Coach John Longmire - Part II

[scaryness]

Horse and/or the club has evidently decided that defensive running is an area we need to focus on improving based on the last few drafts, but then we revert back to the slowest footy the Swans have played in years.

 

[Tuco]

Considering how quickly teams re-set their defensive structures after a failed inside 50, I'm wondering if the days of the loose man in defence are numbered. Or, I should clarify, have to be used in more specific situations.

It didn't happen all game, but one thing I noticed was that we often had a loose man back inside 50 at the bounce or throw up while North chose to create the loose man in the midfield around the ball - a much more attacking posture.

Then surprise surprise numbers won out at the clearance, and a they got a forward 50 entry. Or just as often we cleared the ball with beasts like JPK willing it out, only for them to be tackled or kick into a turnover situation.

Now if the opposition bombed it quickly forward, then sure, our extra defender comes into play. But when they moved it cleanly via their spare to players on the lead, they ended up with time to hit targets, and often went deep into our territory.

I'll have to keep an eye on this, but considering how our midfield has been struggling at times this year, it would be disappointing if the coaches are tying their hands behind their backs by thinning their stocks.

Puzzles me why we would set up this way. It's like we concede the inside 50 to the opposition before the bounce even happens.

 

[TheMase]

Then surprise surprise numbers won out at the clearance, and a they got a forward 50 entry. Or just as often we cleared the ball with beasts like JPK willing it out, only for them to be tackled or kick into a turnover situation.

And yet we won stoppage clearances by +4 and inside 50s +10?

Do agree we should play our spare, should we have one, around the ball more or perhaps pushing into space forward of the ball to create a loose man rather than regularly being behind the ball.

 

[BloodySwan]

We have been ordinary all year. We peaked in round 1. Last night was the tipping point for many.

Out best game was against the Giants. Our best quarter was the final one against the cats but I think last night was our worst performance. We can't seem to string two good performances in a row.

 

[TheMase]

I get your point, clearly that's the way we're trying to go and I commend the recruiting folks at our club for nailing our exact needs. But why does our style of footy, and every game we play in, feel more congested, and confined, and stagnant, than ever before in the last half a dozen years? Feels like there's a distinct clash between the players coming through on our list and the way Horse wants us to play.

I reckon it’s a couple of things

- coaches wary/spooked re start of 2017. We are currently without Franklin, Reid, Melican and you’d throw in Naismith, who are all a major part of our spine who would have been key to any gameplan developed over the summer

- as we are currently without key personnel and you’d throw Hannebery, our best runner, into that mix, the coaches are employing a more defensive style to try and hold opposition momentum, with moments (*not enough moments) of open running and quick movement as we saw against Geelong in the last quarter and moments during the first quarter against North to try and take advantage when we have the momentum (which we didn’t as demonstrated by the 7-8 goals missed effectively directly in front).

FWIW, I reckon the injury to the North player gave them an opportunity to regroup in the last quarter. Stifled our momentum.

- the coaches are fully aware of our players inability to hit a target under pressure (often not) and they don’t want them taking risks through he corridor because we are likely to turn it over. By kicking to packs on the wing, whilst under sized, with the main intent to bring the ball to ground and tough it out in the contest.

I think many have glossed over the fact, that without any depth we have lost our FF, CHF, best midfield runner, our at the time arguably no.1 ruck plus Tippett who was at worst strong depth to cover the likes of Reid, Franklin and Naismith going down. Plus Melican (and Aliir still getting into the groove). Mostly talls which is close to the weakest part of our list.

We have been forced to replace many of those players with more players that should be in our bottom 6, either because that’s their level, they are still developing or are in decline further weakening the team.

The natural reaction (at least at the Swans) by losing that firepower is to try and make it a scrap and that’s pretty much what is going on imo.

That’s why I say our list is overrated at the moment. We have a lot of players that are 16-22 material at this stage (with some developing and likely to push into the top 16) and outside those are those the rest either haven’t demonstrated the required capacity to play seniors, are returning from injury (Aliir), are injured (Dawson) or they’ve just arrived at the club.

With the aforementioned players being available we would have a genuinely decent bottom 6 and then we can can play a more audacious game plan.

 

[TheMase]

Out best game was against the Giants. Our best quarter was the final one against the cats but I think last night was our worst performance. We can't seem to string two good performances in a row.

The only game that Franklin and Reid played together (highlighting my point above).

