Analysis Sydney and close losses - UPDATE ROUND 21 - Sydney big losses, Freo and close losses...

[Jezzitizle]

I think the key with these things, is what the players believe. If they start to feel they lose close games, it can affect how they play and become a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy.

No doubt Longmire will be mulling it over, amongst other things. But too hard to say whether it is an issue or not just yet, I’d say it’s unlikely for now.

Plus, you never know if they have increased training loads ahead of finals, and so have lost 3 tight games recently because the legs are a bit heavier.

 

[The King!]

I think the siren has gone with the ball down our end in all of them , Can't remember Richmond.


Need Nick Davis down there .

Just flog teams instead .

I'll take any win this week thanks

 

[The King!]

Flaky team.

GWS will pip em in the finals.

Lucky GWS haven't been flaky at all

 

[Maddo11]

Gotta be in em to win em.

My biggest concern is that we play 45 minutes of the best footy you'll see, but because it's not the first 45 minutes part of it is playing catch up instead of cultivating an unassailable lead.

If we can just start games with the hammer down we'll be fine

 

[The King!]

They've beaten your mob twice already in finals and are a bit more mature this year than what you are.
Just feels like they have the right pieces in place to get by Sydney. Even if it is played at the SCG.

Beaten us 3 times in finals , but yeah that 2016 final will have a huge impact on this year.

Each to their own , time will tell .

They were looking shot until they beat Richmond and the Suns at home, we beat them twice this year , i'd be confident .

 

[BF Tiger]

Losses happen. It's almost inevitable that a team that appears flying will end up losing at some point. I think the Swans would know that and just take it as part of football, happy in the knowledge that they have banked enough wins to pretty much secure a home final before this latest run of defeats.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Swans are miles ahead of the competition at the moment. Had no right to even get close today in the circumstances. No matter how good you are you can get found out in finals, but they look streets ahead to me right now.

Swans have not lost a game on merit since rd 3 and only lost that by 5 points. Strangely, against the likely wooden spooner Richmond. Injuries beat them today, and they had comfortably more scoring shots in their other 2 losses.

To this point of the season the Swans have been more dominant than any team for over 10 years.

The close losses are a red herring.

 

[The King!]

Hence why I like their chances in a knock out final.

Yeah each to their own.

I'd prefer to play a travelling opponent for sure.

Wouldn't mind GWS in a grand final though.

But that's just my opinion .

They have a pretty tough finish too. May lose the last 3

 

[The King!]

Likewise Sydney.
Now lost Papley for a while and Rampe won't be fit on the eve of finals given his age and calf injuries.

Western Bulldogs, Port Adelaide, Collingwood and Essendon is a tough draw to end your season.

Maybe, should beat Collingwood, Essendon and Adelaide at the very least and that's top sewn up.


Next weeks the hardest , guess we shall see

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Likewise Sydney.
Now lost Papley for a while and Rampe won't be fit on the eve of finals given his age and calf injuries.

Western Bulldogs, Port Adelaide, Collingwood and Essendon is a tough draw to end your season.

They are bringing players like Mills(who can play Rampe's role) and Parker fresh late in the season. Pretty sure they will have players in the VFL in form and very eager to get a crack at it as well.

 

[kozi]

They lost a grand final by 80 points 2 years ago, so losing it by under a kick this year will be a vast improvement

 

[Roobs321]

In 2002 they had a really heartbreaking run. Cresswell kicked a winner after the siren but then the following week was the infamous Saints draw and then in the following ten rounds seven nailbiting losses to Richmond, Essendon, Collingwood, West Coast, Geelong, Hawthorn and Port. They were the Sydney ‘Five Minute Warnings’.

 

[BoltOnJetta]

We were cruising top of the table and stopped showing up for 1st quarters. Can't blame the players for not starting with the same intensity that teams have when facing the #1 side.

Last 11 weeks ignoring 1st quarters:
Def. GWS 80-36
Def. Fremantle 79-29
Def. Carlton 93-32
Def. Bulldogs 77-61
Def. Geelong 109-50
Def. Adelaide 94-41
Def. GWS 86-62
Def. Fremantle 81-55
Lost Saints 68-70 (kicked 9.14, Saints barely missed 11.4)
Def. North 116-39
Def. Brisbane 68-48

If that 1st quarter intensity doesn't correct itself come finals we're beatable, otherwise we're still every chance of doing well.

 

[Wolfgang West]

I felt like if the Dogs weren’t down to two on the bench they would have beaten the Swans. But you could draw up all sorts of ifs and buts in footy.

Well you will get your chance this week when it looks possible Swans have half a dozen out. As you say all ifs and buts.

 

[Toffee Lion]

Swans are miles ahead of the competition at the moment. Had no right to even get close today in the circumstances. No matter how good you are you can get found out in finals, but they look streets ahead to me right now.

