TRAVCLOKE#32
Team Captain
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2007
- Posts
- 352
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- VIC
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Stanhope, Golden Square
ALLAN Jeans famously expressed the view that footballers were all like sausages, be they boiled, fried or barbecued. But in the 21st century, football teams are playing the game in quite different ways, it's a long way from the days when everyone tried to hit the big man in the goal square.
Possibly no greater contrast could be found than what occurred at the SCG last Sunday, when the Western Bulldogs (averaging 20 goals a game, more than any side in the competition) confronted Sydney (scoring only 12 goals a game, but conceding fewer than any side). It was the top offensive team against the best defensive team, or if you believe certain people, the visionaries against the miserly.
In Sydney, no one cares so long as they win. In Melbourne you hear the carping from the stands about so-called negative football. It's so loud that Ross Lyon, coach of St Kilda and formerly a Sydney assistant, is forced to defend his own game plan as not based on Sydney's.
It is true that the Swans play some ugly football at times. But it is equally true that they play some exhilarating football - has anyone watched Adam Goodes and Tadhg Kennelly and Michael O'Loughlin lately? It all depends on the opposition and the plan for the day. And that's the point, under Paul Roos, Sydney has played its games at different tempos and in different ways, underpinned by old-fashioned, hard-nosed man-on-man defence all over the ground.
The great myth about the way Sydney plays is that the Swans merely flood back. Like every single team in the AFL, the Swans will push players back into defence if they are struggling and they need to slow the game down. But most of the time they simply match up, making 18 pairs of players on the ground.
This means that they are not only flooding back, they are flooding forward and flooding midfield, too. If the opposition puts eight defenders in Sydney's forward line, then there will be eight Swans forwards, too, clogging the area that traditionally, teams like to keep open. Oppositions are happy with that, but so is Roos. The idea that Sydney merely floods back with numbers behind the ball belongs in the time when Rodney Eade, the inventor of flooding, was coaching the club. The great irony is that in recent years, many teams have flooded against Sydney and profited from it.
The man-on-man method makes the Swans difficult to beat. The zone-offs that have become commonplace in recent years, where a free man is used as a quarterback in defence (usually a good user of the ball), all but disappear for the opposition. Here, it is worth noting that in the past couple of years of his great playing career, Roos was the beneficiary of the development of zone-offs. Roos apparently thought it a joke that he could play without an opponent all day across half-back, for as a coach, he moved swiftly against that style of footy.
Shutting down the run from defence favoured by opposition teams, Sydney is conceding just nine goals a game this season, and has not been lower than second in defence in the three previous years.
Certain teams handle it (Collingwood has won the past four games against Sydney, and Geelong has worked it out, winning the past three). The Bulldogs have finally worked it out, winning last Sunday for the first time in Roos' time as Sydney coach. It was a graduation of sorts for Eade's team, which has some steel about it in 2008. Hawthorn has that ahead of it. The Hawks have lost their past six to Sydney, and Fremantle six of the past seven. The statistics bear out what the Swans do to teams. According to Champion Data, Sydney:
Allows the opposition only 288 disposals per game, many fewer than any other team. Allows only 90 marks per game, fewest of any team.
Concedes only 182 contested possessions per game to the opposition, the lowest of any team.
Allows the opposition to win only 36% of stoppages, second-best in the competition.
Of course, there are other parts to the game, notably that Sydney does not like to kick to contests; at least not to contests it can't win. Under Roos, the Swans have employed a lead-up, chipping style that relies on accurate kicking, something they perfected in 2005-06 but have struggled with more recently.
But, essentially, the key plank is the hardness at the ball and the opposition player. Opposing teams find themselves under relentless pressure, and with no space to work in. Players who cannot win the contested ball are rendered useless.
Champion Data's statistics for this season show that Sydney's opposition hit its targets with only 71% of disposals, the lowest in the competition. Forward thrusts break down under pressure. Opposing teams score from just 20% of inside-50s against Sydney, the lowest in the competition.
