View Full Version : Roach and Jars get it right
Roadkill and outhouse
By GEOFF ROACH
22may06
AS for the Crows, the most charitable spin that can be woven around their Saturday swoon is that every team has an off day. Even the best. It's part of the modern ethos.
But the truth is that Adelaide had what can most accurately be called an OUT day.
Let us list just some of the areas in which they were so comprehensively outed.
Outsmarted. Outplayed. Out-coached. Out-toughed. Out-manoeuvred. Outflanked. Out-tackled. Outrun. All of which added up to Outhouse, Out to lunch and Out of town.
Theirs was an abysmal, dumb and careless performance, made more culpable by the fact threatening signs of decline were obvious early.
Even more disturbing was the complete lack of intelligent response when the maligned Richmond contingent, led so coolly by seemingly unchallengeable Joel Bowden, adopted Adelaide's own stalling process so effectively.
Terry Wallace will dine out on Saturday's win for a long time and so he should. Assigning young Andrew Raines to Mark Riccuito (who seemed all day to lead way too early, perhaps perturbed by Raines' pace) was a master stroke. So was using Troy Simmonds as a linkman. Most of all though, he contrived to smash the Crows' dominance of clearances and stoppages.
Unhappily, Neil Craig's response was hardly proactive under duress.
Clearly, he kept faith with players and positions he trusted to work things out. And, but for a couple of late defensive disasters, it almost paid dividends.
But it's hard to believe Riccuito's fitness is not up to at least short stints on the ball. That a too-loose Graham Johncock might not have made a difference up front.
Or that someone who can propel the football more than 40 metres might not have been at least worth trying at centre half-forward. Because Ken McGregor looked like he was roosting a watermelon.
The brains trust might also have deduced that the rucking education of Ivan Maric must now proceed apace if the Crows are to count come September.
When Rhett Biglands and Matthew Clarke can manage only six kicks, two handballs and three marks between them, it's time to look to the future.
'Terry Wallace dismantled the Crows game plan, both of them'
By ANDREW JARMAN
22may06
I'VE had two days to digest Adelaide's performance and what I witnessed, as a football purist, was . . . BORING, BORING BORING.
It was undoubtedly the most boring game of Australian Rules footy I've seen in the past 25 years.
It was so bad I even went outside to clean the gutters of my little house. It's happened to all senior coaches, including me, and, I'm telling 'ya, Craigy, the mastermind, was out-foxed.
Terry Wallace dismantled the Crows game plan, both of them.
Now, this is only a suggestion but surely the Crows boys could have been accountable and picked up the closest Richmond jumper and stopped worrying about zoning off and protecting space. Richmond had 295 kicks and 181 marks and most of them were uncontested.
Who the hell was standing Joel Bowden, the bloke who ducked his head in a pre-season game? He had 28 kicks and 20 marks playing virtually as a quarter-back.
Who will put his hand up to say 'he was my opponent and I didn't pay him enough respect'?
The next thing. In the first quarter Adelaide had 19 clangers, the Tigers had 21. In the second quarter the Crows had 22 and Richmond 21, by my count, but Adelaide's clangers included 16 rubbish kicks to Richmond's 14.
That was 26 clanger kicks in a half to 22 so the Tigers were better with the foot skills and I was taught if you can't kick you can't play. Richmond hit the Crows harder than any other team in the competition and the Crows didn't handle it. There were 14 other opposition coaches watching who now know how to dismantle the Crows. I don't want to hear any Crows supporter saying "we've got injuries" - that's just an excuse.
I saw too many Crows miss tackles, fall over at the contest and I didn't see any real aggression around the ball.
That'll be top of the agenda in the coaches' meeting today.
Two very good articles that most people would have to agree with.
Lets hope we as a coaching panel and player group can have a better day next SATURDAY.
Markthirtytwo
22 May 2006, 09:45
Yes very astute articles. However with Roach he's on the bandwagon when we win and off when we don't.
Like a lot of reporters that wouldn't know what the football was made of, they will ridicule when it suits them and bow and scrape when it also suits them. Case in point was his article last week. All positives, and look out for September, but one week on they just cannot wait to get their poison pens out.
I repect people like Jars more because he has the knowledge and skills to explain to the masses his thoughts. His is a much better written article.
He knows clubs can have off days.
I dont disagree with Roach, but it's his and most reporters approach when they look foolish by their predictions.
Crow-mo
22 May 2006, 10:18
why such the big fuss over Craig not being pro-active in the box, outsmarted, whatever. He's not a great match day coach, never has been, and has achieved strong results so far without it.
why the big deal now? it was one game, it happens.
NikkiNoo
22 May 2006, 11:48
why such the big fuss over Craig not being pro-active in the box, outsmarted, whatever. He's not a great match day coach, never has been, and has achieved strong results so far without it.
why the big deal now? it was one game, it happens.
I'm like you crow-mo, I can't believe the crap for the past two days on here - I was at the game and at the end, I and my father were oh well we lost and didn't play so well in patches but Richmond played very good accountable football and produced a flood of biblical proportions that most teams would struggle to score against.