Swans have not lost a game on merit since rd 3 and only lost that by 5 points. Strangely, against the likely wooden spooner Richmond. Injuries beat them today, and they had comfortably more scoring shots in their other 2 losses.

To this point of the season the Swans have been more dominant than any team for over 10 years.

The close losses are a red herring.

Had no right to get close today? What are you smoking?

Both teams made a sub, both teams had 1 player unavailable in the 4th quarter. You're acting as if the Swans had 0 bench. They had every right to win the game but fell short on equal terms.

In saying that I don't think the Swans have anything to worry about because of a few close losses, still the best team in the comp and watching the game yesterday it felt like they should have won if they played just a tiny bit better, which they're capable of.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Had no right to get close today? What are you smoking?

Both teams made a sub, both teams had 1 player unavailable in the 4th quarter. You're acting as if the Swans had 0 bench. They had every right to win the game but fell short on equal terms.

In saying that I don't think the Swans have anything to worry about because of a few close losses, still the best team in the comp and watching the game yesterday it felt like they should have won if they played just a tiny bit better, which they're capable of.

Not sure what you are looking at to come up with those statements. Brisbane made their sub tactically, ie at the time of their choosing, by inserting a fresh player into the game around 3/4 time. Swans lost Papley and Rampe early, both played around 35% game time before being wiped out, putting the swans 1 rotation down from the second term onwards in hot conditions. Add to that Hayward had to play on when he too would have clearly otherwise been subbed out due to turning his ankle. There is no doubt in my mind this game was not played out on level terms due to this. I would be confident if that match was replayed with no major injury concerns to either team, the Swans would likely have won. This is no disgrace upon Brisbane, they are missing some players they probably need, especially in defence, and the Swans appear to be stronger than an average top team.

 

[3207]

I felt like if the Dogs weren’t down to two on the bench they would have beaten the Swans. But you could draw up all sorts of ifs and buts in footy.

If we had a wet weather game plan we’d have beaten them both times.

 

[bungalow_bill]

Had no right to get close today? What are you smoking?

Both teams made a sub, both teams had 1 player unavailable in the 4th quarter. You're acting as if the Swans had 0 bench. They had every right to win the game but fell short on equal terms.

In saying that I don't think the Swans have anything to worry about because of a few close losses, still the best team in the comp and watching the game yesterday it felt like they should have won if they played just a tiny bit better, which they're capable of.

On the flip side both Neale and Dunkley to name a couple had poor games by their standards. The fact we won with those two down is a very good sign for the future. We probably should have won by more & the Swans were probably flattered by the score. Expected score was Lions -87 Swans 65

 

[BallaratBulldog]

Well you will get your chance this week when it looks possible Swans have half a dozen out. As you say all ifs and buts.

Who’s looking like they will miss?

 

[Toffee Lion]

Not sure what you are looking at to come up with those statements. Brisbane made their sub tactically, ie at the time of their choosing, by inserting a fresh player into the game around 3/4 time. Swans lost Papley and Rampe early, both played around 35% game time before being wiped out, putting the swans 1 rotation down from the second term onwards in hot conditions. Add to that Hayward had to play on when he too would have clearly otherwise been subbed out due to turning his ankle. There is no doubt in my mind this game was not played out on level terms due to this. I would be confident if that match was replayed with no major injury concerns to either team, the Swans would likely have won. This is no disgrace upon Brisbane, they are missing some players they probably need, especially in defence, and the Swans appear to be stronger than an average top team.

It doesn't matter the reason for a player's substitute, it's all the same. Henry Smith was a complete non-factor while on the ground, the longer he was in the game was a detriment to the Lions. Reville came on far too late for my liking.

When Rampe & Papley went off, they were 1 man down as Rampe got subbed. Warner actually came on and did some nice things as well. Admittedly they were short a player for the 2nd/3rd quarter which was not ideal but Hayward was fine. He kicked an amazing goal in the last quarter. In fact he wasn't even classified as injured in the after match report.

I think all the above is straw clutching and if the Swans want to use the above as an excuse, by all means go ahead but that's what it is, an excuse. End of the day, game on the line going into the 4th and both teams had the same rotations available. Make of that as you will.

 

[Wolfgang West]

Who’s looking like they will miss?

The three that did yesterday in McInerney, Rowbottom and Mills. From yesterday Def Rampe and Papley and you would have to think Hayward who done his ankle but then played on in what looked severe pain won't come up. Mills and Hayward would be rough chances to play at best, the other 4 certain not to play.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

It doesn't matter the reason for a player's substitute, it's all the same. Henry Smith was a complete non-factor while on the ground, the longer he was in the game was a detriment to the Lions. Reville came on far too late for my liking.

When Rampe & Papley went off, they were 1 man down as Rampe got subbed. Warner actually came on and did some nice things as well. Admittedly they were short a player for the 2nd/3rd quarter which was not ideal but Hayward was fine. He kicked an amazing goal in the last quarter. In fact he wasn't even classified as injured in the after match report.

I think all the above is straw clutching and if the Swans want to use the above as an excuse, by all means go ahead but that's what it is, an excuse. End of the day, game on the line going into the 4th and both teams had the same rotations available. Make of that as you will.

Just to check with you here...Swans having to activate their sub in the second 1/4 then immediately being down to 3 bench rotations v Brisbane's 4 for the rest of the game, in hot conditions and Hayward having to play the game out limping from the second term on(his pressure acts were 7, the first time under 10 this season) was NO advantage to the Lions you are saying?

If so, you are struggling, that is a clear advantage to Brisbane.

 

[The King!]

l

It doesn't matter the reason for a player's substitute, it's all the same. Henry Smith was a complete non-factor while on the ground, the longer he was in the game was a detriment to the Lions. Reville came on far too late for my liking.

When Rampe & Papley went off, they were 1 man down as Rampe got subbed. Warner actually came on and did some nice things as well. Admittedly they were short a player for the 2nd/3rd quarter which was not ideal but Hayward was fine. He kicked an amazing goal in the last quarter. In fact he wasn't even classified as injured in the after match report.

I think all the above is straw clutching and if the Swans want to use the above as an excuse, by all means go ahead but that's what it is, an excuse. End of the day, game on the line going into the 4th and both teams had the same rotations available. Make of that as you will.

It makes a massive difference BUT I also do agree , end of the day it's a win the Lions and Sydney pissed away a winning chance.

Doesn't matter in 4 years time who was fit or not , so yeah the team can't just sook and use it as an excuse. Just kick straighter

In fact kick straight and this whole thread doesn't exist.

If I was a Lions fan i'd be stoked to win, and wouldn't give it a second thought, but roles reversed I am sure Lions fans would be mentioning rotations and injuries .

The end result is all that counts and Brisbane won.

Sydney just need to win 3 more games simple as that (well not
simple but yeah)

 

[Toffee Lion]

Just to check with you here...Swans having to activate their sub in the second 1/4 then immediately being down to 3 bench rotations v Brisbane's 4 for the rest of the game, in hot conditions and Hayward having to play the game out limping from the second term on(his pressure acts were 7, the first time under 10 this season) was NO advantage to the Lions you are saying?

If so, you are struggling, that is a clear advantage to Brisbane.

Again you said rest of the game it was 3 vs 4 on the bench, it simply wasn't lol. Andrews was off for the vast majority of the final quarter due to HIA protocols. We had no legitmate key backman for an entire final quarter of football, that is a massive advantage for Sydney who still had Hayward bob up & kick a crucial goal down the other end.

You can happily argue that from the 2nd to 3rd quarter the Swans were down a rotation, sure I've never denied that and it can absolutely have some lasting affects on the game but largely minor. But we are straw clutching if you we want to disminish wins or give out honourary prizes for being down a singular rotation for 2 quarters of football. It happens more often than you think due to HIA protocols and players being assessed for injuries.

Sydney finished with 11 rotations to spare (The same as Brisbane) and both teams played the crucial final quarter with 3 on the bench. That's the end of the story, proper game of footy where both teams went at it and we pipped it on the day. Absolutely the Swans could have pipped it and if it was at the SCG, they arguably win it comfortably.

 

[Meteoric Rise]

Again you said rest of the game it was 3 vs 4 on the bench, it simply wasn't lol. Andrews was off for the vast majority of the final quarter due to HIA protocols. We had no legitmate key backman for an entire final quarter of football, that is a massive advantage for Sydney who still had Hayward bob up & kick a crucial goal down the other end.

You can happily argue that from the 2nd to 3rd quarter the Swans were down a rotation, sure I've never denied that and it can absolutely have some lasting affects on the game but largely minor. But we are straw clutching if you we want to disminish wins or give out honourary prizes for being down a singular rotation for 2 quarters of football. It happens more often than you think due to HIA protocols and players being assessed for injuries.

Sydney finished with 11 rotations to spare (The same as Brisbane) and both teams played the crucial final quarter with 3 on the bench. That's the end of the story, proper game of footy where both teams went at it and we pipped it on the day. Absolutely the Swans could have pipped it and if it was at the SCG, they arguably win it comfortably.

Andrews played about 12% of the game less than his average. 12% of 80 minutes is under 10 minutes of clock time the Lions were down to 3 rotations.

The Swans were down to 3 rotations for around 40+ minutes of clock time. This is a significant difference, especially in hot conditions. Plus the effect of Hayward playing the game out with a limp and not being able to apply the pressure he would normally be able to, 7 pressure acts(first time under 10 pressure acts all season.)

I am not trying to downplay Brisbane's victory. It is a pretty obvious conclusion to draw that Sydney were hampered in running. Brisbane still did a very good job to beat Sydney, who are imo head and shoulders the best team in the comp.