What actually happened after quarter time?

avid · Post: # 535965Post **avid** » Mon 24 Mar 2008 10:33am

Some of you out there have coached footy, and can read tactics and strategies.

In the first quarter St Kilda played the football we hoped they'd play in '08. After that, they played to a completely different set of dictates.

How did that happen, strategy-wise (or lack-of-strategy-wise)?

(I can never see what opposing sides are doing.)

Pwoit · Post: # 535977Post **Pwoit** » Mon 24 Mar 2008 10:54am

Swans implemented the UBER flood and played man on man.

Mr Magic · Post: # 535979Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 24 Mar 2008 10:58am

I think it was a combination of the Swans dropping an extra player back which freed up Leo Barry (once Gehrig pulled out of the team he was left with no real defensive duties) and the flodding of the midfield area which meant we had to hold the ball up acroos the back of the centre square before going forward.

How many times was Barry in the 'hole' in front of our leading forwards and able to block/chop off attacks?

yipper · Post: # 535980Post **yipper** » Mon 24 Mar 2008 10:58am

We were going long and direct at that stage - Swans then crowded out the corridor and forced us wide. They also flooded deep into our F50. And stayed back when we were moving forward forcing us to play the same style they had. Chiplotto stuff. They also started creating stoppages and began winning their share of these. It became a real tussle - it was actually a good win under the circumstances. We always looked more dangerous than them - and should hve kicked much straighter - the margin should have been 4-5 goals our way on the way the game was played.

bigcarl · Post: # 536000Post **bigcarl** » Mon 24 Mar 2008 11:19am

yipper wrote:We always looked more dangerous than them - and should hve kicked much straighter - the margin should have been 4-5 goals our way on the way the game was played.

we had only two more scoring shots than them but from memory ours were the easier ones and should have been nailed

yipper · Post: # 536004Post **yipper** » Mon 24 Mar 2008 11:22am

bigcarl wrote:
yipper wrote:We always looked more dangerous than them - and should hve kicked much straighter - the margin should have been 4-5 goals our way on the way the game was played.
we had only two more scoring shots than them but from memory ours were the easier ones and should have been nailed

Yep, especially in the last Q - all 5 points we kicked should have been goals. Perhaps the long bomb from DalSanto was the exception. Most certainly - at minimum should have got 4.1 in the last Q.

GeorgeYoung27 · Mon 24 Mar 2008 11:25am

The clue comes about 5 minutes before quarter time on the TV commentary when Blight says the Swans need to go man-on-man. They did and unfirtunately we didn't respond as well as we should (the same thing happened against the Bulldogs last year). We need to huddle on kick outs and start blocking for our team-mates.

One thing I do hate about the Swans game plan is the way they tackle their team-mates. When a Saints player laid a good tackle on a Swan, a 2nd Swan would come in and tackle his team-mate so the ball couldn't come out and the ump couldn't play holding the ball.

saintbrat · Post: # 536011Post **saintbrat** » Mon 24 Mar 2008 11:28am

GeorgeYoung27 wrote:The clue comes about 5 minutes before quarter time on the TV commentary when Blight says the Swans need to go man-on-man. They did and unfirtunately we didn't respond as well as we should (the same thing happened against the Bulldogs last year). We need to huddle on kick outs and start blocking for our team-mates.

was that when Roos smiled and looked almost- good idea?

One thing I do hate about the Swans game plan is the way they tackle their team-mates. When a Saints player laid a good tackle on a Swan, a 2nd Swan would come in and tackle his team-mate so the ball couldn't come out and the ump couldn't play holding the ball.

saw kingy go in last at one ppoint and thought ouch for anyone underneath him.

yipper · Post: # 536013Post **yipper** » Mon 24 Mar 2008 11:31am

GeorgeYoung27 wrote:The clue comes about 5 minutes before quarter time on the TV commentary when Blight says the Swans need to go man-on-man. They did and unfirtunately we didn't respond as well as we should (the same thing happened against the Bulldogs last year). We need to huddle on kick outs and start blocking for our team-mates.

