Autopsy Sydney Swans Vs Carlton Blues. What you learnt

[kelpie_X]

By the way, Tommy's contract talks have been put on hold until season's end according to Tom Harley in an interview today.

He is gone folks!

I say lets * him off then because after the last two weeks he has done nothing and is more a hindrance to our midfield than a help. Bye bye Tom you ******* squib! I'm not pissed off for you leaving, but if you don't have a crack for the remainder of the season then you are nothing but a campaigner of a bloke. You'll fit in well with Hodgey.

Heeney into the middle!

 

[J_Moore]

Lloyd is almost on hanners level for gut running. Under rated by alot of swans fans

No, I appreciate he runs himself into the ground. i just think there's comparatively little to show for it, especially yesterday.

 

[The King!]

No, I appreciate he runs himself into the ground. i just think there's comparatively little to show for it, especially yesterday.

I think he has value to be had, just not sure he is flashy or impactful enough to be some half back flanker

 

[miggs]

Nope not a half back flanker thats for sure.

 

[Tedeski]

Played a very important role yesterday without McVeigh.
Just watched the replay.
Hanners was again putrid. 6 disposals in a row went straight to a Carlton player. It really hurt the team.
Non existent in the last.
Rohan's defensive efforts far outweigh quantity of disposal. Critical to the win.
Naismith is growing with every game. Sinclair was unable to jump but toiled well carrying a knee issue.

 

[Sketi]

i was dead wrong about naismith...he is our number 1 ruck and tippo is a pinch hitter

The 2 biggest positives of the past month has been the emergence of AA and Naismith, the 2 positions I was most concerned about coming into the season.

 

[Jeffers]

Played a very important role yesterday without McVeigh.

Rohan's defensive efforts far outweigh quantity of disposal. Critical to the win.

Absolutely. Was the reason why i gave him 1 vote despite only having 8 disposals. His 1% and chasing helped give us a chance when we were under siege in defense. Usually we'd just belt the s**t out of the ball long into a 1 on 2 contest with Rohan who fought valiantly to give us a stoppage or slow them up on their next forward foray.
He is extremely important to us

 

[Tuco]

We really need to sort out how teams are negating our releasing mids - esp. Hanners.

Both Hawthorn and Carlton set up allowing Hanners to take possession just so they could tackle him (no fluke with Bolton coaching the Blues). Shutting him down goes a long way to stopping us dead.

Essentially they are cutting down our inside work of JPK etc by 'allowing' that first flick pass. But as soon as Hanners and co receives they're on them forcing another handball straight into a turnover.

They're pretty much reading Mitchell's handpasses in the same way.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe we need to shephard harder and push the passes a few extra metres out?

Nothing more frustrating than seeing us win from the circle just to concede it on the attacking side of the square seconds later or simply bombing it long in hope.

 

[Skeparovic]

We really need to sort out how teams are negating our releasing mids - esp. Hanners.

Both Hawthorn and Carlton set up allowing Hanners to take possession just so they could tackle him (no fluke with Bolton coaching the Blues). Shutting him down goes a long way to stopping us dead.

Essentially they are cutting down our inside work of JPK etc by 'allowing' that first flick pass. But as soon as Hanners and co receives they're on them forcing another handball straight into a turnover.

They're pretty much reading Mitchell's handpasses in the same way.

I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe we need to shephard harder and push the passes a few extra metres out?

Nothing more frustrating than seeing us win from the circle just to concede it on the attacking side of the square seconds later or simply bombing it long in hope.

THIS! I almost began a thread on this topic yesterday regarding the value nowadays of winning the contested ball. Most have always been coached to be first to the ball and win it for your team however I'm not 100% sure that it's worthwile doing that based on observing the Hawthorn and Carlton games.

Before i get a WTFDWFT response let me outline my reasons for doubting:

Does it pay to have several Swans players (e.g. JPK, Jack, Mitchell) fighting to win the same ball against one opponent when the opposing team structure their setup to easily tackle the receiver (Hanners)? Swans often win the contested ball however are forced into (a) an around the corner up and under bomb; (b) a spilt ball turnover outside of the congestion once receiver is tackled due to opponents conceeding the contest and having more numbers on the outside; or (c) opponents winning a free kick for incorrect disposal from receiver?

On numerous occasions Hawthorn and Carlton appeared to conceed winning the initial contested ball and targeted the receiver (not the extractor), winning a free or forcing a turnover. They then transitioned forward quite easily.

Is this why Clarkson says he doesn't give a #$@! about contested ball stats against the Swans as there is a strategy to enable their strength (winning contested ball) be exploited as a weakness?

Thoughts?

 

[SilentHunter_]

THIS! I almost began a thread on this topic yesterday regarding the value nowadays of winning the contested ball. Most have always been coached to be first to the ball and win it for your team however I'm not 100% sure that it's worthwile doing that based on observing the Hawthorn and Carlton games.

Before i get a WTFDWFT response let me outline my reasons for doubting:

Does it pay to have several Swans players (e.g. JPK, Jack, Mitchell) fighting to win the same ball against one opponent when the opposing team structure their setup to easily tackle the receiver (Hanners)? Swans often win the contested ball however are forced into (a) an around the corner up and under bomb; (b) a spilt ball turnover outside of the congestion once receiver is tackled due to opponents conceeding the contest and having more numbers on the outside; or (c) opponents winning a free kick for incorrect disposal from receiver?

On numerous occasions Hawthorn and Carlton appeared to conceed winning the initial contested ball and targeted the receiver (not the extractor), winning a free or forcing a turnover. They then transitioned forward quite easily.

Is this why Clarkson says he doesn't give a #$@! about contested ball stats against the Swans as there is a strategy to enable their strength (winning contested ball) be exploited as a weakness?

Thoughts?

This is exactly what they've been doing (along other things) for the last few years. But I am not sure how we can overcome that.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

There were too many handball in hope that the Carlton players were more than happy to pick off at will. It let us down last week as well, which is concerning as that quick chain of handball is essential to the style we play around the contests. For me, this is the key thing that needs to be sorted out, even above the kicking inside 50 (which is atrocious), because if we get that outlet handpass working properly, players will have that couple of steps to lower the eyes.

Xavier did really well in his role, although he went a bit missing in the second half. He deserves all the responsibility of the holding the ball play though. He had Rohan streaming into the 50 goalside of his opponent and chose not to take it. At that point he had to just back himself to go for goals. His VERY slow indecision cost him. But he'll learn.

Quick question - was it just me or were the Blues VERY lucky to be ahead at quarter time? From where I was sitting, we seemed to be all over them for almost the whole quarter and they got all their goals against the run of play. With that effort and the absolute dominance of the 3rd quarter, the game should've been over before the last. I know we got 4 goals in that time, but considering the Blues hardly got past halfway in over 20 minutes of football, it really could've (and should've) been 6 or more. Carlton had no answer when we went up a gear and that at least is a good sign.

 

[The King!]

There were too many handball in hope that the Carlton players were more than happy to pick off at will. It let us down last week as well, which is concerning as that quick chain of handball is essential to the style we play around the contests. For me, this is the key thing that needs to be sorted out, even above the kicking inside 50 (which is atrocious), because if we get that outlet handpass working properly, players will have that couple of steps to lower the eyes.

Xavier did really well in his role, although he went a bit missing in the second half. He deserves all the responsibility of the holding the ball play though. He had Rohan streaming into the 50 goalside of his opponent and chose not to take it. At that point he had to just back himself to go for goals. His VERY slow indecision cost him. But he'll learn.

Quick question - was it just me or were the Blues VERY lucky to be ahead at quarter time? From where I was sitting, we seemed to be all over them for almost the whole quarter and they got all their goals against the run of play. With that effort and the absolute dominance of the 3rd quarter, the game should've been over before the last. I know we got 4 goals in that time, but considering the Blues hardly got past halfway in over 20 minutes of football, it really could've (and should've) been 6 or more. Carlton had no answer when we went up a gear and that at least is a good sign.

Felt like carlton scored off our dumb errors eg Aliir spills one out the back, or a dumb turnover

 

[S120]

Felt like carlton scored off our dumb errors eg Aliir spills one out the back, or a dumb turnover

This was my impression too. If someone could find what Carlton scored directly from turnovers, I suspect it would be the vast majority of their points. We made some abysmal mistakes in that regard.

 

[miggs]

also how many times does tom have to handball behind his head.

 

[RW]

also how many times does tom have to handball behind his head.

This. I think we use the look-away handball too much in general.

 

[J_Moore]

This was my impression too. If someone could find what Carlton scored directly from turnovers, I suspect it would be the vast majority of their points. We made some abysmal mistakes in that regard.

Cunningham handballing backwards into a pack directly to a Carlton player 5m from goal.

My god. The horror.

 

[The King!]

The lookaway kicks need to stop, I presume thats what Hanners does every time

 

[The Gong]

Cunningham handballing backwards into a pack directly to a Carlton player 5m from goal.

My god. The horror.

That was under 10s stuff. I missed who did it at the game so I had to watch it on replay just to see who it was. Blind handball back towards goal. What the??

 

[MC Bad Genius]

This was my impression too. If someone could find what Carlton scored directly from turnovers, I suspect it would be the vast majority of their points. We made some abysmal mistakes in that regard.

I'll have to watch the replay to confirm it, but I can remember the following goals from Carlton in the first quarter:

- Aliir outpositions everyone and then drops an absolute sitter and a Carlton player pounces
- Swans streaming forward and a handball goes directly on a Blues' chest and they move it quickly to a spacious forward line with no time for defenders to react.
- Swans pressing again and again in the forward line and then they went coast-to-coast from a kick-in. This was actually one of the best plays of the game, but was definitely against the general momentum.

 

[Teddy chester]

THIS! I almost began a thread on this topic yesterday regarding the value nowadays of winning the contested ball. Most have always been coached to be first to the ball and win it for your team however I'm not 100% sure that it's worthwile doing that based on observing the Hawthorn and Carlton games.

Before i get a WTFDWFT response let me outline my reasons for doubting:

Does it pay to have several Swans players (e.g. JPK, Jack, Mitchell) fighting to win the same ball against one opponent when the opposing team structure their setup to easily tackle the receiver (Hanners)? Swans often win the contested ball however are forced into (a) an around the corner up and under bomb; (b) a spilt ball turnover outside of the congestion once receiver is tackled due to opponents conceeding the contest and having more numbers on the outside; or (c) opponents winning a free kick for incorrect disposal from receiver?

On numerous occasions Hawthorn and Carlton appeared to conceed winning the initial contested ball and targeted the receiver (not the extractor), winning a free or forcing a turnover. They then transitioned forward quite easily.

Is this why Clarkson says he doesn't give a #$@! about contested ball stats against the Swans as there is a strategy to enable their strength (winning contested ball) be exploited as a weakness?

Thoughts?

I think it must pay if we r challenging for top 2 with the age profile of our list

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

The 2 biggest positives of the past month has been the emergence of AA and Naismith, the 2 positions I was most concerned about coming into the season.

The stone truth, as they say in America.

 

[miggs]

AA almost earnt himself a spot in the avatar. Its a toss up between my love for AA or my Loathe for Cal.

 

[connolly]

There were too many handball in hope that the Carlton players were more than happy to pick off at will. It let us down last week as well, which is concerning as that quick chain of handball is essential to the style we play around the contests. For me, this is the key thing that needs to be sorted out, even above the kicking inside 50 (which is atrocious), because if we get that outlet handpass working properly, players will have that couple of steps to lower the eyes.

Xavier did really well in his role, although he went a bit missing in the second half. He deserves all the responsibility of the holding the ball play though. He had Rohan streaming into the 50 goalside of his opponent and chose not to take it. At that point he had to just back himself to go for goals. His VERY slow indecision cost him. But he'll learn.

Quick question - was it just me or were the Blues VERY lucky to be ahead at quarter time? From where I was sitting, we seemed to be all over them for almost the whole quarter and they got all their goals against the run of play. With that effort and the absolute dominance of the 3rd quarter, the game should've been over before the last. I know we got 4 goals in that time, but considering the Blues hardly got past halfway in over 20 minutes of football, it really could've (and should've) been 6 or more. Carlton had no answer when we went up a gear and that at least is a good sign.

The amount of possessions a player gets doesn't automatically equal how great a game he had.

I think the issue with Lloyd's game is not the amount of possessions he got but what he did with it considering all but 5 of his possessions were uncontested and the fact he had 21 kicks. The stats he got meant he should of been far more damaging on the day than he was.

That's right its not just about the numbers. I think his job was to be the clearance defender with his pace. Carlton sat on Rampe. It looked like that Silvagni's only job was to block him. So Lloyd was our clearance option. I think also the conditions weren't conducive to silver service and Carlton to their credit applied sustained pressure. They had a small fast forward line and Lloyd was quick enough to break their defensive forward line.

 

[The King!]

Harry is frustrating so often on replay

Like 3 mins or so into the second he gets it half forward, simpson comes at him rather than turn and use pace or look around he instantly handballs over his sholdour to avoid contact to a flat footed parker who was not that close, he gets three blues on him, then cunningham hangs back while kennedy and hanners come from no where, kennedy has to take on four blues, harry guards space on the outside, carlton run off with it

Just soft as s**t

 

[RW]

AA almost earnt himself a spot in the avatar. Its a toss up between my love for AA or my Loathe for Cal.

Go for positivity and pick AA, poor Cal has copped it enough, the board needs more good vibes!