In the aftermath of the Sydney match im bitterly disappointed that we lost yesterday despite the fact that we really put in a strong effort of good hard contested footy against a good side.

Whilst we should take positives from such a performance it was a game that we should never have lost and id be interested to see if there is anyone who shares the view that not only did we effectively lose at the selection table (not playing Hampson, and picking Russell) but throughout the game when Sydneys key players started to get on top (particularly O'Keefe and Jude Bolton.)

Firstly, Hindsight is a wonderful thing and i know that its very easy to criticise. Secondly, im a massive fan of Brett Ratten as he brings a positive vibe to our players/ club and want him installed as our coach long-term yet it is important to also analyse from a balanced/ level headed point of view and in my opinion he got it wrong.

Kruezer should not have played. He is crying out for a rest and with Cloke playing we were already under-sized and effectively had no back up plan had Jolley got on top in which he did. Hampson at 203cm and a big leap does actually get his hands on the footy and wins hitouts which weve seen when he has played seniors this year. He doesn't do a great deal around the ground YET but surely he offers versatility in the rucking division compared to our current set up. No blame on Cloke and Kruezer who work super hard yet i feel at Hampson should definately of played.

Also, credit for the Gibbs on Goodes match up and equally impressive and gutsy from Ratten to keep him on Goodes when he pushed forward. But, O'Keefe absolutely destroyed as and single-handedly kept them in the contest/ won them the match as he bought other players into the game. He should of been tagged IMO or paid a little more respect. The Russian roullette tactic of Waite and him going head to head hurt us in the end despite Waite playing well and providing good drive, but O'Keefe is super smart and lost Waite at various stages to go forward and snag 3. J. Bolton was another who was killing us before Grigg went onto him which was a good move.

Lastly, Pfieffer should be in the side and i think he can play Russells role across half forward.

Plenty of very positive signs yesterday and shouldn't be too disheartened as the effort was very good but we should NOT have given this game up. Sydney had 4 players (O'Keefe, Jolley, Bolton and McVeigh) at most who effectively won them the game and with some smarter moves at match committee level i think we would have secured the cookies.

Thoughts would be appreciated...

Hank round 16 last year we got beaten by 100+ points and sacked the coach the next day= We have come along way in 12 months . Sydney are no easy beats they had just lost 2 in a row and they had not lost three in a row for some time now . Take into account that they have played in something like 11 out of the last 12 finals series they are a battled harden team . the fact that we lead them for most of the day and only went down by 2 points speaks volumes for the players and the coaching staff .

they had seven 150 + game players = we had 1

Their players averaged 58 more games than ours 2 1/2 seasons
They were almost on averge 3 years older


Can you only just start to imagine what the result would have been if these numbers were almost even - we would have slaughtered them .

the club now has some of the best talent at its disposal - Lets cut them some slack and see how they preform over the next couple of years

Good post Hank. I think Jamo should have gone on to Goodes when he went forward. Gibbs was giving us huge drive and should have stayed in the midfield. Carazzo is not a defender. Agree re` Pfieffer. Was not a bad idea having Fev at CHF at times. Harts at least made the forward line a little less predictable than previous weeks while not having a big influence.

We lost when we failed to convert our opportunities....easy shots missed in front of goal ......good sides bury teams when they control play and pile on the goals while the going is good.
Geelong would have had the game iced by half time and not allowed the Swans easy goals in the last couple of minutes...thats where we lost it.
I would have played Hampson for the experience but not expected much difference to what Cloke/Kruezer were able to achieve.

Russell is an accessory player..an Indian......if we are relying on him to win games then we are in trouble.
Okeefe, Bolton and Goodes although well beaten by Gibbs all did something when it mattered.......they are the Swans quality players not their Indians...

_________________
"When you have the attitude of a champion, you see adversity as your
training partner."
- Conor Gillen

Well holy crap Sydney........... you and i aggree on something for once.

Where the hell are Mulder & Scully when you need em!
Good post.

_________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit"
- Aristotle

Game day strategies, a different view. Without scrutinising our players abilities, like to throw up the following points for a candid discussion. I am of the belief that we did not play to our advantages, as well as we should of. Also found that the set plays executed by sydney showed what we can expect when our squad is well drilled and experienced.

1) With hartlet and austin in the squad, did we play too tall? Happy to see these kids playing, but did we play them with a strategy in mind. Could it be that hartlet was to play at CHF, austin at CHB, walker on O'Keefe and waite along the wing, what about fisher? Did we consider sydneys smalls? What about the likes of buchanan and bevan etc drifting forward, should have we left anderson or browne in the squad?. If our intention was to isolate our talls in the forward line, thats fine, but I don't think it worked. Our forwards seem to cluster around the 50mtr line, in particular when there is a stopage around center wing. Sydney rely on sides creating their own clusters, it helps their defenders bring the ball down, with the confidence they can win the contested ball.


2) With the ommission of browne and anderson, we lost some of our flexibility. We couldn't realy mix up our forward structure by adding a small forward, nor could we tag a dangerous forward in our defensive 50. A problem exagerated when stevens was sitting on the last line of the defence, for a good part of the fourth quarter. Once they exposed carazzo in the back half, we were left with scotland and stevens. Both running from deep in our defensive 50. An important foot note, is how fisher became our go to player from defence. A strategy by the swans to ensure both scotland and stevens were too busy with their direct opponents, that fisher was the only option. By the way, their strategy was helped by the absence of walker in the last quarter. We really need to help anderson and others to become great runwith negating players, only then will that assist our forwards, by releasing stevens and co further up the ground.


3) As mentioned earlier, set plays are a key plan with sydney. The very reason they play with two strong tall rucks. They may not be as mobile as cox, but they serve the exact purpose that paul roos has developed. Try as we may, if the ball is tapped into the right position along with the right block, not only do you win the clearance but also set up a play with accurancy. Should we have pushed another ruckman instead of either hartlet or austin? Is jacobs ready to step up as our bigbodied ruckman to help in this area? Whatever the correct solution, I am sure this is a high priortiy in the minds of our match committee. From my own view point, I would be pushing jacobs into the squad, and either leaving kruiser as our full forward/ruck whilst cloke develops as a tall defender. Very difficult to mend without making some significant changes.

I know its very easy behind a keyboard, and I'm sure the MC are aware of the mountain they need to climb to resecure our position as a top four club. Paul Roos has shown that if your club is built on fundamental techniques and strategies, the name of the player makes little difference, its how determined they are to fullfilling the strategies implemented by the coach.

Go Blues.

P.S........ this was the happiest day of my life!

(as if you didn't know!)

_________________
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit"
- Aristotle

I don't think it was tactical blunders or the selected side that lost the game . Maybe Gibbs should not have gone with Goodes when he went forward , but I think it was the way the game developed as the day went on . Hartlett didn't measure up as we neded , and Judd did not have his usual game . Stevens had a good first quarter but was tagged out of the game after that . We don't have the players to take things like this into account at the selection table , so can,t make the appropriate changes during the game . One extra possession from Harts , Judd or Stevens at a crucial time and we may have won it . Only 2 points down after all ......... Lots of people are screaming "play the young blokes" all the time , well you can't do that and expect to beat top 4 teams .

Spot on.

Waite, Fisher, Simpson, Carrazzo, Wiggins & Fev all missed or buggered up fairly simple shots at goal in the first half. Factor those misses in with the lapse we had late in the second quarter and the margin at half time could easily have been 40-50 points and not 16.

Unfortunately as we found out in the 2nd half, Sydney isn't a team you can afford to give a sniff to.

in some ways that's the next step and it'll come with confidence hoefully. Both this week and against the Sainters if we had have kicked those easy goals, well who knows, but the lead would have been substantially more.

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

Fantastic post Hank.

For me, this year was most importantly about gaining confidence in themselves, a belief in their team mates & a game plan that will win games.

After so many losses on & off the field, the team taking to the field this year need to gain a belief that they were capable of winning & competing with the best...I think they've done that now.

Cost us the game against St Kilda too.

Sydney Blue it seems as though you have misunderstood my point. I will re-iterate i am not disappointed in the brand of football we played (quite the contrary actually) and i knew Sydney were going to be very difficult to beat as has been highlighted, yet we dominated play in the first half and should have beaten them.

Our forward structure was far better (huge positive), creating far more opportunities but again we failed to convert, and when he started to hurt us O'Keefe should have been tagged IMO.

I have been a patient supporter and i understand it takes time to develop for us to become that powerhouse but guess what nowadays there is no prizes for 2nd and there never has been. Im not sure about you but i can't stomach losing when we shouldn't.

Again from a balanced and unbias view it was a game we shouldn't have grassed and with better decisions through the game and at match committee level i think we would have won.

Better decisions come with experience & we have a lot of kids running around out there, along with a first year coach in the box.

Next year & another year on, given similar circumstances, we'll be in a better position to win.

_________________
The Future is Bright, the Future is Navy Blue.