Toast Horse Longmire

[grimlock]

Surely would have to be the 2nd most popular equine in Sydney this morning (behind Black Caviar of course of course). He needs to start receiving some of the credit for the great job he has done in the 1 and a bit seasons so far. He's received quite a bit of stick, ranging from being a Roos clone/crony (when in fact he has tweaked the structures and the game style enough to give this team its own unique identity. We've adopted the press and are playing on quicker than under Roos) to being out of touch with the times (a criticism I'll admit I never understood since he was an assistant for the past 10 years)

He pulled a few strings at half time yesterday, one of them enforced (Smith for Malceski) but the others turned out to be masterstrokes. Clearing Everitt out of the forward line where he wasn't doing what was expected of him - taking Gibson out of the action - and putting more experienced and more importantly, smarter players in Goodes and ROK in his stead. I also suspect he freed up the midfielders more, having been too conscious of their respective opponents in the first half and ending up being second to the ball most of the time.

 

[PaulRoos]

Ahhh Horse ....

You bloody RIPPER !

 

[grimlock]

Ahhh Horse ....

You bloody RIPPER !

Move along Roosy, you've had your go.

 

[BarneyBent]

Yet another bloke who's proving the haters wrong. Never understood the "Roos clone" comments, we play a very different game under Longmire. Really made some astute on-field changes in his time at the club, and he's probably a better game day coach than Roos was (keeping in mind Roos' greatest qualities as a coach was building the team, putting in place game plans and developing a admirable team ethos, and wasn't known for his coaching masterstrokes).

 

[PaulRoos]

Move along Roosy, you've had your go.

You won't be saying that when the kids from "The Academy" start making big moves in the comp.

Horses thread ...

 

[Riders of Rohan]

Very happy with how he is going, still hasn't fixed the forward line, it's working right now because the mids are kicking goals, won't happen all the time. Very happy with how he has handled our mids and defence however.

Can we stop with all the proving the haters wrong comments about every player/coach that is having a good run. No one bloody hates a player and most of the time the criticism is justified. Criticism isn't hatred. Doubting someone's ability to make it at senior level isn't hating either. Sick of hearing it about every player.

 

[gaylordia]

Surely would have to be the 2nd most popular equine in Sydney this morning (behind Black Caviar of course of course). He needs to start receiving some of the credit for the great job he has done in the 1 and a bit seasons so far. He's received quite a bit of stick, ranging from being a Roos clone/crony (when in fact he has tweaked the structures and the game style enough to give this team its own unique identity. We've adopted the press and are playing on quicker than under Roos) to being out of touch with the times (a criticism I'll admit I never understood since he was an assistant for the past 10 years)

He pulled a few strings at half time yesterday, one of them enforced (Smith for Malceski) but the others turned out to be masterstrokes. Clearing Everitt out of the forward line where he wasn't doing what was expected of him - taking Gibson out of the action - and putting more experienced and more importantly, smarter players in Goodes and ROK in his stead. I also suspect he freed up the midfielders more, having been too conscious of their respective opponents in the first half and ending up being second to the ball most of the time.

don't agree. moving everitt was not a masterstroke. its what you do when someone such as him (a swingman) is playing poorly. i don't see how he took gibson out of the action. gibson got injured at the same time we began to prosper (conincidence?). it seems horse learnt very little from our finals loss. i also don't see how he freed up the midfielders. we won the ball thanks to a lift in intensity from bolton and parker. im still going to wait and see with longmire. i'm not convinced about him, especially in finals.

 

[grimlock]

No, you misunderstand me. His role was meant to take Gibson out of the action, but he failed to do so.

 

[gaylordia]

No, you misunderstand me. His role was meant to take Gibson out of the action, but he failed to do so.

sorry. i know everitt did some good things in the 2nd half but he needed to to make up for his first half. disappointed in his consistency.

 

[BarneyBent]

sorry. i know everitt did some good things in the 2nd half but he needed to to make up for his first half. disappointed in his consistency.

There's no shame in not reading the play as well as Gibson. He didn't play him tight enough, but then, had the ball coming from the midfield been a little bit better and more organised in that first half, Everitt might have been able to hurt him and make him accountable. It wasn't great, but he was far from terrible. Just read the game situation a little bit poorly, and was beaten by a much more experienced opponent. When he was released onto the wing in the second half, he really came into the game.

On topic, releasing Everitt to the wing, putting Jude in the guts (after spending the first half up forward), sticking Goodes up forward, entrusting AJ to Roughead so that Teddy and Grundy could double-team Buddy (also removing AJ from the loose man role which he wasn't performing well enough), and putting ROK on Hodge were all fantastic coaching moves that helped turn the tide. Obviously the team in general lifted, but Horse also started making key changes after quarter time that stopped Hawthorn's dominance.

Entrusting Mattner and Shaw to the small defender roles and using Smith as an attacking sub, a move Clarkson would have never expected, was also a masterstroke. Smith pretty much had his own ball in the second half as a result, and was another reason for our second half turnaround.

 

[SM]

Always been a supporter of Horse, never doubted him for a second.

 

[gaylordia]

There's no shame in not reading the play as well as Gibson. He didn't play him tight enough, but then, had the ball coming from the midfield been a little bit better and more organised in that first half, Everitt might have been able to hurt him and make him accountable. It wasn't great, but he was far from terrible. Just read the game situation a little bit poorly, and was beaten by a much more experienced opponent. When he was released onto the wing in the second half, he really came into the game.

On topic, releasing Everitt to the wing, putting Jude in the guts (after spending the first half up forward), sticking Goodes up forward, entrusting AJ to Roughead so that Teddy and Grundy could double-team Buddy (also removing AJ from the loose man role which he wasn't performing well enough), and putting ROK on Hodge were all fantastic coaching moves that helped turn the tide. Obviously the team in general lifted, but Horse also started making key changes after quarter time that stopped Hawthorn's dominance.

Entrusting Mattner and Shaw to the small defender roles and using Smith as an attacking sub, a move Clarkson would have never expected, was also a masterstroke. Smith pretty much had his own ball in the second half as a result, and was another reason for our second half turnaround.

there is no shame in not reading the play as well as gibson. there is shame in not playing the role you were supposed to : defensive forward and there is shame in not showing any enthusiasm for the contest. further, our midfield won the ball often enough in last years final and gibson kept punching it away. it was the method of delivery that was the problem. a lot more running goals this time and goals from pressure.

rok did most of his best work before being put on hodge.
roughhead never had the ball in the second half as we had it the whole time because our midfield dominated.

using smith as an attacking sub? sorry but thats way off the mark and completely bias. malceski got injured. he has one choice, put smith on. how that is a decision to use smith as an attacking sub baffles me.
smith played well but has never had that sort of impact in the middle before from what i've seen. with lrt out we had one less player so smith really had to play midfield to give others a rest.

as for playing shaw and mattner on small forwards, they do that every week. mattner played the majority of the second half as a loose man, anyway.

i just don't see any masterstrokes there.

 

[vonn]

Always been a supporter of Horse, never doubted him for a second.

I C wot u did der

 

[BarneyBent]

there is no shame in not reading the play as well as gibson. there is shame in not playing the role you were supposed to : defensive forward and there is shame in not showing any enthusiasm for the contest.

I didn't think Everitt was unenthusiastic. Just beaten. Ball would come in, Gibson would read it best and get there first. In any case, I'm not sure how this factors into your criticism of Horse; if Everitt wasn't playing his role, then that's Everitt's fault, not Horse's, and Horse made the right move moving him off Gibson.

further, our midfield won the ball often enough in last years final and gibson kept punching it away. it was the method of delivery that was the problem. a lot more running goals this time and goals from pressure.

Exactly my point. Our ball use in the final was rushed and haphazard (as it was for most of the year). It was also rushed and haphazard in the first half yesterday. Both times, Gibson thrived, and nobody could really have stopped him (though Everitt was particularly out of his depth). In the second quarter, and drastically moreso in the second half, our ball use improved, and a more experienced forward (ROK) was put on Gibson. Gibson was made accountable, and was then injured.

rok did most of his best work before being put on hodge.

ROK did his best offensive work before being put on Hodge. He did his best defensive work after being put on Hodge (and before Hodge, Gibson).

roughhead never had the ball in the second half as we had it the whole time because our midfield dominated.

Actually, he was targeted a few times. Aside from the mark on the line, in which the ball was kicked to advantage and Roughead only had to use his superior strength to hold off AJ, a battle that could only have had one outcome, AJ read the play better and constantly took better position. But even with that aside, the point is that Horse freed up Richards and Grundy to double-team Franklin, a move that was extremely effective.

using smith as an attacking sub? sorry but thats way off the mark and completely bias. malceski got injured. he has one choice, put smith on. how that is a decision to use smith as an attacking sub baffles me.
smith played well but has never had that sort of impact in the middle before from what i've seen. with lrt out we had one less player so smith really had to play midfield to give others a rest.

Ahahaha, seriously? When Smith was subbed on, everybody, myself included, assumed he was going to replace Shaw on Rioli, freeing up Shaw to play Malceski's looser role. That was the obvious thing to do, and there was absolutely no reason Horse couldn't have done it. But Horse didn't decide to do that. He kept Shaw on Rioli, and injected Smith into the midfield. There was absolutely no reason for him to do that unless he had thought of it in advance (in fact, there's absolutely no reason for him to have chosen Smith as a sub if he hadn't thought of it in advance). It being a forced substitution had nothing to do with it; if anything, substituting for Malceski would have made it MORE likely he'd be in defence, as it would be an almost like-for-like replacement, but despite that, Horse still put him in the midfield. The only thing forced about Smith's injection into the midfield was the timing; he played a whole half instead of a quarter and a bit.

And no, Smith has never had that sort of impact in the middle before. He's never played as an attacking midfielder at senior level before (he has, however, played midfield at reserves level many times and absolutely dominated, so the coaching staff knew he could do it). That's why Clarkson had no plans for it, and no counter.

as for playing shaw and mattner on small forwards, they do that every week. mattner played the majority of the second half as a loose man, anyway.

I know they do that every week. I wasn't saying playing them as small defenders was a masterstroke, I was saying playing ONLY them, and not also Smith, as small defenders was a masterstroke. It was in relation to the Smith move, it wasn't meant as separate coaching tactic.

i just don't see any masterstrokes there.

Then you're blinded by cognitive dissonance.

 

[grimlock]

Always been a supporter of Horse, never doubted him for a second.

Hmm really

Because we as supporters can make change if we murmur loud enough. Heck that's essentially how Roos was appointed back in 02.

Longmire has demonstrated time and time again that as a coach he lacks the nous to be successful.

We really need to make a strong play for Malthouse in 2013 to push for a flag as our younger players come into their prime.

how about

I never called for Roos' head because he, well, could coach.

I wrote a big rant about how crap Longmire has shown himself to be as a coach but for some reason it didn't get sent and I can't really be bothered writing it again, but he has shown time and again an inability to be creative or show any coaching nous, that will not magically change in six months. We WILL go through this all again in 2012.

You know, that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Oh wait

Memo Swans Board. Ditch the dud.

Yes I know you're being sarcastic.

 

[MarkEllis]

I heard he promised them cookies if they won.

Choc-chip ones.

mmmmmm choc-chip cookies.....

I also gave Horse a mention in the POTY thread for this week as I thought he did good work on the weekend. He had an impact on the game from the box. It wasn't just the players. He admitted he got things wrong and changed before it was too late. Good effort that.

 

[Tippett2Goal]

Yep fairly sure I started a thread last year praising Horse and the way he has changed our gameplan, really starting to reap the rewards this year.

 

[MF]

Horse is having a huge impact in the box.

 

[MrPresident]

At first I was unsure about him but he's grown into the role and grown on me as a result.

I think he's become very good at making in game adjustments. Generally he's used the sub well, perfected our midfield rotation and gets matchups right more often than not. He's drafted well and got the new players to buy into what it means to be a Blood and the intensity and desire that comes with it.

Considering some of the coaches who have dissapointed their fans in recent years like Voss, Buckley and now Clarkson we should consider ourselves very lucky to have two very good ones in a row.

 

[gaylordia]

I didn't think Everitt was unenthusiastic. Just beaten. Ball would come in, Gibson would read it best and get there first. In any case, I'm not sure how this factors into your criticism of Horse; if Everitt wasn't playing his role, then that's Everitt's fault, not Horse's, and Horse made the right move moving him off Gibson.



Exactly my point. Our ball use in the final was rushed and haphazard (as it was for most of the year). It was also rushed and haphazard in the first half yesterday. Both times, Gibson thrived, and nobody could really have stopped him (though Everitt was particularly out of his depth). In the second quarter, and drastically moreso in the second half, our ball use improved, and a more experienced forward (ROK) was put on Gibson. Gibson was made accountable, and was then injured.



ROK did his best offensive work before being put on Hodge. He did his best defensive work after being put on Hodge (and before Hodge, Gibson).



Actually, he was targeted a few times. Aside from the mark on the line, in which the ball was kicked to advantage and Roughead only had to use his superior strength to hold off AJ, a battle that could only have had one outcome, AJ read the play better and constantly took better position. But even with that aside, the point is that Horse freed up Richards and Grundy to double-team Franklin, a move that was extremely effective.



Ahahaha, seriously? When Smith was subbed on, everybody, myself included, assumed he was going to replace Shaw on Rioli, freeing up Shaw to play Malceski's looser role. That was the obvious thing to do, and there was absolutely no reason Horse couldn't have done it. But Horse didn't decide to do that. He kept Shaw on Rioli, and injected Smith into the midfield. There was absolutely no reason for him to do that unless he had thought of it in advance (in fact, there's absolutely no reason for him to have chosen Smith as a sub if he hadn't thought of it in advance). It being a forced substitution had nothing to do with it; if anything, substituting for Malceski would have made it MORE likely he'd be in defence, as it would be an almost like-for-like replacement, but despite that, Horse still put him in the midfield. The only thing forced about Smith's injection into the midfield was the timing; he played a whole half instead of a quarter and a bit.

And no, Smith has never had that sort of impact in the middle before. He's never played as an attacking midfielder at senior level before (he has, however, played midfield at reserves level many times and absolutely dominated, so the coaching staff knew he could do it). That's why Clarkson had no plans for it, and no counter.



I know they do that every week. I wasn't saying playing them as small defenders was a masterstroke, I was saying playing ONLY them, and not also Smith, as small defenders was a masterstroke. It was in relation to the Smith move, it wasn't meant as separate coaching tactic.



Then you're blinded by cognitive dissonance.

cognitive dissonance is how you learn. being blinded by it is somewhat oxymoronic. but anyway, in general, i think you are reading way too much into run of the mill tactical decisions.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Horse is having a huge impact in the box.

Lol, oh you.

 

[BarneyBent]

cognitive dissonance is how you learn. being blinded by it is somewhat oxymoronic. but anyway, in general, i think you are reading way too much into run of the mill tactical decisions.

I don't think you have a great grasp on the concept of cognitive dissonance.

And every tactical decision is a "run of the mill tactical decision" until it turns a game, which these did. Our midfield was ignited by Jude and Smith, Franklin was shut out by the Richards and Grundy double-team, Everitt was brought into the game, Gibson wasn't allowed freedom (before he was injured), Hodge was shut down by ROK, and Goodes had a major impact up forward, all as a result of moves Longmire made in the coaches box. Your refusal to give Horse credit is embarrassing.

 

[gaylordia]

I don't think you have a great grasp on the concept of cognitive dissonance.

And every tactical decision is a "run of the mill tactical decision" until it turns a game, which these did. Our midfield was ignited by Jude and Smith, Franklin was shut out by the Richards and Grundy double-team, Everitt was brought into the game, Gibson wasn't allowed freedom (before he was injured), Hodge was shut down by ROK, and Goodes had a major impact up forward, all as a result of moves Longmire made in the coaches box. Your refusal to give Horse credit is embarrassing.

embarrassing for you perhaps.

i know very well what cog diss means. like i said, you can't learn without it. it can be appropriate or 'over the top'. i've written many essays on it rather than just googled it to see of i could use it on a forum to impress some meathead football fans.

 

[Sanecow]

i've written many essays on it

I'm curious about your grades.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

Saw a funny quote in the telegraph - "longmire produced the move of the day when he sent goodes forward in the second half" its as if they've never seen it done before.

However. Along with other changes, ie smith for mal (and Gibson going down) it was the turning point in the match.

I don't think I ever bagged horse out (apart from seaby sub-gate). In fact, I remember thinkin to myself that all the criticisms that were being levelled at horse were the same things people were getting into roos about. I just figured they were list / personnel problems rather than longmires lack of coaching nous. In saying that. I'm sure he's made some mistakes along the way which is expected, but a majority of the time he makes the right choices, they're choices that as an outsider looking in I can see the logic behind the decsision. I also have a lot of faith in his decisions and feel that even if Im not happy with his decisions ie not playing tdl, I know there are reasons behind it.

One of horses tactical strategies that I find will be successful for him is his development of the midfield/small forward dual role. We've got a host of midfielders who can rest up forward and have an impact and its really been working in our favour so far in 2012 and has alot to do with our early success, particularly with our forward line not firing ad it should.

Rok is better forward than in the midfield. Bolton gan go forward and kick a couple of goals a game, I love seeing the ball in boltons hands in the f50, I'm always confident hell kick it, he's a gun footballer. mcglynn is a tough nut in the middle. Horse moved him out of the forward line even though he killed it in his first season at the swans, moved him to thw midfield yo develop hid game, mcglynn took a while to adjust but now he's getting back to his best in the dual role. Bird can also go forward.

Great tactic imo and gives horse a lot of different configurtions to use if a particular plsyer is being beaten in a particular position. Also I think its a reason someone like tdl isn't getting a look in. He'd have to offer a lot up forward to make up for a lack of versatility.