What actually happened after quarter time?

[hAyES]

When Gehrig comes back I think having Charlie in there as well is going to be too tall of a forward line. And yes, there is such a thing. Just because he wasn't terrible doesn't mean he deserves a spot.

[maverick]

If all C. Gardiner is going to is take a mark every now and then, send him to the 2's and put in another midfielder for some more run. I didn't think he was very impressive at all, so when Gehrig comes back he's going to have no use.

Gehrig plays deep forward; Charlie plays between the arcs. Charlie did his job on Saturday night. He took marks, used the ball well and maintained possession in a possession game. I see no reason to drop him for an extra midfield body.

I beg to differ, I thought Charlie was very ordinary, struggled to get involved, moved slowly round the ball and failed to win contested ball enough. That's two weeks running now. With G back this week he gets dropped and Goddard comes in to play his role.

I thought Schneider was ordinary as well, I give him the benefit of the doubt given we played Sydney.

[hAyES]

And just on Gardiner again, I've never seen someone drop so many chest marks.

[vacuous space]

When Gehrig comes back I think having Charlie in there as well is going to be too tall of a forward line. And yes, there is such a thing. Just because he wasn't terrible doesn't mean he deserves a spot.

Who is it that you're worried about if we go in tall? Most of our talls are pretty mobile including Gardiner. Carlton will have Jamison, Thornton and Waite it defence at the very least. If they want to play Thornton loose again, they're going to have to go with another tall to cover Roo/Kosi/G. Their smaller defenders aren't going to burn us for pace and agility anyway. Houlihan, possibly Scotland, maybe Grigg or Bannister will be back there. I don't see the problem with backing four 190cm players against that group. They're weak in the air and not strong on the gound. Let's expose them for it.

[snoopygirl]

A very close friend of mine is a Geelong supporter (one of the less obnoxious ones) & he said Charlie Gardiner will let us down in the season proper & Steven King couldn't take a mark to save himself. Noticed King drop a few easy marks during the NAB cup & on Sat. night, so I'm just hoping it's coincidence.

[GeorgeYoung27]

And just on Gardiner again, I've never seen someone drop so many chest marks.

Remind me which game you were watching. Obviously not one with Barry Hall playing in. I'm sure the Swans will be dropping O'Laughlin, Hall and Goodes as they all played worse than Charlie.

[hAyES]

And just on Gardiner again, I've never seen someone drop so many chest marks.

Remind me which game you were watching. Obviously not one with Barry Hall playing in. I'm sure the Swans will be dropping O'Laughlin, Hall and Goodes as they all played worse than Charlie.

I wasn't going off one game, I was going off the last game and the entire NAB cup.

[GeorgeYoung27]

Well then I'm bloody glad you are not coaching the team, as you've also just started a thread attacking Raph (again). Thank goodness we haven't lost a game this season so far. Dropping Raph, Charlie etc on winning form and good contributions means we would struggle to find half a team if we were losing.

[bigcarl]

people tend to remember mistakes, especially clangers, such as raph being mowed down late in the last quarter when he thought he was in the clear.

... or for that matter schneider being embarrassingly mowed down by barry hall after not heeding the umpire's call to play on.

it probably went unnoticed by a few but just a couple of minutes later raphael took a terrific contested mark which probably stopped a sydney goal.

schneider also had his chance to make amends but managed only a point.

no-one is calling for his head.

i say cut the kid some slack and perservere with raphael. i thought that for a kid with only 30-odd games under his belt he performed admirably.

[hAyES]

Well then I'm bloody glad you are not coaching the team, as you've also just started a thread attacking Raph (again). Thank goodness we haven't lost a game this season so far. Dropping Raph, Charlie etc on winning form and good contributions means we would struggle to find half a team if we were losing.

If they play crap and there's nobody to replace them, then fine. But there are players like Gehrig, Goddard and Maguire to come back in and to me, those are two that should be dropped. With the depth that we have this year even if players are playing well (for them) they could be dropped. Anybody can do the role that Raph has been given and do it a hell of a lot better.

[meher baba]

people tend to remember mistakes, especially clangers, such as raph being mowed down late in the last quarter when he thought he was in the clear.

... or for that matter schneider being embarrassingly mowed down by barry hall after not heeding the umpire's call to play on.

it probably went unnoticed by a few but just a couple of minutes later raphael took a terrific contested mark which probably stopped a sydney goal.

schneider also had his chance to make amends but managed only a point.

no-one is calling for his head.

i say cut the kid some slack and perservere with raphael. i thought that for a kid with only 30-odd games under his belt he performed admirably.

Agree totally with Raph, but Charlie's problem is that I didn't notice him do one constructive thing all night!! At least Schneider kicked a goal.

[fingers]

Major problems included the lack of impact made by C Gardiner and A Schneider moving into attack and the fact that Kosi couldn't hit a barn door from 10 paces. This left the Swans with a pretty easy job: keep Riewoldt as far from the goal sticks as possible and thereby keep our most reliable avenue to goal bottled up.

Apart from Riewoldt, and Kosi's ability to mark the ball but then fluff the kick, the only player who made any significant impact inside the forward 50 was Milne.

Gehrig must come back. C Gardiner must go to the Scorps. Kosi should be put in the role of a roving player: which is where he makes the most impact (ruckman or otherwise). Schneider should be put on notice: Armo or Birss would easily have been better value on Saturday night.

And Dal and Joey must be given the chance to move forward of the centre square for some of the game.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you've written....just amazes me that with Roo and Kosi, crumber by Milne and Schneider we need another big forward (G) to be able to secure a path to goal. Surely we should be able to kick a winning score with those 2 up forward?

[cwrcyn]

The Swans blocked the zone between our defensive 50 and the centre of the ground, eliminating our options to run the ball out of defense. They also had a player guarding our attacking 50 line, so our guys were reluctant to kick to CHF to a contested situation. Their defenders also worked hard at blocking our key forwards from moving up the ground at the appropriate time.

This meant that we had to chip the ball 20 metres at a time to the wing. That gave the Swans ample to employ a second flood in our forward 50.


Those people who were hard on us for not moving the ball quicker are a bit unfair. They're pretty hard tactics to overcome. Perhaps our guys should have slowed it down a bit , and huddled and blocked to allow team mates to move into a clear space to receive a kick. We expended an unbelievable amount of energy, and a positive is that we didn't crumble inder the pressure in the final quarter.

[yipper]

The Swans blocked the zone between our defensive 50 and the centre of the ground, eliminating our options to run the ball out of defense. They also had a player guarding our attacking 50 line, so our guys were reluctant to kick to CHF to a contested situation. Their defenders also worked hard at blocking our key forwards from moving up the ground at the appropriate time.

This meant that we had to chip the ball 20 metres at a time to the wing. That gave the Swans ample to employ a second flood in our forward 50.


Those people who were hard on us for not moving the ball quicker are a bit unfair. They're pretty hard tactics to overcome. Perhaps our guys should have slowed it down a bit , and huddled and blocked to allow team mates to move into a clear space to receive a kick. We expended an unbelievable amount of energy, and a positive is that we didn't crumble inder the pressure in the final quarter.

Exactly. And we were fit enough to hang on this time!!

[meher baba]

The Swans blocked the zone between our defensive 50 and the centre of the ground, eliminating our options to run the ball out of defense. They also had a player guarding our attacking 50 line, so our guys were reluctant to kick to CHF to a contested situation. Their defenders also worked hard at blocking our key forwards from moving up the ground at the appropriate time.

This meant that we had to chip the ball 20 metres at a time to the wing. That gave the Swans ample to employ a second flood in our forward 50.


Those people who were hard on us for not moving the ball quicker are a bit unfair. They're pretty hard tactics to overcome. Perhaps our guys should have slowed it down a bit , and huddled and blocked to allow team mates to move into a clear space to receive a kick. We expended an unbelievable amount of energy, and a positive is that we didn't crumble inder the pressure in the final quarter.

Exactly. And we were fit enough to hang on this time!!

All a bit too kind on our players and coach IMO. We have heard so much criticism about Lord Voldemort lacking a plan B, but I would have thought that the situation is even worse now: I can't see that we changed anything much at all after half-time to counter the Swans' tactics, and - as a result - we just sank further and further into the morass. We really were very lucky indeed to come away with the four points: watch the replay.

I'm not saying that we should have kept trying to move the ball forward quicker, but I do think that there was scope for some other tactics: including the huddling and blocking that you suggested.

How about something like putting Kosi and Riewoldt into the midfield to try to take some contested marks - particularly when the Swans were bringing the ball out of defence, and having players like X, Gilbert, Gram, Joey and Dal taking turns to go forward trying to get loose inside the forward 50 so that Kosi and Riewoldt could move the ball quickly to them?

I recall a game against the Swans long ago (perhaps it was in 1997) in which Stewie Loewe played this sort of contesting role in the midfield and it completely disrupted the Swans' tactics (which, although some people like to talk about flooding as a recent phenomenon, were more or less the same then as they are now).

[yipper]

The Swans blocked the zone between our defensive 50 and the centre of the ground, eliminating our options to run the ball out of defense. They also had a player guarding our attacking 50 line, so our guys were reluctant to kick to CHF to a contested situation. Their defenders also worked hard at blocking our key forwards from moving up the ground at the appropriate time.

This meant that we had to chip the ball 20 metres at a time to the wing. That gave the Swans ample to employ a second flood in our forward 50.


Those people who were hard on us for not moving the ball quicker are a bit unfair. They're pretty hard tactics to overcome. Perhaps our guys should have slowed it down a bit , and huddled and blocked to allow team mates to move into a clear space to receive a kick. We expended an unbelievable amount of energy, and a positive is that we didn't crumble inder the pressure in the final quarter.

Exactly. And we were fit enough to hang on this time!!

All a bit too kind on our players and coach IMO. We have heard so much criticism about Lord Voldemort lacking a plan B, but I would have thought that the situation is even worse now: I can't see that we changed anything much at all after half-time to counter the Swans' tactics, and - as a result - we just sank further and further into the morass. We really were very lucky indeed to come away with the four points: watch the replay.

I'm not saying that we should have kept trying to move the ball forward quicker, but I do think that there was scope for some other tactics: including the huddling and blocking that you suggested.

How about something like putting Kosi and Riewoldt into the midfield to try to take some contested marks - particularly when the Swans were bringing the ball out of defence, and having players like X, Gilbert, Gram, Joey and Dal taking turns to go forward trying to get loose inside the forward 50 so that Kosi and Riewoldt could move the ball quickly to them?

I recall a game against the Swans long ago (perhaps it was in 1997) in which Stewie Loewe played this sort of contesting role in the midfield and it completely disrupted the Swans' tactics (which, although some people like to talk about flooding as a recent phenomenon, were more or less the same then as they are now).

Fair enough - however, the Swans figure in these types of games almost every week. So most teams have trouble breaking the game open against these tactics. I still think we got it inside 50 enough - but just couldn't convert to save our lives. If we had of kicked 13 - 14 goals out of our 21 shots - would we be having this discussion. It is a lot easier to play against the Swans when you can start your structure and tactics from the centre bounce instead of giving them possession from the goal square every time.

[Duggie]

And just on Gardiner again, I've never seen someone drop so many chest marks.

Have a good look at Barry Hall.

[ctqs]

I'd rather see them kick to a contest 40-50 metres down the line then CONTINUALLY chip it sideways looking for something to open up. I also reckon there was a distinct lack of movement up forward when the flood was on. Forwards are there to take contested marks. They have a better run with umpires now than ever, with the hands-in-the-back and chopping-the-arm rules. If we can't take a contested mark, and our crummers are not good enough to win more than they lose, then let the opposition bottle it up in our forward line. It only makes it harder for them to get it out. The more time it spends in our forward 50, the more likely we are to score.
As for Raph Clarke, my concern is he only has one pace and seems to second guess himself, making him seem slow in mind.

[bigcarl]

I'd rather see them kick to a contest 40-50 metres down the line then CONTINUALLY chip it sideways looking for something to open up.

absolutely. that is the whole reason why kosi is playing forward. because he can and will take contested marks. pump it down there for christ's sake!

if he or fraser or roo can't hold it then that is what the crumbers are for.

there seems to be some reluctance to kick to a contest.

perhaps it is a coaching directive and if so it is counter-productive as it allows our opponents too much time to get numbers back.

[aussiejones]

Plan B ??????? (see previous post re Stewie Loewe )
Plan C ??????

Geez I hope Ross is having a big think about strategy this week!!!!

OK If we had kicked straight Yada yada.

What about playing to our strengths ?

Sydney came too close for us to be a serious contender IF other teams play UGLY

[iwantmeseats]

I'd rather see them kick to a contest 40-50 metres down the line then CONTINUALLY chip it sideways looking for something to open up.

absolutely. that is the whole reason why kosi is playing forward. because he can and will take contested marks. pump it down there for christ's sake!

if he or fraser or roo can't hold it then that is what the crumbers are for.

there seems to be some reluctance to kick to a contest.

perhaps it is a coaching directive and if so it is counter-productive as it allows our opponents too much time to get numbers back.

Totally agree with both these posts. Take some risks, how about a bit of DARING? Can anyone say Geelong?

[avid]

These thoughts make sense to me too.
What would happen if we just lobbed it long into the middle of any flood? Aren't our forwards capable of winning 55-60% of any contests? Wouldn't that be enough to win us the game? With less fuss. And less frustration?

[bigcarl]

Take some risks, how about a bit of DARING? Can anyone say Geelong?

that just about sums it up

[kalsaint]

I don't quite understand this man on man concept. If we kept our players in their normal postions, and they went man on man, how come the flood was on. For this to occur, our blokes would have to be flooding also. Man on man football is accountable footy, the way it should be played, is it not? One man for each man out there, backs sticking to forwards and forwards trying to shake defenders? If not, please enlighten me, as I'm confused by this man on man talk.

Me too. Man on man is accountable footy.

The thing that bugs me is why everyone seems to think Sydney is the onlt team that can do this to extremes. Collingwood generally beat Shitney comfortably and play the same game style in segments then move the ball quickly to minimise the efficiency of thye flood. They have forwards who can mark the ball and kick goals and because of this they generally win.

Whay cant the Saints do this? Collingwood, like St Kilda dont have a super fast midfield but still achieve this game style to beat the Sydney tactic.

[Miss Saints]

It's way too simple to say we want the ball pumped in to a contest instead of chipping around to loose men outside 50. You don't see it watching on TV, but at the Dome on Saturday night on one occasion Riewoldt had possession on the flank and if you looked into the forward 50 there were about four Swans and Kosi - he is a great contested mark, but all it takes is for Richards to block his run, Barry takes an easy mark, handballs to Mattner and they are off - and we are all shaking our heads. The pumping it long theory only works if you get the ball down there quick, which is what we were doing in the first 15 minutes (it helps if we win the ball straight out of the centre). Gram having a bad night really hurt us because he takes the opposition on every time. IMO Sydney clamped down to avoid getting blown out of the water and we weren't brave enough to keep attacking.
Good point about them tackling each other to force ball-ups too. And the most boundary throw-ins I've seen in a match. I wish there was something the AFL could do about that.
And re: Charlie Gardiner, the tall forward line won't be a problem with Fraser because Charlie won't be down there. His role is a lead-up half-forward who starts around the 50 and leads to the wing so Rooey isn't our only go-to man up there. This is now one of the most important positions in footy.