Craig did actually try some moves which didn't quite work, the only real fault I saw though was that I believe that he should have swapped Stevens for McGregor who is a much more accountable backman. Hindsight tells us that if we went man on man earlier the result may have been different, and Hindsight is a fabulous thing ;)
afc9798
22 May 2006, 11:52
why such the big fuss over Craig not being pro-active in the box, outsmarted, whatever. He's not a great match day coach, never has been, and has achieved strong results so far without it.
why the big deal now? it was one game, it happens.
Yes it was a bad day, but the worry is what is going to happen under finals pressure, when we need to make the moves to arrest another sides run. I think Craigy has swung a little too far in allowing the players to dictate what happens on the field and he definitely needs to respond quicker. The final against the Saints last year was a case in point. I don't know about you, but there doesn't seem much point in getting good results, if you don't get to the last hurdle.
That said, I think more good than bad will come from this loss in the long term and I think Craigy and the players will be better prepared when these tactics occur against us, as they obviously will. It's a bit rich that Roach sinks the boots in after one bad game, but what more do you expect from the Ragvertiser. Personally, I think we just had an off day, we looked flat and tired and the Tiger tactics were perfect for this situation. We only needed one player to really stand up and we would have got over the line, but it was that sort of day. As long as the club has learnt from it, then I'm OK with it and I don't quite see the need for panic in the rank and file.
Grrr I had this great post that highlighted that Roach reads BF
The outplayed etc came from me Sat night in the Well Done Tigers thread on the Tigers board
McGregor cant kick 40m is WWs effort Saturday night as well and his Ivan Maric time has come call is from this whole board ( well most of us)
So Hi Geoff loved your stuff when I was living in Adelaide :thumbsu:
macca23
22 May 2006, 14:55
Hindsight tells us that if we went man on man earlier the result may have been different, and Hindsight is a fabulous thing ;)
Sorry Nikki, it has nothing to do with hindsight.
I was screaming at the TV for Craig to get the players to man up from the start of the second quarter onwards, as I'm sure most Crows supporters were.
That move came more than 2 quarters later. That's not good enough.
I have no doubt in my mind - absolutely none - that if we had manned up from the 2nd quarter onwards we would not only have won, we would have won comfortably.
It's no good people shrugging the loss off, as it was a stupid loss that could have and should have been avoided.
We'll lose our share of games without helping the opposition to win.
I'm like you crow-mo, I can't believe the crap for the past two days on here - I was at the game and at the end, I and my father were oh well we lost and didn't play so well in patches but Richmond played very good accountable football and produced a flood of biblical proportions that most teams would struggle to score against.
Craig did actually try some moves which didn't quite work, the only real fault I saw though was that I believe that he should have swapped Stevens for McGregor who is a much more accountable backman. Hindsight tells us that if we went man on man earlier the result may have been different, and Hindsight is a fabulous thing ;)
its not crap Nickinoo, its what I was saying at the time when the game was on. I have played and coached a considerable amount of good quality football, and clearly plans A and B were not working.
Playing man on man suggests you are better than the opposition. I have no doubt that we are better man for man than the team Richmond had on the field on Saturday atcm. Sometimes you just have to back your team in. If you take on the opposition and have faith in your ability its marvellous what you can do. When we did this in the last quarter the evidence was there to be seen, particularly as it was Richmond, who in years past have always been susceptible to pressure when the ball carrier has been corralled.
Bowden is a classic case in point. He coughs uo the ball regularly if you put pressure on him when he has the ball. Hentschell either under instructions or of his own voilition decided to play 30 to 50 metres away from him for most of the day, when they had the ball.
I would have taken them on from the first kick of the day to be honest, because of the fact they are a young side and they need to be pressured early. Give young sides a sniff and they are hard to beat. Give ordinary players like Simmonds a few cheap kicks and everyone starts to play like a superstar, even Kellaway played a game like he did many years ago.
I too hope Craigy, the match committee and the players learn from this game. If they do it will be a positive.
I have already stated before the other moves I would have made. The Stevo for Kenny move may have worked too.
This week I would say to the players the same thing as above. Take them on show me how well we can play. Use the ball well. Make good decisions. Be first to the ball. Hit the ball and body hard and smash them whenever they get the ball.
And id this does not work lets then go to plan B.
Im backing you boys. Go out there and show me this confidence is not misplaced.
Sorry Nikki, it has nothing to do with hindsight.
I was screaming at the TV for Craig to get the players to man up from the start of the second quarter onwards, as I'm sure most Crows supporters were.
That move came more than 2 quarters later. That's not good enough.
I have no doubt in my mind - absolutely none - that if we had manned up from the 2nd quarter onwards we would not only have won, we would have won comfortably.
It's no good people shrugging the loss off, as it was a stupid loss that could have and should have been avoided.
We'll lose our share of games without helping the opposition to win.
Could not agree more Macca 23, except I was at the game. The record took a bit of a beating I must say.
Stiffy_18
22 May 2006, 18:15
Sorry Nikki, it has nothing to do with hindsight.