Having watched the Swans closely, I have come to realise why opposition supporters hate their style. It's because the fans go to see their own stars perform and it doesn't always happen because a Brett Kirk or a Jarrad McVeigh or a Luke Ablett is sitting on him. Those guys aren't chasing their 30 touches a game; they are accountable for a man and happy with 20.
This is what I like about the way Sydney plays. It brings an honest contest to the game, and only the best opposing players prosper in that environment. Witness Gary Ablett's game at Kardinia Park a few weeks ago. If you play well against Sydney you have earned your plaudits, as Ablett did that day, and Adam Cooney did at the SCG last Sunday.
But there is a good-versus-evil tone to the argument this year, Geelong being the good, Sydney and Adelaide, and more recently St Kilda, as the evil. This is bunk, surely, for Geelong is a brilliant defensive team, No. 1 in the competition last year. To merely look at the Cats' high scoring and therefore call them "free-running" is to ignore half the issue.
There is no good and evil, just different strokes. Sydney does not break any rules or conventions nor damage the spirit of the game. It brings contests back to a game that is closer to basketball when it is played in the manner that, say, Essendon has been playing it.
But in Melbourne, the Swans still don't get due respect. The worst I have heard came from Grant Thomas on radio a few weeks ago, saying that Sydney's 2005 premiership was "a bit of an anomaly". Two things occurred to me. First, how did they get within a point of winning a second flag in 2006 if it was all a myth? And, didn't Thomas' St Kilda fall over in the preliminary final against Sydney in 2005?
No wonder Roos gets cranky. His team does not break rules or conventions or go against the spirit of the game. It plays Australian footy a bit like Italy plays soccer, with an emphasis on defence. It plays with extraordinary courage and never-say-die passion and no equivocation. These are qualities people probably should admire, not pick at.
Sydney's defence under Paul Roos (points against)
2003 4thIn 2008Avg 88.57 ppg (13th)
2004 3rd
2005 2nd
2006 1st
2007 2nd
2008 1st
Scoring
Defence Avg 76.43 ppg (1st)
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/sydneys-positive-pressure/2008/05/10/1210131325991.html?page=3
Possibly no greater contrast could be found than what occurred at the SCG last Sunday, when the Western Bulldogs (averaging 20 goals a game, more than any side in the competition) confronted Sydney (scoring only 12 goals a game, but conceding fewer than any side). It was the top offensive team against the best defensive team, or if you believe certain people, the visionaries against the miserly.
In Sydney, no one cares so long as they win. In Melbourne you hear the carping from the stands about so-called negative football. It's so loud that Ross Lyon, coach of St Kilda and formerly a Sydney assistant, is forced to defend his own game plan as not based on Sydney's.
It is true that the Swans play some ugly football at times. But it is equally true that they play some exhilarating football - has anyone watched Adam Goodes and Tadhg Kennelly and Michael O'Loughlin lately? It all depends on the opposition and the plan for the day. And that's the point, under Paul Roos, Sydney has played its games at different tempos and in different ways, underpinned by old-fashioned, hard-nosed man-on-man defence all over the ground.
The great myth about the way Sydney plays is that the Swans merely flood back. Like every single team in the AFL, the Swans will push players back into defence if they are struggling and they need to slow the game down. But most of the time they simply match up, making 18 pairs of players on the ground.
This means that they are not only flooding back, they are flooding forward and flooding midfield, too. If the opposition puts eight defenders in Sydney's forward line, then there will be eight Swans forwards, too, clogging the area that traditionally, teams like to keep open. Oppositions are happy with that, but so is Roos. The idea that Sydney merely floods back with numbers behind the ball belongs in the time when Rodney Eade, the inventor of flooding, was coaching the club. The great irony is that in recent years, many teams have flooded against Sydney and profited from it.
The man-on-man method makes the Swans difficult to beat. The zone-offs that have become commonplace in recent years, where a free man is used as a quarterback in defence (usually a good user of the ball), all but disappear for the opposition. Here, it is worth noting that in the past couple of years of his great playing career, Roos was the beneficiary of the development of zone-offs. Roos apparently thought it a joke that he could play without an opponent all day across half-back, for as a coach, he moved swiftly against that style of footy.
Shutting down the run from defence favoured by opposition teams, Sydney is conceding just nine goals a game this season, and has not been lower than second in defence in the three previous years.
Certain teams handle it (Collingwood has won the past four games against Sydney, and Geelong has worked it out, winning the past three). The Bulldogs have finally worked it out, winning last Sunday for the first time in Roos' time as Sydney coach. It was a graduation of sorts for Eade's team, which has some steel about it in 2008. Hawthorn has that ahead of it. The Hawks have lost their past six to Sydney, and Fremantle six of the past seven. The statistics bear out what the Swans do to teams. According to Champion Data, Sydney:
Allows the opposition only 288 disposals per game, many fewer than any other team. Allows only 90 marks per game, fewest of any team.
Concedes only 182 contested possessions per game to the opposition, the lowest of any team.
Allows the opposition to win only 36% of stoppages, second-best in the competition.
Of course, there are other parts to the game, notably that Sydney does not like to kick to contests; at least not to contests it can't win. Under Roos, the Swans have employed a lead-up, chipping style that relies on accurate kicking, something they perfected in 2005-06 but have struggled with more recently.
But, essentially, the key plank is the hardness at the ball and the opposition player. Opposing teams find themselves under relentless pressure, and with no space to work in. Players who cannot win the contested ball are rendered useless.
Champion Data's statistics for this season show that Sydney's opposition hit its targets with only 71% of disposals, the lowest in the competition. Forward thrusts break down under pressure. Opposing teams score from just 20% of inside-50s against Sydney, the lowest in the competition.
Having watched the Swans closely, I have come to realise why opposition supporters hate their style. It's because the fans go to see their own stars perform and it doesn't always happen because a Brett Kirk or a Jarrad McVeigh or a Luke Ablett is sitting on him. Those guys aren't chasing their 30 touches a game; they are accountable for a man and happy with 20.
This is what I like about the way Sydney plays. It brings an honest contest to the game, and only the best opposing players prosper in that environment. Witness Gary Ablett's game at Kardinia Park a few weeks ago. If you play well against Sydney you have earned your plaudits, as Ablett did that day, and Adam Cooney did at the SCG last Sunday.
But there is a good-versus-evil tone to the argument this year, Geelong being the good, Sydney and Adelaide, and more recently St Kilda, as the evil. This is bunk, surely, for Geelong is a brilliant defensive team, No. 1 in the competition last year. To merely look at the Cats' high scoring and therefore call them "free-running" is to ignore half the issue.
There is no good and evil, just different strokes. Sydney does not break any rules or conventions nor damage the spirit of the game. It brings contests back to a game that is closer to basketball when it is played in the manner that, say, Essendon has been playing it.
But in Melbourne, the Swans still don't get due respect. The worst I have heard came from Grant Thomas on radio a few weeks ago, saying that Sydney's 2005 premiership was "a bit of an anomaly". Two things occurred to me. First, how did they get within a point of winning a second flag in 2006 if it was all a myth? And, didn't Thomas' St Kilda fall over in the preliminary final against Sydney in 2005?
No wonder Roos gets cranky. His team does not break rules or conventions or go against the spirit of the game. It plays Australian footy a bit like Italy plays soccer, with an emphasis on defence. It plays with extraordinary courage and never-say-die passion and no equivocation. These are qualities people probably should admire, not pick at.
Sydney's defence under Paul Roos (points against)
2003 4thIn 2008Avg 88.57 ppg (13th)
2004 3rd
2005 2nd
2006 1st
2007 2nd
2008 1st
Scoring
Defence Avg 76.43 ppg (1st)
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/sydneys-positive-pressure/2008/05/10/1210131325991.html?page=3
