The Game Plan - It seems to be working

[Its Time for Another 4,052]

28 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Suggesting Roos took three years to instill a game-plan is a fallacy. The team he inherited no longer exists. This has been a complete rebuild in all but publicly-stated name and was the number one priority. Just a reminder of who is no longer on the list from when he first walked through the door; (How many are AFL standard?)

Mitch Clark

 

Jimmy Toumpas

 

Jeremy Howe

 

Colin Sylvia

 

James Frawley

 

Sam Blease

 

Jack Fitzpatrick

Jordie McKenzie

 

David Rodan

 

Shannon Byrnes

 

James Strauss

 

Josh Tynan

 

Daniel Nicholson

 

Tom Gillies

 

Joel Macdonald

 

James Sellar

 

Michael Evans

 

Dominic Barry  

 

Luke Tapscott

 

Aaron Davey

 

Mark Jamar

 

Troy Davis

 

Rory Taggert

 

Rohan Bail

 

James Magner

 

Tom Couch

 

Nathan Stark

 

Mitch Clisby

 

(Jack Trengove lucky)

 

 

 

I agree with you about the rebuild and have stated so on this topic but an interesting fact which I looked up on the weekend and was quite surprised by is that 11 of the players who played last weekend were on the list before Roos arrived. Half the team. I guess it's obvious that you turn over the 10 or so worst players on the list each year. So around 30 or 3/4's of the list have been turned over in Roos's time. Interestingly there are still 17 players on the list from before he came. 

Pre Roos Played last weekend

Jetta

T McDonald

Dunn

Watts

M Jones

Kent

Hogan

Gawn

N Jones

Viney

Pedersen

On list pre Roos

Dawes

Trengove

Garland

Grimes

Spencer

Terlich

[Slartibartfast 15,758]

8 minutes ago, Chris said:

The perils of a missing two letters. Was meant to be hasn't, not has. Whoops. 

Have changed the original.

I've deleted my comment!

[hemingway 7,589]

I would hate to think where we would be without Paul Roos and of course Peter Jackson. Also our President as kept a diplomatic and low key profile and not been prone to make wild and outlandish statements about our future. It has been a stable and purposeful period, so much needed after years of turmoil on and off the field.

[Gator 16,891]

15 minutes ago, hemingway said:

I would hate to think where we would be without Paul Roos and of course Peter Jackson. Also our President as kept a diplomatic and low key profile and not been prone to make wild and outlandish statements about our future. It has been a stable and purposeful period, so much needed after years of turmoil on and off the field.

???

New York Yankees 

[hemingway 7,589]

10 minutes ago, ProDee said:

???

New York Yankees 

one silly comment, give him a break Pro. 

[Demon Dynasty 15,370]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 4:24 PM, jnrmac said:

I'm not iinure it takes 3 years to ilanplement.

 

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Chris said:

That dependin entirely on the cattle you have to work with. 

Yes and It took Roos a few draft turnovers along with teaching those new to the club what he was expecting then pre seasons of drilling/coaching on and off the field before It started to sink In during match day for an entire game. Fitness/strength/agility training also.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Chook said:

Why not? It takes 3 years to get a degree, and the concept is the same—learning a whole new way of doing things can be hard. In this case its just as much a physical hurdle to overcome as it is an education hurdle.

 

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Stretch Johnson said:

It's been incremental.

The balance between attack and defence is able to be implemented by a more capable playing list who are coached by a credible coaching staff.

 

 

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Mach5 said:

It took 3 years to build a list capable of implementing it.

Yep

On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 5:14 PM, DeeZee said:

It also changes as time goes on.

Initially the team was taught all about defence,but we've added a real attacking element to It this off season,and now it's looking like we are playing real two way football , not to mention being much harder at the contest.

We came from an extremely low ebb with the list, training, fitness and confidence basically needing a complete rebuild. And then comes the skills. By hand and by foot, with a few exceptions, we were pretty horrid. Once the players start believing In their own ability and capability to hit targets, run a match out, kick accurately for goal (set shots & on the run) then they're much easier/open to coaching/learning game strategies/plans be It team def/attack, stoppage set ups, forward play, transitional play etc.

Injection of skilled (Jeffy) /hard nosed (Vince/Vanders/Jack) & the odd running player (Lumumba / development of Tmac) goes a long way also.