I was screaming at the TV for Craig to get the players to man up from the start of the second quarter onwards, as I'm sure most Crows supporters were.
That move came more than 2 quarters later. That's not good enough.
I have no doubt in my mind - absolutely none - that if we had manned up from the 2nd quarter onwards we would not only have won, we would have won comfortably.
It's no good people shrugging the loss off, as it was a stupid loss that could have and should have been avoided.
We'll lose our share of games without helping the opposition to win.
What he said :thumbsu:
Hindsight has nothing to do with it. Everyone could see that we needed to go man on man after quarter time. When we did go man on man we won the quarter.
We were dumb enough to play right into Richmond's hands.
RoosterLad
22 May 2006, 18:23
Jars is always right.
Crow-mo
22 May 2006, 19:29
Yes it was a bad day, but the worry is what is going to happen under finals pressure, when we need to make the moves to arrest another sides run. I think Craigy has swung a little too far in allowing the players to dictate what happens on the field and he definitely needs to respond quicker. The final against the Saints last year was a case in point. I don't know about you, but there doesn't seem much point in getting good results, if you don't get to the last hurdle.
See, here's the thing. I agree with you 100%
my point is Craigy is never going to be much in the box, so it's just something we have to wear. rough with the smooth, if you will.
I am greatly concerned about finals pressure, and yes the game against St Kilda was a real worry.
BUT, here's the thing: we are credible when we weren't expecting to be, we are flying higher than we thought; but yes, maybe, who knows, are we equipped for a final tilt at it all? in the Blight era, we had all the preparation, but also a genius in the box.
I can't fault craig for his match day sluggishness, because that's what we signed on for - he was in the box with ayres as well.
Crow-mo
22 May 2006, 19:30
didn't everyone use to scream at Ayres for not having any tactical nous, when all he wanted to do was play man on man?
GoSarge
22 May 2006, 21:42
2 losses for the season and we're still looking ok even though we still have no Welsh, Torney, Hudson, Perrie or Bock.
Some perspective is needed here, we have one very bad game and lose by 3 points. Sure Craig probably should have made some moves earlier and the players skills were down somewhat, but we're travelling ok (even without 5 of our best 18). Hopefully some good things are taken out of this loss by the players and coaching staff alike.
CrowMagnum
22 May 2006, 22:01
See, here's the thing. I agree with you 100%
my point is Craigy is never going to be much in the box, so it's just something we have to wear. rough with the smooth, if you will.
I am greatly concerned about finals pressure, and yes the game against St Kilda was a real worry.
BUT, here's the thing: we are credible when we weren't expecting to be, we are flying higher than we thought; but yes, maybe, who knows, are we equipped for a final tilt at it all? in the Blight era, we had all the preparation, but also a genius in the box.
I can't fault craig for his match day sluggishness, because that's what we signed on for - he was in the box with ayres as well.
He may not be great on match day tactics but he does have a horde of assistants advising him. Are they all as non-reactive or is he such an autocrat that they are scared to tell him things? Can't really believe either of those.
Crow-mo
22 May 2006, 22:26
He may not be great on match day tactics but he does have a horde of assistants advising him. Are they all as non-reactive or is he such an autocrat that they are scared to tell him things? Can't really believe either of those.
funny you should say that ;)
just maybe
22 May 2006, 23:04
He may not be great on match day tactics but he does have a horde of assistants advising him. Are they all as non-reactive or is he such an autocrat that they are scared to tell him things? Can't really believe either of those.
And I can't believe a box of experienced coaches would 'forget' to go man-on-man when every fan on this board was screaming for it.
just maybe
22 May 2006, 23:05
why such the big fuss over Craig not being pro-active in the box, outsmarted, whatever. He's not a great match day coach, never has been, and has achieved strong results so far without it.
why the big deal now? it was one game, it happens.
Talk about living in fairyland. If our coaching panel thinks like that, I'm very worried.
A good team should not lose a game like this.
The Crows Truth
22 May 2006, 23:07
See, here's the thing. I agree with you 100%
my point is Craigy is never going to be much in the box, so it's just something we have to wear. rough with the smooth, if you will.
I am greatly concerned about finals pressure, and yes the game against St Kilda was a real worry.
I can't fault craig for his match day sluggishness, because that's what we signed on for - he was in the box with ayres as well.
what an absolute crock CM
Craig had a bad day. End of story. So did Roo - does that make him a 'sluggish, never gonna amount to much player'? Of course it doesnt FFS
General perception from fans and media alike that ive seen is that Craig is regarded as a astute and proactive game day tactician. Didnt he outsmart your mate Malthouse just a few weeks back?
We have lost 3 of out 19 last minor round games - by a grand collective margin of less than 2 kicks
Wake up and smell the roses sunshine
Crow-mo
22 May 2006, 23:12
what an absolute crock CM
Craig had a bad day. End of story. So did Roo - does that make him a 'sluggish, never gonna amount to much player'? Of course it doesnt FFS
General perception from fans and media alike that ive seen is that Craig is regarded as a astute and proactive game day tactician. Didnt he outsmart your mate Malthouse just a few weeks back?
We have lost 3 of out 19 last minor round games - by a grand collective margin of less than 2 kicks
Wake up and smell the roses sunshine
So who are these fans and media experts who say he's a great tactical match day coach? better stop listening to the voices, they're not real ;)
Crow-mo
22 May 2006, 23:13
Talk about living in fairyland. If our coaching panel thinks like that, I'm very worried.
A good team should not lose a game like this.
where have you been this last season and half? not watching this football team that's for sure ;)
The Crows Truth
22 May 2006, 23:15
So who are these fans and media experts who say he's a great tactical match day coach? better stop listening to the voices, they're not real ;)
Let me say this again very slowly for your benefit
3 losses out of 19 minor round games by a combined margin of less than 2 kicks
He must be doing something right
Call me old fashioned but I prefer cold hard fact rather than the subjective bull$hit offered up here by amateurs
Let me say this again very slowly for your benefit
3 losses out of 19 minor round games by a combined margin of less than 2 kicks
He must be doing something right
Call me old fashioned but I prefer cold hard fact rather than the subjective bull$hit offered up here by amateursI think the frustration is more that a solution we mostly believe would have worked ie manning up would have created pressure on Richmond
It is frustrating to see ( on your tv screen) a ball chipped around and your teams players standing their like netballers arms akimbo waiting for the ball to be kicked to an area close to them.
(serious question coming up)
Can someone tell me what manning up would have done in a negative sense. ie if we manned up would we have lost by more?
Crow-mo
22 May 2006, 23:20
Let me say this again very slowly for your benefit
3 losses out of 19 minor round games by a combined margin of less than 2 kicks
He must be doing something right
Call me old fashioned but I prefer cold hard fact rather than the subjective bull$hit offered up here by amateurs
exactly as I thought.
oh, and in case the imaginary voices come back to you, a fact you seem to be claiming but isn't - the change in 'tempo' in the 3rd quarter against the pies was instigated by the players and not the coaching box. ;)
macca23
22 May 2006, 23:21
Let me say this again very slowly for your benefit
3 losses out of 19 minor round games by a combined margin of less than 2 kicks
He must be doing something right
Call me old fashioned but I prefer cold hard fact rather than the subjective bull$hit offered up here by amateurs
And quite right too.
Paul Roos, who is no amateur, said that it was Adelaide who should have been booed for Saturday's display, not Richmond, as they had the power to end it at any time. Cold hard fact.
So I'll take the opinion of that professional over your amateur one.
Craig is the best thing that ever happened to the Adelaide footy club in recent years - but as the experts say, he fkd up big time on Saturday.
Stiffy_18
22 May 2006, 23:24
what an absolute crock CM
Craig had a bad day. End of story. So did Roo - does that make him a 'sluggish, never gonna amount to much player'? Of course it doesnt FFS
General perception from fans and media alike that ive seen is that Craig is regarded as a astute and proactive game day tactician. Didnt he outsmart your mate Malthouse just a few weeks back?
We have lost 3 of out 19 last minor round games - by a grand collective margin of less than 2 kicks
Wake up and smell the roses sunshine
He is anything but actually.
Craig's lack of match day coaching has been exposed a number of times. Does that make him a bad coach. Hell no.
Craigy is a methodical coach. His team is a well drilled hardened unit. He won't make any drastic moves during the game. He likes to show faith to his players to work it out for themselves.
Craig does his best work leading up to the game. He is a perfectionist and covers a lot of bases during the week in the lead up to the game. Couple that undeniable professionalism and drive for perfection with his exceptional motivational skills and he will win you many games.
Craig is a VERY VERY good coach, but he is not a match day tactician as you like to put it. He covers up his weaknesses with unbelievable strengths. His match day coaching is not that great but his preparation and work in the lead up to the game has no peer in this competion.
As a match day tactician, there is none better than Rodney Eade IMHO. He is a master match day tactician but he is not as strong in the areas that Craig is. Does that make him a bad coach, I don't think so ;)
The Crows Truth
22 May 2006, 23:38
He is anything but actually.
Craig's lack of match day coaching has been exposed a number of times. Does that make him a bad coach. Hell no.
Craigy is a methodical coach. His team is a well drilled hardened unit. He won't make any drastic moves during the game. He likes to show faith to his players to work it out for themselves.
Craig does his best work leading up to the game. He is a perfectionist and covers a lot of bases during the week in the lead up to the game. Couple that undeniable professionalism and drive for perfection with his exceptional motivational skills and he will win you many games.
Craig is a VERY VERY good coach, but he is not a match day tactician as you like to put it. He covers up his weaknesses with unbelievable strengths. His match day coaching is not that great but his preparation and work in the lead up to the game has no peer in this competion.
As a match day tactician, there is none better than Rodney Eade IMHO. He is a master match day tactician but he is not as strong in the areas that Craig is. Does that make him a bad coach, I don't think so ;)
ok so let me get this right. Craig isnt a good day match day coach. Is this what you are saying? If so, explain how we have won all but 3 of our last 19 minor round games
The Crows Truth
22 May 2006, 23:42
And quite right too.
