The zig-zagging Swans

[Bloodstained Angel]

This is a continuation of the 'Roos in Sydney' topic for all those people who want to keep talking about the footy scene up North in general and the Swans, Roos, Lions and the whole damn lot basically.

What I want to say is I went to the Roos 'home game' against the Swans last Sunday and because I was behind the Randwick goals I got a good look at the contrasting styles of both teams from an 'end-on' perspective.

It was an interesting experience to compare the two styles of play. The Rooboys stuck to their usual no-nonsense approach, plenty of long bombs to FF and not so long bombs to CHF where Carey could either mark or knock it down for Shannon Grant and others to crumb.

It was, as usual, devastatingly effective with the Roos able to run riot through the central corridor. Also the Roos were not afraid to have a shot from the 50-60 metre zone and Shannon Grant in particular landed a couple of beauties.

By contrast the Swans played the short chip and run game, always looking to create an extra running man on the flanks and always looking to give the ball off short, sometimes even when they already had a mark inside 50 metres. Also the Swans are always looking to 'switch' the ball from one side of the ground to another so that they don't so much charge through the central corridor but zig-zag across it all the time.

Now the thing is this : The Swans have a great centre bounce division, our rovers are some of the best (even with Kelly out) and our starting and back-up ruckmen are very talented big guys who can win the ruck more than enough times. You would think that with the shortest ground in the comp and one of the best midfields going the Swans would have by now perfected a game plan that is closer to the Roos model than the one they are doing now.

The goals at the SCG are only a kick away from the centre square- why aren't the Swans just pumping the ball to the top of the square at every opportunity ? Also why aren't more Swans prepared to take a set shot from 50 mtres out ? Why are they always looking to chip the ball around (chip it away rather)rather than just going direct ?

The SCG is an unusually shaped ground - short but also fat with deep pockets that are all affected by flukey winds to some extent. The Swans exploit the width of the ground brilliantly but it is the grounds short length that should really be exploited. The Swans should be more like the Roos I think - kick long, mark big, goal with confidence from anywhere.

I don't want to suggest that Rodney Eade has got the wrong game plan for the wrong home ground but something strange is going on.

What do others think ?

 

[Paulkanga2000]

Bloodstained Angel,

I guess the roos always use the long-kicking game plan no matter what. Evne though we were down by so much last week we still went for the long kicking style and during the 7 goal onslaught in the 3rd quarter 3 goals were kicked form outside 50.

As for the swans they seemd to be direct in the first 2 1/2 quartes, they got the ball out of the middle but when they were under pressure they seemd to go to that zig-zagging game instead of playing a direct style of play that the roos used.

 

[Don]

What would they kick long to?

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Don

It doesn't matter if we don't have a big marking CHF or whatever - you don't really need one on the short SCG.

Just get lots of talls and shorts at the fall of the ball and contest it - if we win the ball, pump it at goals instead of chipping into the pocket or squaring it up all the time.

The short game is like the short game in golf, it works fine if you are accurate and precise but if you are not precise (lets face it footy is not the most precise of games) then you make mistakes. When the Swans short run-on game is working its fantastic but all too often poor decision making and poor foot skills just mean the Swans are turning the ball over too easily at the moment.

Of course we would all like a Carey at CHF to kick long to but my point is - ANY long kick at the SCG is going to put your side close to goal - shouldn't that be enough incentive ?

 

[Don]

When they went long into the forward line Carey just picked em off. Archer could have worked his way into the game. All the other top sides S&don Coll wood etc play the same style as Sydney the only sides that go long are Norff St Kilda and Collwood under T. Shaw

 

[Shinboners]

It can be hard to judge what's happening just from watching TV, but it seemed to me that when the Swans brought the ball out of defence in the last quarter, their players would look up to see if there were any free men ahead of them. They then looked towards the middle or the flanks and "zig-zagged" across there and the process would start again. Either the North backline had every Swans player well and truly covered or there was no movement in the Swans forward line.

The thing is, the Swans strategy of passing around is sound for somewhere like the MCG, but not the SCG. The SCG is a smaller ground than the MCG, so the North midfield and defence can play a zone defence more effectively. The Swans do have enough skilled and pacey players to make space, and so, the game plan would have worked on the MCG. Essentially, what Sydney did was no different to what Essendon, West Coast, and Melbourne did to us, but the size of the ground made effective execution almost impossible. When I was watching the game, I kept on saying to myself, "keep on passing it around Swans, keep on passing it around" because I felt that Sydney would eventually make a mistake, or North would force one.

The strength of the North system is that no matter what the game situation is, our players know where to kick and where to be. It's been something like 2 or 3 years since we've lost a game by more than 50 points. The weakness is that our players go to their positions when we go into attack and if it breaks down, our opposition can take the ball down quickly and score. When we've been beaten, it's usually been by teams with a full forward that can lead (Lloyd at Essendon, Cummings at West Coast, Cook/Lyon at Melbourne, and in previous years, Lockett at Sydney, Heatley at St. Kilda). It's interesting to note that teams that we've had the wood over in recent years like Carlton, Hawthorn, and Adelaide haven't had a full forward that can lead.

But back to Sydney. The thing I couldn't understand, and B.A. has said this, why didn't they take their shots at goal? I remember one situation in the 2nd quarter when O'Loughlin had the ball on the half forward flank, 50m out....he's good enough to get it. But he made a short pass, which was poorly executed, and we cleared the ball. My theory on why O'Loughlin did this goes like this. In any given game, momentum and confidence play a big role when the skills of the two teams are relatively close. In our defeats by Essendon and Melbourne, both teams would pass to an option closer to goal. Not only would this make for an easier shot, but it would damage the morale of the North backline (let's fact it, how annoyed to YOU get when you see your defence let a man go free?), and therefore, the rest of the team. Keep in mind, North had a large number of youngsters playing, so if this strategy worked, then the Swans would've been looking at running all over North (which they did look like doing during the 2nd and 3rd quarters). Unfortunately, with the execution of these short kicks, and North's ability to defend zones on the smaller ground, it was Sydney's confidence that got dented and North were able to get the run on and win.

I watched the game with a Swans friend, and even when North were defending a 1 goal lead with 10 minutes of play left in the final quarter, she felt that the Swans had no chance. She thought that the Swans didn't have the confidence in their own play and also she felt that North had a very good record in defending small leads. In the end, she was proved to be right (thankfully!).

 

[Bloodstained Angel]

Sorry Don - you are referring to Sunday's game ?

I can't remember the Swans taking the long option terribly much in that one.

You do have a point though, a good Backline will pick off long bombs anyday but again I come back to my original point : Is the Swans chip and run game the best strategy for a VERY short football oval like the SCG ?

I don't know the answer but one thing is for sure - I'm getting pretty sick of watching my side constantly chip-kick their way into blind alleys or even worse turn the ball over with poorly directed short passes.

 

[Don]

scoring except in the back of the 3rd qrtr and the final hasn't been their problem (fumbles and some poor decisions are though) its more that they don't get enough from the midfield and Cresswell and Schwass tend to tire under the workload. Need to get some more ball getters in the midfield.

 

[Gonzo]

B.A.

Agree with most of your points and particularly the tactic of long bombs from the centre. That piece of play where Goodes got the centre tap to O'Loughlin (I think) handball to Schwatta who takes 5 steps and puts it through post high is the way the SCG should be played, no need for a CHF, FF no need for any forwards in fact! - had my head in my hands when that happened!!!

The only trouble is that it is so hard to manufacture a strategy that consistently works at centre bounces. It is the only time in the game when the number of players around the ball is controlled, and then you have to contend with umpires doing dodgy bounces!!

Cheers

Gonzo

 

[Don]

Yeah early they tried going long and Craey picked off a few Goodes tried marking from behind and Fitzgerald hasn't taken a grab for a couple of weeks. only 4 of Sydney's 16 goals came from marks