Tippett's Gone - READ RULES BEFORE POSTING

[Kane McGoodwin]

Let's be realistic here. Tippett is a fine player and Sydney's issues lie elsewhere on the field.

Tippett may be a fine player, but Team > Individual. Tippett has upset the team balance both on-field & off-field. On-field, whilst Tippett is performing well, the forward structure is poorer as they are now too predictable & no longer have the even contribution (which is easier to combat). How is Mumford feeling now that he being subbed. They have too many talls.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Let's be realistic here. Tippett is a fine player and Sydney's issues lie elsewhere on the field.

Tippett may be a fine player, but Team > Individual. Tippett has upset the team balance both on-field & off-field. On-field, whilst Tippett is performing well, the forward structure is poorer as they are now too predictable & no longer have the even contribution (which is easier to combat). How is Mumford feeling now that he being subbed. They have too many talls.

 

[.Shotties.]

Tippett may be a fine player, but Team > Individual. Tippett has upset the team balance both on-field & off-field. On-field, whilst Tippett is performing well, the forward structure is poorer as they are now too predictable & no longer have the even contribution (which is easier to combat).

Do you give any weight to the theory that the poor forward structure has something to do with losing the top three goal scorers from last year for the second half of the season?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Do you give any weight to the theory that the poor forward structure has something to do with losing the top three goal scorers from last year for the second half of the season?

Doesn't help, but you have had injuries much of the year.

Your structure/predictability has changed with Tippett in your side & not convinced you will be better off, even when all your players are fit.

Time will tell...

What is your ideal forward line set-up?

 

[.Shotties.]

Doesn't help, but you have had injuries much of the year.

I don't think there's been a point where a player has had to play a lone hand in the forward line.

Your structure/predictability has changed with Tippett in your side & not convinced you will be better off, even when all your players are fit.

Whilst Tippett has been in, the three main forward targets have been out. I don't think it's that far fetched to say that would have also had a pretty decent impact on predictability.

 

[Tex200]

I don't think there's been a point where a player has had to play a lone hand in the forward line.

Whilst Tippett has been in, the three main forward targets have been out. I don't think it's that far fetched to say that would have also had a pretty decent impact on predictability.

Look it was your own board that created the thread and asked the question, not us. We are simply commenting that the kind of issues your own fans are starting to see are those which polarised people here.

 

[.Shotties.]

Look it was your own board that created the thread and asked the question, not us.

The idea that Tippett would make the Swans more predictable / ruin the structure / destroy the game plan has been raised dozens of times in this thread.

 

[cmndstab]

And was raised dozens of times in threads before it while he was here.

I maintain that if midfielders are just bombing it long because Tippett's there, they are to blame. You can say that Tippett is "part of the problem" since they might not try it if he wasn't there, but the fact is it's still the midfielders' fault.

 

[Mattrox]

The idea that Tippett would make the Swans more predictable / ruin the structure / destroy the game plan has been raised dozens of times in this thread.

But you board just came to the same conclusion on their own.

 

[Tex200]

The idea that Tippett would make the Swans more predictable / ruin the structure / destroy the game plan has been raised dozens of times in this thread.

The most recent discussion which dragged you over was clearly as a result of your own board raising the question . Duck and weave all you like, the thread is there and it's your own people raising the questions.

 

[Tex200]

And was raised dozens of times in threads before it while he was here.

I maintain that if midfielders are just bombing it long because Tippett's there, they are to blame. You can say that Tippett is "part of the problem" since they might not try it if he wasn't there, but the fact is it's still the midfielders' fault.

If you read the thread on their board they make similar observations as many of his critics here. Sure the mids take some blame, but if the only option they see when they look up is Tippett standing with his hands in the air then of course they bomb it long. They question his leading and his capacity to provide alternative options. These are his responsibilities, not the mids. You can't blame them for everything - he's in the game too

 

[cmndstab]

If Tippett is long and with only one defender, then they should kick it to him. And with a decent kick he'll mark it every time.

If he's got several defenders covering him, another player should be free and they should be looking for him.

I wouldn't be surprised if Tippett has been instructed to stay deep. If the midfielders use him as a crutch because they're too lazy/tired/scared to look for an alternative leading option, that's their problem, not his.

 

[Tex200]

If Tippett is long and with only one defender, then they should kick it to him. And with a decent kick he'll mark it every time.

If he's got several defenders covering him, another player should be free and they should be looking for him.

I wouldn't be surprised if Tippett has been instructed to stay deep. If the midfielders use him as a crutch because they're too lazy/tired/scared to look for an alternative leading option, that's their problem, not his.

Yes that's true, in that case it is their problem. But if he is being continually outnumbered and the long bomb is not working, the Tippett must work to provide alternative options - that's when it becomes his problem and that's what is currently concerning them.

 

[.Shotties.]

. Duck and weave all you like,

Pardon? You said it wasn't this board asking the question. It had been done numerous times.

 

[Tex200]

Pardon? You said it wasn't this board asking the question. It had been done numerous times.

I'm putting it to you that currently, your own are asking these questions. Are you denying that? Or haven't you checked your board lately ?

 

[.Shotties.]

I'm putting it to you that currently, your own are asking these questions. Are you denying that? Or haven't you checked your board lately ?

No, but there are just as many posters are are concerned that the problems with our forward movement has to do with the loss of our two main line breakers in Jetta and Shaw, our top three goal scorers from last year, and the fact that good teams know they only need to shut out Hannebery and Jack to cripple the midfield, so gloating as though there's some mass awakening isn't correct.

That, and when I'm responding in a thread (directly to a comment about the Swans' predictability, no less) that has repeatedly passed comment about the subject, to say that the participants in this thread aren't asking the question is just as strange.

 

[Cap]

I'm just looking forward to seeing Sydneys name at the bottom of the ladder again.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I'm just looking forward to seeing Sydneys name at the bottom of the ladder again.

And get pick 1 (and 2 as they will get a priority pick) in the national draft as well as a gun player in the PSD.

Yes, that's going to be fun.

 

[Cap]

And get pick 1 (and 2 as they will get a priority pick) in the national draft as well as a gun player in the PSD.

Yes, that's going to be fun.

that will take years.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

that will take years.

No, it will happen automatically when Sydney finish bottom.

 

[Cap]

No, it will happen automatically when Sydney finish bottom.

true, but I did say "near" bottom

 

[xchadders]

I'm just looking forward to seeing Sydneys name at the bottom of the ladder again.

true, but I did say "near" bottom

:-o

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

true, but I did say "near" bottom

Sorry for being a pedantic nutter but you said "at the bottom" - not near.

 

[Cap]

Sorry for being a pedantic nutter but you said "at the bottom" - not near.

hmm, could I say that at the bottom doesn't mean the bottom

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

hmm, could I say that at the bottom doesn't mean the bottom

You could.