Sydney , were lucky to win ..they had help.

[earthquake]

Why did it take Connolly and coaching staff ages to switch their match ups on players which initially were NOT working ?
Pavlich gave away 2 easy goals through stupid mistakes as did Bell and Johnson .
Pavlich also missed 2 easy goals .
Mathew Carr missed 2 and a half quarters due to injury .
Mcarphalin missed nearly a quarter due to injury.
Umpires gave Sydney 2 easy goals and also questionable free kicks around the ground at crucial times of the game.
At the boundary throw ins and bounceups around the ground Sydney constantly held the Freo players which enabled Sydney to clear the ball easily and only on a rare occasion did the umpires give Freo a free kick re : this illegal tactic .
Buchannan should get reported for his late hit on the Freo player .Harris ( Bulldogs ) did the same hit on the Eagles player and he got suspended the last game they played . I wonder how the match review committee and the Tribunal will view this incident . If its good enough for Harris to get suspended them Buchannan must also suffer the same fate .

Having said all this Sydney were better organised in the Forward Line than Freo .

 

[Q...]

The title of your post is a bit disrespectful to both teams IMO.

Why did it take Connolly and coaching staff ages to switch their match ups on players which initially were NOT working ?
Pavlich gave away 2 easy goals through stupid mistakes as did Bell and Johnson .
Pavlich also missed 2 easy goals .
Mathew Carr missed 2 and a half quarters due to injury .
Mcarphalin missed nearly a quarter due to injury.
Umpires gave Sydney 2 easy goals and also questionable free kicks around the ground at crucial times of the game.

and the Swans took all of their opportunities?

Buchannan should get reported for his late hit on the Freo player .Harris ( Bulldogs ) did the same hit on the Eagles player and he got suspended the last game they played . I wonder how the match review committee and the Tribunal will view this incident . If its good enough for Harris to get suspended them Buchannan must also suffer the same fate .

There has to be some Swans controversy surrounding the MRP during the week leading up to the Granny. Otherwise it just wouldn't be football. After all, if Bucky doesn't get off and doesn't have a blinder in the grand final and the swans manage to win it, how would everyone complain that the AFL handed them the premiership?

 

[Beckers]

Sydney were lucky because Freo made many unforced skill errors and played injury prone players How does that work exactly

McPharlin = Elijah Price

 

[earthquake]

Sydney were lucky because Freo made many unforced skill errors and played injury prone players How does that work exactly

McPharlin = Elijah Price

Injury prone .
Carr played 25 games this year including finals .no injury prone there .he did his leg in during the game , unfortunately.
Mcpharlin played 22 games this yr including finals . no injury prone there , he was hit accidently in the head last night .

and what about the rest of my comments you missed answering ??

 

[Underdog]

one of Freo's biggest mistakes was getting the stretcher out for McPharlin when it wasnt needed. This forced him to sit off for longer then intended whilst Parker was being absolutely towelled up

 

[Q...]

Mcpharlin played 22 games this yr including finals . no injury prone there , he was hit accidently in the head last night .

That hit last night reminded me of one of the rules in our game that I believe is simply dangerous.

If McPharlin had've looked back to see where his opponent was the likelyhood of him getting a knee in the head would've been reduced significantly. He had enough time to turn around, spot his player and return his attention to the ball. However, the way the rules are interpreted at the moment, he would've been pinged if he looked back at all (according to the umpire that was why Hall got the free in the square despite the fact he had his hand in his opponents face).

I've got no issue with someone getting pinged if they are just trying to take out an opponent, but simply saying that they aren't interested in the football because they try to identify where there opponent is stupid.

If they're allowed to turn around you may find a few people taking the soft option out of contests, but frankly, I'd prefer that if it means that less players are being hit hard from behind without any knowledge of it coming.

 

[wires on fire.]

anyone reckon buchannon may get done for charging?

 

[Underdog]

anyone reckon buchannon may get done for charging?

nah...he'll be right

 

[blitzer]

These kind of scenarios are really quite meaningless. What if Sydney had converted their shots on goal better? It might have been a much larger margin. The difference in score at the end wasn't exactly a 1 or 2 goal difference either. Sydney were just better on the day.

 

[earthquake]

These kind of scenarios are really quite meaningless. What if Sydney had converted their shots on goal better? It might have been a much larger margin. The difference in score at the end wasn't exactly a 1 or 2 goal difference either. Sydney were just better on the day.

NOT meaningless .. The umpires allowed Sydney all the match to hold etc re clearances and its illegal. Other teams get done for it so why not Sydney ?? It started at the first bouncedown .

 

[FixterFan]

NOT meaningless .. The umpires allowed Sydney all the match to hold etc re clearances and its illegal. Other teams get done for it so why not Sydney ?? It started at the first bouncedown .

Would that be just because, we do it at the same level as every other team?

 

[magic19]

GET OVER IT YOU D***HEADS

All i ever hear on these forums are;
a) Sydney are boring and (insert game with Sydney in it) was one of the worst finals ever.
b) Sydney are lucky (by the way you obviously missed the elbow to Hall's who was knocked down and then caught for holding the ball - leading to a Freo goal)
c) All Sydney fans are bandwagoners who have no idea about footy.

 

[Underdog]

go elsewhere if we bother you

 

[Hard Ball Get]

what if...
Pretty silly thread.
Sydney were the better team and they won the game.

 

[earthquake]

Would that be just because, we do it at the same level as every other team?

