i think Draper was very physical with Hickey (ie jumping into him etc) so by the last qtr poor Big Tommy had no jump left. They cleaned us up in the middle in the last qtrOriginally Posted by O'Reilly Boy
i think Draper was very physical with Hickey (ie jumping into him etc) so by the last qtr poor Big Tommy had no jump left. They cleaned us up in the middle in the last qtr
In hindsight, agree with your comment on JMac, but we should expect the coaches to be aware that he was underdone. His form was down before the break, but I guess he now stays in and builds on his form. We are aware what he gives at his best.
Your other comment on our failure to close down space when the opposition is looking to rebound from defence makes sense and explains how other teams get a run on against us. Problem is who do we bring in to do this, if we don't like what Bell and Wicks have achieved in this role? Maybe Cunningham?
There are no easy beats in the. AFL . While it was highly disappointing the result could have been different but for a few dumb decisions and poor conversion. The decision of Florent to paddle the ball towards the centre instead of heading to the wing (third qtr) led to a direct goal. Gulden kicking to a contest in the 50 m when Reid was 10 further on on his own last quarter. Maybe he didn’t see him. The list goes on. I am hoping Robbie Fox does not cop the penalty. I thought he did some good things. I thought McInerney played well too and his tough running and sneaky kicking looked to open up opportunities.
I don't understand the obsession with Clarke. I've watched his extended highlights twice from his game. He got 10 touches and 1 tackle. One of his goals was solid, the other a gift. The other thing was that St Kilda were putrid. McInerney comes from Covid and immediately gets 14 touches. To say bringing in McInerney was a shocker seems a bit much
I think the main point from Clarke's performance was that he restricted the highly-touted Sinclair to just 17 touches. The goals were a bonus.
I think the main point from Clarke's performance was that he restricted the highly-touted Sinclair to just 17 touches. The goals were a bonus.
I kind of get that. But if so, then it should have been Campbell who went out not McInerney. Poor old Campbell looked lost, and Hind had 25 disposals. Speaking of Campbell, do the swans keep him in the side? He has an amazing left boot, but he seems to lack explosiveness. I am sure he will be shattered by his game on the weekend. I am sure he is going to be a gun, but somethings wrong, for him to have so little impact.
Not the result I wanted from my first game at the MCG, but we enjoyed our Melbourne weekend trip anyway. Saw the team at Sydney airport and wished a few of them well.
We sat next to a friendly Bombers family (originally from Wollongong). Their first words: "I think you'll have more to celebrate than us today." My response: "I wouldn't be so sure, we have a tendency to drop these kinds of games!" I hate being right sometimes.
After a good Swans Q1 and a good Bombers Q2, felt like it all came down to Q3. 8 behinds later, starting to get that feeling. By Q4 it felt like the Swans were on the back foot and mostly just defending - Blakey dropped back to help out, so none of his customary running.
In the end it just felt like the Bombers made the most of every chance they had, and the Swans failed to follow suit with almost all of their chances. The inconsistency and unpredictability is certainly frustrating, but the Bombers had a good day and looked better than their ladder position.
Swans highlights: Warner. The McCartins toiling away as ever. Not too much else.
The roar of a Melbourne crowd is certainly something else, and we enjoyed the "footy army" walk back over the bridge to the city. Beautiful day on Sunday too, a good day not to be in Sydney.
Overall then: footy - disappointing, Melbourne visit - very enjoyable. Wouldn't surprise me if the Swans bounce back and beat the Dogs this week.
Perhaps this is a case in point of statistics getting in the way of seeing the role. I missed having a good, game-sacrificing defensive forward closing off exit channels, and, of course don't see McInerney as a like for like in for Clarke. But I guess that that's the problem: I am firmly against the 'pick the best 22 players' camp, and see things in terms of 'select a team that is able to execute a plan by committing to their role'. McInerney in for Clarke messes with structure.
That defensive forward role is not a tagging role, and I don't think that Clarke was putting that tight a tag on Sinclair, but would have to look at the game again to see what he was doing.
poor Campbell is running on and off the ground in a variety of positions and up and down from the ressies. I suspect he has little confidence and is not sure what he is meant to be doing when he is out on the ground
Not once have i said to trade Papley do you have me mistaken with somebody else?
Would be a different story if he actually wanted out again.
I think I did H2F....it was Merlo555 I should have aimed my comment at.Not once have i said to trade Papley do you have me mistaken with somebody else
Would be a different story if he actually wanted out again.
With Campbell, I think the coaches want him in the team (fair enough, I think he will be a gun), but are unsure where to put him. Hence he plays all over the park and appears to not know what to do.
He looked decent earlier in the year as a small defender.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks