Analysis 2019 List, Game Plan and Best 22?

[Number37]

When we win what? Enough games to scrape over the line a handful of times and boost our finals record without ever looking remotely close to the best team in it? Because that's what not what I'm striving for personally as a supporter of this club, but each to their own

That's a pretty sad response. But predictable.
Predictable because it saves you from trying to explain why the game plan/structure/coach is only shit when we lose.


The best team doesn't always win. The best structure doesn't always win. The best game plan doesn't always win.
There is no magic formula. There is no right way.
There isn't a better game plan. There isn't better structures.

I support my club win, lose or draw.

 

[caesar88]

That's a pretty sad response. But predictable.
Predictable because it saves you from trying to explain why the game plan/structure/coach is only shit when we lose.


The best team doesn't always win. The best structure doesn't always win. The best game plan doesn't always win.
There is no magic formula. There is no right way.
There isn't a better game plan. There isn't better structures.

I support my club win, lose or draw.

I saved myself from trying to explain because I didn't want to use a whole lot of words and not really say much, as you just did.

FWIW I agree that the best team, structure and game plan doesn't always win. But it's almost always one of the best. We weren't even close to being in that vicinity.

I know you support your club win, lose or draw, but what do you want from them? Because I want them to be the best as I'm sure any supporter would. As it stands, we did not finish in the top four, and we were bundled out of an elimination final with ease, the second year in a row we've been shown up big time in a final. That is not "the best." Being the fifth-best or sixth-best does not equal the best. So forgive me for seeing there is clear room for improvement in the way we are playing.

 

[Number37]

I saved myself from trying to explain because I didn't want to use a whole lot of words and not really say much, as you just did.

FWIW I agree that the best team, structure and game plan doesn't always win. But it's almost always one of the best. We weren't even close to being in that vicinity.

I know you support your club win, lose or draw, but what do you want from them? Because I want them to be the best as I'm sure any supporter would. As it stands, we did not finish in the top four, and we were bundled out of an elimination final with ease, the second year in a row we've been shown up big time in a final. That is not "the best." Being the fifth-best or sixth-best does not equal the best. So forgive me for seeing there is clear room for improvement in the way we are playing.

Now you're just creating strawmen.

I didn't say there wasn't room for improvement, or that sometimes we play ugly or that we lost our last 2 finals badly.
We could do a Port and get all these wonderful players that make our list super dooper filling all those holes in structure and game plan...then fail to make finals.
We could do a Hawks and recruit every free agent for nothing...then lose Mitchell to a training accident.
We could do an Adelaide and play miles better than anyone all year only to choke in the Grand Final.

One of the beauties of sport is that every season is new. We could finish anywhere from premiers to last. No game is a certainty, win or lose.
F it would be boring if it was.

 

[caesar88]

Now you're just creating strawmen.

I didn't say there wasn't room for improvement, or that sometimes we play ugly or that we lost our last 2 finals badly.
We could do a Port and get all these wonderful players that make our list super dooper filling all those holes in structure and game plan...then fail to make finals.
We could do a Hawks and recruit every free agent for nothing...then lose Mitchell to a training accident.
We could do an Adelaide and play miles better than anyone all year only to choke in the Grand Final.

One of the beauties of sport is that every season is new. We could finish anywhere from premiers to last. No game is a certainty, win or lose.
F it would be boring if it was.

Or we could switch things up with how we play.

You seem to think I'm proposing the most insane, radical idea in football history. What exactly is your problem with my problem with the way we play?

 

[RUNVS]

Or we could switch things up with how we play.

You seem to think I'm proposing the most insane, radical idea in football history. What exactly is your problem with my problem with the way we play?

Agreed. Many of us just want a game plan that is more up to date, that focuses more on having the ball and moving it forward rather than absorbing pressure. I don't think it is too radical an idea.

 

[Number37]

Or we could switch things up with how we play.

You seem to think I'm proposing the most insane, radical idea in football history. What exactly is your problem with my problem with the way we play?

I am interested in how our game plan/structure/coach is only shit when we lose.
Do we use a different game plan when we lose?
At what point in the game do we change from the winning game plan to the losing game plan?
Who makes that decision?

