Sylvia ran hard all day and i thought was very good and has been since he got back from suspension

What you need to do is ask Neil Craig why he keeps picking Dunn

Why don't you ask him - you're a regular at training? I'd love to know the answer.

Really?

If you reverse their score and they kicked 20.16 instead of 16.20, the end result would have been 136-85

A 51 point loss

Don't let me get in thew ay of your ridiculous hyperbole though

Is this the point where we point out that a number of their points came from rushed behinds and not kicks on goal?????

Edited July 7, 201312 yr by pm24

I'm realistic , and say it as I see it.

Had Sydney kicked straight we'd have lost by over 100 points

Nonsense

Why don't you ask him - you're a regular at training? I'd love to know the answer.

Because he plays his role to the best of his ability, listen to what Craig is saying, players will 'play' themselves out of the team now

I think a lot of people need to take off the rose coloured glasses.

At 3 quarter time, it was 50 inside 50s to 20 and 31 scoring shots to 13. That's Neeld'esqe. We were smashed at the centre clearances. We had about 140 less possessions. Sydney lost Reid very early, and were only just going. I think there were absolutely some positive signs, and I am loving our ball movement and improved foot skills. But that was at least an 80 point loss most days.

Neil Craig felt the scoreline flattered us as well.

I think one of the reasons we (supporters) are so positive is because we kept having a crack. We kept the pressure on Sydney which, as Nasher pointed out elsewhere, meant many shots were hurried or under pressure.

Also we had a number of encouraging displays of ball movement and effort which were observed intermittently throughout the day even when Sydney had the ascendency. We weren't smashed continuously for 20 minutes at a time we'd regain possession and reload regularly, even if we fluffed it up again. Earlier in the year we would just lay down for quarters and halves at a time.

I think one of the reasons we (supporters) are so positive is because we kept having a crack. We kept the pressure on Sydney which, as Nasher pointed out elsewhere, meant many shots were hurried or under pressure.

Also we had a number of encouraging displays of ball movement and effort which were observed intermittently throughout the day even when Sydney had the ascendency. We weren't smashed continuously for 20 minutes at a time we'd regain possession and reload regularly, even if we fluffed it up again. Earlier in the year we would just lay down for quarters and halves at a time.

Agree with that.

Except to say that it's all very well to let the players play in an unburdened way offensively, but some of that may well be Craig setting himself up to look like the man to lead us. Neeld had a longer term view.

I think one of the reasons we (supporters) are so positive is because we kept having a crack. We kept the pressure on Sydney which, as Nasher pointed out elsewhere, meant many shots were hurried or under pressure.

Also we had a number of encouraging displays of ball movement and effort which were observed intermittently throughout the day even when Sydney had the ascendency. We weren't smashed continuously for 20 minutes at a time we'd regain possession and reload regularly, even if we fluffed it up again. Earlier in the year we would just lay down for quarters and halves at a time.

It was just nice to go to the football and believe we actually belong in this competition. Pre-Craig we were an embarrassment. Now we are bunch of strugglers with some potential trying hard - and it's much better to watch because of it.

Agree with that.

Except to say that it's all very well to let the players play in an unburdened way offensively, but some of that may well be Craig setting himself up to look like the man to lead us. Neeld had a longer term view.

I think that view of Craig is just as cynical as the view of Neeld that says he brought nothing to the club.

I think the keys is we kept coming back and never seemed to give up. Both or attack and defence still need work.

When attacking our poor skills cost us in turn overs but at least now we are moving and running. When defending we lose too much contested ball at stoppages which allows easy possession for the opposition. I really think improving our stoppages will be the single biggest improvement the club can make; we start getting easy ball out of packs with clean possession and space to work in (before opposition teams can set up defensively) AND we deny the opposition the same thing. It will be the big evener.

Edited July 8, 201312 yr by deanox

Having only seen bits and pieces of the game, I find joeboy's analysis very handy as he is usually on the mark.

I think a lot of people need to take off the rose coloured glasses.

At 3 quarter time, it was 50 inside 50s to 20 and 31 scoring shots to 13. That's Neeld'esqe. We were smashed at the centre clearances. We had about 140 less possessions. Sydney lost Reid very early, and were only just going. I think there were absolutely some positive signs, and I am loving our ball movement and improved foot skills. But that was at least an 80 point loss most days.

Neil Craig felt the scoreline flattered us as well.

Nobody has rose coloured glasses on, where did you get that from, the only difference on Sunday was we played for the full 4 quarters, every supporter knows where we are at with the rest

But you take small victories where you can get them

Terlich - looking forward to seeing him rotate through the midfield

Fitzpatrick - belonging

A functioning forward line that kicked 13 on a team that was averaging 10 against

Having only seen bits and pieces of the game, I find joeboy's analysis very handy as he is usually on the mark.

Try watching the game, and you will see on this occasion he is not

I think a lot of people need to take off the rose coloured glasses.

At 3 quarter time, it was 50 inside 50s to 20 and 31 scoring shots to 13. That's Neeld'esqe. We were smashed at the centre clearances. We had about 140 less possessions. Sydney lost Reid very early, and were only just going. I think there were absolutely some positive signs, and I am loving our ball movement and improved foot skills. But that was at least an 80 point loss most days.

Neil Craig felt the scoreline flattered us as well.

Take out the second quarter and it was 12.10 to 11.6.

22 shots to 17 for a 10 point margin.

It was far, far from the absolute disasters we saw earlier in the year against top sides in the Hawks, Pies, Freo and Dons. IIRC we played probably one reasonable quarter in each of those games. Against Sydney yesterday we played three competitive quarters.

Yes the scoreboard flattered us - but I think it was probably about a 9 goal loss if they kicked straight, definitely nowhere near 15 goals.

Yesterday was an absolute mile away from the utter garbage we saw earlier this year.

Edited July 8, 201312 yr by Scoop Junior

...never forgiven Natalie for missing that gimme from 20 metres in the prelim final..

Who was that, S?

Who was that, S?

It's a joke, I've always preferred Amy Adams think, she is a better kick

Edited July 8, 201312 yr by Satyriconhome

"Try watching the game, and you will see on this occasion he is not

Edited July 8, 201312 yr by joeboy

_{I wish one of the coaches would tell the players to run towards our goal as fast as they can, when they have the ball and no one is blocking their path.}

_{It drives me mad to watch players just stand still and then take a couple of steps and kick the ball, after everyone is manned up, when no one is near them.}

_{I always coached my teams to take off, if you are clear with the ball, as the more ground you cover the closer you are to goal. It also helps the forwards beat their man on a lead, rather than waiting for something to happen. There is also less chance of kicking or handballing backwards and losing possession.}

_{Also could someone please tell the players not to handball to a ruckman, or his feet, especially when he is standing still and next to an opponent.}

_{I wish one of the coaches would tell the players to run towards our goal as fast as they can, when they have the ball and no one is blocking their path.}

_{It drives me mad to watch players just stand still and then take a couple of steps and kick the ball, after everyone is manned up, when no one is near them.}

_{I always coached my teams to take off, if you are clear with the ball, as the more ground you cover the closer you are to goal. It also helps the forwards beat their man on a lead, rather than waiting for something to happen. There is also less chance of kicking or handballing backwards and losing possession.}

_{Also could someone please tell the players not to handball to a ruckman, or his feet, especially when he is standing still and next to an opponent.}

Depends. The way teams play these days you have to be careful that you wont end up bombing it long to 3 on 1. Sometimes you have to hold up play and move the ball sideways then to the forwards. But often I do agree with you if you've got a forward one out then get it moving.

As for your second point you are referring to Nicholson with his wonderful handball to Gawn's feet. Crazy stuff.

I'll add that our player need desperate help in getting back off the mark before kicking with the number 1 offended being Jeremy Howe.

Trengove - just a game

Grimes - needed the run

Jones - was weighed down

Watts - played with purpose

Toumpas - was totally lost

Dawes - made an impact

Frawley - excellent until injured

Byrnes - made little impression

Sylvia - seemingly without passion

Dunn - good but flawed

Rodan - took wrong options

Garland - rarely made mistakes

McDonald - held up well

Nicholson - should never kick

Kent - seemingly lacked awareness

Davey - little was good

Gawn - showing exciting glimpses

Howe - rarely got involved

M.Jones - intelligent , but spasmodic

Terlich - a fine impression

Fitzpatrick - may have arrived

Clisby - exciting but raw

You are getting a bit of stick on this 'joeboy', but to me there would be only minor differences. I think Craig would be on the same page as you here.

Probably a bit harsh on Silvia, Jones I think did a good job against the weight of numbers that's probably your point there. Howe I would turn it around and say 'Howey get involved', which is what you are saying. Trenners is starting to get some ball which is good but yeah he didn't set the world on fire.

Kent did struggle, whether it's awareness, being a bit overawed at the moment or maybe even just a bit tired as a first year player I think he will give us something.

Nicho to me is doing all he can to play AFL and good on him but his decisions and kicking are really nowhere near good enough for this level. Can he turn it around, I'm not sure, as I say I think he is working hard to keep his spot and he may have no more to give. He does seem to lack awareness.

Joeboy - respectfully disagree mostly

mephis - I agree wholeheartedly

OK finally got around to having a crack myself.

Trengove - still lacks pace
Grimes - time to adjust
Jones - toiled, not stand-out
Watts - continues to improve
Toumpas - lost ground gained
Dawes - impressive, only nine?
Frawley - excellent until injured
Byrnes - last one picked
Sylvia - amongst our best
Dunn - continually plays role
Rodan - tackled, struggled otherwise
Garland - the back-line leader
McDonald - continues fine form
Nicholson - kicking needs work
Kent - struggled with ball
Davey - starting to tire?
Gawn - impressive without support
Howe - not enough impact
M.Jones - continues fine first year
Terlich - great endeavour, effort
Fitzpatrick - our best forward
Clisby - pleasing rapid progression

Edited July 8, 201312 yr by deanox

People have questioned Dunn's performance, and while I am a bit ambivolous about him in the long term, and note he had a couple of shockers a few weeks ago, he seemed ok to me yesterday. 17 touches at 88% DE, 5 1% (out of a team total of 39) playing as a defender. I can't recall him being responsible for direct goals etc, what did he do wrong?

People have questioned Dunn's performance, and while I am a bit ambivolous about him in the long term, and note he had a couple of shockers a few weeks ago, he seemed ok to me yesterday. 17 touches at 88% DE, 5 1% (out of a team total of 39) playing as a defender. I can't recall him being responsible for direct goals etc, what did he do wrong?

My concern is that the ball was in the Swans forward half a gazillion times and he only had 17 possessions. Shouldn't we be expecting more?

My concern is that the ball was in the Swans forward half a gazillion times and he only had 17 possessions. Shouldn't we be expecting more?

I think he does his job.

My concern is that the ball was in the Swans forward half a gazillion times and he only had 17 possessions. Shouldn't we be expecting more?

Well he got more touches than Garland, how did he play? Kent, Davey, Rodan, Toumpas, Nicholson, all played in the midfield and got less possessions...

11th in disposals with 17

2nd in DE% at 88.2%

=3rd for 1%ers with 5.

=8th in contested possessions with 5

11th in uncontested possessions with 10

=4th in effective tackles with 4

=5th in rebounds from D50 with 3 (a misleading stat imo)

Did not get a clearance all day, although only 13 players did.

=7th in inside 50s, with 2.

He gave away 1 free kick, which was his 1 clanger, but won a free kick, so that sort of evens out.

He only took 3 marks, which was low (only more than Davey and Kent) although one was contested.

Not amazing stats, but all up they suggest to me that statistically he performed ok.I've already said I can't remember him having goals kicked on him, and he may well have been responsible for poor defending that resulting in goals, but I seem to remember him spoiling quite successfully on mid range forwards, and not playing on the smalls.

I'm not saying he was great. I'm not saying he is a must have or the first picked. BUT I would say he "continually plays his role" and that his performance was satisfactory at the worst and better than average at best.

My biggest knock on him is that he is indecisive - he takes to long to pick a target sometimes and when kicking out he will often miss a clear open target, either ignore them, or not see them.

EDIT: BTW I haven't selectively listed stats, that is pretty much all the AFL site carries, apart from Hit Outs...

Edited July 8, 201312 yr by deanox