Chip, chip, chip, chip, chip, chip… It's disgraceful the way the Swans play their footy. In the first quarter they played the game as if they were in front by a point with a minute to go in the last. It's not footy and Wayne Harmes was right in a way when he said R.I.P AFL..

My mate who went to the Geelong - Hawkes game said the Hawks played the same style of footy - chip, chip, chip, chip.

Look at the stat's and the Swannies had 121 more possessions than Carlton yet they could only beat us by 7 very lucky points. They got smashed when it came to contested possessions.

I have to admit I nearly fell off my chair when I saw that Leaping Leo took 18 marks!! I remember a young Kouta taking 18 marks against W.C.E in 1996 - for those that have seen that game you would know the difference between the two performances.

I don't think that I am in the minority when I suggest that most fans are frustrated and appalled with this style of footy. It was interesting to read the Swans players saying that they didn't care how they won the game, they just wanted to win…….. Well I'm sure their supporters would care. It's the worst game plan I have ever seen and the Grand Final was a perfect example ( apart from the a close finish ) of what a poor spectacle this style of play brings.

To counter this style of play should AFL either increase the distance for a mark to 20m or make it play on when a team kicks backwards?

I want to see contests and exciting footy, not kick to kick.

I can relate as Gaelic footy has, in some quaters gone the same way, i.e. when on defence everyone behind the ball, loads of handpassing and not so much skill. But, it's a business and results matter, if carlton were doing it and were premiership champs, what would your opinion be then.

_________________
'Cause I'm J.U.D.D
I'm dynamite
J.U.D.D
And I'll win that fight
J.U.D.D
I'm a power load
J.U.D.D, Watch me explode

Carlton could've tried to make it a contest. Pagan can try manning up and creating a contest rather than flooding all the time. Why would anyone flood against the Swans? They just hold on to the ball and being the most precise chippers in the game in a tight situstaion, when the opportunity arises they chip holes in our flooded defence. You do whatever it takes to win. Don't blame the Swans, it won them a flag, blame Carlton be not manning up and making a contest, especially when we won the contested possessions.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but two points:

1. the last thing the afl needs now is more rule changes.

2. carlton persisted with a spare man in defense for most of the game and played a largely zonal game around the ground. if you want contested football carlton was at fault, they just needed to man up and back them selves in. why should sydney kick to a contest when they are kicking to a two on one, due to the zone defense?

You cant zone a defensive flood and play man to man at the same time.
Swans didnt have to kill us all they did was have to win.. and whiole they were infront .. we were never going to beat them with our tactics.

They had it in the bag unless they messed it up themselves.

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Jim it is too simplistic to say that the Blues should have just manned up.

The Swans spread out to space when one of their players has the ball particularly from a mark or free kick.The only way a player can force a turn over is to impede the player illegally and with three umpires red hot on the pulling of jumpers and what not it is something you cannot stop.The Swans are fantastic at kicking to position at around 15 to 40 metres so it doesnt matter if you are behind or in front of your opponent your a dead duck.Despite having 366 disposals the Swans only coughed up the ball 50 times and rarely missed a target in the back half when turnovers can really kill you.


The AFL rules committee need to look at creating a rule that stops players kicking backwards unless in their forward 50 and a limit on how many kicks you can have in a row in defence on your defensive half of the ground.


Roos has created a game plan which is excellent for the win loss ratio because his team is good enough to exacute it but makes the game as a spectacle flower shithouse to watch and King Andy should grab a copy of this game to convince himself that the time to change is now for next year.Handy Andy got his wish to have a premiership flag hung from the Harbour Bridge,but I think the novelty of that would have worn off if he was at this pearler of a contest.


The other thing that needs change is the time a guy has to dispose of the ball after a mark or free.It needs to be less and if the guy has not got rid of it within a reasonable length of time a free is awarded to the nearest opposition player.No warnings just bang you have had long enough.This rule is in force now only the umps are too gutless to pay it.

Im not talking about this as a pissed off Blues supporter( actually maybe a bit) but more as a footy lover.

Last nights so called contest sunk too new lows in possession boring non contested footy.If the rules committee dont act soon the game will become a joke.

Jim it is too simplistic to say that the Blues should have just manned up.

The Swans spread out to space when one of their players has the ball particularly from a mark or free kick.The only way a player can force a turn over is to impede the player illegally and with three umpires red hot on the pulling of jumpers and what not it is something you cannot stop.The Swans are fantastic at kicking to position at around 15 to 40 metres so it doesnt matter if you are behind or in front of your opponent your a dead duck.Despite having 366 disposals the Swans only coughed up the ball 50 times and rarely missed a target in the back half when turnovers can really kill you.


The AFL rules committee need to look at creating a rule that stops players kicking backwards unless in their forward 50 and a limit on how many kicks you can have in a row in defence on your defensive half of the ground.


Roos has created a game plan which is excellent for the win loss ratio because his team is good enough to exacute it but makes the game as a spectacle flower shithouse to watch and King Andy should grab a copy of this game to convince himself that the time to change is now for next year.Handy Andy got his wish to have a premiership flag hung from the Harbour Bridge,but I think the novelty of that would have worn off if he was at this pearler of a contest.


The other thing that needs change is the time a guy has to dispose of the ball after a mark or free.It needs to be less and if the guy has not got rid of it within a reasonable length of time a free is awarded to the nearest opposition player.No warnings just bang you have had long enough.This rule is in force now only the umps are too gutless to pay it.

Im not talking about this as a pissed off Blues supporter( actually maybe a bit) but more as a footy lover.

Last nights so called contest sunk too new lows in possession boring non contested footy.If the rules committee dont act soon the game will become a joke.

Agreed. Imagine being a Swans supporter and having to watch that crap week in week out.

The play on when the ball is kicked back rule is a no brainer and must be brought in next year. It will make chipping backwards a lot more risky, and will mean players are much less likely to take that option. Sure it won't help the flooding situation, but at least we'll get contests which is what our game is all about.

The worst thing is the umpire allowed for 10 meter kicks to be marks .. he should have cruified them in order to make sure the game didnt disintegrate to chips..

_________________
Due to recent budget cuts and the rising cost of electricity, gas, and oil....... the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off. We apologize for the inconvenience.

I don't like the idea of a "no-backwards kicking rule". It would be easier if our ground was rectangular, but if you are 60 out from goal on the boundary and kick it to 51 out directly in front of goal, have you kicked backwards or not?

We could simply provide that once you kick/move the ball outside your D50, the defensive team can't take a mark inside D50 from a kick from a teammate until the ball has been touched by the opposing side.

The rule regarding time after a mark is that the umpire will call play on if you don't move it on. The rule was changed away from paying a free kick. And that was a good idea, because umpires would rarely pay a free kick, and when they did there would be huge complaints and comparisons with other examples where no free was paid.

Pagans coaching didn't help either.....All we ever did was flood flood flood, everytime we ran the ball out of our backline we had to pull up and wait till all our numbers got back. Fevola last week kicked 6 goals this week the only time he ever went into the square was when we kicked 5 goals in 10 minutes. Then suprise suprise he was out of the square again. I have been a big fan of Pagan but this loss was on you boy.
Shame shame shame on you Pagan.....

_________________
Blueboy forever

It would still put more pressure on the Swans and therefore would have been more contests Mean more numbers around the ball, forcing them to be even more precise where one fumble would see them under pressure. Has to be better than just zoning off and watching them play with the ball. It was our fault. The Swans aren't there to please you guys, just win a game of footy and being defending premiers they do that well. Don't worry about stupid knee-jerk reactions want ing change rules all the time. The game evoles. It was up to us to counter it and we zoned-off instead. Blame us, not the Swans. Don't worry about how the game's going, people will always turn-up in big numbers as they always do.