 

[caesar88]

I am interested in how our game plan/structure/coach is only shit when we lose.
Do we use a different game plan when we lose?
At what point in the game do we change from the winning game plan to the losing game plan?
Who makes that decision?

I never said it's shit. It's just not good enough, and it's not advantageous of the players at our disposal. So, it's good enough to win a handful of games, but not good enough to stop us from losing a handful of games. You see my point? You can go back throughout the thread and see where I have said numerous times that Horse's preferred style of play is not bad, or wrong. It's just not right for this group. I could see Horse going to a team like North or Fremantle, someone with big-bodies and work-horse type players, and I think he'd be genuinely good enough to take them close to a flag.

But we don't have that kind of a list profile, and I think he's taking what worked so well for us between 2012-2016, and trying it on this current group, to very mixed effects. It works sometimes, when the seasoned, battle-hardened players like Kennedy, Parker, Sir Dane, Smith etc are in close to their best form and can get us looking similar(ish) to the former glory days of a few years ago. Then sometimes it doesn't work, when those guys aren't really firing and it's up to the younger types who aren't really suited to a cautious, stoppage-based game to suddenly carry us across the line.

This wouldn't be so bad, only the way we're building the list seems to be catering towards a more athletic, dynamic team, with less of those old battle-hardened players with each year that passes, and so at some point Horse is going to have to dive into the unknown a little, loosen the reins and let go of his tried and true method a little. Not entirely, just let go of it enough to get the best out of the new players not suited to it.

You asked.

 

[RUNVS]

I am interested in how our game plan/structure/coach is only shit when we lose.
Do we use a different game plan when we lose?
At what point in the game do we change from the winning game plan to the losing game plan?
Who makes that decision?

I think you are being deliberately dumb now. Are you trying to argue that game plans essentially do not matter, and that other clubs do not have rather different game plans to Longmire's? I can show you the stats that say otherwise.

 

[Number37]

I think you are being deliberately dumb now. Are you trying to argue that game plans essentially do not matter, and that other clubs do not have rather different game plans to Longmire's? I can show you the stats that say otherwise.

Longmire has 2 game plans.

One he uses when we win.
The other he uses when we lose.

I am just curious how Longmire is so damn good at getting the right game plan for the right game, every time without fail.

 

[Number37]

I never said it's shit. It's just not good enough, and it's not advantageous of the players at our disposal. So, it's good enough to win a handful of games, but not good enough to stop us from losing a handful of games. You see my point? You can go back throughout the thread and see where I have said numerous times that Horse's preferred style of play is not bad, or wrong. It's just not right for this group. I could see Horse going to a team like North or Fremantle, someone with big-bodies and work-horse type players, and I think he'd be genuinely good enough to take them close to a flag.

But we don't have that kind of a list profile, and I think he's taking what worked so well for us between 2012-2016, and trying it on this current group, to very mixed effects. It works sometimes, when the seasoned, battle-hardened players like Kennedy, Parker, Sir Dane, Smith etc are in close to their best form and can get us looking similar(ish) to the former glory days of a few years ago. Then sometimes it doesn't work, when those guys aren't really firing and it's up to the younger types who aren't really suited to a cautious, stoppage-based game to suddenly carry us across the line.

This wouldn't be so bad, only the way we're building the list seems to be catering towards a more athletic, dynamic team, with less of those old battle-hardened players with each year that passes, and so at some point Horse is going to have to dive into the unknown a little, loosen the reins and let go of his tried and true method a little. Not entirely, just let go of it enough to get the best out of the new players not suited to it.

You asked.

BUT it was good enough to beat all the other top 8 teams, for the last 2 years...even though we lost badly in finals.

 

[The King!]

I think you are being deliberately dumb now. Are you trying to argue that game plans essentially do not matter, and that other clubs do not have rather different game plans to Longmire's? I can show you the stats that say otherwise.

Look there’s a wall outside, bang your head against it

Because when we win if you point out limitations with the gameplan you get the well we won quit whinging

If we lose it’s like well where were you when we win

Fanboys won’t see otherwise

 

[RUNVS]

Longmire has 2 game plans.

One he uses when we win.
The other he uses when we lose.

I am just curious how Longmire is so damn good at getting the right game plan for the right game, every time without fail.

You could say the same thing about any team, even the Suns. I am talking about the overall game plan, and how the Swans go into games. It is no coincidence that we don't put teams away, and that we very rarely score over 100 points. The reason we don't is because the game plan does not allow it.

 

[Kolah]

Weird year last year. We ought to have finished top 4 because the ball was touched before it went through in that Norf game and the win would have given us the double chance.

At times, we played some sensational fast, attacking footy. But a lot of the time we were truly dreadful, our position saved by absolutely bizarre bad goal kicking by some of our opponents. Our mids were rarely in it. Our awful delivery into attack same old, same as. Our defence was once again over-relied upon and last year they were found to be human.

We lost too many players (Tippett, Naismith, Reid, Mills, Ling etc), played too many injured players (Franklin, Hanners, Grundy, Smith, Jack, Rampe? etc), lived with too many inexperienced players (McCartin, Fox, Ronke, etc).

Horse’s coaching was open to question. He was out coached at times but the obsession with defence was not always sensible. Hate to bring up Mitchell again but was it really necessary to try to force one of the best ball winning players ever to play the game to focus harder on his defensive side?

Still, it felt like there was something else. It wasn’t only the tragedy of Rohan’s unborn twin, or Reg’s mental health struggles or the tortured expression on Hanner’s face, the team seemed down. The culture that has made a good team great felt to me if not missing, then certainly lacking.

I hope 2019 brings a stronger, fitter team, a streamlined game plan and a rejuvenated Bloods culture. Roll on March!


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Tedeski]

2011 - 12.2 goals (11.3 goals conceeded)
2012 - 15.0 goals (10.4 goals conceeded)
2013 - 14.5 goals (11.2 goals conceeded)
2014 - 14.0 goals (9.9 goals conceeded)
2015 - 12.8 goals (10.2 goals conceeded)
2016 - 14.8 goals (9.7 goals conceeded)
2017 - 13.7 goals (10.8 goals conceeded)
2018 - 11.8 goals (10.5 goals conceeded)


So basically the Swans are about 3 goals per game behind where we need to be to challenge the top clubs. Meaning we need to find an additional 18 points per game which is quite a lot.

Sam Reid up front will contribute at least one extra goal & Mills down back will save at least one extra goal.
There that should get us into the prelim. Now we just need to find that extra goal to make the GF or 2 to win it!

 

[Number37]

You could say the same thing about any team, even the Suns. I am talking about the overall game plan, and how the Swans go into games. It is no coincidence that we don't put teams away, and that we very rarely score over 100 points. The reason we don't is because the game plan does not allow it.

So in the Suns game we kicked 48 points in the first quarter then we changed the game plan to not score so much? Or we played utter shite?

Did the first quarter in that game grind the players so much into the dirt that they couldn't do anything for the rest of the game? Or did they just play utter shite?

 

[Number37]

Look there’s a wall outside, bang your head against it

Because when we win if you point out limitations with the gameplan you get the well we won quit whinging

If we lose it’s like well where were you when we win

Fanboys won’t see otherwise

Only a real fanboy thinks...

Clarko is the best and we shouldn't have let Mitchell walk for nothing.
Reid is overrated and injury prone and never should have been signed on a long term contract.
Hanners was a waste of cap space.
Tippo was a poor signing because basketballers are bad footballers.
Clarko would never have a shite game plan.
Mitchell is the best ever footballer.
Horse can't coach.

 

[RUNVS]

So in the Suns game we kicked 48 points in the first quarter then we changed the game plan to not score so much? Or we played utter shite?

Did the first quarter in that game grind the players so much into the dirt that they couldn't do anything for the rest of the game? Or did they just play utter shite?

Simple. We started reasonably attacking (good) but the moment things started going a little bad for us Longmire did what he always does and went ultra-defensive. How many times have we all joked that the moment the opposition gets on top even a tiny bit Longmire's go to move is to move Reid into defence? THat is a strategy that completely robes our forward line of attacking power.

 

[bungee]

It’s all relevant though. The title of this thread refers to the list (which means we can discuss list management decisions good or bad), the game plan (which means we can discuss the coaching staff who devise that game plan, good or bad) and the best 22 (which means we can discuss the players and how they’re being coached both individually and as a team, good or bad.)