Sydney's game is Rubgy/AFL and holding tactics must be stopped BUT the umps allow you them to do it though its illegal .Your team does it more than any other team .

 

[Underdog]

Sydney's game is Rubgy/AFL and holding tactics must be stopped BUT the umps allow you them to do it though its illegal .Your team does it more than any other team .

yet they usually complain about a LACK of free kicks

which team is going to get more frees - the side that is trying to generate run or the team that is trying to stop the run?

 

[earthquake]

GET OVER IT YOU D***HEADS

All i ever hear on these forums are;
a) Sydney are boring and (insert game with Sydney in it) was one of the worst finals ever.
b) Sydney are lucky (by the way you obviously missed the elbow to Hall's who was knocked down and then caught for holding the ball - leading to a Freo goal)
c) All Sydney fans are bandwagoners who have no idea about footy.

The idea of this Thread was to point out the turning points of the game and how Sydney were helped AGAIN .Teams must reduce weak errors and the Umpires must be honest in their interpretation and deliver the rules fairly to teams playing Sydney NOT favour Sydney.
So stick to the facts and less name calling etc if thats possible and then you may see what i am writing about .

 

[Hard Ball Get]

The idea of this Thread was to point out the turning points of the game and how Sydney were helped AGAIN .Teams must reduce weak errors and the Umpires must be honest in their interpretation and deliver the rules fairly to teams playing Sydney NOT favour Sydney.
So stick to the facts and less name calling etc if thats possible and then you may see what i am writing about .

I think you will find that the turning points of the game were controlled by Sydney.
Everytime the Dockers mounted a challenge the Swans kicked a few goals to get a buffer. They played the game very well.
The missed shots are Freo not helping themselves not Freo helping Sydney.
What about the easy miss from Schnider?
Kirk also missed a sitter in the first quarter...
I thought the umpires were quite good. There were a few poor decisions but on the whole they made little impact on the game and result.

 

[Bloods Rule!]

It looked to me that Freo got the benefit of the soft frees all game -as the free count reveals. And Freo was allowed to take cheap shots all night - Buchanan put down behind play and Hall elbowed in the jaw but it's Baz so penalise him for that.

But we're used to being robbed so on the night the umpiring was okay overall.

 

[GrInPoWdErDiAh]

Sydney did get a lot of frees/non calls in critical situations. Whether this would have made a difference we'll never know unfortunately. Freo shouldn't have had the chance to get back into the game though, as the swans should have buried them in the first quarter. Freo missed a few shots later on in the game which proved costly for them, but if anyone makes an argument for inaccuracy by either side they should realise both sides were equally to blame for this.

Also to all the Sydney supporters whinging about free kicks and how they get robbed and so on, try using a little perspective. They've had 350 more stoppages than any other side in the comp this year, that's asking for free kicks to be paid against you. Not to mention the fact the "cortina" midfield all barring Goodes are constantly scragging and the like, as that is their gameplan, and who can argue with it as it works very well for them - they are clearly not a team of champions but a champion team. It's just unfortunate for the general footy world that they do it by playing a style more suited to rugby, which no doubt other sides will try and replicate in the future.

 

[lazy]

Sydney's game is Rubgy/AFL and holding tactics must be stopped BUT the umps allow you them to do it though its illegal .Your team does it more than any other team .

Practice this cheer....... "Go Tassie"

 

[Q...]

yet they usually complain about a LACK of free kicks

which team is going to get more frees - the side that is trying to generate run or the team that is trying to stop the run?

Sydney fall into both of those categories, so I presume you're talking about some other team?

 

[Q...]

Umpires must be honest in their interpretation and deliver the rules fairly to teams playing Sydney NOT favour Sydney.
So stick to the facts and less name calling etc if thats possible and then you may see what i am writing about .

Given the first statment I've quoted of yours implies that the umpires are dishonest when umpiring Sydney games in order to favour Sydney and you have no evidence of such a thing I'm confused how you can be asking others to stick to the facts.

Despite the hypocrisy in your post I agree that people sticking to the facts would be preferable to what the current norm is on BF.

 

[Karlostj]

I thought that the Dockers had a very fair deal from the umps. They were favoured if anything. - The first goal to Farmer - there must have been 10 tackles laid by the Swans that didn't result in holding the ball like that tackle did.

There were also quite a few questionable holding decisions paid against the Swans.

If the Swans had of kicked straight in the first half, they would have gone into the main break 6 goals up and the game would have been virtually over. It was only their inaccurate goal kicking that gave the Dockers a sniff.

Over the entire match, the Dockers only looked better then the swans in one quarter - the third, but the swans still managed to out score them for the quarter.

31 scoring shots to 21 says it all - it should have been a 10 goal victory....

Frees were something like 13 to Sydney and 18 to the Dockers - hardly favouring the Swans....

 

[Q...]

It's just unfortunate for the general footy world that they do it by playing a style more suited to rugby, which no doubt other sides will try and replicate in the future.

"It's just unfortunate for the people in the general footy word that don't like this style of play that they do it by playing a style that can be simplistically, but incorrectly, noted as suiting a completely different sport, which no doubt other sides will try and replicate in the future."

IMO, and I know this sounds pretty obvious, all teams need to look at how to stop games being played on their opponents terms and how to increase the chances of the game being played on their own terms.

Sydney do have a fast game and a slow game. One is the way they want to play and the other is the way they stop other teams gaining momentum. It is a particularly effective tactic against teams that like to score a lot of goals as these teams tend not to know how to stop a team.

Things evolve. It will evolve past this.