 

[BloodySwan]

I reckon it’s a couple of things

- coaches wary/spooked re start of 2017. We are currently without Franklin, Reid, Melican and you’d throw in Naismith, who are all a major part of our spine who would have been key to any gameplan developed over the summer

- as we are currently without key personnel and you’d throw Hannebery, our best runner, into that mix, the coaches are employing a more defensive style to try and hold opposition momentum, with moments (*not enough moments) of open running and quick movement as we saw against Geelong in the last quarter and moments during the first quarter against North to try and take advantage when we have the momentum (which we didn’t as demonstrated by the 7-8 goals missed effectively directly in front).

FWIW, I reckon the injury to the North player gave them an opportunity to regroup in the last quarter. Stifled our momentum.

- the coaches are fully aware of our players inability to hit a target under pressure (often not) and they don’t want them taking risks through he corridor because we are likely to turn it over. By kicking to packs on the wing, whilst under sized, with the main intent to bring the ball to ground and tough it out in the contest.

I think many have glossed over the fact, that without any depth we have lost our FF, CHF, best midfield runner, our at the time arguably no.1 ruck plus Tippett who was at worst strong depth to cover the likes of Reid, Franklin and Naismith going down. Plus Melican (and Aliir still getting into the groove). Mostly talls which is close to the weakest part of our list.

We have been forced to replace many of those players with more players that should be in our bottom 6, either because that’s their level, they are still developing or are in decline further weakening the team.

The natural reaction (at least at the Swans) by losing that firepower is to try and make it a scrap and that’s pretty much what is going on imo.

That’s why I say our list is overrated at the moment. We have a lot of players that are 16-22 material at this stage (with some developing and likely to push into the top 16) and outside those are those the rest either haven’t demonstrated the required capacity to play seniors, are returning from injury (Aliir), are injured (Dawson) or they’ve just arrived at the club.

With the aforementioned players being available we would have a genuinely decent bottom 6 and then we can can play a more audacious game plan.

Agree with everything here. I feel like the coaches are trying to adjust the gameplan with the players we have but it's not proving effective. I do agree with the sentiment that we should give some of our young tall players a go in the seniors. Comparing them to Robinson's poor performance, or Florent's 9 touches I don't see how McCartin could do much worse but would at least give us some height up knock the ball down

 

[caesar88]

Agree with everything here. I feel like the coaches are trying to adjust the gameplan with the players we have but it's not proving effective. I do agree with the sentiment that we should give some of our young tall players a go in the seniors. Comparing them to Robinson's poor performance, or Florent's 9 touches I don't see how McCartin could do much worse but would at least give us some height up knock the ball down

Or we could stop giving Jack and McVeigh and Rohan free passes for underwhelming performances rather than punish the kids?

 

[The King!]

His win loss ratio speaks for itself.

Yeah 19-12 the last 31 including a humiliating finals loss and 9-7 in his last 2 years at home, ordinary

 

[Tuco]

And yet we won stoppage clearances by +4 and inside 50s +10?

Do agree we should play our spare, should we have one, around the ball more or perhaps pushing into space forward of the ball to create a loose man rather than regularly being behind the ball.

Yes. As I saw it we won clearances, but used it poorly.

I wouldn't call it an issue, so much as a fall back play. We're never not going to play a spare. But I think stripping them from the stoppages has been a way that even middle tier teams teams have worked through us before.

We've had some close runs against terrible opposition on paper many times.

When you give the Hawks or Crows an extra number in the middle, pain ensues.

If we're chasing a deficit I'd hope to see us being more aggressive.

 

[TheMase]

Yeah 19-12 the last 31 including a humiliating finals loss and 9-7 in his last 2 years at home, ordinary

Or 19-6 in last 25 haha...... Depends when you want to start the count I suppose.

I will probably go with 4-3 because that our current predicament.

 

[The King!]

Or 19-6 in last 25 haha...... Depends when you want to start the count I suppose.

I will probably go with 4-3 because that our current predicament.

0-1 in our last 1

 

[The King!]

Why does it have to be the two extremes of a Hyperbole?

This is a fair comment, I know it’s easy to go to the extreme and forget ultimately we all want the same thing and it is just footy etc.

Look as someone advocating change of some description I will say this regardless of the future, Horse has obviously been one of the great coaches of our clb

 

[TheMase]

0-1 in our last 1

I’ll pay that!

 

[BloodySwan]

Or we could stop giving Jack and McVeigh and Rohan free passes for underwhelming performances rather than punish the kids?

McVeigh has been one of our most consistent players all season. He's not getting a free pass at all. I don't think Jack has been all that bad and neither has Rohan.

 

[Number37]

It can be game plan and strategy though as we move the ball so slowly and give the opposition so much time to setup their defences that our players are always under pressure when they have the ball, this leads to skill errors.

What does any of that have to do with Sinclair kicking the ball off one step straight to the opposition right in front of goal?

Or Hayward, a beautiful kick, trying a banana?

Or KJ missing easy shots twice?

Or the almost constant handballs missing targets?

 

[Number37]

I would say a gameplan centered around slow, methodical, short kicking with a list of players that do not have the skills to execute this consistently is on the coaching staff. Play to their strengths, if that means moving quick with hands or going longer over the top of defenders than so be it. I'm no coach, but the way we play now doesn't suit our talent.

Our game plan doesn't centre around slow ball movement.
We get slow ball movement because our game plan breaks down.

 

[Kapanis]

Our game plan doesn't centre around slow ball movement.
We get slow ball movement because our game plan breaks down.

Pretty spot on. Our game plan is win the stoppage, win the game.

 

[sataris]

Pretty spot on. Our game plan is win the stoppage, win the game.

That's not a game plan.

 

[Kapanis]

That's not a game plan.

Exactly

 

[hairy biker]

Watching the game last night I thought of the Jack Riewoldt criticism of the Richmond gameplan back in 2014; ball movement too slow, too many sideways kicks allowing the opposition to flood back so that when the ball was bombed into the 50 the forwards were outnumbered etc. Hardwick gave JR a fair old whack and certainly the Tigers 'keepies off' style gave us problems, but when Richmond adopted pressure football, the run off HB, support runners, quick ball movement, often through the centre corridor, getting the ball into the fwd 50 and locking it in there, well....

Now certainly some personnel changes, particularly quick small fwd fleet, a season for the ages from Dusty, but Richmond swung away from the possession football used so effectively by Hawthorn to an up tempo attacking mindset and it established an identifiable Richmond brand.

Watching us at present I struggle to define a Swans identity, other than 'hard working'.

Since Longmire took over I'd suggest, very basically, we have focussed on contested ball, high tackle count, keep the ball moving fwd, force the opposition wide, keep opposition fwd 50s shallow, use a spare/3rd up and quickly transition out the opposite side.

In the years 2012 - 2016 we topped the contested possession count in 4 of the 5 seasons. 2017 we were 5th, 2018 we are currently 8th.
In the years 2012 - 2016 we topped the tackle count in 4 of the 5 seasons. 2017 we were 12th, 2018 we are currently 11th.
In the years 2012 - 2016 we ranked between 2nd and 6th in the I50 count, 2017 we were 11th, 2018 we are 8th
Intercept marks are only available for the last 4 years; 2015 2nd, 2016 1st, 2017 6th, 2018 12th

The above are what I would consider key stats/indicators of the Longmire gameplan.
Comparing 2012-16, with 2017 and again with 2018 shows a clear drop off in those measures.

Another area we have dropped off is in overall disposals. 2012 - 2016 we ranked between 2nd and 5th, 2017 we were 13th, similarly 2018 we are 13th.
(There appears no discernible pattern in other measures, eg clearances, uncontested possession, R50s, marks, MI50, bounces, k/hb ratio).

We have clearly lost some important players (particularly flankers such as Shaw & Malceski), this season we have been hit with the loss of talls, but we have recruited a superstar in Buddy and there is still significant talent on the list.

Watching in 2017/8 I find it difficult to see any real change in the Longmire gameplan, but based on what I see and the stats above there has been a clear drop off in its effectiveness.
Now I'm sure there will be an argument that we are still 4-3 and made the SF last year after 0-6, but unless there is significant personnel changes good teams rarely fall off the cliff, but rather are subject to gradual decline.

So, as I see it, the options are;
the team lifts in the KPIs I've listed above or the gameplan is modified or we change personnel (talls/back half run in) or of course I could be totally wrong and we'll go on to have a successful season(s).
OR the gradual decline continues because nothing changes.

 

[Number37]

Watching the game last night I thought of the Jack Riewoldt criticism of the Richmond gameplan back in 2014; ball movement too slow, too many sideways kicks allowing the opposition to flood back so that when the ball was bombed into the 50 the forwards were outnumbered etc. Hardwick gave JR a fair old whack and certainly the Tigers 'keepies off' style gave us problems, but when Richmond adopted pressure football, the run off HB, support runners, quick ball movement, often through the centre corridor, getting the ball into the fwd 50 and locking it in there, well....

Now certainly some personnel changes, particularly quick small fwd fleet, a season for the ages from Dusty, but Richmond swung away from the possession football used so effectively by Hawthorn to an up tempo attacking mindset and it established an identifiable Richmond brand.

Watching us at present I struggle to define a Swans identity, other than 'hard working'.

Since Longmire took over I'd suggest, very basically, we have focussed on contested ball, high tackle count, keep the ball moving fwd, force the opposition wide, keep opposition fwd 50s shallow, use a spare/3rd up and quickly transition out the opposite side.

In the years 2012 - 2016 we topped the contested possession count in 4 of the 5 seasons. 2017 we were 5th, 2018 we are currently 8th.
In the years 2012 - 2016 we topped the tackle count in 4 of the 5 seasons. 2017 we were 12th, 2018 we are currently 11th.
In the years 2012 - 2016 we ranked between 2nd and 6th in the I50 count, 2017 we were 11th, 2018 we are 8th
Intercept marks are only available for the last 4 years; 2015 2nd, 2016 1st, 2017 6th, 2018 12th

The above are what I would consider key stats/indicators of the Longmire gameplan.
Comparing 2012-16, with 2017 and again with 2018 shows a clear drop off in those measures.

Another area we have dropped off is in overall disposals. 2012 - 2016 we ranked between 2nd and 5th, 2017 we were 13th, similarly 2018 we are 13th.
(There appears no discernible pattern in other measures, eg clearances, uncontested possession, R50s, marks, MI50, bounces, k/hb ratio).

We have clearly lost some important players (particularly flankers such as Shaw & Malceski), this season we have been hit with the loss of talls, but we have recruited a superstar in Buddy and there is still significant talent on the list.

Watching in 2017/8 I find it difficult to see any real change in the Longmire gameplan, but based on what I see and the stats above there has been a clear drop off in its effectiveness.
Now I'm sure there will be an argument that we are still 4-3 and made the SF last year after 0-6, but unless there is significant personnel changes good teams rarely fall off the cliff, but rather are subject to gradual decline.

So, as I see it, the options are;
the team lifts in the KPIs I've listed above or the gameplan is modified or we change personnel (talls/back half run in) or of course I could be totally wrong and we'll go on to have a successful season(s).
OR the gradual decline continues because nothing changes.

I'd like to see stats on distance covered. I reckon that is where we have dropped right off.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Watching the game last night I thought of the Jack Riewoldt criticism of the Richmond gameplan back in 2014; ball movement too slow, too many sideways kicks allowing the opposition to flood back so that when the ball was bombed into the 50 the forwards were outnumbered etc. Hardwick gave JR a fair old whack and certainly the Tigers 'keepies off' style gave us problems, but when Richmond adopted pressure football, the run off HB, support runners, quick ball movement, often through the centre corridor, getting the ball into the fwd 50 and locking it in there, well....

Now certainly some personnel changes, particularly quick small fwd fleet, a season for the ages from Dusty, but Richmond swung away from the possession football used so effectively by Hawthorn to an up tempo attacking mindset and it established an identifiable Richmond brand.

Watching us at present I struggle to define a Swans identity, other than 'hard working'.

Since Longmire took over I'd suggest, very basically, we have focussed on contested ball, high tackle count, keep the ball moving fwd, force the opposition wide, keep opposition fwd 50s shallow, use a spare/3rd up and quickly transition out the opposite side.

In the years 2012 - 2016 we topped the contested possession count in 4 of the 5 seasons. 2017 we were 5th, 2018 we are currently 8th.
In the years 2012 - 2016 we topped the tackle count in 4 of the 5 seasons. 2017 we were 12th, 2018 we are currently 11th.
In the years 2012 - 2016 we ranked between 2nd and 6th in the I50 count, 2017 we were 11th, 2018 we are 8th
Intercept marks are only available for the last 4 years; 2015 2nd, 2016 1st, 2017 6th, 2018 12th

The above are what I would consider key stats/indicators of the Longmire gameplan.
Comparing 2012-16, with 2017 and again with 2018 shows a clear drop off in those measures.

Another area we have dropped off is in overall disposals. 2012 - 2016 we ranked between 2nd and 5th, 2017 we were 13th, similarly 2018 we are 13th.
(There appears no discernible pattern in other measures, eg clearances, uncontested possession, R50s, marks, MI50, bounces, k/hb ratio).