You can’t just throw your toys out of the pram just because you don’t like what’s being said. Maybe ask the mods for a title change instead of insinuating that certain posters aren’t doing the right thing by sharing their opinions.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks

 

[bungee]

Weird year last year. We ought to have finished top 4 because the ball was touched before it went through in that Norf game and the win would have given us the double chance.

At times, we played some sensational fast, attacking footy. But a lot of the time we were truly dreadful, our position saved by absolutely bizarre bad goal kicking by some of our opponents. Our mids were rarely in it. Our awful delivery into attack same old, same as. Our defence was once again over-relied upon and last year they were found to be human.

We lost too many players (Tippett, Naismith, Reid, Mills, Ling etc), played too many injured players (Franklin, Hanners, Grundy, Smith, Jack, Rampe? etc), lived with too many inexperienced players (McCartin, Fox, Ronke, etc).

Horse’s coaching was open to question. He was out coached at times but the obsession with defence was not always sensible. Hate to bring up Mitchell again but was it really necessary to try to force one of the best ball winning players ever to play the game to focus harder on his defensive side?

Still, it felt like there was something else. It wasn’t only the tragedy of Rohan’s unborn twin, or Reg’s mental health struggles or the tortured expression on Hanner’s face, the team seemed down. The culture that has made a good team great felt to me if not missing, then certainly lacking.

I hope 2019 brings a stronger, fitter team, a streamlined game plan and a rejuvenated Bloods culture. Roll on March!


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

You were making some good points until this. No player is complete when they enter the AFL. That was part of what turned Mitchell into the Brownlow medal winner. Before tha he was a great ball winner but a lazy defender who would just bang it on the boot and turn it over half the time. He left for cash. Nothing more, nothing less.

You answered the question as to why Horse often played defensive. He was missing too many key players. It's called Plan B. We used it a lot last year.

 

[bungee]

I never said it's shit. It's just not good enough, and it's not advantageous of the players at our disposal. So, it's good enough to win a handful of games, but not good enough to stop us from losing a handful of games. You see my point? You can go back throughout the thread and see where I have said numerous times that Horse's preferred style of play is not bad, or wrong. It's just not right for this group. I could see Horse going to a team like North or Fremantle, someone with big-bodies and work-horse type players, and I think he'd be genuinely good enough to take them close to a flag.

But we don't have that kind of a list profile, and I think he's taking what worked so well for us between 2012-2016, and trying it on this current group, to very mixed effects. It works sometimes, when the seasoned, battle-hardened players like Kennedy, Parker, Sir Dane, Smith etc are in close to their best form and can get us looking similar(ish) to the former glory days of a few years ago. Then sometimes it doesn't work, when those guys aren't really firing and it's up to the younger types who aren't really suited to a cautious, stoppage-based game to suddenly carry us across the line.

This wouldn't be so bad, only the way we're building the list seems to be catering towards a more athletic, dynamic team, with less of those old battle-hardened players with each year that passes, and so at some point Horse is going to have to dive into the unknown a little, loosen the reins and let go of his tried and true method a little. Not entirely, just let go of it enough to get the best out of the new players not suited to it.

You asked.

What part of rebuild did you miss ? Ask Clarko the Wonder Coach if he's won a final, any final, since 2015. He's even got Mitchell the wunder kid.

No team can be the best every year. We have more than our share of glory. Only Hawks and Cats have matched us for consistent performance over the last decade or so.

The list is being shaped for the next generation even as the player types recruited are changing to suit an evolving game plan. It's not going to happen overnight. It's not science. We are going to win some we should lose and lose some we should win. Stop trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Have some patience. I know some guys who waited 72 years.

 

[bungee]

I'm sorry but now is not the time for ugly, dour Swans. The game has moved on and any coach who is too defensive is going to find his team on the end of some floggings. The attacking teams, who also hold the ball in their forward half are starting to pick off the defensive teams. Take Bullies, they got flogged a few times playing ultra defensive.

You have to be inventive and stay ahead of the game or find yourself back with the pack.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app

I said whatever it takes to win.

