TOPIC:

BC wrote: If you bogans want to increase ground attendances then just add a Centrelink and TAB in the SD members bar and it'll be standing room only.

If you actually attended SD games instead of swanning around the golden triangle all Saturday in the beamer you would realise there is a tab in the Swans members bar moron.
I would put some suggestions up as to how to improve $ubiacos crowd numbers but then forlornly remembered they don’t actually have any supporters well none that are physically capable, maybe an aged care facility at Leederville would do the trick and or a morgue/cemetery/crematorium!

A quite alarming stat that was told to me yesterday was before the game we had not won a game at Claremont (both Oval & Showgrounds) in any grade since 2013, thankfully the Colts & Reserves at least brought some halt to that.
Managed to work our way back into the game in the 2nd & 3rd qtr but the slow start was only surpassed by an even slower finish!
Too many players had a quiet day at the office yesterday we are a side that need ALL 22 to be contributing not just a handful every week.

I reckon some of the Tigers older blokes like Richardson and Mitchell seem to get white line fever when they see a black and white jumper and it might just be the memory of that 2010 Grand Final that gets them going.....

Beasley Hutton wrote: A quite alarming stat that was told to me yesterday was before the game we had not won a game at Claremont (both Oval & Showgrounds) in any grade since 2013, thankfully the Colts & Reserves at least brought some halt to that.
Managed to work our way back into the game in the 2nd & 3rd qtr but the slow start was only surpassed by an even slower finish!
Too many players had a quiet day at the office yesterday we are a side that need ALL 22 to be contributing not just a handful every week.

Correct BH, can't rely on catch up footy every week. It worked against Perth but that sort of comeback is pretty rare.
The Swans boys will now have to stew on that result for a fortnight and I am hoping that Pickering doesn't hold back on his analysis of the players shortcomings in this game.
Hopefully then they will be ready for a real crack at Subiaco in the next game. Pretty fanciful to think we could beat them, but at least be competitive and play to the best of their ability which they were certainly a long way from doing yesterday.

We had a non-existent forward line in the last quarter and some players contributing at about 25%.

Claremont would probably think that they should have won by more given that they had the ball over 100 times more than Swans and had the two dominant players on the ground. Swans actually did well to hang in as long as they did but it was only due to a few players who understandably tired in the last quarter. The Tigers on the other hand had more contributors and played better as a team. I was impressed with number 50 Smallwood who took a number of impressive marks and defended well. Busher was also a good defender and he also moved well for a big man.
I must say I was bamboozled to see Tony Notte standing in the interchange area at a crucial moment in the middle of the last quarter, which was around the time that Richardson broke free and kicked the vital goal that put his team on the road to victory. Why would you take your best defender off at this key moment? I can understand midfielders needing a break but I thought Tony was needed down there, particularly given the pressure that Claremont were putting on at that stage and I'm sure Notte would have been able to run the game out.

swan42 wrote: We had a non-existent forward line in the last quarter and some players contributing at about 25%.

Yes that is true but they were not helped by those further up the field who were intent on handball craziness (which all missed the target and were turned over) when going forward instead of pumping the ball long and direct to a target or to get it over the back of the camped Hamp for the small forwards to run onto as we all know they grow a leg if a goal is a chance!
Smallwood for Claremont was very impressive on his debut I would be surprised if he wasnt on the radar of a few AFL clubs.

Beasley Hutton wrote:

swan42 wrote: We had a non-existent forward line in the last quarter and some players contributing at about 25%.

Yes that is true but they were not helped by those further up the field who were intent on handball craziness (which all missed the target and were turned over) when going forward instead of pumping the ball long and direct to a target or to get it over the back of the camped Hamp for the small forwards to run onto as we all know they grow a leg if a goal is a chance!

When you are kicking with a breeze in the last quarter, albeit not as strong as earlier in the match, and your deepest player is 50 m from goal is bizarre to me. And not wanting to single out one person as there were a number of players' efforts that were lacking yesterday I don't believe that Taryce Stewart's efforts were anywhere near good enough. And I understand that his 4 goals last week are indicative of his ability but I think we do a disservice to him if his effort yesterday were rewarded by a league game in two weeks' time.

swan42 wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote:

swan42 wrote: We had a non-existent forward line in the last quarter and some players contributing at about 25%.

Yes that is true but they were not helped by those further up the field who were intent on handball craziness (which all missed the target and were turned over) when going forward instead of pumping the ball long and direct to a target or to get it over the back of the camped Hamp for the small forwards to run onto as we all know they grow a leg if a goal is a chance!

When you are kicking with a breeze in the last quarter, albeit not as strong as earlier in the match, and your deepest player is 50 m from goal is bizarre to me. And not wanting to single out one person as there were a number of players' efforts that were lacking yesterday I don't believe that Taryce Stewart's efforts were anywhere near good enough. And I understand that his 4 goals last week are indicative of his ability but I think we do a disservice to him if his effort yesterday were rewarded by a league game in two weeks' time.

I have no issue with the tactic of forming a paddock in the forward line when players turn their defenders and run onto the ball that is kicked over their heads. However, this game plan only works if the forwards running onto the ball are quicker than the defenders - in Swans' case yesterday they weren't. Our small guys are too slow.

Success Hill wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Beasley Hutton wrote:

swan42 wrote: We had a non-existent forward line in the last quarter and some players contributing at about 25%.

Yes that is true but they were not helped by those further up the field who were intent on handball craziness (which all missed the target and were turned over) when going forward instead of pumping the ball long and direct to a target or to get it over the back of the camped Hamp for the small forwards to run onto as we all know they grow a leg if a goal is a chance!

When you are kicking with a breeze in the last quarter, albeit not as strong as earlier in the match, and your deepest player is 50 m from goal is bizarre to me. And not wanting to single out one person as there were a number of players' efforts that were lacking yesterday I don't believe that Taryce Stewart's efforts were anywhere near good enough. And I understand that his 4 goals last week are indicative of his ability but I think we do a disservice to him if his effort yesterday were rewarded by a league game in two weeks' time.

I have no issue with the tactic of forming a paddock in the forward line when players turn their defenders and run onto the ball that is kicked over their heads. However, this game plan only works if the forwards running onto the ball are quicker than the defenders - in Swans' case yesterday they weren't. Our small guys are too slow.

We were kicking with a reasonable breeze and we had no target in the goal square. Totally dumb football and as a consequence we lost the match.