We have clearly lost some important players (particularly flankers such as Shaw & Malceski), this season we have been hit with the loss of talls, but we have recruited a superstar in Buddy and there is still significant talent on the list.

Watching in 2017/8 I find it difficult to see any real change in the Longmire gameplan, but based on what I see and the stats above there has been a clear drop off in its effectiveness.
Now I'm sure there will be an argument that we are still 4-3 and made the SF last year after 0-6, but unless there is significant personnel changes good teams rarely fall off the cliff, but rather are subject to gradual decline.

So, as I see it, the options are;
the team lifts in the KPIs I've listed above or the gameplan is modified or we change personnel (talls/back half run in) or of course I could be totally wrong and we'll go on to have a successful season(s).
OR the gradual decline continues because nothing changes.

Terrific well thought through post. My sense has been that we are lower on tackles and pressure acts. Maybe that is why Ronke's first two games have been anything but a "Flat Note", given his enthusiasm to run, tackle and apply pressure.

The shift in the Tiger game plan has been a revelation. It has suited the personnel at his disposal.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Swans are in a transition year where game style is concerned. They're no longer winning contested every week, or even topping the tackle count. They're trying to implement a tempo style with a lot of control through short kicks and possession, and burst on the counter.

Ronke, Rohan, Papley and Jones are quick, Stoddart and Ling are faster yet and they're carving up the NEAFL, while Florent and Hayward are growing in confidence every week, and they're quick too.

I don't think the players are completely across it yet and with the significant coaching panel changes, almost all of them changing, the team will be a bit inconsistent for a while. It usually takes 2-3 seasons to adopt a new style of play.

For all that champion Clarko, he was at the bottom early, won they '08 gf, out of the 8 in '09, struggled in '10. After '15 out straight sets then no finals. He's changed style 3 times.

Swans have changed style 3 or 4 times since '05 and only once missed the finals. We'll make the finals this year, and we may well have a tilt at the cup too, but I suspect next year with this style is where we'll make it rain money.

 

[Tuco]

Swans are in a transition year where game style is concerned. They're no longer winning contested every week, or even topping the tackle count. They're trying to implement a tempo style with a lot of control through short kicks and possession, and burst on the counter.

Ronke, Rohan, Papley and Jones are quick, Stoddart and Ling are faster yet and they're carving up the NEAFL, while Florent and Hayward are growing in confidence every week, and they're quick too.

I don't think the players are completely across it yet and with the significant coaching panel changes, almost all of them changing, the team will be a bit inconsistent for a while. It usually takes 2-3 seasons to adopt a new style of play.

For all that champion Clarko, he was at the bottom early, won they '08 gf, out of the 8 in '09, struggled in '10. After '15 out straight sets then no finals. He's changed style 3 times.

Swans have changed style 3 or 4 times since '05 and only once missed the finals. We'll make the finals this year, and we may well have a tilt at the cup too, but I suspect next year with this style is where we'll make it rain money.

I agree with this.

I think in the dark years (Hawthorn supremacy) our dependence upon short handpasses and playing on at all costs were ineffective vs the zone because it was an in close style that was labour intensive, while their ball movement was more methodical and handled safely through the exquisite skills of their elite mids.

We played the loose man deep (as we always have) to protect ourselves from opposition entries.

Short kicking is a way to change this so clearly we're evovlving.

Problem is we're half pregnant. We're short kicking with a defence first focus meaning the spares are always lateral or backwards of the play. This means we're slow. Take out our only true KPP fwds we're slow and aimless.

Hawks, Crows, Tigers and Cats have always been more expansive - prepared to lead up to the flight from the fwd 50.

They play more of a diamond shape with options forward back and to the flanks.

We have a scrum, with a dependence on outriders pushing up from defence. And these 'free' players are often still receiving handpasses.

Sometimes in the last three years you can see where we're heading, with inboard kicks, half forwards and high mids leading into the corridor etc. We often look good.

Crows have Jenkins and Tex, Hawks have Roughhead and Gunston, Tigers have Riewoldt and a plethora of mid forwards who can take a mark, and the Cats have a number of talls.

In truth, with Reid and Buddy we'd probably straighten up. So it's hard to judge.

But we're clearly still a long kicking side that runs with handpasses through the middle.

Slow, short kicks are fine. We just need to mix in more 'fast' short kicks if that's how we're going.