Paul Roos, who is no amateur, said that it was Adelaide who should have been booed for Saturday's display, not Richmond, as they had the power to end it at any time. Cold hard fact.
So I'll take the opinion of that professional over your amateur one.
Craig is the best thing that ever happened to the Adelaide footy club in recent years - but as the experts say, he fkd up big time on Saturday.
You raise nothing new in your post. As I previously stated he had a shocker on Saturday - blind bl00dy freedy could see that
Can you find me some professional views saying he aint a good overall match day coach - im talking of substance not a one off game
Stiffy_18
22 May 2006, 23:46
ok so let me get this right. Craig isnt a good day match day coach. Is this what you are saying? If so, explain how we have won all but 3 of our last 19 minor round games
We have won so many games because he is second to none in his preparation leading up to the game. He breaks down oppositions styles to a every minute detail and comes up with a plan to beat it. In most of those games he doesn't do much on match days.
If he is such a great match day coach, then tell me what is the biggest match winning move he has ever made. What changes on the field did he do that got us over the line when we didn't look like winning?
You don't have to be a good match day tactician to win many games. Just as you don't have to be great at preparation in the lead up to the game. As long as you make up your defficiencies with you strengths (which Craig no doubt does) you will win games. Provided you have the players.
Are you telling me that Craig is anywhere near as good a match day coach as Malcolm Blight was?
Blighty's preparation in the week leading up to the game was average. He spent most of his day perfecting his golf game but on game day he would pull moves out of his backside to win us games. Craig is completely the opposite. He will prepare exceptionally well and thats what wins him the game.
Craig's match day coaching has been exposed a number of times in his time as head coach here. He is slow to react a lot of the time.
CrowMagnum
22 May 2006, 23:47
He is anything but actually.
Craig's lack of match day coaching has been exposed a number of times. Does that make him a bad coach. Hell no.
Craigy is a methodical coach. His team is a well drilled hardened unit. He won't make any drastic moves during the game. He likes to show faith to his players to work it out for themselves.
Craig does his best work leading up to the game. He is a perfectionist and covers a lot of bases during the week in the lead up to the game. Couple that undeniable professionalism and drive for perfection with his exceptional motivational skills and he will win you many games.
Craig is a VERY VERY good coach, but he is not a match day tactician as you like to put it. He covers up his weaknesses with unbelievable strengths. His match day coaching is not that great but his preparation and work in the lead up to the game has no peer in this competion.
As a match day tactician, there is none better than Rodney Eade IMHO. He is a master match day tactician but he is not as strong in the areas that Craig is. Does that make him a bad coach, I don't think so ;)
Like you say , Craig is methodical and meticulous, an obsessive perfectionist if you like, but this comes at a cost. He has brilliant preconceived plans for most situations but like many perfectionists he finds it hard to improvise and occasionally fly by the seat of his pants to cope with the unexpected or unconventional. It seems to me he is a good learner but not a quick learner. I'm sure he'll dream up the perfect counter to any team that repeats Richmond's game plan but it will take him a week to do that, not 5 minutes or even a quarter.
That's not to say he's not the best coach for us. The results prove he is, but no-one's perfect. He doesn't need to learn how to counteract tempo football a week later, he needs to learn how to counteract the next unexpected game plan on the same day.
Crow-mo
23 May 2006, 00:18
ok so let me get this right. Craig isnt a good day match day coach. Is this what you are saying? If so, explain how we have won all but 3 of our last 19 minor round games
err. are you serious? otherwise we're going right back to basics.
for a start Stiffy has explained it perfectly above, so it seems that you're of the opinion that a coach's work begins and ends in the coaching box on match day - is that correct?
Modern footy has gotten to the stage where all the work by the coaching staff is done by match day, and then it's up to the players to execute. which is why Craig's devolution of responsibility and leadership to the players has been so important. He comes from the position, that by the time the game starts, his work is done. broadly speaking anyway.
which is why his perceived shortcomings in the box don't matter so much, that's the old economy of footy.
just in case you really haven't seen any footy since 1996, the main reason Rodney Eade was sacked by the swannies, is that he was preparing well enough leading up to game day. he was getting lazy on the training track, and only wanted to wave his magic wand in the box.
now contrast that with Craig circa 2006, and it should all be a little more clear.
Southerntakeover
23 May 2006, 00:36
And quite right too.
Doing well so far...
Paul Roos, who is no amateur, said that it was Adelaide who should have been booed for Saturday's display, not Richmond, as they had the power to end it at any time. Cold hard fact.
So I'll take the opinion of that professional over your amateur one.
Doh!
You need to retake arguement 101.
You cant call something both a cold hard fact and an opinion, its one or the other. Roos expressed an opinion.
The facts say that we've had an exceptional record over the last two years. The opinions say that Craig cant coach in the box based on a three point defeat. I know which one is more credible to me.
The Crows Truth
23 May 2006, 01:14
Doing well so far...
Doh!
You need to retake arguement 101.
You cant call something both a cold hard fact and an opinion, its one or the other. Roos expressed an opinion.
The facts say that we've had an exceptional record over the last two years. The opinions say that Craig cant coach in the box based on a three point defeat. I know which one is more credible to me.
a voice of reason :thumbsu:
Off course Roos opinion is just that - an opinion.
Win-loss stats on the other hand.....
Crow-mo
23 May 2006, 01:27
a voice of reason :thumbsu:
Off course Roos opinion is just that - an opinion.
Win-loss stats on the other hand.....
do you know what a non-sequitur is?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=non%20sequitur
Southerntakeover
23 May 2006, 01:50
do you know what a non-sequitur is?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=non%20sequitur
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Relevance
The next word of the day is...
beartoo
23 May 2006, 09:59
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Relevance
The next word of the day is...
B... S...
macca23
23 May 2006, 10:15
Doing well so far...
Doh!
You need to retake arguement 101.
You cant call something both a cold hard fact and an opinion, its one or the other. Roos expressed an opinion.
The facts say that we've had an exceptional record over the last two years. The opinions say that Craig cant coach in the box based on a three point defeat. I know which one is more credible to me.
And yours is only an opinion as well.
Paul Roos is just slightly better qualified than both of us, wouldn't you say, and he thinks it was a coaching mistake by Craig.
I'm happy to believe him before I believe you.
Answering my comments with generalisms not related to the game I'm specifically talking about are irrelevant.
Southerntakeover
23 May 2006, 14:55
And yours is only an opinion as well.
Paul Roos is just slightly better qualified than both of us, wouldn't you say, and he thinks it was a coaching mistake by Craig.
I'm happy to believe him before I believe you.
Answering my comments with generalisms not related to the game I'm specifically talking about are irrelevant.
Ill summarise whats been said more clearly for you and see if you cant understand this time.
You say: Neil Craigs coaching in the box, based on last week, 'isnt good enough'. You then quote Paul Roo's critisizing us, and cite it as fact.
The Crows Truth said: Neil Craig is good enough, under him we have had an exceptional record, we've lost only 3 of 19 games, with a combined margin of less than two goals. These are facts.
Ive said: You were wrong in your citation of Roo's as fact, and i personally find the facts more credible than the opinions put forward, no matter how expert.
You may personally be misunderstood here, and indeed i hope so. I hope you are only saying that Craigs day wasnt as good as it had been, and you are not critisizing his entire performance as a coach based on one three point upset loss. I am however dissappointed to see this level of 'feral supporter' syndrome bagging the sh1t out of the team when everyone on this board was happy to ride the bandwagon during our wins this season. Its the downs that reveal the true nature of a supporter.
I am however dissappointed to see this level of 'feral supporter' syndrome bagging the sh1t out of the team when everyone on this board was happy to ride the bandwagon during our wins this season. Its the downs that reveal the true nature of a supporter.
I dont think its Feral Supporter Syndrome. I think it is a genuine questioning of a match day tactic . I have posted in another thread that I have had some questions regarding the coaching on other occassions but I said those questions were quitened by the wins...what use would questioning moves have done after a winning game?
Can you answer me this , would you have wanted NC to instruct his players to man up?
Can someone tell me what manning up would have done in a negative sense. ie if we manned up would we have lost by more?
Southerntakeover
23 May 2006, 15:08
I dont think its Feral Supporter Syndrome. I think it is a genuine questioning of a match day tactic . I have posted in another thread that I have had some questions regarding the coaching on other occassions but I said those questions were quitened by the wins...what use would questioning moves have done after a winning game?
Can you answer me this , would you have wanted NC to instruct his players to man up?
Truthfully i didnt think that Richmond would come out doing that after half time, since the tempo football philosophy means using it to break momentum. Seeing it done for a whole match was unprecedented. I was wanting the change in the third quarter, i was even screaming for it, but realistically craig didnt address his men again until three quarter time, when he got them to change system to great effect.
Seriously though, the critisism of an otherwise great coach is just the tip of the iceberg ive read here this week. Add that onto other beauties like Brett Burton is a w*nker and a curse, and lets murder scott stevens, and we're starting to look no different than the other rabbles who turn on their own at the first sign of trouble.
Lets face it, the whole team - including the coach - had a shocker. For all that, they only lost by three points.
Yes, Craig was slow in reacting to Richmond's tactics - but to blame him solely for the loss is absurd.
The players on the field also had a shocker, getting belted in many aspects of the game.
You can argue shoulda, coulda, woulda's until the cows come home. If Hentschell had kicked better we might have won, if Kenny Mac could kick over a jam tin we might have won, if, if, if. The fact is that these things didn't happen and we lost as a result of the WHOLE TEAM dropping its collective bundle.
It may well be that losing this game works out for the good of the side - it should ensure that there is no more complacency in any games this year, it should also ensure that Craig examines the tactics he introduces and works out counter-tactics to use in case they are used against us in the future.
Lets face it, the whole team - including the coach - had a shocker. For all that, they only lost by three points.
Yes, Craig was slow in reacting to Richmond's tactics - but to blame him solely for the loss is absurd.
The players on the field also had a shocker, getting belted in many aspects of the game.
You can argue shoulda, coulda, woulda's until the cows come home. If Hentschell had kicked better we might have won, if Kenny Mac could kick over a jam tin we might have won, if, if, if. The fact is that these things didn't happen and we lost as a result of the WHOLE TEAM dropping its collective bundle.
It may well be that losing this game works out for the good of the side - it should ensure that there is no more complacency in any games this year, it should also ensure that Craig examines the tactics he introduces and works out counter-tactics to use in case they are used against us in the future.
And lets win the hard ball gets Vader.
We had one of the lowest totals for the year in Hard Ball gets.
We need to win the aggatt and get our hands dirty.
I think we were down the previous week too in this area.
I could sense a loss coming despite the optimism and cockiness of many of the board last week.
The whole team had an off week last week including the coaching team and Craigy.
Lets hope we dont need another wake up call against Carlton.
And lets win the hard ball gets Vader.
We had one of the lowest totals for the year in Hard Ball gets.
Agreed.
That would fall under the banner of "players on the field" getting "belted in many aspects" of the game.
Crow-mo
23 May 2006, 20:12
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Relevance
The next word of the day is...
if you can't see the "relevance" you have no place in this or any other discussion :thumbsu:
Crow-mo
23 May 2006, 20:18
Ive said: You were wrong in your citation of Roo's as fact, and i personally find the facts more credible than the opinions put forward, no matter how expert.
well if you follow the thread you'll see very clearly the context. he is correct, it is a FACT that 1. Roos is an expert; 2. he made these public statements. Now as the response was in line to a comment that we should trust the experts, and I not sure what you're on about?
It is also a fact that our finals record under craig is 1 out of 3. however, like the other, I am not sure anything can be taken from either statistic to inform a specific discussion on one element of coaching.
As it is, it is also a FACT that choco and cornflakes have pretty strong regular season records too, what do you take from that?
Southerntakeover
23 May 2006, 22:19
well if you follow the thread you'll see very clearly the context. he is correct, it is a FACT that 1. Roos is an expert; 2. he made these public statements. Now as the response was in line to a comment that we should trust the experts, and I not sure what you're on about?
It is also a fact that our finals record under craig is 1 out of 3. however, like the other, I am not sure anything can be taken from either statistic to inform a specific discussion on one element of coaching.
As it is, it is also a FACT that choco and cornflakes have pretty strong regular season records too, what do you take from that?
Ive seen the context. Those two statements are facts, however what Roo's put forward was not fact, it was opinion. He responded to a statement saying he liked cold hard facts with an opinion and i pointed out his error, its as simple as that. No matter what word games you try to play its the same result.
I would suggest that we've played in too few finals under Craig for the figures to have developed a pattern upon which to judge.
As for Choco etc, id suggest that for the majority of his coaching stint with Port he has actually been a good coach, its only recently that he has underperformed.
Wayne's-World
23 May 2006, 23:01
Ive seen the context. Those two statements are facts, however what Roo's put forward was not fact, it was opinion. He responded to a statement saying he liked cold hard facts with an opinion and i pointed out his error, its as simple as that. No matter what word games you try to play its the same result.
.
:eek: :confused: :confused:
Kane McGoodwin
23 May 2006, 23:20
well if you follow the thread you'll see very clearly the context. he is correct, it is a FACT that 1. Roos is an expert; 2. he made these public statements. Now as the response was in line to a comment that we should trust the experts, and I not sure what you're on about?
It is also a fact that our finals record under craig is 1 out of 3. however, like the other, I am not sure anything can be taken from either statistic to inform a specific discussion on one element of coaching.
As it is, it is also a FACT that choco and cornflakes have pretty strong regular season records too, what do you take from that?
There is a lot of sprouting about facts v opinon & plenty of premium hot air & egos going around on this forum. Nothing like an unexpected loss ot heat things up!
Even though it is a fact that Paul Roos is an coach, who knows more than Joe average about the game, this it is not really a big call, along with the same comment about any other coach. Also, it is not a huge surprise that they make some public statements. Whilst most of the time they make informed comment, it is not always the case (though I agree they do the majority of the time).
Now to the fact that our finals record under Craig is 1-2, which is undeniable. I would say that injury to Bock & suspension to Roo cost us the Saints game more than either Cornflakes' outcoaching of Craig ... & that basically blew away our chances of a flag, given we had to play away to the Eagles.
Kane McGoodwin
23 May 2006, 23:24
Lets face it, the whole team - including the coach - had a shocker. For all that, they only lost by three points.
Yes, Craig was slow in reacting to Richmond's tactics - but to blame him solely for the loss is absurd.
The players on the field also had a shocker, getting belted in many aspects of the game.
You can argue shoulda, coulda, woulda's until the cows come home. If Hentschell had kicked better we might have won, if Kenny Mac could kick over a jam tin we might have won, if, if, if. The fact is that these things didn't happen and we lost as a result of the WHOLE TEAM dropping its collective bundle.