It disgusted me to see Barry Hall take a mark on the wing boundary late in that quarter and he didn't even turn around to see what options there were up the ground, he just looked right back at the bloke who kicked it to him and sent it straight back.

I was furious after the game at the mockery of our great game by this team. I was just as furious though that we forced the turnover several times in this debacle of a final 5 minutes and then coughed it straight back up again.

We only have ourselves to blame.

We need to stop being so afraid of getting shafted and try to play some attacking footy, and let the enthusiasm of our youth take the side to some new heights.

Great moment when Fev was the only one in the forward line, surrounded by 4 Swans players & somehow expected to beat them all. Where were the other 3 guy's opponents?

Right on Synbad!
How many @$#**times did their passes only travel 10 meters, the bloody maggot should have played "play on" on at least a dozen times!!!!
Oh and since im fired up how bout that deliberate out of bounds against Teague!!! What the %*##$*&!!!!!

_________________
Happy Days Are Here Again!!

Yep. They should not only be reluctant to pay marks where the kick is borderline, but they should also pay a free kick if the player doesn't move the ball on legally when the mark isn't paid. At the moment, they take the easy way out and allow a ball-up. If you are a defender who takes a mark from a dubious kick and you have someone on your hammer, it is preferable to act as if you didn't realise the mark wasn't paid than rush your kick and turn it over.

They should give the player taking the "mark" a choice where the kick is borderline - play on as if it is no mark unless you hear the whistle for the mark. If you take the punt and stop as if it is a mark and the ump doesn't pay it, that's just your bad luck.

Not only would this result in free kicks and shots for goals, but over time it would mean that players would play on in borderline cases even if the umpire does blow the whistle for a mark. The umpires could make sure they call play-on as soon as the player has taken a step.

An extract of a post of mine elsewhere but suited to this topic.

Now coming into this weeks game assuming we lose Fev,Lappin,and have no Waite. My changes would be to drop Teague and Chambers also.

In i'd have Carlos, Bannister, Wiggins and Kennedy ( if fit - otherwise someone who is mobile mid sized and can mark or maybe Livo or TLO )

My rationale Bannister and Wiggins are big (small) enough to match up on Hawthorns forwards. Kennedy should be good enough to match up on Dawson as a one out forward when we flood and Carlos offers us the moving target role up front.

I believe that if Pagan goes with his flood tactics ( as he does ) what might be an Option is too leave Kennedy( Livo ) up front as a one out target. We then get a good look at Kennedy and he gets a taste, by playing on a relatively newcomer in Dawson who might not just be experienced enough to expose a young gun.

Carlos roaming opens up the forward line, bringing the ball to ground and providing a contest every time, even to the point where he could push up to the wing to provide a contest so our extractor(s) might be able to get to the foot of the packs and get the ball out and moved on. Our main issue will be Mitchell but i have faith in Bentick being able to win his fair share of the contested ball.

Bannister i think is a good inclusion as he is mobile enough and big enough to play KP against the Hawks, Wiggo is ideal also as he could be suited by match ups here.

Also bringing in Carlos and Kennedy also gives us the option of moving Lance forward if we have to. Keep Saddo in as he needs game time and he is a must this year in our best 20.
Livo might stay out for another week due to match ups. Unless Pagan goes out on a limb and brings Livo in instead of Kennedy and plays Livo forward ( like his junior days ). Maybe slow but Neitz isn't no flying machine, and Livo playing the offensive role not defensive role might be a confidence booster for him, releasing some pressure off him in the way of accountability.

In anyway what do i know i'm just another supporter who has opinions and i can't be right all the time can i. But then again maybe Pagan isn't right all the time also.

Time to be bold... Lets give opposition clubs something to think about. Predictability has cost us too much..

_________________
I know a little secret. And i'm not sharing.