Preview R24 | Sydney vs Adelaide | SCG - Sat 24/8 @ 7:40PM AEST | We need to prove a point (unlike last year)

[The King!]

I just really liked the roles Campbell ,
Florent and Mcdonald played, just need Amartey to play like the last quarter, presume he is fit .

Ideally mcdonald hits the scoreboard of course but a great game

 

[Bloods86]

Maybe the TOG reduction is the active resting strategy ?

It's not really a reduction. He's had a lot of lower TOG % for a mid over the season. Even after his initial set of games to get into things, and last 2 weeks.

And if he's not in as a mid, at least most of the time, then I'd question his spot.

 

[The King!]

Florent looked better up the ground on Friday night. Less potential for him to inflict damage in a negative way and do more damage in a positive way.

But the topic of where Florent should be moved to to get the best out of him comes up every 12-24 months. It's frustrating that it needs to, and is the story of his career sadly.

I think we just need to realise he is a sold club man and stop expecting beyond that .

 

[The King!]

It's not really a reduction. He's had a lot of lower TOG % for a mid over the season. Even after his initial set of games to get into things, and last 2 weeks.

And if he's not in as a mid, at least most of the time, then I'd question his spot.

I meant more Grundy sorry

 

[caesar88]

I think we just need to realise he is a sold club man and stop expecting beyond that .

Oh I definitely don't expect anything more than that from Florent.

I just don't get why this is the case for him. He just can never get it together often enough.

 

[Punts]

I still like to see a smaller more unpredictable front half

 

[caesar88]

I just really liked the roles Campbell ,
Florent and Mcdonald played, just need Amartey to play like the last quarter, presume he is fit .

Ideally mcdonald hits the scoreboard of course but a great game

I could be wrong, might've been my eyes playing tricks on me, but I felt like we lowered our eyes more and took more marks inside 50 than we have in literally months?

Off the top of my head I can already remember Cleary, Campbell, Parker, Amartey all taking a few, and they were lead-up marks that were honoured too.

Of course Essendon being ordinary might've played a part. Or maybe it was just an intense focus of ours.

 

[Bloods86]

I meant more Grundy sorry

He had 71 and 75 % against Port and Pies, and slightly down the 2 weeks before. Culminating in Friday night. So I don't think it's working.

 

[melbournehammer]

O'Loughlin injury mars Swans' win

The Sydney Swans face the prospect of finals football without Michael O'Loughlin after the brilliant forward suffered a hamstring injury in a 34-point win over Melbourne at the MCG this afternoon.

www.abc.net.au

 

[The King!]

I still like to see a smaller more unpredictable front half

Papley would help

 

[Kiama Chris]

Florent looked better up the ground on Friday night. Less potential for him to inflict damage in a negative way and do more damage in a positive way.

But the topic of where Florent should be moved to to get the best out of him comes up every 12-24 months. It's frustrating that it needs to, and is the story of his career sadly.

I recall in Dawson's final year he and Juzzy rotated quite a bit between wing and HBF and I wonder if something like that is the answer to enigmas like Florent and Campbell. Not necessarily that specific rotation but rotations in certain game circumstances.

 

[Dubai Quacker]

I wonder why Grundy never inherited the Reg nickname.

I tackle the big issues on a Monday.

 

[lazy77]

We got to 13-3 playing great footy, and we are on;y a game away from being back there.

13-1. We got to 13-1 playing great footy. We were already in our mediocre phase at 13-3. We were definitely not great in our consecutive losses to Fremantle and St Kilda.

Like seriously, why do you insist on saying 13-3? You’ve said it so many times now that it’s just odd. And wth do you mean we’re only a game away from being back there? Back where? Can you really not count lol?

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

Melican + Mills in defence = less Blakey + Florent clangers.

JHWF - philosopher, comedian, truth teller, wellness coach, lover of speed and now mathematician.

+ narrator of his own life

 

[Bloods86]

13-1. We got to 13-1 playing great footy. We were already in our mediocre phase at 13-3. We were definitely not great in our consecutive losses to Fremantle and St Kilda.

