footy first
Last edited by Auntie.Gerald; 11th June 2012 at 01:30 PM.
"be tough, only when it gets tough"
Yeah there was some discussion about our tactics on one of those footy shows. It was quite funny, when I was playing Connect 4 with a friend in Phuket at a bar, my friend said "never play defensively!!" which I found myself screaming at the TV in the fourth quarter. We did so well in the first 3 quarters being really aggressive and having a few extra men around the ball, but when ROK was swung back into defence to stem the flow, I think we lost the opportunity to push it back into the other end of the field. Maybe there was a reason for that but my goodness.. stress levels were major for that last quarter.
The game reminded me a bit of the Port final in 2003. We played out of our skins and then ran out of puff. I remember Barry Hall going into the ruck and just punching the ball over the boundary for about a minute and a half so the guyes could have a break. Yes it would have been better if they hadn't played with the early ferocity and settled on going into 3/4 time maybe 30 points up. But still would have lost Hanners and not been able to stop the Bombers' run in the last.
It's so good that we have a bye this week - a lot of very sore bodies out there I reckon. And I was watching it from a boat on the Yangtze - dodgy wifi and failing battery so I thought the computer would shut down with less than a minute on the clock. It was stress on stress on Saturday but that made the victory all the more sweet.
I'd be very curious to hear from someone who was at the game whether the Swans ran out of puff or, more disturbingly, became complacent and let the Bombers into the game? Ie was it a matter of simply not pacing themselves or do we lose concentration and then give other teams a chance?
I have seen him play there in the Two's MB and he was quite good, Jesse too!Originally Posted by Melbourne_Blood
I was there Saturday night, and the early Swans pressure and tactical match-ups translated to fast breaks and great goals. Lovely. The pressure also denied the bombers clean disposal and resulted in kicks from out wide or under snaps pressure. Watching live I thought the last quarter turnaround came down to a couple of things. The Bombers had nothing to lose and pride to gain so they ran it out with everything they had. Momentum and 9 goals resulted. Second, with a 8-ish goal lead I think most people thought it was over - certainly the Bombers fans around me did - they were leaving in numbers at the start of the last! Also, our boys probably did run out of puff a bit, but already had a (just big enough) lead. Finally, the big tactical difference was playing the loose man in defence (Pebbles) for the whole quarter to try and protect the lead. We changed what had worked for 3/4s, and gave them the numbers around the ball. At one stage the commentators said there were 10 men in defence! And you simply cannot protect a lead in AFL. We've all seen it where a team runs down a big lead. I remember watching the Swans kick 4 goals in time on to win against Essendon in 1992 (?). Derek Kickett got the winner. You have to attack and keep scoring in AFL like we did against the Dogs (although they lay down...). But a great win at the end of the day - be still my beating heart!
Thanks Mariachi. It's a bit scary that we let them back in then and that it was through what was more a tactical or coaching problem than a pacing one.
I'm inclined to agree there was a tactical error, but the loss of Hannebery did incalculable damage.
He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks