Do we need to change our playing style?

[MF]

Is the tight marking, man on man style of footy now dead?

Have opposition coaches finally figured out how to defeat our gameplan or have we simply had a season where our players weren't able to cope with the demands of this style of play?

Does Roos need to look at implementing an entirely new gameplan or do we just need a plan C?

Discuss............

 

[balldman]

Is the tight marking, man on man style of footy now dead?

Have opposition coaches finally figured out how to defeat our gameplan or have we simply had a season where our players weren't able to cope with the demands of this style of play?

Does Roos need to look at implementing an entirely new gameplan or do we just need a plan C?

Discuss............

Yes to all the above!

 

[Bloods boy from the Bush]

The way we moved the ball out of defence was shocking on Saturday night the only times anyone ran at the oppistion they got caught holding the bll other than that it was chip chip chip slow building rubbish eventually a turn over and a Collingwood goal.

Something needs to be seriously done about our backline.

 

[magic.merkin]

yeah, the game has moved back to attacking play. see his Geelong for example.

theres a time still for man on man defensive play, but in general teams have worked out how to beat it and make you pay.

 

[RUNVS]

There are still quite afew teams where the Swans style still works very well so this style shouldnt be scrapped all together. What the Swans need is a 2nd style for the teams which can effectively defeat the 1st style. I dont want the Swans to change there style for all games as that may mean losing matches to clubs like Hawthorn, Port and the Bulldogs as historically we have been very good against those teams. If we change our style for those games we have a greater chance of losing.

 

[bloods01]

The way we moved the ball out of defence was shocking on Saturday night the only times anyone ran at the oppistion they got caught holding the bll other than that it was chip chip chip slow building rubbish eventually a turn over and a Collingwood goal.

Something needs to be seriously done about our backline.

When Roosy first took over the team we played with this amazing flair. We attacked and played a free flowing brand of football. Now we play this "tempo" football. This can be useful against certain teams but an emphasis on attack needs to be adopted. Our forward line could become the most potent in the league if we move the ball on quickly.

Play on at all costs is the way to go. Look at the Cats. They're always looking to play on. By holding onto the ball you give opposition teams time to get players behind the ball and get opponents to drop off and block any leads that Hall makes.

We dont need a total overhaul but we do need change.

 

[carsoutback]

I have a very different view. I think the others play a similar brand of one-on-one uncompromising footy but do it better than we do now. I think what we really missed this year was the 3 players who used to attack and break the lines for Sydney (Goodes & Buchanan & Kennelly) which is what we used to do. By the time Goodes hit form, we were already struggling to hang on and with problems of injuries/suspension/suspect-form of other two, we never had a chance to mount those wonderful breakway and counter-attacks. It compounded the problems of having forwards who were often either injured or in poor form when they never got much easy ball at all. Buchanan's loss of form has been underplayed IMO, he was critical.

 

[Tuco]

I have a very different view. I think the others play a similar brand of one-on-one uncompromising footy but do it better than we do now. I think what we really missed this year was the 3 players who used to attack and break the lines for Sydney (Goodes & Buchanan & Kennelly) which is what we used to do. By the time Goodes hit form, we were already struggling to hang on and with problems of injuries/suspension/suspect-form of other two, we never had a chance to mount those wonderful breakway and counter-attacks. It compounded the problems of having forwards who were often either injured or in poor form when they never got much easy ball at all. Buchanan's loss of form has been underplayed IMO, he was critical.

I basically agree with this.

Our gameplan is pretty much bullet proof. It's not rocket science. And it's not a technical structure that changes the fabric of footy. We based our gameplan around one-on-one contested footy which has been the proven model for finals for more than a 100 years. Other teams have simply inproved in this area - Collingwood were sensational at applying pressure.

I saw a shot of the board during Sheedy's last game as coach and I read in big letters:

"Pressure: Must be at Sydney levels."

Says it all about how what set us apart has been dissected and incorporated by other teams over the last 2 years.

The "Tempo" shite is not our desired gameplan, despite what some old pundits in the media kept repeating to themselves until everyone believed it. It was actually a reaction to the increased popularity of the zone flood. And we used it successfully to overcome the danger of turning over the footy by kicking to 3 or 4 on 2 man contests.

We were seriously only a handful of scores off finishing the home and away season in an even higher position than we did in 06. And in all the mess of 2007, some have overlooked how well we really ground out the season under duress.

 

[Corpuscles]

Hope this is not stating the obvious but Swans style is dictated mainly by the "cattle" available. It attempts to play to the group and individual strengths and cover the obvious weaknesses and same time create collective synergy by giving each a defined accountable role and pattern of team rules.

IMO we need: a strong marking dominant FF, a tall quick FB, and another quick line breaking midfielder (with Goodes) before it can change much from an ultra defensive set up.

 

[BIGBEZ]

I dont think we have to change our style, just implement it better!

 

[liz]

I have a very different view. I think the others play a similar brand of one-on-one uncompromising footy but do it better than we do now. I think what we really missed this year was the 3 players who used to attack and break the lines for Sydney (Goodes & Buchanan & Kennelly) which is what we used to do. By the time Goodes hit form, we were already struggling to hang on and with problems of injuries/suspension/suspect-form of other two, we never had a chance to mount those wonderful breakway and counter-attacks. It compounded the problems of having forwards who were often either injured or in poor form when they never got much easy ball at all. Buchanan's loss of form has been underplayed IMO, he was critical.

Nail. Head. Hit.

(And Tuco's following comments are pretty much spot on, too.)

I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with a style that has stood the test of time. What is needed is just a slight change of balance between negating and offensive players so that we're not so reliant on the three carsoutback mentioned.

Malceski has already shown he can be one of these. Early days yet but Barlow's athleticism and pretty exciting skills (some of his bullet passes to our forwards in his few outings have been almost in the Malceski class) suggest that he's another possible to change the balance slightly. And the boy can also tackle - he laid 9 in the Hawks game - so he may be able to contribute in both departments.

Letting Ablett and/or McVeigh off the defensive leash may be part of the answer. Or maybe it lies with Laidlaw, Jack, Phillips, Schmidt, Moore or DOK.

The fundamentals don't need to change. They just need a bit of a spruce up.

 

[MF]

Nail. Head. Hit.

(And Tuco's following comments are pretty much spot on, too.)

I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with a style that has stood the test of time. What is needed is just a slight change of balance between negating and offensive players so that we're not so reliant on the three carsoutback mentioned.

Malceski has already shown he can be one of these. Early days yet but Barlow's athleticism and pretty exciting skills (some of his bullet passes to our forwards in his few outings have been almost in the Malceski class) suggest that he's another possible to change the balance slightly. And the boy can also tackle - he laid 9 in the Hawks game - so he may be able to contribute in both departments.

Letting Ablett and/or McVeigh off the defensive leash may be part of the answer. Or maybe it lies with Laidlaw, Jack, Phillips, Schmidt, Moore or DOK.

The fundamentals don't need to change. They just need a bit of a spruce up.

I don't think Ablett would be well suited to an attacking midfield role. McVeigh could be but he really needs to improve his kicking to be able to hurt the opposition.

Personally I would love to see Laidlaw given a bit of a run in the midfield next season.

 

[little village]

i would never question Roos except to say this it's ok to have faith in players, it won us a premiership, one which i never thought i would see.

we smacked hawthorns smelly asses two weeks ago then the very next week played the same game as we did two weeks earlier against collingwood.

Collingwood are good but not good enough to beat us 4 times in a row [which they did]

let them off the leash a little, that was our last game and i'd rather get smacked having a free dip.

it's way better than trying to stop them beating us by more.

Anyway like i said i luv the guts of him paul rooos [thumbs in the air]

 

[Chandra]

I think we should maintain the tight one on one style of play, but we seemed to have lost the art of loosening the reins when the opportunity arises. If we don't also have this as part of the game plan we'll struggle to kick a winning score as the rest of the league move towards an ultra attacking style.

I also understand that the midfield we have suits the physical, tight style. We need to inject some class into their to assist with the attacking component of our game.

It's a high class forward line we won't deliver it quickly to

 

[FM0226]

I don't think that we need drastic changes to the one-on-one game plan, in my view, we struggled not because our game plan is too defensive, our biggest problems lie in the structure of the forward line. We have relied on the brilliance of Hall for way too long - he was one of the few reliable marking options we've had up front and we relied on him to run his guts out every game and get 5/6 marks on the wings. When he struggled with an injury, we struggled badly.

Even when he should only be used as a decoy, we keep kicking to him - which led to very undesirable results. And with Hall getting older each year, we probably need to develop someone that plays more as a traditional CHF, someone that is a good mark and have the motor to rove around the arc up to the wings (like Cloke and Hansen). The closest thing we've had is O'Keefe that played such a role on a few occasions - eg. the Hawkthorn game (he's our most reliable mark outside a healthy and in-form Hall).

Midfield is our second biggest area. Even though we have two very decent Ruckman, we are a very average roving team. Jude Bolton's clearance skills seem to have disappeared completely (thus finding himself in the forward/flank where his poor marking skills is exposed) and in a lot of games, we relied too much on Kirk as our single extracter - And he needs help badly. The other problem in our midfield is obvious - our kicking skills (especially inside 50s) have been quite poor with the likes of J.Bolton, Fosdike and Buchanan the main offenders. Kirk's kicking is never great, but that's not his role, we've relied a lot of Buchanan to provide our inside 50 passes and with he struggling, we had little alternatives.

There is a lot of optimism about Eski moving into the midfield, but I'm actually 50-50 on that. The good thing is that he no longer have to worry about his opponents dragging him near the goal square, but at the same time, he will opened up for a lot robust tackling from the opposition midfield. Another thing is that he's not a very good 'ball-magnet' - in the few occasions we tried to play him as an attacking-loose man in defence, he struggled to find the footy - Basically, he's someone that has trouble getting the footy himself and needs an extracter to give him the footy.

So in my opinion, even when we move him to midfield, we need to find a second extractor to help Kirk out - that's why we need to move Schmit inside. He've shown a lot in the reserves as a ball-getter and has shown good disposal skills as well as creativity, in my view, once he gets more endurance, he can easily turn into a Sam Mitchell-type that would make Kirk's life a lot easier as well as making use of our good ruck-work.

In my view, our problem doesn't lie in the game plan, but in our personals. The injury to Hall and Kennelly destroyed our main structure and we don't have a lot of alternatives (especially to Hall and we played him injured most of the year). It's not so much that our midfield is too defensive, it's just that their decision/kicking skills had been borderline appalling when they have the ball and that's something we need address - we simply aren't hitting enough targets this year. But no, I don't think playing loose is actually benefitial to us - we don't have the skills to make use of the extra space we would get while we'll get burned in the other end.

I'm actually quite happy with the defence this year and with LRT coming back and Laidlaw looking as though he'll be very handy.

 

[snappy]

Good post FM, i agree with most of your seniments. If your watching the finals, there is one thing you would notice, thats tight man on man contested footy..
On our mids, spot on with Kirk needing assistance extracting, it was a pity to see Bolton all but disapear this year. Wheather or nor Schmidt can do it/or is suited im not sure, i really enjoy watching him use the ball and if he was to go in and under more perhaps he wouldnt get enough time and space to use it as well as he could, remembering Kirk, & Bolton generally jus bang the ball onto boot..
I also think Malceski is better of the half back line, setting up dangerous counter attacks. We can use our own stocks/trade for fast/attacking clearence mids.
Lets put Okeefe permemantly into CHF, i like that move alot, he can rotate with Hall and move up the wing..
I think were still a good show next year, jus need to rejig a few things & personel

 

[swannykika]

one thing ive really noticed this year in finals, is that teams are playing a more 'swans' type of game, tight, contested, low scoring affairs with lots of tackling and stoppages. interesting hah... take it as a compliment.

 

[chalbilto]

one thing ive really noticed this year in finals, is that teams are playing a more 'swans' type of game, tight, contested, low scoring affairs with lots of tackling and stoppages. interesting hah... take it as a compliment.

Agreed However I have also noticed that they are also more quickly playing on. Something that Roosy can ponder in a future game plan?

 

[FM0226]

I also think Malceski is better of the half back line, setting up dangerous counter attacks. We can use our own stocks/trade for fast/attacking clearence mids.
Lets put Okeefe permemantly into CHF, i like that move alot, he can rotate with Hall and move up the wing..
I think were still a good show next year, jus need to rejig a few things & personel

Yep, I fully agree, that's why I'm still 50-50 on Malceski moving to midfield. At the back, it is easier for him to get the ball (especially from kick-ins) and especially when we were plaing at home at the SCG, he can already set up an inside 50 pass after a few one-twos/bounces. Maybe we switch him between positions? When he does play in the midfield, we should really start looking at running setplays where our midfielders doing a lot of blocking/shepherding to free him up - like Judd and Gary Ablett in their respective teams. Eski has all the qualities to be our star man and main attacking weapon we really need to start planning our team around him.

And I really hope that O'Keefe grows into that CHF role with Hall playing a lot closer to the goal square and don't make as make as much leads further up the ground (A bit like Gehrig in the past few years). That way, Hall can still expose defenders with his leading speed and strength, but at the same time we can probably preserve his body a bit better. And the last thing is that if we persist with the short kicking method as our counter-method for full flooding from the other sides, we have to make sure that that second last pass (the one just on the edge of the 50m arc) must be in the hands of Malceski or Davis (and Davis to shoot for goal with conscience) and maybe Dempster - but definitely not Matthews, Jude Bolton or Fosdike.

McVeigh is a wildcard - he actually has the qualities to be a very good player and showed signs of very good evasive skills and creativity. The problem is that he is a confidence player and he becomes really dreadful in his decision-making with his confidence is down. He's at his worst when he has to tag, so if we get free him up a lot more in the forward line (when we've done more in the second half of the year) and maybe even run a few plays for him early in the game to get his confidence up, our forward line will function a lot better.

Nevertheless, we have to move away from being so 'Hall-centric".

On the other hand, I'm actually quite happy with the youngsters on our list. Some people had been bagging the ACT comp but the few chances that our youngsters get to play - namely Laidlaw, Barlow, Jack and Schmit - they don't look out of depth, in fact it is some of our senior players that did at times this year. And you have to remember that Laidlaw is a very late draft and both Barlow and Jack are from the rookie list - these are players that are given not much of a chance to succeed in the AFL and in my view, had done extremely well in the opportunities that they were given.