Preview The Swans Redemption Arc Goes On - Sydney vs Port Adelaide - Preliminary Final

[caesar88]

Not to be insensitive, I like Adams and I'd probably even pick him if it were up to me, but the way the media talk about him it's like he's the only player to be disappointed at potentially not getting a shot at a flag. It's this constant narrative that he's been hard done by somehow.

No one is entitled to a flag or even a shot at it, and the part that I haven't really seen mentioned anywhere in the media regarding his non-selection in our finals this year is that his form had tapered off. His fate actually WAS in his own hands this time and he didn't really deliver when he needed to while his direct competitors - Parker, Campbell - did.

No shame in that, it's a stacked team and it's not like he was terrible, but it's not worth the violins IMO.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You mean Gulden our best winger?

He wasn't unfit, he looked hampered in movement and completely out of touch.

I just don't know why we risk a repeat when Campbell looked great.

He has 2 more weeks of training my word it’s actually not hard to get. He wasn’t fantastic first up but look at the last 20 mins before he was subbed was getting a mile better. He now has two more weeks full training. Thanks I’m backing out A grade winger out there.

 

[Kiama Chris]

He has 2 more weeks of training my word it’s actually not hard to get. He wasn’t fantastic first up but look at the last 20 mins before he was subbed was getting a mile better. He now has two more weeks full training. Thanks I’m backing out A grade winger out there.

If he isn't picked we'll know it's because he isn't fit/confident enough compared to the person who is picked. Juzzy will know himself whether he is or isn't. He may act a bit silly at times but he is plenty sensible where it counts. He's 100% team first.

 

[GoodesStuff]

On what planet is that a good move? He’s literally the like for like for Mills against a side with talls.

On the planet that he is last man in and not best 22, and offers complete flexibility as sub.

 

[Bloods86]

He has 2 more weeks of training my word it’s actually not hard to get. He wasn’t fantastic first up but look at the last 20 mins before he was subbed was getting a mile better. He now has two more weeks full training. Thanks I’m backing out A grade winger out there.

We obviously thought he looked fine in training 2 weeks ago.

You can put him as sub, lowers the risk, still get a look at him for next week.

We've got Lloyd and Florent playing better, Gulden is our best winger, JJ possibly has to come off a wing to run with a mid. And Campbell can provide forward pressure which we really need.

 

[DeathlyAccurate]

Not to be insensitive, I like Adams and I'd probably even pick him if it were up to me, but the way the media talk about him it's like he's the only player to be disappointed at potentially not getting a shot at a flag. It's this constant narrative that he's been hard done by somehow.

No one is entitled to a flag or even a shot at it, and the part that I haven't really seen mentioned anywhere in the media regarding his non-selection in our finals this year is that his form had tapered off. His fate actually WAS in his own hands this time and he didn't really deliver when he needed to while his direct competitors - Parker, Campbell - did.

No shame in that, it's a stacked team and it's not like he was terrible, but it's not worth the violins IMO.

The narrative that we basically owe him a game is tiresome.

We’ve waited 12 years and through three bloody frustrating grand final losses to get where we are now. I want whatever the best combination of players is, not the most romantic story.

Maybe Adams will still get a chance this year, he’s certainly on the cusp, but if not then he goes again next season with a team that will be challenging for a few years yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LukeParkerno1]

On the planet that he is last man in and not best 22, and offers complete flexibility as sub.

He is a direct swap for Mills. He's in the starting side

 

[LukeParkerno1]

We obviously thought he looked fine in training 2 weeks ago.

You can put him as sub, lowers the risk, still get a look at him for next week.

We've got Lloyd and Florent playing better, Gulden is our best winger, JJ possibly has to come off a wing to run with a mid. And Campbell can provide forward pressure which we really need.

It doesn’t lower the risk at all you must assume the sub has to play the whole game. JMac is our best winger after Gulden who plays everywhere. He will be better with another two weeks of training he will be fine don’t worry

 

[Bloods86]

It doesn’t lower the risk at all you must assume the sub has to play the whole game. JMac is our best winger after Gulden who plays everywhere. He will be better with another two weeks of training he will be fine don’t worry

Yeah I mean I'd drop him.

But sub before 22.

It's higher probability he plays more/most of a game if he starts than if he's sub obviously. So, higher risk.

 

[The King!]

Fox makes sense to fill the Mills role, as others said too bad for Adams. Just keep training and see what happens.

we have to pick the best side possible .

Fox should start , but guess he is also a sub chance .

If you put a gun to head my guess would be Campbell is going to stay sub.

I would put Parker as sub so he isn't there when the pace is up and looking out of place early again.

 

[The King!]

Yeah I mean I'd drop him.

But sub before 22.

It's higher probability he plays more/most of a game if he starts than if he's sub obviously. So, higher risk.

Granted you would drop him but if the selectors said here's the 23 you pick the sub. Isn't it more logical to start Jmac? if he is right then awesome , if he isn't you can take him out for when it matters more?

 

[The King!]

Jmac as sub makes 0 sense

 

[Bloods86]

Granted you would drop him but if the selectors said here's the 23 you pick the sub. Isn't it more logical to start Jmac? if he is right then awesome , if he isn't you can take him out for when it matters more?

No, because what if he's poor again and we lose someone else early. Then you're stuck with him the whole game.

At least if he's sub, there's a decent chance you won't need him til later. You get to assess if he's any good still, for next week.

The reward vs alternatives, given he won't get back to his best, doesn't outweigh the risk, and the negative impact elsewhere e.g. forward line with Campbell.

 

[bedford]

I sort of imagined you with Taylor Swift lol

Would love to

 

[The King!]

No, because what if he's poor again and we lose someone else early. Then you're stuck with him the whole game.

At least if he's sub, there's a decent chance you won't need him til later. You get to assess if he's any good still, for next week.

The reward vs alternatives, given he won't get back to his best, doesn't outweigh the risk, and the negative impact elsewhere e.g. forward line with Campbell.

Fair.

Let's just hope he is back at his best whatever role he plays

 

[caesar88]

Granted you would drop him but if the selectors said here's the 23 you pick the sub. Isn't it more logical to start Jmac? if he is right then awesome , if he isn't you can take him out for when it matters more?

This isn't aimed at you specifically, more just the general idea, but when does it matter the least in a game?

That phrase "when it matters" gets thrown around a lot, especially in the media and about last quarters in close games etc.

Having personally watched us compete in two grand finals that were over by half time (way before then, if we're being honest), I have trouble thinking that any particular period in a game is more or less important than another.

We need as close to a four quarter performance as possible and I think a way to do that is by not picking a sub around the idea that we might have to take him out of the game at some point.

 

[The King!]

Feel like Fox is seen as more expendable and that it means they would be more likely to bring Mills back should we win.

Where as picking adams then dropping again is harder ? maybe?

 

[The King!]

This isn't aimed at you specifically, more just the general idea, but when does it matter the least in a game?

That phrase "when it matters" gets thrown around a lot, especially in the media and about last quarters in close games etc.

Having personally watched us compete in two grand finals that were over by half time (way before then, if we're being honest), I have trouble thinking that any particular period in a game is more or less important than another.

We need as close to a four quarter performance as possible and I think a way to do that is by not picking a sub around the idea that we might have to take him out of the game at some point.

The whole game matters but the second half is more important , you either hang on/consolidate or you give chase .

There are exceptions like if you say kick 1 goal for the half and the game is over , but generally.

If hypothetically player X can only give me 2 quarters before energy is gone completely. I'd play them in the 2nd half . Actually maybe quarter 2 and 3.

 

[Bloods86]

There are exceptions like if you say kick 1 goal for the half and the game is over , but generally.

Lol, would never happen to us.

 

[Indie_]

This seems to suggest it was a leak from the Adams camp.

 

[caesar88]

The whole game matters but the second half is more important , you either hang on/consolidate or you give chase .

There are exceptions like if you say kick 1 goal for the half and the game is over , but generally.

If hypothetically player X can only give me 2 quarters before energy is gone completely. I'd play them in the 2nd half . Actually maybe quarter 2 and 3.

But the first half matters in what comes of the second half.

A fourth quarter comeback can only lead to a win if the first three quarters have kept the margin surmountable.

Hanging on to a fourth quarter lead is possible if maybe the margin over the first three quarters is big enough to kill the trailing team's spirits.

Etc.

It all matters.

Given the early stages of big finals have been the real issue for us over the years, I would say if any period of the game is crucial to get right and be on top of our game in, it is the first quarter or so.

If we are on top early then it's worth remembering we're capable of putting such a gap between ourselves and our opponents that it could put the game out of reach without needing the fourth quarter anyway. That's why it's so frustrating that we just can't get going in these first quarters at all.

 

[The King!]

But the first half matters in what comes of the second half.

A fourth quarter comeback can only lead to a win if the first three quarters have kept the margin surmountable.

Hanging on to a fourth quarter lead is possible if maybe the margin over the first three quarters is big enough to kill the trailing team's spirits.

Etc.

It all matters.

Given the early stages of big finals have been the real issue for us over the years, I would say if any period of the game is crucial to get right and be on top of our game in, it is the first quarter or so.

If we are on top early then it's worth remembering we're capable of putting such a gap between ourselves and our opponents that it could put the game out of reach without needing the fourth quarter anyway. That's why it's so frustrating that we just can't get going in these first quarters at all.

I am not saying both don't matter , to the point where you can just take the first half off. But even if you start well and build a lead unless it's what 10-12 goals you are still going to have to protect it, when's a game out of reach really these days? Plus I am only talking in consideration of sub timing when they can have the most impact. Not suggesting we sit our best players for a half so they are fresh.

I will have to ponder it further, or not , just pick the best 22 to win full stop.

 

[Bloods86]

This seems to suggest it was a leak from the Adams camp.

Hope for Sheldrick yet!

 

[caesar88]

I am not saying both don't matter , to the point where you can just take the first half off. But even if you start well and build a lead unless it's what 10-12 goals you are still going to have to protect it, when's a game out of reach really these days? Plus I am only talking in consideration of sub timing when they can have the most impact. Not suggesting we sit our best players for a half so they are fresh.

I will have to ponder it further, or not , just pick the best 22 to win full stop.

Well we are 2-4 this year when trailing at 3QT, yet 9-0 when leading at QT.

It suggests that if any period in a game matters most to us having a good performance, it is the early stages of a match. We like to think we can stand up in fourth quarters and chase a team down but our record shows in most cases we've actually failed to do so.

In those losses where we trailed at 3QT, we either let our opposition in and gave them confidence over the first three quarters (Richmond), ran out of time trying to come from behind and had to rely on an individual kick after the siren (Fremantle) or just gave ourselves no chance by not really turning up at all and it being a blow-out (Bulldogs, Port.)

All cases where our shizen first three quarters cost us in one way or another.

 

[caesar88]

This seems to suggest it was a leak from the Adams camp.

Geez you'd hope not. That is lousy if true.