The Soaring

Flying High with the West Coast Eagles

The Monday Expert - Round 4 Sydney vs West Coast Eagles

The Wrap

Sydney 4.2 8.6 12.8 16.11 107
West Coast 1.2 2.3 4.5 5.15 45

Before the Bounce
A ridiculous amount of changes before we got to the ground suggested we were going to be in trouble. Five changes introduced more youth but at the cost of two injured in-form players (Priddis, Wirra) and a couple poorly perfomed ones (Fletcher, Embley). Still no room for off-season acquisition Josh Kennedy. (Don’t worry JK, The Soaring will get you over the line).

The Whiteboard
We started the game nice and tight and seemed more intent on protecting possession of the ball. What became apparent was that the loss of Priddis in particular meant our ability to get our hands on it was severely compromised. The fact is we can’t come into games thinking we will play the way we have with the success we’ve had but not the players around which is was designed.

Even though we gave up over 100 points, the defence is reasonably solid and losing Staker did not help. We did not win enough of the ball, particular early and struggled to move it into scoring positions. Sydney’s defence is excellent and the key to their game and our forwards came in out of form and went backwards from there.

I don’t think we can support having Lynch and Hansen in the same side at this point in time. My vote is that Hansen will need to be rested and Josh Kennedy, the great white hope, to replace him. We have seen how well Ben McKinley has played in the last two weeks and there is enough there for us to persevere with him up forward. I think he can become a very good complimentary forward as he’s strong overhead, will compete without fear, can split packs - but most importantly - can actually recover and show a second effort that we desperately need.

The truth is until Masten, McNamara, Ebert and the like come on we are very one paced across the ground. I bemoan the fact Hurn and Nicoski are not able to be released through the middle with more regularity, although Matt Rosa responded with a solid game.

On top of that our ground level play was lamentable. As mentioned we did poorly at the clearances without Priddis, but our pressure on the ball particularly our tackling is very average. Compared to the Swans we were not even close to being where we need to be. Add to that our inability to crumb the packs - anywhere on the ground - and it adds up to a 10 goal loss.

I suspect we need to take our medicine for a bit and re, err, re, umm keep on building.

Where it was won & lost
Thoughts.

  • Well done to Hall for adding the adjective “bitter” to the long standing rivalry between the two sides. Should go for 8 at a minimum. Won’t, as QC will argue it was “in-play”.
  • Hall hitting the fence IS NOT more controversial than him hitting Staker. Let’s get some perspective.
  • Swans players have never given away a free they didn’t want to argue over. Turn that frown upside down Goodes.
  • What makes it more galling is they all play the limit of the rules.
  • Has Scott Selwood gone past Adam?
  • We have a team full of vanilla footballers. Total lack of game breakers. Who in our team has opposition coaches scratching their heads saying “how will we cover him?” (Cox and Kerr excepted)
  • Saw some good signs in Masten’s game. Will continue to improve with time on the ground and on the ball.
  • We officially have no confidence. See the Lions and it is remarkable how much difference confidence makes
  • Liked Spangher’s first up effort. Good signs. Good recovery and good overhead.
  • One goal ten in the last quarter. That is actually quiet impressive.
  • Line of the Week
    Ben McKinley didn’t win much of the ball, but he kicked 80% of our goals.

    9 possessions, 4 marks, 4 goals straight

    From marks, in play and lastly from a great second effort. Got to love his attack on it.

    The Soaring Chocolates Award
    Beau Waters for flying the flag at quarter time. Could’ve done with some mates, but well done Beau.

    ???
    Mark your diaries for Round 7. Not because Judd returns. But because we might be a chance to win it.

    Update: Here’s the Hall incident if you missed it

    Activity

    7 total comments, leave your comment or trackback.
    1. Geez you’re fast!

      Well summed up. Was actually at the game tonight and was impressed with the performance of many Swans. Although how does one gauge how good the performance is when playing an understrength team.

      I was also impressed with McKinley. 4 out of the team’s 5 goals shouldn’t go unnoticed. Maybe now you don’t have to be so frustrated with Q’s inconsistencies. Although if Lynch were out of the team would McKinley struggle with a teams #1 defender?

      Didn’t see the Hall incident as I was watching the ball. Maybe that throws out the “in play” defense. Although as I stated in my blog, I think he won’t be as harshly done away with because he wasn’t facing Staker and therefore wouldn’t be considered a king hit. So many technicalities in the judiciary these days. I think 3 - 4, but if his wrist injury is a break then that means 5 - 6 anyway.

    2. Tim, I think when you see the replay you’ll revise that. No way is 3-4 reasonable. In my opinion Staker had no way of knowing it was coming - it was definitely a king hit in my book. The bloke was left wide open - he had no idea.

      Agree with McKinley - he is not a number 1 forward and may never be. Will be good as third tall as he is good overhead and on the deck.

      At the game did you notice the Eagles supporters booing of Hall. It came through surprisingly strongly on the TV.

    3. Your right Bruce on two counts, every time I see the replay it looks worse and worse. I didn’t notice Staker’s eyes when watching the replay at the ground. He was knocked out before he touched the ground. Commentators said 5 - 6, I tend to agree now, 3 - 4 was optimistic. With a broken wrist it will be 6 anyway.

      And yes the there was enough of an Eagles supporter presence to make the booing very prominent. Hall just happened to do the deed up the end where the Eagles cheer squad were. But there must have been a lot more than just them at the ground.

    4. seven weeks, how does that grab ya?

      seems fair enough to me

    5. Yeah probably fair enough. I also like that he will have almost another game’s points to carry over, as a further incentive for him to be a good boy.

      And Tim - the fact that you didn’t see the incident because you were looking at the ball doesn’t mean it wasn’t in play, according to Barry and his QCs. Or was that a subtle dig? :-P

    6. Ironic that the 7th week of Barry’s suspension coincides with the return match vs the Eagles. Probably a good thing for everyone concerned i think.

    7. Dunno about that. I’ve often found that booing can be easier on the throat than barracking. :D


    Leave a Reply