How the f## can you say the Cameron decision went our way? The umpire shouted out not 15 meters well before anyone marked it. What if a Swans player marked it? It would have been ignored.Originally Posted by Bangalore Swans
How the f## can you say the Cameron decision went our way? The umpire shouted out not 15 meters well before anyone marked it. What if a Swans player marked it? It would have been ignored.
Wow! That is a great point crackedactor! Amidst all the conversation about whether the umpires had robbed Geelong of a match-winning shot at goal, it could just as easily have been us getting robbed of a match-SAVING mark!
Valid questions. I reckon Buddy will get better the more he plays. He cannot get better at a lower level. I thought Gulden has the offensive side to his game (classy inside fifty kicks) and class that Wicks doesn’t, but having too many marking targets is also not a good balance - Heeney Hayward, Reid, Buddy McLean. We need the tacklers too. But most teams who are in the top tier have intercept markers that we need to negate.
I know we want Braeden to play back but is he better suited to our game style in the front half with his speed and good kick for goal.
I think only 3, maximum 4, play in the same team.
Agree there could be a role for Braeden in the front half - but would we make that switch mid-season when we are not compelled to do so and we clearly decided in the pre-season that we would try him out down back? Maybe. I'm not sure. It's a pity the reserves missed a practice match this round.
All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated, and well supported in logic and argument than others. -Douglas Adams, author (11 Mar 1952-2001)
I understand the rationale behind playing Sinclair on Saturday night and as has been pointed out, was successful to a degree. However, he didn't add much in the ruck whilst giving the chop out to Hick, nor did he add much in attack. His hands are not sticky, both on the marking and at ground level.
Moving forward, I feel he can't be picked ahead of Logan. I understand the arguments to wrap Logan up in cotton wool but I feel he stands to develop more playing in the ones with Buddy and Papley by his side. He is more mobile than Sinclair and his ground work is much better. We lose out on having a second ruck but Reid,McLean or even Blakey can do this. It would've been great for his development to give him the job of nullifying Lever and I actually think his attributes would suggest he could've done it as well as Cal. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Naismith is not the answer. He only plays if Hick is out.
Re Hayward, he plays when Heeney is out. When fit, Isaac is a vastly superior medium forward, who can push into the midfield. Hayward is proving to be too inconsistent. There really is only room for one medium forward, especially if we persist with 3 talls.
Agree about Heeney and Hayward. Although he is a Longmire favourite, there isn't room for both of them. He also has shown too many times that he lacks composure. His kick to two Melbourne players in the 3rd quarter was a shocker. Cost us an almost certain goal. After a Melbourne turnover, he was under zero pressure and still buggered it up. This sort of thing happens too much.
Our best forward set up: Buddy, Reid, Heeney, Papley, Gulden and Wicks or Logan. Gulden needs to get a bit more seasoned but clearly has the talent and work ethic. I guess We'll have to decide whether two talls plus Heeney is enough of an aerial threat or whether we want Logan as well. Maybe Buddy, Logan and Wicks can share the two positions between them, with Buddy resting sometimes and match ups sometimes indicating a taller or shorter forward line.
Incidentally, can anyone explain to me what is the issue with naming teams on Thursday night given that clubs can change the line up an hour before the bounce without giving any particular reason (as with Ratugolea being substituted for Stanley on Friday night)?
All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated, and well supported in logic and argument than others. -Douglas Adams, author (11 Mar 1952-2001)
our big problem against dees,was lack of height in the backline, promote goold finally.
forgotten 1996
2005 a much sweeter memory,2012 even better
The look of absolute bewilderment by the two swans clear on their own on the forward 50 line was gold
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Totally agree with this. Yes, Hayward is capable of brilliance, but both the turnover mentioned, and his missed set shot for goal from about 25m out, straight in front, were symptomatic of his lack of composure. He also turned it over against Geelong, denying Sinclair a shot for goal, despite team-mates telling him to stop. Fortunately on that occasion we got the ball back immediately. These brain-fades are pretty damaging in tight games.
I don’t think he’s quite the Coach’s pet he was a couple of years ago.
He is still only 22 so still hold some hope for Hayward . He had some great moments but undoes that with some pretty basic skill errors . Hopefully it clicks because there is some serious talent there
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also turned it over inside defensive 50. Can't remember if it costs us. When he has the ball and has time to think, I have a strong urge to look away.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks