Autopsy Why you cant trust this team yet 23 point loss to Port.

[bedford]

He looks promising for sure, I just wouldn't be throwing him in yet.

Better than Wicks atm

 

[alex4445]

That loss was entirely down to workrate. It just wasn't consistently up to standard throughout the game and port really took it to us.

It isn't a new issue, pretty much every game has seen our midfield group go to sleep for atleast a quarter and allow unpressured inside 50's after unpressured inside 50's.

You don't concede the huge single quarter goal totals that we have this year if you are putting in the effort because what we have seen is an ability to clearly outplay our opposition and come back from pretty large deficits when the workrate is there.

 

[caesar88]

Really? I don't know have no idea why you think this...

Against the Demons 12 players had 1 tackle or less for the whole game! Paddy had 2 for the whole game...

Against the Tigers 8 players had 1 tackle or less for the whole game.

Against the Hawks 16 players had 1 tackle or less for the whole game.

Nine Swans without a tackle to half-time says nothing much at all in context of the season... No idea why you're fixated on it.

Like I said yesterday, look at who the players were who hadn't laid a tackle.

Three ground level pressure players in Wicks, Papley and Gulden... a ruckman who wasn't even winning in hitouts...

They're the players who should be applying the most pressure and yet they were applying the least.

We also lost the disposal count by 78... 78!

So we were hardly touching the ball compared to Port players, and we were hardly touching the Port players. How is that any sort of challenge for an opposition?

 

[Kirkswan]

I write this:

Imo, we are not giving Port enough credit. They played a blinder... regardless of who was in or out for them, they played a beauty!

Their pressure and work rate was elite, and we didn't match them... Their pressure was so good that we couldn't arrest their momentum, something we have been pretty good at this year. So then we're under pressure and being out worked, which then led to poor decision making, poor kicking and poor hand balling. The boys knew going in it would be a high pressure game, and probably thought they were prepared for it. They were wrong. Since round 5 Port have held teams to: 33, 42, 69, 46, 50, and 59 with Tigers beat them by a couple of goals, and Cats by 6 goals.

We didn't play well, because they didn't let us play well... and when we couldn't turn it round, instead of getting down to the hard work of pressure and tackling, we panicked. It's a young team, this stuff happens randomly. This is pretty much the same team that beat the Tigers and Demons, so lets not give up on them just yet...

Having said that, I'm getting pretty tired of the bloody stupid, unnecessary, goal giving away frees! That's not down to umpires, it just sheer bloody stupidity!!!

You reply with this:

Sorry KS but nine Swans without a tackle to half-time says it all... very easy to look amazing when the opposition's literally letting you look amazing.

I respond to this with:

Really? I don't know have no idea why you think this...

Against the Demons 12 players had 1 tackle or less for the whole game! Paddy had 2 for the whole game...

Against the Tigers 8 players had 1 tackle or less for the whole game.

Against the Hawks 16 players had 1 tackle or less for the whole game.

Nine Swans without a tackle to half-time says nothing much at all in context of the season... No idea why you're fixated on it.

You then reply with this:

Like I said yesterday, look at who the players were who hadn't laid a tackle.

Three ground level pressure players in Wicks, Papley and Gulden... a ruckman who wasn't even winning in hitouts...

They're the players who should be applying the most pressure and yet they were applying the least.

We also lost the disposal count by 78... 78!

So we were hardly touching the ball compared to Port players, and we were hardly touching the Port players. How is that any sort of challenge for an opposition?

Lost me...

You don't want to give Port any credit for playing a blinder, that's fine... but I'll continue to believe it if you don't mind.

 

[ShireSwan]

If you think Florent wouldn't dominate at reserves level, and Clarke wouldn't put in mediocre performances at senior level, I'm not sure you've been paying attention for the last few years. That and they're playing 2 different roles, so there's that.

Fox I'm fine with coming in, same with Ronke (felt he was harshly dropped for Wicks in the first place a few weeks back). Hall-Kahan though has been around for 2 seconds and is still a bit raw, probably wouldn't throw him in straight away.

It's all fine rewarding reserves performances, but there's a big difference in level as I said, you simply can't compare the two and say, hey this player was good in the 2s, he'll be better than this player who had a poor game in seniors. It's ok to make some statements, but need to remember the history of some of these players (like Clarke), who they'd actually be replacing etc.

Agreed on all your player calls and general comments there except...
Florent has very limited football nous. He has a half decent bit of acceleration and obviously is a dedicated trainer an good guy - that's it. I mean his dedication is a good trait for sure, but...we need dedicated trainers that are also good at football.
I don't know for how long we have to keep persisting with him thinking it'll be different. But I'm sure we will. He owes us the second game of his two great games per year, so maybe it'll be next week...
I don't think Clarke will set the world on fire, but when he has had a run I've liked how our midfield has operated as a group a bit more.More fluid, he may compliment the likes of Warner, McInerney and Rowbottom more IMHO. I know I''m in the minority. I also know he'd get dropped for one error, where as Florent and a few other chosen onens play on through mulitple ones just as bad, or worse.

Anyway I just think it a sound principle to run a club with - reward good form.

Florents season/career stats: average, below-average, average, below-aveage, average, average. Not much else to say really.

 

[caesar88]

I write this:

You reply with this:

I respond to this with:

You then reply with this:

Lost me...

You don't want to give Port any credit for playing a blinder, that's fine... but I'll continue to believe it if you don't mind.

How did I lose you? My point was that it's hard to give credit to a team for playing a blinder when the opposition lets them.

I don't think that's such an unreasonable opinion, especially given you have liked other comments all but echoing that we didn't work hard.

 

[Punts]

Agreed on all your player calls and general comments there except...
Florent has very limited football nous. He has a half decent bit of acceleration and obviously is a dedicated trainer an good guy - that's it. I mean his dedication is a good trait for sure, but...we need dedicated trainers that are also good at football.
I don't know for how long we have to keep persisting with him thinking it'll be different. But I'm sure we will. He owes us the second game of his two great games per year, so maybe it'll be next week...
I don't think Clarke will set the world on fire, but when he has had a run I've liked how our midfield has operated as a group a bit more.More fluid, he may compliment the likes of Warner, McInerney and Rowbottom more IMHO. I know I''m in the minority. I also know he'd get dropped for one error, where as Florent and a few other chosen onens play on through mulitple ones just as bad, or worse.

Anyway I just think it a sound principle to run a club with - reward good form.

Florents season/career stats: average, below-average, average, below-aveage, average, average. Not much else to say really.


View attachment 1427819

Been a massive disappointment IMO across his career.

Pick 13 or something apart of the Mitchell trade

 

[Kirkswan]

How did I lose you? My point was that it's hard to give credit to a team for playing a blinder when the opposition lets them.

I don't think that's such an unreasonable opinion, especially given you have liked other comments all but echoing that we didn't work hard.

I don't have a problem with we didn't work hard enough, we didn't. But (imo) its equally true is that Port didn't let us...

My problem is that you responded specifically to my post, saying sorry, but 9 players hadn't laid a single tackle to half time! The inference being it wasn't Port playing well, it was that 9 of our players hadn't laid a tack by half time. But that was just some random stat the commentators referenced in an effort to sound like they knew what they were talking about. I provided you with evidence to show it wasn't relevant to our style of play... plenty of players have low to zero tackle counts regardless of how well we are playing.

Then, you went off on a different tact, instead of being the 9 players with no tackles at half time, it became about 3 or 4 players who should (iyo) have been applying the most pressure and ruckman who wasn't winning hitouts, and losing the disposal count.

It's not an unreasonable opinion, and I have no problem if it's your opinion. It just got nothing to do with what I responded to!

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

I don’t have an issue with Ladhams but it is worth noting that the ‘desperation’ in our ruck drafting is a direct result of the failure to utilise the ruck stocks we had over almost a decade.

As well as bringing in Buddy. If we didn’t, we would have had Tippet and Mumford as a pretty compelling ruck combo for several years (I was a big fan of big Mummy). Tippet also may have been less injury prone by playing mostly forward and Reid would have had a chance to play as a genuine second forward.

I don’t think the issue was bringing in Bud. It was bringing in Bud the year after bringing in Tippet. The biggest sliding doors for our club over the past decade was not understanding how willing Bud was to come to Sydney in 2014 and so we moved on Tippet in 2013 (at which point Bud asked his manager what we were doing, because he thought he was coming).

I can’t be too judgemental. While at the time I thought it was a mistake and think so too now as well, there were a few years where I thought it may have been worth the sacrifice. It was a very big call. It paid off in spades off the field and with a bit more luck could have paid off on the field - but I think the decision was driven mainly by off field considerations (competing with GWS for marketing and presence) and on that basis I think there is room for some judgement.

Not a popular opinion I know.

 

[Kirkswan]

As well as bringing in Buddy. If we didn’t, we would have had Tippet and Mumford as a pretty compelling ruck combo for several years (I was a big fan of big Mummy). Tippet also may have been less injury prone by playing mostly forward and Reid would have had a chance to play as a genuine second forward.

I don’t think the issue was bringing in Bud. It was bringing in Bud the year after bringing in Tippet. The biggest sliding doors for our club over the past decade was not understanding how willing Bud was to come to Sydney in 2014 and so we moved on Tippet in 2013 (at which point Bud asked his manager what we were doing, because he thought he was coming).

I can’t be too judgemental. While at the time I thought it was a mistake and think so too now as well, there were a few years where I thought it may have been worth the sacrifice. It was a very big call. It paid off in spades off the field and with a bit more luck could have paid off on the field - but I think the decision was driven mainly by off field considerations (competing with GWS for marketing and presence) and on that basis I think there is room for some judgement.

Not a popular opinion I know.

Nicely put... I don't necessarily agree with all your thinking, but it was definitely a sliding doors moment.

I just don't know how you don't take on a generational player if you have the opportunity.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

Had the chance to sleep on this and also improvement in mood after my son's team won by a hundred. So here's my sober assessment.

2022 is proving to be the year of pressure. Teams that drop their pressure, lose. Melbourne is in a slump because of their pressure. Lions lost to Hawthorn because of pressure. Even WC manage to win a game because of pressure. Pressure creates opportunities and also rushes the opposition such that they can't execute their skills. Pressure leads to momentum, so important in footy. We were down on our pressure pure and simple. At the contest, tackling, forward and back. Everywhere.

Fortunately pressure is scalable and we have shown we can bring it. Hopefully yesterday was just a blip and we bounce back. However, it is clear that several players need a stint in the VFL. Ladhams had an absolute shocks. Worst game by a swans player this year. Lloyd just keeps giving away a goal or two every match. We can't afford his lapses of concentration. Florent seems to be down on confidence. Perhaps a spell in the VFL dominating would do him some good. And finally Wicks. Not AFL standard, pure and simple. It's time to give someone else a go.

Our VFL boys should be primed for a big game because I think there should be opportunities for those who play well.

This is correct. What sh**ts me about what AFL has done to rules is that all it comes down to now is pressure - which means it is it is less about skill, teamwork or strategy.

I much preferred the slower slogs where teams built up momentum and territory, and passed the ball with precision to get goals. It is partly coaches taking this away, but it is also because the AFL no longer rewards first to the ball trying to break through, so the game has become drop-a-ball ping pong.

The result is 21 players who all look the same and one beanpole. Okay, that’s a bit black and white. But the role of position specialists is becoming rarer, and I think that is a shame.

 

[melbournehammer]

Nicely put... I don't necessarily agree with all your thinking, but it was definitely a sliding doors moment.

I just don't know how you don't take on a generational player if you have the opportunity.

The answer to that is what the consequences are. If you look through my posting history I have always been ambivalent about that decision for thr exact same reason that RBBS articulates. There was a further reason which we couldnt have anticipated which was the afl house reaction and the loss of COLA which was a direct result of that recruitment.

We hamstrung ourselves by taking on that generational player as it froze our salaries and our ability to be more adventurous in addressing needs.

Having said that I expected buddy to be more of a liability by now. Hes still capable of drawing the best defender. Its just that he donest beat them anywhere near as much. He really should be kicked to sparingly these days and thats where the team and the coaches bare great responsibility.

He remains a much more potent threat than i thought possible - i actually thought he would hsve lost so much more athleticism than what he has and since it was his athleticism which made him the generational player i doubted the value in the last years if his contract. I think hes actually been really good value truth be told. But in a salary capped league having 1 player eat the better part of 10% of the cap has always left us exposed.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

Imo, we are not giving Port enough credit. They played a blinder... regardless of who was in or out for them, they played a beauty!

Their pressure and work rate was elite, and we didn't match them... Their pressure was so good that we couldn't arrest their momentum, something we have been pretty good at this year. So then we're under pressure and being out worked, which then led to poor decision making, poor kicking and poor hand balling. The boys knew going in it would be a high pressure game, and probably thought they were prepared for it. They were wrong. Since round 5 Port have held teams to: 33, 42, 69, 46, 50, and 59 with Tigers beat them by a couple of goals, and Cats by 6 goals.

We didn't play well, because they didn't let us play well... and when we couldn't turn it round, instead of getting down to the hard work of pressure and tackling, we panicked. It's a young team, this stuff happens randomly. This is pretty much the same team that beat the Tigers and Demons, so lets not give up on them just yet...

Having said that, I'm getting pretty tired of the bloody stupid, unnecessary, goal giving away frees! That's not down to umpires, it just sheer bloody stupidity!!!

Very true, I thought we played with a tonne of intensity in the last quarter and still Port were able to match us, with two men down for that matter. It was a great win for them.

 

[melbournehammer]

This is correct. What sh**ts me about what AFL has done to rules is that all it comes down to now is pressure - which means it is it is less about skill, teamwork or strategy.

I much preferred the slower slogs where teams built up momentum and territory, and passed the ball with precision to get goals. It is partly coaches taking this away, but it is also because the AFL no longer rewards first to the ball trying to break through, so the game has become drop-a-ball ping pong.

The result is 21 players who all look the same and one beanpole. Okay, that’s a bit black and white. But the role of position specialists is becoming rarer, and I think that is a shame.

the consequence of having everyone one kick from the play means that ball movement is less enjoyable as players take a mark on centre wing and ther eis literally nothing ahead of them so everyone rolls back into the same space and you repeat the play.

 

[Heeney2Franklin]

Whats pretty sad and funny is that Dawson is probably leading his club B&F with Hewett not to far behind at Carlton.

 

[caesar88]

This is correct. What sh**ts me about what AFL has done to rules is that all it comes down to now is pressure - which means it is it is less about skill, teamwork or strategy.

I much preferred the slower slogs where teams built up momentum and territory, and passed the ball with precision to get goals. It is partly coaches taking this away, but it is also because the AFL no longer rewards first to the ball trying to break through, so the game has become drop-a-ball ping pong.

The result is 21 players who all look the same and one beanpole. Okay, that’s a bit black and white. But the role of position specialists is becoming rarer, and I think that is a shame.

I agree with this, but it is why players with composure are so important. Composure is pressure-proof. Single most important quality a player can have now days.

And skill is often a byproduct of that, as if you're composed and not rushing your disposal, chances are you'll execute the disposal well.

 

[caesar88]

Whats pretty sad and funny is that Dawson is probably leading his club B&F with Hewett not to far behind at Carlton.

I don't quite understand the "we'd be soOoOo much better with Dawson and Hewett" complaints.

Dawson, as gifted as he is, is not a natural leader and had his own self-confessed work rate issues. Would he be a point of difference for us, or would he be just another talented Swan slacking off every few weeks?

Hewett, as wonderful a player as he is, was not going to be used as a ball-winner in this team. Would he be a point of difference for us, or would he be just another defensive mid getting 15-20 touches?

I rate both, and I'm not sure I'll ever get over our use of Hewett, but it's naive to believe they'd make much of a difference to what's unfolded this year.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

The answer to that is what the consequences are. If you look through my posting history I have always been ambivalent about that decision for thr exact same reason that RBBS articulates. There was a further reason which we couldnt have anticipated which was the afl house reaction and the loss of COLA which was a direct result of that recruitment.

We hamstrung ourselves by taking on that generational player as it froze our salaries and our ability to be more adventurous in addressing needs.

Having said that I expected buddy to be more of a liability by now. Hes still capable of drawing the best defender. Its just that he donest beat them anywhere near as much. He really should be kicked to sparingly these days and thats where the team and the coaches bare great responsibility.

He remains a much more potent threat than i thought possible - i actually thought he would hsve lost so much more athleticism than what he has and since it was his athleticism which made him the generational player i doubted the value in the last years if his contract. I think hes actually been really good value truth be told. But in a salary capped league having 1 player eat the better part of 10% of the cap has always left us exposed.

Very good point.

While I think on balance it was a mistake to bring Buddy in the way we did, he has far exceeded my expectations - particularly at this point in his career.

For a forward of his age who does not excel at marking, he is doing ridiculously well. He is an absolute competitor and deserves more premierships.

If we were primed to contend next year, I would have him go around once more just in case the stars aligned, but I think this is not the case. He would only slow McDonald’s development, who is already looking like he is ready to get off the chain.

 

[Superstar swan]

We have a systematic problem with our mids. If and when we get the ball first at a centre bounce (probably most contests to be fair) there is no ball movement. It is literally get the ball to the player who can slam it on the boot fastest and kick a rain maker forward. We don't have the forwards to capitalise on those high ball's.

I know with the 666 rule the aim is to get the ball into the forward line as quickly as possible but there needs to be a balance between fast ball movement and going into 50 with some sort of a direction .

Opposition mids routinely win the ball and with a series of quick hands, get the ball into the hands of a player moving towards the 50 with the game in front of them. They then can assess the forward options and make the right choice. That is a step up issue and how the players are trained rather than personnel issue.

Right now defenders know that ball is coming in shallow and high 90% of the time and it makes it very easy to defend. We will make our lives alot easier if we had some ball movement at the stoppage. Unfortunately thats not something that can rectifoed and engrained into plagers i a matter of weeks.

 

[Superstar swan]

I don't quite understand the "we'd be soOoOo much better with Dawson and Hewett" complaints.

Dawson, as gifted as he is, is not a natural leader and had his own self-confessed work rate issues. Would he be a point of difference for us, or would he be just another talented Swan slacking off every few weeks?

Hewett, as wonderful a player as he is, was not going to be used as a ball-winner in this team. Would he be a point of difference for us, or would he be just another defensive mid getting 15-20 touches?

I rate both, and I'm not sure I'll ever get over our use of Hewett, but it's naive to believe they'd make much of a difference to what's unfolded this year.

The thing is we had both hewett and Dawson last year and we are in the same boat. Our issues are not personnel based it's purely attitude and to a slightly lesser extent the the way the players are instructed to say.

It's like we have two different game plans out there, if we get the ball in play it is try use hands and foot skills to cut up the ground. And then at Stoppages it is to slam the ball on the boot as hard as you possibly can

 

[caesar88]

The thing is we had both hewett and Dawson last year and we are in the same boat. Our issues are not personnel based it's purely attitude and to a slightly lesser extent the the way the players are instructed to say.

It's like we have two different game plans out there, if we get the ball in play it is try use hands and foot skills to cut up the ground. And then at Stoppages it is to slam the ball on the boot as hard as you possibly can

I've been saying all year (and last) that our hand skills aren't up to it, so ground balls and sharked taps are fumbled, we're then put under pressure, so then grubber kicks or hack kicks are our only options. But again, it's hard to judge because when the midfield has clicked, it has really clicked.

However I'd say our issue overall is that we just don't have many players playing that well.

Last year I counted 23 players who either improved, or maintained a high level of play from their previous year.

This year, just over halfway through the season, I've counted only 8: Warner, Heeney, McDonald, Mills, Reid, Blakey, Ronke and Tom McCartin.

It's just not enough considering we were on the fringes of top four hoping to take that next step. You can't have so many players just dropping off their level of performance from last year or failing to elevate themselves when they need to. Been a frustrating year.

 

[mtooler]

Agreed on all your player calls and general comments there except...
Florent has very limited football nous. He has a half decent bit of acceleration and obviously is a dedicated trainer an good guy - that's it. I mean his dedication is a good trait for sure, but...we need dedicated trainers that are also good at football.
I don't know for how long we have to keep persisting with him thinking it'll be different. But I'm sure we will. He owes us the second game of his two great games per year, so maybe it'll be next week...
I don't think Clarke will set the world on fire, but when he has had a run I've liked how our midfield has operated as a group a bit more.More fluid, he may compliment the likes of Warner, McInerney and Rowbottom more IMHO. I know I''m in the minority. I also know he'd get dropped for one error, where as Florent and a few other chosen onens play on through mulitple ones just as bad, or worse.

Anyway I just think it a sound principle to run a club with - reward good form.

Florents season/career stats: average, below-average, average, below-aveage, average, average. Not much else to say really.


View attachment 1427819

I'm OK with him as the next Nick Smith Defender.

 

[Kirkswan]

The answer to that is what the consequences are. If you look through my posting history I have always been ambivalent about that decision for thr exact same reason that RBBS articulates. There was a further reason which we couldnt have anticipated which was the afl house reaction and the loss of COLA which was a direct result of that recruitment.

We hamstrung ourselves by taking on that generational player as it froze our salaries and our ability to be more adventurous in addressing needs.

Having said that I expected buddy to be more of a liability by now. Hes still capable of drawing the best defender. Its just that he donest beat them anywhere near as much. He really should be kicked to sparingly these days and thats where the team and the coaches bare great responsibility.

He remains a much more potent threat than i thought possible - i actually thought he would hsve lost so much more athleticism than what he has and since it was his athleticism which made him the generational player i doubted the value in the last years if his contract. I think hes actually been really good value truth be told. But in a salary capped league having 1 player eat the better part of 10% of the cap has always left us exposed.

We were not to know the consequences of that trade at the time of making it. We couldn't have known how the AFL would behave...

In addition, Sydney is not Melbourne... the AFL does not make the back page, if its covered at all, its 10 pages back in a small side column. Buddy gave us some much needed visibility. Between NRL, cricket, the A League, the push for the Giants and various other sporting events, Sydney needed a lift. Buddy helped give us that.

I too, was not keen when it was announced, and certainly with the Melbourne media, it has become exactly what I thought it would... They tell you they talk about Sydney as much as anyone else, but in reality, they talk about Buddy. If we're going well, it's because he's a superstar; if we're going poorly, it's because we're too Buddy-centric.

I'm aware of the impact of his salary, and agree he has been extremely good value, and continues to be so... for the club, the fans and the players.

To be able to go and watch him play on fortnightly basis for 7 of the last 9 years has been a privilege, an education and a joy! To me it has been worth every penny! I can only imagine how helpful it must have been to all of our forwards...

 

[The King!]

not sure why people fret over buddys deal

we signed reid to 5 year deal, longer before iirc, tippett was here for 6, blakey got an extension without playing, heeney is on what now 6 and in the top 10 highest in the comp, lloyd 4 years, parker 5

hayward is on a longish deal isnt he

we throw deals and cash at players , its not just buddy

Heeney has never been all australian, never won a best and fairest, why is he a top 10 paid player , and hes a bloody local


not picking on individual players, just the buddy deal cops it, hes been a better contract than most

 

[RubbaDuck]

People saying Buddy was the problem did not watch the same game I was watching yesterday. We got smashed at the contest. And when we did get the ball, it was messy and rushed. God himself could've been in the forward line and made no difference.

Buddy is as close to God as anyone can be. He will soon overtake him for most goals kicked.