Like seriously, why do you insist on saying 13-3? You’ve said it so many times now that it’s just odd. And wth do you mean we’re only a game away from being back there? Back where? Can you really not count lol?

I've explained the 13-3 already, pretty sure in a reply to you. It comes from LP1 saying that the team pre Mills and Parker, and pre additional injuries, got us to 13-1. Which isn't totally accurate, so I corrected him. The team pre Mills and Parker, pre additional injuries got us to 13-3, a better reflection of how good that "team" was imo. I think it was also mostly around the midfield that got us there, which is why Mills, Parker came into it, before Rowy was out etc.

LP1 has continued to use that.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

Perhaps it was our defence falling away that led to the bigger overall slide?

My memory is no doubt hazy but my recollection is that we weren’t dominating the midfield contests at the start of the year and that a huge percentage of our goals came from turnovers. I associated this with brilliants runs from Blakey and scything kicks by our wingers but this would not have been possible without us locking out opposition KPFs.

Longmire teams have always been built from defence out and have always been able to absorb high inside 50s (partly due to rock solid defenders and partly due to good midfield pressure on the forward entry). Maybe Mills back to defence and Melican returning are the biggest factors in our form returning, ahead of the spectacular brilliance from Heeney and Warner?

 

[lazy77]

I've explained the 13-3 already, pretty sure in a reply to you. It comes from LP1 saying that the team pre Mills and Parker, and pre additional injuries. got us to 13-1. Which isn't totally accurate. The team pre Mills and Parker, pre additional injuries got us to 13-3, a better reflection of how good that "team" was imo.

LP1 has continued to use that.

You did explain it, but he continues to use it as a high watermark of our season in posts that have nothing to do with Parker and Mills or injuries. 13-3 was already well into our slide. The Fremantle and St Kilda games were very disappointing.

So I continue to see it as weird. 13-1 was as good as it’s ever been. That’s the point that should be referred to when talking about how good we were. I mean, it’s a silly thing to argue about, but I find it strange how adamant he is about 13-3. Not 13-1, not 14-3, just 13-3 specifically. He says it a lot too.

 

[Bloods86]

Perhaps it was our defence falling away that led to the bigger overall slide?

My memory is no doubt hazy but my recollection is that we weren’t dominating the midfield contests at the start of the year and that a huge percentage of our goals came from turnovers. I associated this with brilliants runs from Blakey and scything kicks by our wingers but this would not have been possible without us locking out opposition KPFs.

Longmire teams have always been built from defence out and have always been able to absorb high inside 50s (partly due to rock solid defenders and partly due to good midfield pressure on the forward entry). Maybe Mills back to defence and Melican returning are the biggest factors in our form returning, ahead of the spectacular brilliance from Heeney and Warner?

I wouldn't say it's mostly on our "defence". Our midfield has allowed teams to stream forward unchecked more often, we saw that really start to hit home against Freo. Then we've been restricted by teams, and failed to work hard enough in rebounding after turnovers, intercepts and kick ins.

I think in many cases, the "defence" e.g. the lockdown and intercept types, have been put under additional pressure caused by better quality delivery due to lack of pressure and repeat entries when we turn it over ourselves and it just comes back straight away.

It's why I'm less inclined to sink the boot into guys like TMac, one of few, actual defensive contants recently, with what others are making him deal with.

Collingwood and Bombers were also wasteful, which Port and the Dogs early on, certainly were not.

 

[Bloods86]

You did explain it, but he continues to use it as a high watermark of our season in posts that have nothing to do with Parker and Mills or injuries. 13-3 was already well into our slide. The Fremantle and St Kilda games were very disappointing.

So I continue to see it as weird. 13-1 was as good as it’s ever been. That’s the point that should be referred to when talking about how good we were. I mean, it’s a silly thing to argue about, but I find it strange how adamant he is about 13-3. Not 13-1, not 14-3, just 13-3 specifically. He says it a lot too.

Fair enough. But for me, if we're talking about 13-1 it also doesn't tell the story about how bad we were at times in some of those games, and we just happened to put together a quarter or two that blew teams out of the water. I think we found out that as the season went on, that sort of comeback/burst footy isn't sustainable, especially when we get some injuries, teams set up well against us.

 

[lazy77]

I wouldn't say it's mostly on our "defence". Our midfield has allowed teams to stream forward unchecked more often, we saw that really start to hit home against Freo. Then we've been restricted by teams, and failed to work hard enough in rebounding after turnovers, intercepts and kick ins.

I think in many cases, the "defence" e.g. the lockdown and intercept types, have been put under additional pressure caused by better quality delivery due to lack of pressure and repeat entries when we turn it over ourselves and it just comes back straight away.

It's why I'm less inclined to sink the boot into guys like TMac, one of few, actual defensive contants recently, with what others are making him deal with.

McCartin has looked quite clumsy though. Certainly not the defensive rock you need when things go south further up the field.

 

[Bloods86]

McCartin has looked quite clumsy though. Certainly not the defensive rock you need when things go south further up the field.

Yeah I know. I'm just saying the rest of the team is accountable for how "bad" our defence looks at times.

I don't know how realistic it is to expect TMac to look like a gun, which he still does at times, when in the last month or so he's had his other 2 KPD partners go down, and we've been awful elsewhere. I still see him getting important marks and spoils in etc.

 

[Bloods86]

Our coaching doesn't always help our defence either.

Against Port, you could see Esava warming up with the forwards, starting the game as a forward, after playing as a forward a week earlier and creating mismatches down back. I thought he'd return to defence, but once seen, you have to act. An ineffective Mills was put back after a while, with Fox left wallowing up forward until it was into the 2nd half.

Any coach should have put Fox straight back onto MG at the first bounce. It probably makes little difference, but maybe a few earlier contests where Blakey and Francis were out of position or outworked, might have been impacted.

Mills seems to have turned the corner at least.

 

[Ticky009]

I just really liked the roles Campbell ,
Florent and Mcdonald played, just need Amartey to play like the last quarter, presume he is fit .

Ideally mcdonald hits the scoreboard of course but a great game

Amartey's consistency is still one of his greatest weakness. All 3 of the talls lack consistency which is why we need the mids to chip in all the time.

 

[The King!]

Amartey's consistency is still one of his greatest weakness. All 3 of the talls lack consistency which is why we need the mids to chip in all the time.

True yet still combined for 96 goals including Logan going back , Amartey missing etc

Not bad

 

[melbournehammer]

Our coaching doesn't always help our defence either.

Against Port, you could see Esava warming up with the forwards, starting the game as a forward, after playing as a forward a week earlier and creating mismatches down back. I thought he'd return to defence, but once seen, you have to act. An ineffective Mills was put back after a while, with Fox left wallowing up forward until it was into the 2nd half.

Any coach should have put Fox straight back onto MG at the first bounce. It probably makes little difference, but maybe a few earlier contests where Blakey and Francis were out of position or outworked, might have been impacted.

Mills seems to have turned the corner at least.

our actual kryptonite is when teams have a number of tall marking options. its why i am less worried about hawthorn geelong and the giants. We can manage if blakey can peel off and spoil. Our problem is when the western bulldogs throw three talls forward and we have 3 tall defenders and our fourth cant cover. or when port have three tall forwards and our fourth cant get across and cover. or when freo do the same (and fortunately they look out).

putting ratugolea forward against us when our defence was already shot was likely to cause immense problems - dixon was too big for mccartin, georgiadis was too big for blakey and dixon was too big for francis. Coupled with our midfield turning the ball over and putting no pressure on the ball carrier it is the huge issue. putting mcdonald back added to the mess up.

Horse wanted to keep the structure he'd planned but it meant that there was no way the defence could cope. i agree with you that the coaching that night was really poor. I mean if he put reid back after we were four goals down in the semi final v geelong in 2017 why so slow in this match