Sydney's record in grand finals needs scrutinising

[Pistol Night]

I'm with ya there, sport.

Thanks tiger

 

[PP34]

Their home ground advantage constantly papers over cracks, especially this season.

If you’ve paid attention this season you would have seen that this Sydney team wasn’t nearly as good as people were making out.

They started off the season hot, they piled on goals in quick succession in games and they also started terribly in a number of games and were good enough to overcome this.

As the season went on their form faltered, they weren’t nearly as potent and clear flaws with their list were exposed.

They are heavily reliant on midfield dominance from Heeney, Gulden, Warner etc. Their key forwards are rubbish. They get away with it at the SCG.

 

[PP34]

Yep, about that time I was thinking of it too.

It also made a lot of sense as to why Sydney was playing so badly in the first quarters, it wasn't bad luck or anything. It was that our game style was water under pressure, and the pressure is usually highest early in a game.

Happened in the Carlton game too.

We started off hot and really hard at the contest. Couldn’t maintain it after the first quarter and you guys won comfortably but I did think a better team can’t be allowed to be given a start like that.

The Freo and Cats games too I watched them start terribly and turn the game in a few minutes with a few individuals just absolutely turning it on. Not sustainable in a finals environment. Were good enough to do it against GWS and then played a rubbish Port outfit. Brisbane had been playing some very good footy from the first bounce over the second half of the season.

 

[lumpinee]

At least when Geelong lost 89, 92, 94 and 95 we were the underdogs in each game. And gave '92 and '94 a decent crack before running out of legs.

Sydney were favourites in three of their disasters. Even their excuses are embarrassing. In 2016, they kicked 3.4 to 6.10 in the second half, and somehow blame the umpires for a 22 point loss.

'89 efforts way over rated and over hyped,Hawks were 28-38 points up all day,all day from the get go iirc only until the last 14-18 mins when understandably hawks who had 3 key players down,Brereton ribs,Dipper punctured lung.Platten concussed did geelong rally but the game was well n truly over
the 6 point margin is flattering as they were never gonna win and never played good enough to win,in all reality just like saturday that game was over at 1/2 time,some would argue qtr time

in one of the weagles losses u guys were absolutely blown off the park,embarrased,then carlton made yas look like a sh**show once again

it was only in '92 when you were equal favourite did GFC show any fight leading at 1/2 time i think ,after 1/2 time ya had ya pants pulled below ya knees once again

lets not re-write history just yet,this is how those 4 GF's actually played out,2 qtrs and 15 mins of competitiveness out of a total of 16 in the big dance,i'll be generous n award 3/16

 

[kickazz]

'89 efforts way over rated and over hyped,Hawks were 28-38 points up all day,all day from the get go iirc only until the last 14-18 mins when understandably hawks who had 3 key players down,Brereton ribs,Dipper punctured lung.Platten concussed did geelong rally but the game was well n truly over
the 6 point margin is flattering as they were never gonna win and never played good enough to win,in all reality just like saturday that game was over at 1/2 time,some would argue qtr time

in one of the weagles losses u guys were absolutely blown off the park,embarrased,then carlton made yas look like a sh**show once again

it was only in '92 when you were equal favourite did GFC show any fight leading at 1/2 time i think ,after 1/2 time ya had ya pants pulled below ya knees once again

lets not re-write history just yet,this is how those 4 GF's actually played out,2 qtrs and 15 mins of competitiveness out of a total of 16 in the big dance,i'll be generous n award 3/16

Yeah cats were crap in 94, but you are wrong about 89 - they gave up a bad first q lead due to poor discipline but were very competitive in one of the toughest grand finals ever after that. Mentioning only the Hawthorn injuries - probably need to do a bit of research on this game.

 

[kickazz]

Sydney starting SO many games poorly and then coming back is really interesting.

Were they just fitter earlier in the year? Were they a little bit arrogant, getting away with it a few times? Whilst it would have been good for them to know that they had the comeback in them, it did seem like they were learning bad habits.

Or is it simply a case of having a game style more suited when players are a bit more tired and things open up? That can be a strength, sure, but to exploit that in a final you really need to lock down and hold the fort in the first half. Teams get too much adrenaline when they have big leads in Grand Finals. There's no next week to preserve the body for, to take the foot off the gas. It's go, go go.

 

[lumpinee]

Yeah cats were crap in 94, but you are wrong about 89 - they gave up a bad first q lead due to poor discipline but were very competitive in one of the toughest grand finals ever after that. Mentioning only the Hawthorn injuries - probably need to do a bit of research on this game.

1,Buddah, broken jaw

yes GFC stayed with Hawthorn for the 2nd n 3rd qtrs but actually couldnt bridge the deficit from the qtr time blitz until midway during the last n onwards,Hawthorn comfortably held 11 more shots on goals advantage thruout the last 3 qtrs meaning they slayed the oppos in the 1st putting the game to bed and were quite happy going toe-toe from then on minus the geelong burst late in the game when it was well n truly over

 

[PP34]

Did our clinical demolition of Port last week not factor in your calculations?