 

[bungee]

I am a fair way away. But on my machine the thread says "Game Plan". Why do you constantly claim (with tiresome strawmen devices) that discussion of the game plan and by logical inference the coaching ability and strategy isn't within the reference of the thread? Your defensive defense of the most defensive game plan since the Lacarno Pact defense is a credit to the defensive mindset.

Wow you missed everything. Was I too subtle ? I was suggesting it shouldn't be the same shite reply across every single thread. It stifles discussion if the same people constantly just have the same response, no matter the question.

 

[caesar88]

What part of rebuild did you miss ? Ask Clarko the Wonder Coach if he's won a final, any final, since 2015. He's even got Mitchell the wunder kid.

No team can be the best every year. We have more than our share of glory. Only Hawks and Cats have matched us for consistent performance over the last decade or so.

The list is being shaped for the next generation even as the player types recruited are changing to suit an evolving game plan. It's not going to happen overnight. It's not science. We are going to win some we should lose and lose some we should win. Stop trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Have some patience. I know some guys who waited 72 years.

Your continual Hawthorn references are null with me, because I don't rate Clarkson or that entire club as highly as others do on here. I have them in the same boat as us: not good enough and needing to change and/or improve.

The list is being shaped, the player types being recruited are changing to suit an evolving game plan, all of that is true. The problem is, the game plan is not evolving. As I've said, you could put a blanket over the last seven years of Swans footy, only the personnel isn't quite apt for it in the last two years hence the lesser results. It won't happen overnight (though Richmond might have something to say about that), but I do believe changes should already have been happening. It's been two full seasons, and I've seen zilch. If anything, in 2018 we further regressed into the kind of footy that won't cut it for us in the future, more so than we did in 2017.

You're also preaching to the wrong choir about patience. You may recall during the trade period I was one of the few on here not panicking about our lack of activity, because I could see and appreciate the blueprint the club had laid going forward, and I was totally on board. I've stated numerous times that I'll cop more losses in 2019, that a drop down the ladder or even missing the finals won't be too disappointing for me, and that our real window will appear from 2020 onwards. But it's all good and well to have this faith in the club's future, but it rightfully causes doubts that that future is actually going to happen when two whole seasons can go by without a blip of change in our approach.

This year we won 14 games. I wouldn't consider 2019 a bad year if we only won 10, or 8 games, but had a season where we had a clear eye to the future. I'd happily cop losses to teams that have a better 22 than us (and I think there will be a few given the unavoidable profile of our list currently) if in those losses, we showed some endeavour to change or try something different or give the kids more license. I'm not saying total license. I'm just saying more than they currently have. You speak of a rebuild, but a rebuild isn't just about changing the personnel. It's about changing what that personnel does on the field and how they all come together to eventually win a hell of a lot of games of footy.

If it's another season where 90% of our games feature the same old traits that don't seem to get the best out of a huge portion of our team, then the rebuild will be seriously behind schedule.

 

[Tedeski]

Look there’s a wall outside, bang your head against it

Because when we win if you point out limitations with the gameplan you get the well we won quit whinging

If we lose it’s like well where were you when we win

Fanboys won’t see otherwise

Fanboys? Ha ha.
You’re trying very hard to insult anyone who supports the club with a bit more ticker than some & you are failing.
Take your own advice & support how you want to support without giving titles such as the above.

 

[Wolftone]

Poor kicking a myth?

Without Lloyd's 30 20m kicks per game our DE would be QUOTE]Our kicking has improved with every draft in the last four. Skills training sessions have been few ans far between under Roos and Longmire. Their philosophy was always get the ball forward as quick as possible, long bomb.

Players who have great kicking skills have come to the Swans and after two seasons their skills start to fall apart. Players like Newman, Lloyd (although he still kicks at 86%), Hewett etc find themselves making terrible choices and kicking badly at times. Not as badly as Jack and Hanbas have for the most part but badly.

The new breed of Swan kicks very well in fact. Ronke, Hayward, Florent (although last year he fell into the year two kicking blues too), Stoddart, Aliir, Melican, Dawson and yes Lloyd and Hewett are all good kicks but without skills training those skills go rusty.

This year our coaches have seen fit to include a session of skills work in every training session. His can only improve those that need improving and help those that are rusty get oiled up.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app