News Swans Talk In The Media 2018

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Further to that you have to play well to beat us

Like in some of our recent frustrating efforts I would argue they were big efforts from the opposition, port played awesome round 2, last years semi dangerfield played an awesome final, you arent beating sydney with an average effort
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I do and a few have felt that way for a few years.
Yes, I've noticed. And I'm sure that you are all more knowledgeable and experienced than me, and still I disagree. That's what keeps this board interesting :)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

. I actually agree with Dal Santo but I also like to look at our limitations being an interstate team that hasn't bottomed out in 20 years,.
We are & have been for a long time without a doubt, the best performed interstate team in the competition as it stands.
To be able to carry out the game plan so many on here want, we would need to have more elite talent on our list. The elite talent we have has come at a cost, Buddy, or by other measures such as our academy, Heeney & Mills. All the others that come close have been later picks that have blossomed in our system like Parker or Hanners & Rookies like Rampe, Smith etc that have flaws hence why they were looked over by other clubs.
Unfortunately & fortunately we haven't had access to top 3 or 5 picks due to being the very "Vanilla" team Dal Santo has described. Our recipe for success was really a recipe to keep our club relevant in a non traditional AFL state. This was identified when Roos came on board in that we needed a marquee player at any cost in order to first keep the mob interested & then hopefully build a quality team around that player & pinch tbe odd p'ship.

Now since this time we have struck twice & missed another 3 times for a different variety of reasons.
As much as we are a destination club more so than 20 years ago, we aren't the type of destination club that players are prepared to come to for less money than a Vic team. When players leave us it's because they want to "go home" & play on the MCG where their biggest trip away is more often to Etihad Stadium & the 4 trips interstate per year are a nice break from their week to week routine of training & playing at the same venue.

I guess we are all comparing ourselves to the Hawks but it's not a fair comparison because no one holds them accountable for their poor showings in an interstate final.
I don't forget. In their threepeat yeat they beat West Coast on the big day at the non neutral MCG but they were embarrassed by the same team earlier in that finals series in an away final but were still rewarded with their next 3 games on their home ground.

Yeah I get frustrated that we are "Vanilla" but when Hawthorn's & Richmond's plan B, C & D revolves around being handed a home ground advantage throughout the season & most importantly in finals, I have learned to accept our lot in the hope that when we do once again make it to a GF, some things go our way & we get to play another interstate team that also only has a plan A & pray to God that if we strike a Vic team whose plan B is home ground advantage, then at least the officiating umpires are as "Vanilla" as the Sydney Swans are.
 
Did anyone watch On the Couch? Roosy gave Dunkley a thumbs up because he said Dunkley summed it up well to know he had to play on. He gave Florent a thumbs down for playing on, when he should have been playing for time.

Dunkley didn't have to play on. He was 10 metres out pretty much straight in front and that would've put them in front. They didn't need to get a score quick. Just because he'd missed a few shots in the game doesn't mean he can only kick them from a few centimetres out. It annoys me when people get in the media and have to give a contrary opinion to stand out.

Edit : Dunkley dropped the mark with 3:35 to go in the game when they were 6 points behind. Plenty of time to go back and take the kick.
 
Last edited:
Did anyone watch On the Couch? Roosy gave Dunkley a thumbs up because he said Dunkley summed it up well to know he had to play on. He gave Florent a thumbs down for playing on, when he should have been playing for time.

Dunkley didn't have to play on. He was 10 metres out pretty much straight in front and that would've put them in front. They didn't need to get a score quick. Just because he'd missed a few shots in the game doesn't mean he can only kick them from a few centimetres out. It annoys me when people get in the media and have to give a contrary opinion to stand out.

We had flooded back so other than Ollie everyone of our players was behind the centre square.
http://www.afl.com.au/video/2018-04-14/the-sealer-florent-leaves-dogs-in-his-wake

If he holds the ball up, he is too far out for a shot for a goal, so umpire quickly calls play on and who has he to kick to?

Instead, takes on a ruckman, who he had already spaced, and even if had only kicked a point, would have put us 2 points up, ball is at that end of the ground, we set up for the kick out and Dogs need a goal, with seconds left. And Florent looked inside, so he was aware no hand-off option there.

Right decision Florent, wrong decision Dunkley, (take the mark, settle and kick the goal from just metres out).

PS Don't know if it was luck or design, but I hope we continue to have that mobile/speedy long option, for that get out kick, when we do flood back.
PPS Has anyone noticed that Roos now has a habit of saying "when I used to coach"?
 
Last edited:
Good side, but very predictable

Need to be willing to take risks at the right times, like Florent on Saturday or Aliir when he first came into the team. We were the same under Roos, but we would take the game on from the back half. No risk, no reward!
 
Need to be willing to take risks at the right times, like Florent on Saturday or Aliir when he first came into the team. We were the same under Roos, but we would take the game on from the back half. No risk, no reward!


Roos didn’t like Florent playing on

What a shock
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top