Grand Final: Swans v Bulldogs

[perfectionist]

The Swans finished first and the Bulldogs 7th. The game yesterday (GWS v WB) was between two "finals inexperienced" teams. It was a bit of a shocker. Neither team played anything like their game plans. Their skills were nowhere. GWS players were almost unrecognisable from just two weeks ago. But that's the difference between a QF where they didn't have anything to lose and a PF where they had everything to lose. The Bulldogs had the advantage, albeit small, of two cut throat finals in the previous two weeks. At the end, they handled the pressure a bit better.

But as we know only too well, the pressure of a GF is another thing altogether. It cost us a flag in 2009. It almost gave us one in 2010.

The way that the Swans smashed the Cats on Friday night was quite something to see. It, unfortunately, reminded me of our 2008 PF against Hawthorn, but in that case, it was the second quarter not the first.

I expect the Swans to win fairly easily. Their only danger is if they think that too.

It's such a pity that Robert Murphy isn't able to play in this game.

[jays]

thinking i want swans to win cos i feel we are better than the dogs

[SaintPav]

Do we really need another another Swans dogs thread going?

[markp]

Do we really need another another Swans dogs thread going?

Do a poll.

[perfectionist]

Do we really need another another Swans dogs thread going?

Perhaps you should ask the person who started another thread a day after this one.

[Con Gorozidis]

Extremely interesting that the Swans enter this match with only one defender over 190 cm and that is Heath Grundy at only 192cm.
That would be like us with a backline of:

Geary Roberton Savage
Newnes B White Webster

Think about that for a bit. No Dempster, No Gilbo, No Fisher, No Goddard and and No Carlisle.

If we picked a backline that small we would all be panicking and going nuts on the coach.

Interesting to see if they can stand up or whether Boyd, Cordy and Stringer do some damage?

Also pretty incredible to think that Dogs are going with three key fwds all under 23 years old. That would be like us just going in with Paddy and Membrey.

[The Recruit]

there was an article today in the HS talking of 'the blast' from Sydney, in that their first quarters have been outstanding this year.
Made me think back to the round 21 game where we kicked 5.0 to 4.1 in what was a tough 1st quarter. While we lost badly we did lose Hickey and Fisher before half time which didn't help. I think we were excellent compared to what i saw from the cats last week..... On top of beating the dogs and the cats this year.....gee we aren't that far off. We definitely held our own during 'the blast' just got to do it more often and in more games but this will come with experience and more games...in summay we are on the right track

[saintspremiers]

Buddy will be desperate to win a flag with Sydney to shove it up Hawks fans. That's Buddy.

[perfectionist]

Extremely interesting that the Swans enter this match with only one defender over 190 cm and that is Heath Grundy at only 192cm.
...

A very good point. They have relied on Aliir Aliir for this height all year and he will be a great loss. If the Dogs mids can get clear possession, then that small backline will be under severe pressure. But the Swans have the best mids in the business, particularity with respect to their hardness at the ball.

[Bluthy]

Extremely interesting that the Swans enter this match with only one defender over 190 cm and that is Heath Grundy at only 192cm.

That is interesting. They are going to miss Aliir's intercept marking and height. I think Swans thinking is yes Boyd has been playing well as a forward focal point making sure the ball comes to ground but he hasn't been taking a lot of marks in front of goals so he's not an extreme danger.

With Mcveigh and Mills they will have crazy depth through the midfield and feel if they can match or better the dogs in that area they take away the dogs big strength and from then on they will have all the answers. It is a risk though to play so small in the back.I guess you could even swing Tippet back or the ruck help out down back as required to give more height.

[Johnny Member]

The thing that hasn't been spoken about in the media is the fact that the Bulldogs have brought back the old fashioned 'flood'.

Many people are saying how much they love the way the Bulldogs play, but I hate it. Can't stand watching it.

They get all 18 players in the D50 and wait to get the pill back. When they do, they are quick enough and fit enough to slingshot out the back and score.


It seems as though teams have forgotten how to counter the flood. It went out of fashion a few years ago because teams worked out that if move the pill forward as quickly as possible, the flooding team simply can't get back in time and you open them up.

The other thing that teams learnt playing against the flood, is that once the flood is in place, it's too late to rush. You need to retain the pill and switch, and kick short until you find a target. Once it's in place, it's too late to move in quickly and kick it long to your forwards - they've each got 4 guys on them waiting for the long ball. It's exactly what the flooding team wants.

GWS were moving the ball slickly and looked to have the game broken open at one point. But watching it, it seemed clear that they went into 'slow down' mode and stopped taking risks and trying to break lines. Once they did this and stagnated their ball use, they were sitting ducks for the Bulldogs flood.

To the Bulldogs credit, their manic pressure also spooked GWS when it got close, and they tightened up and became panicky. They were rushing kicks and not being as clinical with their hands as they had been most of the year - and even in the first 3 quarters. They stopped playing on and as a result, gave the Bulldogs time to flood.

To be fair to GWS though, losing Ward was very costly. He wouldn't have panicked, whereas Scully did several times. The experienced hard nut in the midfield would have been invaluable.


Simply put - if you move the ball fast enough to beat the flood, you'll beat the Bulldogs. They're easy to score against when they don't get the chance to get all 18 players back.

Having said that, you've got to get the ball first. And the Bulldogs are good at winning contests due to their mad pressure game. So if you can beat them in the contest, or at least match them - and then move the ball quickly and take risks, you'll win.

I expect the Bulldogs to uber flood in the first quarter as a counter to Sydney's fast starts. If Sydney aren't careful, they could do a George Foreman and gas out if they're not sensible early on.


Allir is a massive loss. I watched him closely against us, and he was brilliant. HE just seems to get involved in every contest and very, very rarely loses them. Doesn't always win them, but rarely loses them. Very quick and strong, and a touch intimidating.

They'll miss him badly.


Who wins?

Sydney if they're smart about it and bring their pressure for 4 quarters.

Bulldogs if they don't.

[sunsaint]

The thing that hasn't been spoken about in the media is the fact that the Bulldogs have brought back the old fashioned 'flood'.

Many people are saying how much they love the way the Bulldogs play, but I hate it. Can't stand watching it.

Who wins?

Sydney if they're smart about it and bring their pressure for 4 quarters.

Bulldogs if they don't.

certainly your opinion
because that is definitely not the way I have seen any of their games play out this year - not even close

[Con Gorozidis]

Well I think we all saw what happens when your backline is too small.
Tom Boy took 8 marks. 2 I50. Who knows how it would have been had Allir been fit.

[SaintPav]

The thing that hasn't been spoken about in the media is the fact that the Bulldogs have brought back the old fashioned 'flood'.

Many people are saying how much they love the way the Bulldogs play, but I hate it. Can't stand watching it.

They get all 18 players in the D50 and wait to get the pill back. When they do, they are quick enough and fit enough to slingshot out the back and score.


It seems as though teams have forgotten how to counter the flood. It went out of fashion a few years ago because teams worked out that if move the pill forward as quickly as possible, the flooding team simply can't get back in time and you open them up.

The other thing that teams learnt playing against the flood, is that once the flood is in place, it's too late to rush. You need to retain the pill and switch, and kick short until you find a target. Once it's in place, it's too late to move in quickly and kick it long to your forwards - they've each got 4 guys on them waiting for the long ball. It's exactly what the flooding team wants.

GWS were moving the ball slickly and looked to have the game broken open at one point. But watching it, it seemed clear that they went into 'slow down' mode and stopped taking risks and trying to break lines. Once they did this and stagnated their ball use, they were sitting ducks for the Bulldogs flood.

To the Bulldogs credit, their manic pressure also spooked GWS when it got close, and they tightened up and became panicky. They were rushing kicks and not being as clinical with their hands as they had been most of the year - and even in the first 3 quarters. They stopped playing on and as a result, gave the Bulldogs time to flood.

To be fair to GWS though, losing Ward was very costly. He wouldn't have panicked, whereas Scully did several times. The experienced hard nut in the midfield would have been invaluable.


Simply put - if you move the ball fast enough to beat the flood, you'll beat the Bulldogs. They're easy to score against when they don't get the chance to get all 18 players back.

Having said that, you've got to get the ball first. And the Bulldogs are good at winning contests due to their mad pressure game. So if you can beat them in the contest, or at least match them - and then move the ball quickly and take risks, you'll win.

I expect the Bulldogs to uber flood in the first quarter as a counter to Sydney's fast starts. If Sydney aren't careful, they could do a George Foreman and gas out if they're not sensible early on.


Allir is a massive loss. I watched him closely against us, and he was brilliant. HE just seems to get involved in every contest and very, very rarely loses them. Doesn't always win them, but rarely loses them. Very quick and strong, and a touch intimidating.

They'll miss him badly.


Who wins?

Sydney if they're smart about it and bring their pressure for 4 quarters.

Bulldogs if they don't.

I know I've bagged you before but this is a great post.