It may well be that losing this game works out for the good of the side - it should ensure that there is no more complacency in any games this year, it should also ensure that Craig examines the tactics he introduces and works out counter-tactics to use in case they are used against us in the future.
The voice of reason.
Crow-mo
23 May 2006, 23:32
Now to the fact that our finals record under Craig is 1-2, which is undeniable. I would say that injury to Bock & suspension to Roo cost us the Saints game more than either Cornflakes' outcoaching of Craig ... & that basically blew away our chances of a flag, given we had to play away to the Eagles.
i might refer you to the part where I stated that I didn't think anything meaningful could be taken from this fact.
macca23
23 May 2006, 23:44
Ill summarise whats been said more clearly for you and see if you cant understand this time.
You say: Neil Craigs coaching in the box, based on last week, 'isnt good enough'. You then quote Paul Roo's critisizing us, and cite it as fact.
The Crows Truth said: Neil Craig is good enough, under him we have had an exceptional record, we've lost only 3 of 19 games, with a combined margin of less than two goals. These are facts.
Ive said: You were wrong in your citation of Roo's as fact, and i personally find the facts more credible than the opinions put forward, no matter how expert.
You may personally be misunderstood here, and indeed i hope so. I hope you are only saying that Craigs day wasnt as good as it had been, and you are not critisizing his entire performance as a coach based on one three point upset loss. I am however dissappointed to see this level of 'feral supporter' syndrome bagging the sh1t out of the team when everyone on this board was happy to ride the bandwagon during our wins this season. Its the downs that reveal the true nature of a supporter.
Geez, I've just read this piece of sh it and I am angry.
Firstly, your alleged facts are irrelevant facts. They bear no relationship to Craig's performance on one individual day. Everybody's comments of Craig's performance on that one day are opinion, not fact, including CrowsTruth and yours. And as I said, much more credible people than you and I believe that Craig stuffed up on the day by not going man on man.
Secondly, your final paragraph is an unacceptable insult if you are branding me with those comments as I am one of Craigy's greatest supporters and have lavished him with praise for the multitude of good points that he has and the things he has done.
In my criticism of this one match I have also reaffirmed my overall opinion of Craig in various posts. I'm just not bloody blind to the bleeding obvious when it happens and sweep it under the carpet as some appear to wish it to be done.
You keep talking about facts.
You should make sure that yours are either correct or relevant when making such comments.
Southerntakeover
24 May 2006, 02:01
Geez, I've just read this piece of sh it and I am angry.
Firstly, your alleged facts are irrelevant facts. They bear no relationship to Craig's performance on one individual day. Everybody's comments of Craig's performance on that one day are opinion, not fact, including CrowsTruth and yours. And as I said, much more credible people than you and I believe that Craig stuffed up on the day by not going man on man.
Secondly, your final paragraph is an unacceptable insult if you are branding me with those comments as I am one of Craigy's greatest supporters and have lavished him with praise for the multitude of good points that he has and the things he has done.
In my criticism of this one match I have also reaffirmed my overall opinion of Craig in various posts. I'm just not bloody blind to the bleeding obvious when it happens and sweep it under the carpet as some appear to wish it to be done.
You keep talking about facts.
You should make sure that yours are either correct or relevant when making such comments.
The facts are relevant to the discussion of whether or not Craig is a 'good enough' coach, as was seemingly being discussed when i pointed out your mistake. I think he is, and those facts form the basis of my conclusion. Thats actually not something ive been trying to argue with you, since The Crows Truth was doing a good enough job before i came along. Adding which one i give more weight was an afterthought to the point of my original post.
Since Waynes world didnt understand the first time ill try to spell this out really simply.
It is a fact that Paul Roo's is an expert.
It is a fact that Paul Roo's has critisized the crows.
The basis of Paul Roo's critisisms, along with everything he said is an opinion, not a fact.
Presenting his opinion as evidence is not a factual arguement, which made the original response i quoted incorrect, i was merely trying to correct it.
Presenting Paul Roo's opinion and saying its a cold hard fact is wrong. Other experts may have a different opinion to Roo's, infact if ive read correctly Neil Craig himself appears to have said that manning up alone doesnt necessarily beat the chipping game, because teams can run screens and what not. Thats the perilous nature of opinion, two such 'experts' can be in direct conflict.
Indisputable facts such as Craigs coaching record cant be, thats why i said that i find them to be more credible when discussing if he is a 'good enough' coach. Again i do not intend to argue this with you.
As for the last paragraph, it wasnt really intended as a personal dig at you specifically, but im sure looking around the boards you could see examples of what i meant. I dont like the level of attacks being based on one bad game, which it should be mentioned has been an outlier on our season.
I honestly think that the first sentence of that last paragraph probably applies and there's probably less of a difference of opinion then it appears, and more of a misunderstanding, but topics like this and people posing the question over Craigs coaching ability based on one narrow defeat shouldnt go unchallenged.