Grow up or stay down: the many aspects of maturity

I'm not saying that Sydney played outside themselves in 2012, or if I did, that wasn't what I meant. When I said that Sydney played outside themselves, I meant that to apply strictly to the 2012 grand final, where it should be rather apparent that they performed than their highest expectations. You do not beat a melbourne based team on their home ground in a grand final otherwise. With regards to the other point - "... you speak of how easily our opposition managed to run it out of our forward line, but then what?" - you do realize that you were playing against Carlton? The run and carry they demonstrated for the majority of the game is of a similar vintage to that of the other sides I mentioned - West Coast, Hawthorn and the Bulldogs - as that is the hawthorn style used by their coaches. If Carlton can do it, but failed due to their forward line being little more than witches hats, how will Sydney go against these teams? Do you not think this is worth a mention? And do you not think that it is a problem that, as I said, your forward line is so tall that opposition teams can rebound too easily? And finally, I am well aware that you cannot say a team will win the flag two rounds in. That doesn't seem to stop most, so why take issue with me joining them? And, before we get to the 'it was only Carlton and Collingwood', bear in mind that Collingwood were seen by most to be a team whose time it was to start achieving, and that Sydney utterly dominated them. Carlton's best line is their midfield, which was utterly smashed by Sydney's. Seeing as the victories, small sample sizes as they are, were won by the midfield and half forward lines, I would have thought you would take the complement, this early in the season.

What? Hawks missing their best two? Pretty sure Mitchell was playing. For all the hype Hodge and Roughie get - and they deserve their profile - Sam is undoubtedbly their best and most important player, and has been for years.

Sydney didn't play outside themselves in 2012. We played the exact same style of football at the exact same level we'd been playing at for most of the year, Hawthorn were just of many who fell victim to it. Our run-and-carry and intensity around the contest was not an aberration, it was the result of an entire season worth of consistency. You cannot say any team is going to win the flag after round two, especially when the two teams you've beaten are Collingwood and Carlton. Having said that, you speak of how easily our opposition managed to run it out of our forward line, but then what? Almost 90% of the time that happened, it came straight back to the forward line through the gut running of our midfielders. Sydney are very good at retaining possession, and considering the regularity with which we manage to dominate possession and play, we should be as good as, if not, better than Hawthorn at scoring. The problem is our skills aren't as good as Hawthorn's (both getting it inside 50 AND scoring for goals), and our structure isn't as good. We've not really had the crumbing forwards like Bruest, Rioli, Puopolo etc, nor have we had strong talls who can take marks like Gunston, Roughead. That looks to have changed, whether it works for the season and brings the desired results is yet to be determined and we won't know for a while how well it works. But the fact John Longmire's finally pulled the trigger and seemingly focused on the areas the fans have been desperate to fix (inside 50 entries, avenues to goal, small forwards, less handballing) is already an instantly bright spot.

Its funny you mention maturity, I caught Clarkson's press conference after the West Coast game and he was talking about how to get 40-50 games into the kids as quick as possible but in a measured way which was quite interesting. He then went onto James Sicily's game compared to the week before which fits into what you're saying. It was along the lines of, Sicily had a great preseason and performing alright in the warm up games so there was no indication that the Cats were beyond him, and he put it down to it maybe being on Monday and James having watched all the weekends games and probably having played the game out a few times in his head.

I really like the points you make Liam, especially about Carlton running the ball out the backline. Very salient. A big issue I see at the moment is their accuracy, they've kicked 38.36 which is too sloppy and like you say a good side, or a good defence will hurt them. Added to this, they already have a staggering 145 inside 50's in 2 rounds, probably they need to be scoring a bit more often and find some efficiency in their 50. Maybe I'm being a bit too harsh given they have a healthy 212.9%?

They may be missing a 'Lewis Jetta type', but they ain't missing Lewis Jetta.

Whenever we've lost to Hawthorn's midfield, it's never had anything to do with speed. It's always had to do with toughness. Mitchell, Hodge, Lewis, Shiels, Burgoyne, Smith etc have always been willing to bully us at the contest; Kennedy, Hannebery, Jack, Parker and Mitchell have only been willing to bully them at the contest about half of the time. But whenever our midfielders have been aggressive towards the Hawks mids, we've more often than not gotten the better of them.

Great article as always Adrian. A really good theme to use to summarise the round - maturity. It's amazing to see how younger teams such as the Suns and the Dogs seem to have matured to begin the year, whilst others seem to have lost that, like Richmond. A really well written piece.

See, the outcome on Sunday was hardly surprising at all, but after round 1 the Swans were my take for the flag, largely because I don't even think they played particularly well against Collingwood. Their kids played out of their skins early, but the entire team became too goal conscious the longer the game went, which let Collingwood get some cheapies out the back late, and ruined a number of entries. The basis for my feeling that Sydney will win the flag is if they can dismantle Collingwood like that, without playing particularly well, how dangerous could they be when they are? And Sydney don't suffer West Coast's MCG problems to the same degree. Provided they don't encounter Hawthorn on Grand Final day - or if they do, they play outside themselves again, like 2012 - Sydney are a real chance against any opponent who cannot match them through the middle, or match their height in the forward line. On Sunday, they beat Carlton because they had Tippett, Franklin and Sinclair playing well, being fed constantly by that midfield, and because they got unbelievable service from their new faces. The only real issue I can see was, if Carlton can run the ball out of their backline - due to Sydney being top heavy, even with Heeney, Parker and others floating around the forward line - with that sort of ease, how will the swans go against the Bulldogs, or Hawthorn, or West Coast? Or even Geelong or the Gold Coast? And Dane Rampe is underrated, chronically. Makes for a player who just cannot be beaten one on one.

Geez you're a tough customer. I agree about the rucks. They're doing great now, looking best in the competition in-fact. But the combination hasn't been tested against a quality rival with quality rucks, so we can't give a total pass mark on Sinclair & Tippett. As for the midfield, what more could they do to convince you? When at their best, they're the best in the competition. I've always maintained that. They thrive in congestion and with the contested play. They've proven they can take it up to any midfield in the competition, and they now have a ruck who can deliver them quality service, as opposed to Pyke or Derickx. If anything, it's our one strength that is impenetrable. The forward line is great, but you never know with tall forwards, and you especially never know with Sydney when the Buddy-centric style of entries will start, or the panicked handballs under pressure while moving the ball forward will start, or the long bombs out of the centre will start.

The Swans' forward line looks as good as any in the AFL. Their midfield (including their rucks) and backline are still a bit suspect. They've confirmed they're top 8 material but haven't yet confirmed they're top 4.

You could argue the same for Hawthorn, and the Bulldogs though... I mean, Hawthorn lost to Geelong, almost beaten by Patrick Dangerfield alone, and they beat West Coast, who simply cannot play at the MCG and were as lame as Collingwood in round one yesterday. As for the Bulldogs, they beat Fremantle in round one, and Fremantle played exactly the same this week and got beaten AT HOME by a young Gold Coast team. So yes, Sydney have not been challenged yet, but neither have any of the other teams getting significant praise. All we can assess these teams on are how well they punish their insipid opponents. The Bulldogs and Sydney have done it best thus far with relatively comprehensive thrashings from defence, through the centre and with their attacking. Does it mean their premiers? No. But it means they're simply the form teams at the moment. Form always changes. Bulldogs fans would know that, Swans fans would know that, so no one is panicking.

I think the best approach to take with the Swans is to reassess after round 5. GWS, Adelaide (A) and West Coast will tell us alot more than Carlton or Collingwood could.

I think people who wrote the Swans out of the eight this year probably didn't have enough faith in our established players. I, for one, thought we'd decline, but we still had simply too much talent on our list to just drop out of the eight completely. Their performances so far mean nothing towards their overall results this year, but I think they deserve a whole lot of credit based on how much they've improved. There's less handballing, more intensity in the mature players, a forward line finally brimming with options, better entries inside 50, a bit more drive coming out of defense, a rucking combo that actually assists our mids. It's also ironic that folks have tried to denounce the Swans performances by reminding us of Collingwood and Carlton's youth and inexperience. Well the Swans and the Pies were at a similar phase with rebuilding and transitioning into a new list, yet we won by 80 points. And we're even younger and less experienced than Carlton, yet were far superior. Everyone has looked at them as routine wins but if you actually paid attention to our list and where we should be as a club, they should have been more difficult for us. i also think the Swans forward power is the result of the midfield though. They're not butchering the ball, instead lacing it on the chests of Tippett and Buddy. They're being smart and composed with their entries, the small forwards are putting defensive pressure to retain possession inside 50, and the mids are rotating through to also present. It's our first comprehensive forward structure in years, and I mean that literally. Of course injuries can strike, form can slump, and teams can match you. But it's hard to see the Swans just losing the plot entirely and messing up all their structures and form to the point they just drop off this level completely; John Longmire and his staff are too disciplined for that. We've kicked some big scores against GWS (from what I recall the last game we beat them by 89 i think?) and if our players keep up this form, I'll be quietly confident that we can have a hatrick of weeks with at least ten goal-kickers. Some continued accuracy would also help.

Excellent piece Adrian! Wrapped the round up very nicely. I, too, am thinking we might have written off the Swans a little early. This is what I was expecting to see from them in 2017 after blooding their youngsters in 2016. They're all looking pretty well ready-made. We should learn to stop doing this.