So hot right now? Deficiencies of Swans and Crows exposed in Round 4

Jeremy Laidler is Jeremy Laidler. How profound. He's been an absolute rock in defence. Have you actually watched him play recently? Of course, I assume you're having a dig but I can't be sure because of that lazy piece of writing in am otherwise fine article.

Are you trying to change my opinion? Thomas is a shocker. Yes, poor discipline by the Crows, but I hate watching that guy "play" against anyone.

Rampe is a quality defender. Don't care what anyone says. Love this article though. Somebody needed to say something critical about the Swans other than "haven't faced a real test yet." Everytime I have done it, I've been labelled an overly-critical Swans fan. I personally would rather address their issues now, before we all get too excited and perhaps raise our expectations too high, hope they improve in those areas, and then be pleasantly surprised should that improvement start to show. Going into this year, I felt that Sydney needed to do two things to avoid the widely-predicted 'slide': 1. Increase their intensity and professionalism when facing lower and/or easier opponents. 2. Improve their game-plan, skills and structures against the best teams. IMO, they seem to have improved in the first facet. Last year, even against low opposition, the Swans would almost play down to their level. They lacked intensity and treated those sorts of games as if they were training drills. There was rarely a desire to really flex their muscles, and they would also look incapable of playing four consistent quarters, often opening the door for their opponents to have a very faint sniff at victory. It did nothing for the Swans attitude. Against Collingwood and Carlton, the Swans played four quarters of intense, hard-running football and never wavered with their pressure, even though they could have taken their foot off the gas. The desire to not only win but really accentuate their quality seems to have returned. It was also evident against Adelaide and GWS, as in both games they kept fighting and playing good football right to the end. The second area they needed to improve in is still unanswered. Last year, going into tough, competitive matches where the odds weren't always in our favour, the Swans couldn't switch on and find their best form pretty much from the first bounce. It was as if they were rattled simply by the occasion. Think of the floggings by Fremantle, Hawthorn and West Coast, particularly. However, I think that attitude came from the fact that our style of football just didn't hold up. We couldn't keep relying on Hanners and JPK to fetch the hard balls and then our handballs to get us out of jail. We couldn't keep relying on ridiculous long bombs high in the air to Buddy and Tippett without having a calculated and measured forward 50 entry. And we couldn't keep relying on the old guard of Grundy and Richards (who aren't exactly fast) to be carrying the ball out of the defensive 50. Against Adelaide, at least some of our weapons fired. Buddy and Tippett embraced the challenge, youngsters in Heeney and Mills stood up, and while our midfield was beaten, at least they didn't shy away or crumble in the heat of the contest. So there's a bit of improvement there. But it doesn't change the fact that we lost. Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Adelaide controlled the majority of the play yet we were still able to garner a score of over 100? I think a bit of both. It shows that we still have the fight and the tools to compete against the best of the best. But the Swans next step should be trying to go from having competitiveness against the best to having control against the best. I'd like to see against West Coast us try to dictate the play, try and get in front and maintain the lead for as long as possible, try to play a brand of footy that ensures the Eagles have to try and restrict US, not the other way around. Can hardly complain though. There is improvement left, right and center at the Swans. Whether it's enough though to contend and give our boys some confidence this season, who knows!

Thank you for your kind words Dan, and fair comment on the Gibbo/Birchall debate. i guess when you are silly enough to write up best teams the immediate reaction is who you leave out rather than who you include. i am surprised many havent raised the name of Darren Jarman as well as others Brian, i think there is a very able forward in the team already on the back flank in Peter Knights. As for Roughy, fine player, but i do not think as worthy as being in this team. I guess the same claim could be pointed at many- thanks for the feedback

Not sure I believe in 'luck' as you put it, you create your own luck. They were 'lucky' in a couple of close games this year... this time last year it was the other way around and were 'unlucky' with a couple of close losses.

I liked that the crows generated 33 scoring shots against a sydney team that smashed in all over the ground. Yes sydney did score the other way but they are a too team as well. But i always felt the crows through quick ball movement were always able to get the scores when needed. They also have some very long accurate kicks in the team as well which will make them very hard to play against for most teams

Cam, if you are going to have a go at the media cheerleading prob best to tone down your Melb bias which comes across in every article you write about both AFL and the races. I like a lot of what you write but it is getting old and boring! -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.

Very interesting contribution. Adelaide has also been finding targets far better, and doing it faster.

Actually i thought the reason adelaide lost to north was a few acts of indiscipline..a free kick given away after a north goal was kicked resulting in another easy goal and crouch lining up for a shot and giving away a stupid free that resulted in a north goal. Cut out the indiscipline in a close game and they win..only themselves to blame that night. But they both played a very good game and it is no surprise to see both doing very well so far

"Hawthorn are certainly only just going, but it’s important to note that they put West Coast and the Dogs in their place. Now, a new challenger arises that they will enjoy seeing off. The MCG helps. Not sure it will be as simple as flicking a switch though." Hawks got lucky against the Bulldogs. They were behind late, kicked long into edge the centre square where there were 5 Bulldogs and 3 Hawks, Hawks are fortunate to get the ball, it goes to Sicily up the other end with Bob Murphy unable to contest because of his knee, Sicily slots a goal from 45m out. You might think that the Hawks did all that because they're simply that good, but if they're so good they wouldn't have let the Bulldogs put a 50+ point turnaround on them. That sequence of events at the end of the match that won them the game was pure luck. Probably works 1 in 5 times at most.