Port would be one of the worst teams to finish second ever.

Always danger signs there with the Swans. People were too carried away with ladder position.

The top 8 all year had teams losing games they shouldn’t have.

Getting belted by Port in the manner they did showed plenty of issues that reared their head again Saturday.

 

[kickazz]

1,Buddah broken jaw

Yeah there was a lot more than that. But believe what you want. This thread is about Sydney anyway.

 

[PhatBoy]

Their home ground advantage constantly papers over cracks, especially this season.

If you’ve paid attention this season you would have seen that this Sydney team wasn’t nearly as good as people were making out.

They started off the season hot, they piled on goals in quick succession in games and they also started terribly in a number of games and were good enough to overcome this.

As the season went on their form faltered, they weren’t nearly as potent and clear flaws with their list were exposed.

They are heavily reliant on midfield dominance from Heeney, Gulden, Warner etc. Their key forwards are rubbish. They get away with it at the SCG.

Along with the Cats they’ve been the best travelling team for well over a decade. Can’t be bothered checking this year specifically but you’d be hard pressed to mount an argument that it’s the SCG that inflates anything.

 

[DrEvil_]

Let's be honest here, Sydney wasn't the best team in 2022 or 2024, so these two results are expected. Brisbane was a better team by a fair margin over the entire season. Their bad accuracy lost them a few games they should've easily won, whereas the Swans constantly gave up large leads and pull games out of their arses through individual brilliances of their midfielders.

 

[kickazz]

Port would be one of the worst teams to finish second ever.

Always danger signs there with the Swans. People were too carried away with ladder position.

The top 8 all year had teams losing games they shouldn’t have.

Getting belted by Port in the manner they did showed plenty of issues that reared their head again Saturday.

The old lose by over 100 cannot win the premiership rule stays intact.

Even if you are having a heavy training load, or several injuries - really good sides don't put that sort of performance up. They always have a pretty strong floor.

I remember at the time posting that I hoped, for Sydney's sake, that there was some extraordinary reason for it, like everyone getting the flu or gastro or something.

I think it was THE game this year where everyone stopped and thought, "hey, this flag is up for grabs"

 

[Lunchtime]

Along with the Cats they’ve been the best travelling team for well over a decade. Can’t be bothered checking this year specifically but you’d be hard pressed to mount an argument that it’s the SCG that inflates anything.

Prior to the Grand Final, Sydney played 3 times in 2024 at the MCG (4th time was Grand Final).

But prior to the Grand Final, they last played at the MCG in R8. At least with Brisbane they saw and played at the MCG only one week prior to the Grand Final. So they had very recent experience with the ground, dimensions, conditions etc. The MCG is a very wide ground. In its AFL footy configuration its 141m wide.

Who knows, it may have helped Brisbane...perhaps it was a very small edge for them and helped them?

 

[kickazz]

Let's be honest here, Sydney wasn't the best team in 2022 or 2024, so these two results are expected. Brisbane was a better team by a fair margin over the entire season. Their bad accuracy lost them a few games they should've easily won, whereas the Swans constantly gave up large leads and pull games out of their arses through individual brilliances of their midfielders.

Hard not to agree, the pre game markets didn't think so but looking back Brisbane were the better performed side and on paper looked more dangerous.

So, someone has to come second, and that sucks for them. The question is though - was there anything fundamentally wrong with how they went about that Grand Final? The scoreline suggests yes. Maybe Brisbane were that good, but should Sydney have put in a better show?

 

[DrEvil_]

Prior to the Grand Final, Sydney played 3 times in 2024 at the MCG (4th time was Grand Final).

But prior to the Grand Final, they last played at the MCG in R8. At least with Brisbane they saw and played at the MCG only one week prior to the Grand Final. So they had very recent experience with the ground, dimensions, conditions etc. The MCG is a very wide ground. In its AFL footy configuration its 141m wide.

Who knows, it may have helped Brisbane...perhaps it was a very small edge for them and helped them?

SCG is 136m wide, not much difference there.

 

[PP34]

Along with the Cats they’ve been the best travelling team for well over a decade. Can’t be bothered checking this year specifically but you’d be hard pressed to mount an argument that it’s the SCG that inflates anything.

I’m not saying they are poor travellers but the SCG allows them to bank a number of wins and inflates how good they truly are. They looked unstoppable at times at the SCG this year even after poor starts because their game style allowed them to pile on goals in quick succession at the SCG.

It’s always been a tough place for teams to travel to and I think in 2014, 2022 and 2024 has really skewed people’s perceptions on how good the Swans were actually going.

 

[Lunchtime]

SCG is 136m wide, not much difference there.

But in general. Sydney last saw the MCG in R8. Brisbane on the other hand saw the "G" a week prior to the Grand Final.

It may have helped Brisbane. Who knows.

 

[Taylor]

I think Sydney are just hunted, opposition clubs tear them down and build a style against them with it taking a quarter or so to get into plan B and overcome those challenges.

All clubs will expect some game plans to be made against them, where to move the ball and which player who takes defensive roles takes who etc.

 

[Lunchtime]

I think Sydney are just hunted, opposition clubs tear them down and build a style against them with it taking a quarter or so to get into plan B and overcome those challenges.

All clubs will expect some game plans to be made against them, where to move the ball and which player who takes defensive roles takes who etc.

There's probably a mental aspect to it too. Sydney are well aware of their record in Grand Finals in recent times. It can be a nagging feeling in the back of their mind when teams apply pressure in the Grand Final. So far they aren't up to it, they can't withstand the pressure.

 

[Taylor]

There's probably a mental aspect to it too. Sydney are well aware of their record in Grand Finals in recent times. It can be a nagging feeling in the back of their mind when teams apply pressure in the Grand Final. So far they aren't up to it, they can't withstand the pressure.

I think maybe their coaching doesn't have the pivot into plan B or plan C timing right yet since their plan A is so obviously effective when it's on as shown by the multiple runs of four plus goals that lead to their wins - at least prior to them coming up against Freo where I looked into their method.

 

[Lunchtime]

I think maybe their coaching doesn't have the pivot into plan B or plan C timing right yet since their plan A is so obviously effective when it's on as shown by the multiple runs of four plus goals that lead to their wins - at least prior to them coming up against Freo where I looked into their method.

MCG is a wider ground too, it can trouble teams who aren't used to it. Brisbane played the "G" very well.

As for Freo...yeah a shame about them not making the finals. Shot themselves in the footy.

 

[Mantastic]

SCG is 136m wide, not much difference there.

MCG is 5m wider and 5m longer, which may not sound like much, but that creates more than 1,000²m of extra turf to cover.

It will frequently cause a team to need to link at least 1 more possession in a chain, which is another chance for a mistake.

 

[Lunchtime]

MCG is 5m wider and 5m longer, which may not sound like much, but that creates more than 1,000²m of turf to cover.

It will frequently cause a team to need to link at least 1 more possession in a chain, which is another chance for a mistake.

That's right. More ground to cover meaning a tad more difficult. If a team isn't used to defending wide space then it can show.

 

[PP34]

I think this is over-analyzing it. The simple reality is that Sydney hadn't recaptured their form for the first 13 rounds. They hadn't really played well for 3 months. I posted earlier in this thread that on Grand Final day the winning team is normally the one who is in better form over the last 2 months. Brisbane had been in far better form in the recent 8-10 weeks than Sydney.

Look at Geelong 2022 as an example. They had a reputation over a 10-year period from 2012-2021 as being finals chokers. They had a terrible record in finals, an 0-5 record in Preliminary Finals (including some beltings). In 2022 however none of that mattered because they entered the finals with 15 straight wins. Champion Data indicated that their profile was so strong that it was almost impossible for them to not win the premiership. They of course won easily, as they did the week before versus Brisbane, proving that 2022 wasn't just a "Swans" thing. Brisbane also got belted. Why does no one criticize Brisbane in 2022 who lost just as heavily as Sydney?

Consider that Sydney was 13-1 after round 15 with a percentage of 149% this year.

Sydney's last 11 matches entering the Grand Final yielded only a 6-5 record with a percentage of 99.5%

Brisbane's last 19 matches yielded a 15-3-1 record with a percentage of 134%

So, that's really what the Grand Final was: A team that had a percentage of less than 100% (going by recent form) versus the hottest team in the competition. It's probably not a surprise, in retrospect, that Brisbane won easily. Nor was it a surprise in 2022 if you look at the form of Geelong. With a percentage of 99%, Sydney were essentially playing at "8th-9th-on-the-ladder" level for 3 months.

The reality is that Sydney did not enter the 2024 decider in good form and had not played consistently well for a long, long time. If they enter the Grand Final with the amazing recent form of Brisbane in 2024 or Geelong in 2022, there is every historical precedent to say they would be competitive. They really just need to ensure they are playing the best football of the year at the end rather than the start.

Yep. The signs were there for months.

A lot of people simply had their heads in the sand.

I admit I was off Brisbane after they missed the 4 and thought GWS may just be in a perfect spot to swoop. But the Lions form in the second half was better as you mentioned.

Swans hadn’t look the same team for months. The definition of peaking early. I found the media commentary after they won miraculously against the Pies at home hilarious. Heeney and Warner had to pull out something special to beat a Pies team that had been allover the shop all year and missing many blokes.

It was like the media was desperate for them to be this juggernaut team they simply weren’t.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Port would be one of the worst teams to finish second ever.

That's an absolutely unverifiable assertion. Second place after 23 games is second place.