Under Roos we have seen

- defensive development back and forward.

-Mid field Improvement both In extraction, ball movement away from congestion and reasonable attack/spread (need another classy outside bent player - Pettracca?)

- Forward development both In terms of options, method of delivery and results (6th highest goal kicking ave at present).

We have also seen some solid player development/Improvement.

All In all we are on the up as a team/club. Provided most of the key coaches/assistants remain In place (post Roos) we should see the rise/Improvement continue subject to decent recruiting/trading going forward and retention of key players like Hogan et al (and a bit of luck with Injuries).

 

[CHF 2,596]

Roos came off an extremely low base with the list he walked into.

Firstly, there were incredibly low fitness levels that took time to bring up to an acceptable level. With out the fitness it was difficult, if not impossible, to get the team to play to the new game plan. In my view, Neeld walked in and took no note of the team list and fitness and said do this or you are out and the players just did not have the skill or fitness to play the way that was wanted. it destroyed confidence and set a lot of players back a fair way. Roos approach was to look at the list and work out what could be done to minimize damage and build confidence within the abilities of the group while developing the list.

Secondly, there was not the infrastructure support in place to properly coach and develop the players.He has introduced this and built it up over time. Not only do we have a good, strong team of coaches, we also have a proper approach to the individual development of each and every player.this is critically important to my mind.

I like the way we have developed and give all credit to the whole of the coaching team for the work they have put in and the players for responding the way they have.

Looking forward to the future.

[Gator 16,891]

2 hours ago, hemingway said:

one silly comment, give him a break Pro. 

Just stating facts in the light of your suggestion that he'd "made no grand statements".  There couldn't have been any grander. 

Rather than me cutting him a break I suggest it had escaped your memory or attention. 

[Coup Cooper 610]

9 hours ago, DemonDave said:

As much as I loathe him immensely, David King brought up an interesting scatter plot graph that Champion Data use to determine how close to  premiership standard teams are. It's based on scoring 100 points a game and conceding around 86.

This was from Round 21 last year I think, and as you can see by the legend 14 of last 15 premiers have met these criteria.

 Last year we were not scoring enough, nor defending well enough.

Now the updated graph for this year after 4 rounds has us much closer to somewhere near we need to be:

Both our points for and points conceded totals have improved a lot, and we compare favourable to some good teams such as the Hawks (who have obviously underperformed by their standards so far this year).

For the first time in a number of years, like a lot on here, I can genuinely see progress onfield on a more consistent basis, and now statisically that's backing up our reason for cautious optimism.

 

Like this as a graph.. Great concept!

[leucopogon 1,468]

30 minutes ago, Coup Cooper said:

Like this as a graph.. Great concept!

Yep me too. Obviously a long way to go, but dunno if I could stomach another West Coast Sydney GF

[SaberFang 7,141]

That's indeed a great graph and interesting to see what kind of forecasts are being predicted now by Champion Data.

If we kick over 100 points on Sunday and keep Richmond to less than 70, we'll end up in the top right section of the lower left quadrant

[Slartibartfast 15,758]

20 hours ago, Baghdad Bob said:

What you've done in your post is reverse engineer.  You've seen the result and you've sort to explain and justify it.  It doesn't seek to address what would have happened if another path had been taken.

I'd argue Roos can be legitimately questioned on two counts:

• failure to introduce an AFL quality game plan to the club until this year. In doing so he virtually said to the players "you aren't good enough to play AFL footy".
• publicly stating either directly or indirectly that we were/are hopeless and we've got a long way to go.

He's done many good things which have been discussed continually.  I also think he's made mistakes.

 

And now this:

Quote

If our best plays against their best based on the body of work [we've seen], you'd probably think it is going to be hard to win, but if we continue to narrow that gap which we appear to be [doing], then we will beat some really, really good sides."

Why on earth would you say that.  What about "if we play our best we believe we can win".  It's such a negative message.

[Skuit 9,166]

19 hours ago, It's Time said:

I agree with you about the rebuild and have stated so on this topic but an interesting fact which I looked up on the weekend and was quite surprised by is that 11 of the players who played last weekend were on the list before Roos arrived. Half the team. I guess it's obvious that you turn over the 10 or so worst players on the list each year. So around 30 or 3/4's of the list have been turned over in Roos's time. Interestingly there are still 17 players on the list from before he came. 

I had actually been thinking about this as well, noting the numbers that played on the weekend (not counting Hogan). Turning over ten a season still seems a little higher than usual though and there have been a few extra that have come and gone in Paul's time. Interesting looking at the list of survivors. Probably another half-dozen to be cut/squeezed out over the next twelve months. On another note - FU Neeld!

2016 (to date):

N.Jones   Jetta    McDonald   Watts   Gawn    Viney   Kent   M.Jones  (core)

Dunn   Pedersen   Garland   Grimes   (omits)

Dawes  Trengove   Spencer   (inj.)

Terlich   (Terlich)

[Gator 16,891]

1 hour ago, Baghdad Bob said:

And now this:

Why on earth would you say that.  What about "if we play our best we believe we can win".  It's such a negative message.

"if we play our best we believe we can beat anybody"

He does say some silly things.  Eight players were "tired" by round 2.

[Its Time for Another 4,052]

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

I had actually been thinking about this as well, noting the numbers that played on the weekend (not counting Hogan). Turning over ten a season still seems a little higher than usual though and there have been a few extra that have come and gone in Paul's time. Interesting looking at the list of survivors. Probably another half-dozen to be cut/squeezed out over the next twelve months. On another note - FU Neeld!

2016 (to date):

N.Jones   Jetta    McDonald   Watts   Gawn    Viney   Kent   M.Jones  (core)

Dunn   Pedersen   Garland   Grimes   (omits)

Dawes  Trengove   Spencer   (inj.)

Terlich   (Terlich)

Hogan was recruited before the Roos era so IMO should be included in this group. 

Edited April 22, 2016 by It's Time

[Redlegs Too 106]

I think Paul Roos said that the plan was to build a football department that would provide sustained success for the club. It would have been great to see a faster turn around but if the sort of sustained success he is talking about is the same as what is occurring at the Swans then I will remain both hopeful and patient. I will be very happy indeed if the club has a few years of sustained success towards the end of my life. It was damned good at the start of my life but very little in between. I am confident that Roos is sticking to the plan and that his solid base will endure. The game plan now looks competitive and will get better and ifs beaut to see the players enjoying themselves executing it. 

[mo64 5,209]

1 hour ago, Skuit said:

I had actually been thinking about this as well, noting the numbers that played on the weekend (not counting Hogan). Turning over ten a season still seems a little higher than usual though and there have been a few extra that have come and gone in Paul's time. Interesting looking at the list of survivors. Probably another half-dozen to be cut/squeezed out over the next twelve months. On another note - FU Neeld!

2016 (to date):

N.Jones   Jetta    McDonald   Watts   Gawn    Viney   Kent   M.Jones  (core)

Dunn   Pedersen   Garland   Grimes   (omits)

Dawes  Trengove   Spencer   (inj.)

Terlich   (Terlich)

Why? Because it doesn't suit your argument. It also debunks the argument that Roos inherited a team of spuds. If you look at our best 25-30, it's made up what Roos inherited, recruits from other clubs in Vince, Frost, Kennedy, Bugg and Garlett, plus high draft picks in Brayshaw, Petracca and Oliver. The odd mature aged rookie in VDB and Wagner have also been added.

In other words, half the core of our best 25-30 were there when Roos arrived. What's happened since is natural list attrition. Maybe the plaudits should go to Jason Taylor, because the rookie elevations in Harmes, VDB and Wagner have looked better than in the past, and Brayshaw, Petracca and Oliver look to be more promising than the likes of Morton and Toumpas.

What Roos has brought to the club is time to acquire talent through high draft picks. That time/poor ladder positions wasn't afforded to rookie coaches like Neeld and McCartney. I'd describe Roos' tenure to date as being a successful Football Department manager. His performance as a match day coach has been questionable.

As for the Neeld comment. Grow Up.

 

[Its Time for Another 4,052]

21 minutes ago, Redlegs Too said:

I think Paul Roos said that the plan was to build a football department that would provide sustained success for the club. It would have been great to see a faster turn around but if the sort of sustained success he is talking about is the same as what is occurring at the Swans then I will remain both hopeful and patient. I will be very happy indeed if the club has a few years of sustained success towards the end of my life. It was damned good at the start of my life but very little in between. I am confident that Roos is sticking to the plan and that his solid base will endure. The game plan now looks competitive and will get better and ifs beaut to see the players enjoying themselves executing it. 

If I had to single out one attribute that defined Roos Swans teams and which is still his legacy now is that they always compete full on. Its fair to say when it's really needed those teams gave 110% of their capability which was often less than their competitors but they came away with the chocolates. Think '05 Premiership.  From day one here he's banged on about culture and behaviours. I wasn't sure what that meant. Nearly 3 years later I think I get it. Having a 100% go and being very disciplined about executing the game plan. If you do that you have the foundations for long term success like the Swans are still enjoying. I'm guessing the first couple of seasons were more about building this culture than worrying about the actual game plan or scoring a bit more. They trumpeted competitiveness in their recruiting last draft and trade period and for me it is the most obvious improvement this year. It looks like the culture now gets a tick and the Game Plan is now significant because they have the attitude amongst other things to execute it.

 

[jnrmac 18,947]

5 minutes ago, It's Time said:

If I had to single out one attribute that defined Roos Swans teams and which is still his legacy now is that they always compete full on. Its fair to say when it's really needed those teams gave 110% of their capability which was often less than their competitors but they came away with the chocolates. Think '05 Premiership.  From day one here he's banged on about culture and behaviours. I wasn't sure what that meant. Nearly 3 years later I think I get it. 

 

It's taken you 3 years? And you only think you get it?

[Skuit 9,166]

32 minutes ago, mo64 said:

Why? Because it doesn't suit your argument. It also debunks the argument that Roos inherited a team of spuds. If you look at our best 25-30, it's made up what Roos inherited, recruits from other clubs in Vince, Frost, Kennedy, Bugg and Garlett, plus high draft picks in Brayshaw, Petracca and Oliver. The odd mature aged rookie in VDB and Wagner have also been added.

In other words, half the core of our best 25-30 were there when Roos arrived. What's happened since is natural list attrition. Maybe the plaudits should go to Jason Taylor, because the rookie elevations in Harmes, VDB and Wagner have looked better than in the past, and Brayshaw, Petracca and Oliver look to be more promising than the likes of Morton and Toumpas.

What Roos has brought to the club is time to acquire talent through high draft picks. That time/poor ladder positions wasn't afforded to rookie coaches like Neeld and McCartney. I'd describe Roos' tenure to date as being a successful Football Department manager. His performance as a match day coach has been questionable.

As for the Neeld comment. Grow Up.

 

I hadn't noted Hogan when I was thinking about it because I had overlooked him (due to not being on the primary  2013 list). Pretty simple, and I'm not sure what argument I made in that post that suits Hogan's inclusion or not. As for the Neeld comment, apologies for my immaturity, it was crude short-hand to note the evident damage we did to the long-term shape of the list during that era. My main argument still stands. That the past two years have been a rebuild beyond natural attrition.

[nutbean 8,837]

I may be old school but when i watch a game I think to win it is a combination of  90% basics and 10% game plan.

1. First basic  - you need talent  - Matt Jones best on the wing against Brad Hills best on wing and we come out second.
2. Whatever talent you have , you need to bring your best each game for 4 quarters ( unless you are vastly superior to another team and then you see a team cruise to win at half pace)
3. Second basic - you need to work hard and keep moving. Hard running pure and simple - whether you are a lumbering ruckman making space to take a mark like Gawn  or Watts who is running up and down from full forward to the half back flank. Defend well and spread well. Hard work. 
4. Third basic - do the basics well -  kick and handball efficiently ( crucial in todays game - turn it over and you die) , mark, spoil, tackle, block

As mindnumbingly simple the above may be you need all of this or no matter what your game plan is or how good it is  - it falls apart if you don't do the above.

With the above operating comes confidence.  When you overlay a game plan (which must be understood by all) and you execute the basics, you then can also execute the basics to a plan and that can be potent when the basics are going well and the plan is good.

I don't believe we lose because our game plan is wrong - we lose because we don't execute the basics. The game plan doesn't work if the basics are missing. There is a reason that Roos basically said he wasn't that interested about an intricate game plan in the early days - that's because we couldn't even execute the basic fundamentals.  

Over the last 3 years we have rarely lost because of game plan - we have lost because of the basics.

[Its Time for Another 4,052]

On 22 April 2016 at 2:45 PM, nutbean said:

I may be old school but when i watch a game I think to win it is a combination of  90% basics and 10% game plan.

1. First basic  - you need talent  - Matt Jones best on the wing against Brad Hills best on wing and we come out second.
2. Whatever talent you have , you need to bring your best each game for 4 quarters ( unless you are vastly superior to another team and then you see a team cruise to win at half pace)
3. Second basic - you need to work hard and keep moving. Hard running pure and simple - whether you are a lumbering ruckman making space to take a mark like Gawn  or Watts who is running up and down from full forward to the half back flank. Defend well and spread well. Hard work. 
4. Third basic - do the basics well -  kick and handball efficiently ( crucial in todays game - turn it over and you die) , mark, spoil, tackle, block

As mindnumbingly simple the above may be you need all of this or no matter what your game plan is or how good it is  - it falls apart if you don't do the above.

With the above operating comes confidence.  When you overlay a game plan (which must be understood by all) and you execute the basics, you then can also execute the basics to a plan and that can be potent when the basics are going well and the plan is good.

I don't believe we lose because our game plan is wrong - we lose because we don't execute the basics. The game plan doesn't work if the basics are missing. There is a reason that Roos basically said he wasn't that interested about an intricate game plan in the early days - that's because we couldn't even execute the basic fundamentals.  

Over the last 3 years we have rarely lost because of game plan - we have lost because of the basics.

I agree with your sentiment that if you can't do the basics you can't be competitive. But if you can do the basics and don't have a good Game Plan against teams that do, I don't think you'll win. 

Lately I've taken to watching a few of the Suns games to get an idea of how Prestia plays just in case he comes onto our radar at the end of the year. I had no idea how he played. I watched the Lions v Suns game last weekend. It was a pretty ordinary game. Both teams really struggled to kick goals when they had the opportunity They couldn't do the basics. It got me thinking about our forward line and how Hogan, Watts, Garlett and by the looks of it Weideman are very skilled forwards who can execute under pressure unlike what I'd seen in that game. I haven't seen a forward line this skilled in over 40 years of going to games. The future is looking very promising.  

Edited April 24, 2016 by It's Time

[Its Time for Another 4,052]

38 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

It's taken you 3 years? And you only think you get it?

Yep, call me dumb.  I didn't know how airy fairy terms like culture and behaviour's were actually going to manifest themselves practically in a way that I could tangibly see them in how the team plays.  There are a mass of reasons why the team at this point in time is playing better under Roos. Recruiting, development and coaching come to mind. But culture and behaviours aren't so tangible. There seems to be a level of commitment to the contest and to executing the Game Plan that's been missing for the past 52 years. Maybe that's due to culture and behaviours.

[nutbean 8,837]

11 minutes ago, It's Time said:

I agree with your sentiment that if you can't do the basics you can't be competitive. But if you can do the basics and don't have a good Game Plan against teams that do, I don't think you'll win. 

  

Agree one hundred percent  - which is why after 2 seasons, you do hear talk of game plan that we didn't hear for the first two season. Roos and Co have an expectation that with the talent they have assembled, the money they have spent on development coaches and pumped two years of development into players -  basics should now be in place and a non negotiable. Simply Roos had no faith in the talent in the group when he arrived or the ability for them to execute the basics - hence the dramatic turnover of players. He is still preaching "we are young" and as much I don't like it, I get it. The youth have two weaknesses - the don't always execute the basics well every time, with the major problem being that under pressure ( and not having mature wise heads) they can divert from the game plan or the teachings.  

 

[rpfc 27,433]

If we priortised an open game and kicking goals in 2014 - we would have lost by 12 goals every week just for the sake of an extra 3 ourselves.

Our players had prioritized turning the ball over from half back and working it back from there with dash and skill under Bailey, Neeld tried to make every game a [censored] fight along the boundary line (thanks Mick) and Roos has got them out of the habit of indiscriminate possessions and slowed down games to keep us in them and our players used to contested footy.

What I can see in 2016 and we can put this at Goodwins feet, from what has been said from the club, is a balance back to quicker movement of the footy. But how good are we in the contest? And our press is forcing turnovers up the ground rather than in an overworked back line, but it does lead to easy goals being leaked as we saw a few times last week. Imagine the leaking that would have happened in 2014.

Our confortability with this game plan has been earned these last two years. And we are winning clean footy out of the middle.

Edited April 22, 2016 by rpfc