no. you stated that LT sucessfully faking for frees is the reasons ADL are not currently on top of the ladder. it was nigh on moronic for the ADL to bump/push/shove thomas in the back in a heated situation right in front of the umpire, (like literally about 50cm away from the ump) right as the ump was looking at him. even pyke said after the match the discipline shown was very poor. you can argue about the force of impact and event of dive LT took (Cam, this was an off the ball incident after a north goal as the ball was going back to centre square early in 3rd q when north were aboutr 4 goals behind, so i dont think this is the type of 'in play' faking for frees i suspect you are referring to) , but why oh why would you invite such a response and do it in such an obvious way.

Or, alternatively, you could continue to force opposition sides to play the game on your terms, and keep winning offensively. The problem with your argument is that you rely on a side like Adelaide to eventually have to beat a side defensively, when that hasn't been the case for the higher tier sides this season (all four weeks of it) or in the immediate past; basically, that you think a team must eventually have to use plan B at some point, but the best teams have always dictated terms to the sides around them. Four years ago (2012) Adelaide and Sydney both played finals - and, while Adelaide had a soft draw in 2012, they still almost beat Hawthorn in a prelim - because, for large amounts of the year, they were able to dictate to any opponent how and where they wanted the game played. In Sydney's case, they wanted to play in their backline, counter punching their way to scores by slingshotting through zones. Adelaide played two men around every stoppage, and kept the ball in close, to then win stoppage after stoppage, and to grind a team into passivity. These playstyles were figured out eventually, but they were hugely successful for a significant period of time. Who's to say that Adelaide's brand of 'keep scoring until the game's over' or Sydney's 'look at ALL the midfielders!!!' won't work all season, or that, against the best, they won't find another level, and continue to dictate how the game around them unfolds? More than that, no-one has quite figured out how to be better than the Hawks, who have dictated and continue to dictate how the game should be played to the rest of the competition for the last eight years.

I thought Dipper not getting a bait in the top 5 was a brutal call.

Also Cam, you've put yourself out there this week, Bravo, with the both these teams playing last years grand finalists you could end up looking like a genius, or you might not as well.

Unfortunately I didn't see the Crows v Sydney game, but I don't totally agree with the lack of defensive pressure sentiment when it comes to Adelaide. When they played Port their pressure was very impressive, not that Port need a lot of help to turn the ball over but Adelaide were hot in the contest and worked hard on the spread, I would say when they are playing a counter attacking sort of game, forcing the turnover using defensive pressure would be goal number 1, and they seem to be doing it well. Would be interesting to know who the top teams are that score from turnovers, I'd guess that the Crows would be right at the pointy end of that list. Perhaps it's not so much they can't defend, because I believe this year despite the stats that they are very good defensively, it's that the type of game they play just allows for free scoring and when that type of game is being played they are actually better defensively than the other side, Hawks have played that way for the past 7-8 years now. The question should be, can other teams score more then them? At this stage of the season it appears most can't.

Fair side like it. I too would have Gibson above Birchall and I would also have him above Burgoyne. Chris Mew might also be worth consideration. Would like to see Roughie in the team ahead of Greene or one of the above as you don't have a forward on the bench

It's a good exercise to question cheerleading and to point up structural weaknesses that do not disappear just because there is a new season. On the other hand there is more to say than just re-iterating that both Sydney and Adelaide are vulnerable to scoring runs against them. Strengths and weaknesses are relative , not just between teams but within them - and good coaches look to shift the balance incrementally in their favour. So while scoring has increased across the board this year both Pyke and Longmire have succeeded in making relative adjustments. Both teams have become more offensive in large part by controlling the ball better in the centre of the ground. They rank 1&2 on contested posessions. Its early days but so far Adelaide has scored almost 5 goals more per game on average than in 2015. Its conceded two and a half goals more so the gauge has moved in the right direction. Similarly the Swans have scored 4 goals per game more and conceded a goal more. Both teams will feel good about that. West Coast fans will be a little less happy in scoring 4 points more on average but conceding 8 points more - a small shift in the wrong direction but one which is amplified by heavier scoring being almost compulsory this year. And relatively speaking where some sides improve others by definition deteriorate. The Tigers so far are about a goal down per game - not good in a year where most everyone else is scoring more - but exacerbated by conceding a massive five and a half goals more than they did on average in 2015.

Hi Tim, I had been wondering where your articles had been. Now I know!! Always enjoy your insights into the Mighty Hawks. I think you're a bit harsh on Gibbo though. He has done well on Franklin and has held his head high against some of the other monster forwards. I think you can make a case for each player. I think Birchall seems to have a tendancy to make stupid skill errors (and for a player of his skill is ridiculous). I think Gibbo and the other backmen offer Birchall protection to be able to run off half back. So if Birchall was made more accountable would he be rated as highly. Gibbo rarely gets beaten and his spoiling ability is incredible.