One thing I do hate about the Swans game plan is the way they tackle their team-mates. When a Saints player laid a good tackle on a Swan, a 2nd Swan would come in and tackle his team-mate so the ball couldn't come out and the ump couldn't play holding the ball.

Yep, exactly - they create ball-ups instead of free kicks. The game is never allowed to break open. It is imperative that you kick goals against them and not miss sitters. If you do miss - then you end up in a scrap, which is the way they like it.

bigcarl · Post: # 536030Post **bigcarl** » Mon 24 Mar 2008 12:07pm

yipper wrote:Yep, exactly - they create ball-ups instead of free kicks. The game is never allowed to break open. It is imperative that you kick goals against them and not miss sitters. If you do miss - then you end up in a scrap, which is the way they like it.

they just seem time and time again to succeed in dragging opposition teams down to their own miserable, negative level. frustrating as all hell.

i hope that by the next time we meet we are confident enough in our own abilities to blow them away

meher baba · Post: # 536066Post **meher baba** » Mon 24 Mar 2008 1:00pm

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.

saintbrat · Post: # 536091Post **saintbrat** » Mon 24 Mar 2008 1:35pm

bigcarl wrote:
yipper wrote:Yep, exactly - they create ball-ups instead of free kicks. The game is never allowed to break open. It is imperative that you kick goals against them and not miss sitters. If you do miss - then you end up in a scrap, which is the way they like it.
they just seem time and time again to succeed in dragging opposition teams down to their own miserable, negative level. frustrating as all hell.

i hope that by the next time we meet we are confident enough in our own abilities to blow them away

Paul Licuria said much the same thing on radio this afternoon,
really it's no wonder sydneysiders don't become Football fans if they see that style week in and week out,

Duggie · Post: # 536092Post **Duggie** » Mon 24 Mar 2008 1:37pm

The eveningup of the free kick count also had an effect. I would need to watch it again to decide whether it was deliberate on the umpires part.

Mr Magic · Post: # 536105Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 24 Mar 2008 1:53pm

Duggie wrote:The eveningup of the free kick count also had an effect. I would need to watch it again to decide whether it was deliberate on the umpires part.

I'm never concerned by the numbers of free kicks for and agianst - only if they are warranted or not.

chook23 · Post: # 536106Post **chook23** » Mon 24 Mar 2008 1:55pm

saintbrat wrote:
bigcarl wrote:
yipper wrote:Yep, exactly - they create ball-ups instead of free kicks. The game is never allowed to break open. It is imperative that you kick goals against them and not miss sitters. If you do miss - then you end up in a scrap, which is the way they like it.
they just seem time and time again to succeed in dragging opposition teams down to their own miserable, negative level. frustrating as all hell.

i hope that by the next time we meet we are confident enough in our own abilities to blow them away

Paul Licuria said much the same thing on radio this afternoon,
really it's no wonder sydneysiders don't become Football fans if they see that style week in and week out,

We flooded as much as they did.

Amazes me so many think the game was sydneys fault/game plan.

vacuous space · Mon 24 Mar 2008 2:12pm

meher baba wrote: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.

Charlie Gardiner spent most of hit TOG Saturday night roaming between the 50s as a link man. I thought he played pretty well. Not brilliantly, but I can't see why you'd want to send him to the Scorps. Schneider had an awful first game. He struggled to find the ball while his opponent got lots of it and when he did get the ball his disposal was brutal. He's better than that though.

GeorgeYoung27 · Mon 24 Mar 2008 2:33pm

We flooded as much as they did.

Amazes me so many think the game was sydneys fault/game plan.

Flooding is not the problem, all teams flood now. Geelong do, all sides move players into the back half when the opposition has the ball. All through the NAB cup our plan was to break fast on the turnover of the ball and we did that brilliantly in the 1st q. We goaled from the only kick out they had.

Sydney went man on man, that's what blocked the game up. If they didn't do it, we would have smashed them. That's life. We just have to move players to free up Gram (didn't happen), play the huddle on kick in's (again neither side tried this).

It was only a poor game due to poor kicking for goal

Winmarvellous · Mon 24 Mar 2008 2:47pm

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.

hAyES · Post: # 536131Post **hAyES** » Mon 24 Mar 2008 2:59pm

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.

We did flood as well, but I'm thinking that Ross flooded because they did. The game was free-flowing for the first 10 minutes and after that, Sydney decided to lock it up for the next 3 quarters. It's kind of a good thing to know that we can win playing both styles, but with our list I think people would prefer the free-flowing stuff that most teams play now.

vacuous space · Mon 24 Mar 2008 5:11pm

hAyES wrote: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.

BAM! (shhhh) · Mon 24 Mar 2008 5:45pm

Sydney manned up at qtr time???

Sydney zoned off at qtr time to keep us at half back, exactly like teams did to St. K in 2007 (man on man in their defensive 50 if we had players there, but otherwise a full zone from the centre line back). They also avoided stoppage play, and were much more content to play control with the ball... but most of all, they were MUCH harder at the contest in the 2nd qtr than in the first. Sydney lifted in the 2nd, and by half time both teams were spent.

Which is not in any way to imply that Sydney was more or less to blame for the game that was played, but that's how they stopped the Saints flow after qtr time.

bigcarl · Post: # 536232Post **bigcarl** » Mon 24 Mar 2008 5:50pm

vacuous space wrote: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 thought charlie did okay, too.

bj might come in for him though as he could play a similar role probably more effectively at this stage.

st.byron · Post: # 536243Post **st.byron** » Mon 24 Mar 2008 6:05pm

vacuous space wrote:
hAyES wrote: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.

agree with you VS. Thought he was ok. Played between the fifties and was by no means our worst player.

st.byron · Post: # 536245Post **st.byron** » Mon 24 Mar 2008 6:07pm

BAM! (shhhh) wrote:Sydney manned up at qtr time???

Sydney zoned off at qtr time to keep us at half back, exactly like teams did to St. K in 2007 (man on man in their defensive 50 if we had players there, but otherwise a full zone from the centre line back). They also avoided stoppage play, and were much more content to play control with the ball... but most of all, they were MUCH harder at the contest in the 2nd qtr than in the first. Sydney lifted in the 2nd, and by half time both teams were spent.

Which is not in any way to imply that Sydney was more or less to blame for the game that was played, but that's how they stopped the Saints flow after qtr time.

Good point Bam. I also thought that Jolly started to win his share of hitouts and Sydney started to win clearances from stoppages after about 20 mins into the first.

ace · Post: # 536268Post **ace** » Mon 24 Mar 2008 6:32pm

Sydney moved their forwards up to the midfield and created a flood in the centre of the ground, not as you normally see with a flood inside defensive 50.
St Kilda's defenders could no longer run and play through the corridor becasue it was so congested.
St Kilda then was forced wide.
When St Kilda approached the 50 arc, Sydney would move the flood back into defensive 50.
St Kilda got ahead in the free kick count in the first quarter because Sydney were getting caught in possession and giving away clumsy free kicks.
Barry Hall said something to the umpires at the end of the quarter - he probably suggested they look at the free kick count - whatever he said the umpires changed their behaviour.
None more so than Vozzo who became Sydney's 19th man.
In the second quarter all the possible frees to St Kilda were ignored, only the obviuos were paid.
At the same time all the possible frees to Sydney were paid.
By the end of the game the umpires had Sydney ahead in the free kick count.

The worst thing to come out of this is that every coach will see what Sydney did and try to emulate it against us.
Just like it happened after Sydney's inside 50 defensive flood against GT in mid 2004.