- 27 Sep 2012 23:53
#14068718
Yes, Sydney can flood, but they need to kick goals too.
Hawthorn small forwards are better in the wet than Swans.
Wet ground will go a long way to nullifying Sydney big forwards Josh Kennedy and Reid. Both teams suffer the same affects of key forwards being unable to take clear marks from long kicks.
I think the Rioli, and key Hawthorn mids, (like Brad Sewll) will do better than Jetta, ROK and Goodes in the crumbing role, running the ball out of stoppages for scoring goals. And hence why in the wet Hawks will be slightly better off.
colliric wrote:If it's wet that clearly favours Sydney because they love flooding and making it a low scoring slog. I don't know how you came to the conclusion it would favour the Hawks, because they tend to kick long to Franklin looking for a mark. Slippery ball tends to be the worst enemy of the full forward looking to outmark his opponent and also the attacking crumber looking to pick it up, steady and kick at goal. Whereas the defender looking to clear it is at advantage in wet conditions.... All he has to do is roost it out of defense. Sides that enjoy flooding tend to naturally be at advantage in the wet.
Yes, Sydney can flood, but they need to kick goals too.
Hawthorn small forwards are better in the wet than Swans.
Wet ground will go a long way to nullifying Sydney big forwards Josh Kennedy and Reid. Both teams suffer the same affects of key forwards being unable to take clear marks from long kicks.
I think the Rioli, and key Hawthorn mids, (like Brad Sewll) will do better than Jetta, ROK and Goodes in the crumbing role, running the ball out of stoppages for scoring goals. And hence why in the wet Hawks will be slightly better off.
"If I wasn't a Heterosexual, I'd totally be a Homosexual..." -2012