TOPIC:

Danger wrote:

Success Hill wrote:

Johnny Leonard wrote:

Number 6 looked like a good player. Is he a recruit or did I not remember him?

On yesterday's evidence, Swans look the better team. Better spread. Better skills. Disposals and marking. 

Still some way to go I think JL, with Swans' inability to get the ball out of the middle at bounces a perpetual issue. I thought Subi had a better forward line system that can counter future opponents' game plans than Swans. 


That’s because we have an undersized ruck who can’t jump!

Agree, but the player you are referring to didn't play in this game. Germ's rucked, and even though he wins taps, they are rarely to his teammates' advantage.

Success Hill wrote:

Danger wrote:

Success Hill wrote:

Johnny Leonard wrote:

Number 6 looked like a good player. Is he a recruit or did I not remember him?

On yesterday's evidence, Swans look the better team. Better spread. Better skills. Disposals and marking. 

Still some way to go I think JL, with Swans' inability to get the ball out of the middle at bounces a perpetual issue. I thought Subi had a better forward line system that can counter future opponents' game plans than Swans. 


That’s because we have an undersized ruck who can’t jump!

Agree, but the player you are referring to didn't play in this game. Germ's rucked, and even though he wins taps, they are rarely to his teammates' advantage.


Doc did in fact play yesterday and the comment wasn’t referring just to that game but the comment about us losing cbc consistently. 

 

Danger wrote:

Success Hill wrote:

Danger wrote:

Success Hill wrote:

Johnny Leonard wrote:

Number 6 looked like a good player. Is he a recruit or did I not remember him?

On yesterday's evidence, Swans look the better team. Better spread. Better skills. Disposals and marking. 

Still some way to go I think JL, with Swans' inability to get the ball out of the middle at bounces a perpetual issue. I thought Subi had a better forward line system that can counter future opponents' game plans than Swans. 


That’s because we have an undersized ruck who can’t jump!

Agree, but the player you are referring to didn't play in this game. Germ's rucked, and even though he wins taps, they are rarely to his teammates' advantage.


Doc did in fact play yesterday and the comment wasn’t referring just to that game but the comment about us losing cbc consistently. 


 

Right Danger, at the cricket yesterday so didn't see the game. So it appears that it doesn't matter who we have in the ruck, we cannot get the ball at the centre bounces.

Will be interesting to see the 22 who will line up against the Eagles next week. Its a great opportunity for Swans to win a round 1 game for the first time since 2018.
They don't want to take the Eagles lightly though. They have played well in the scratch matches albeit against weaker opposition and they may have Gaff next week as well 

Swans are the only team that has not lost a match to those pricks thus far.
Hoping to see the black and whites have a winning start to the twenty 24 season.
Their average winning margin in these matches it's been said is approx. 35 points. Having said that, 2 previous matches from 3or 4 years ago saw Swans win by less than a goal. But then even the narrowest of wins is good enough to get the 4 premiership points on the board.
Apparently Swans have had a good pre-season winning 2 out of three matches. They should have bugs ironed out and hopefully they keep the winning streak going.

Good chance Jack Darling will be suiting up in the WAFL next week.

DD wrote:

Good chance Jack Darling will be suiting up in the WAFL next week.

Doubt he will get dropped this week. 12 touches a, 4 tackles and 2 shots on goal. More likely that Jamieson gets the chip, he’s clearly not AFL standard. Best thing is that with WC playing Sunday they’ll take an emg or 2 with them. Hopefully Gaff is one of them.