View Full Version : I am no troll just wanting to understand a few things.
crashandbashruckmen
15 Jun 2007, 00:40
I am no troll just wanting to understand a few things.
Did Grant and Wallace get on? Why / why not?
What style of game did Wallace use for you guys? Uncontested or contested footy?
Did he always ‘have the players’?
Did he favour anyone in your team? Were there any players you thought should have been dropped who were given massive chances?
Why did you lose the 97 Prelim? Was it caused by the coach?
Thanks in advance!
FrediKanoute
15 Jun 2007, 00:51
I am no troll just wanting to understand a few things.
Did Grant and Wallace get on? Why / why not? - I don't think there was any apparant animosity between the two though I wouldn't say that they were best mates. I don't think it was any secret that Grant preferred Alan Joyce as a coach though What style of game did Wallace use for you guys? Uncontested or contested footy? - Downhill skiing...well definitely downhill skiing especially after Dimma/Jose and Libba all retired or got injured. Wallace also invented the flood
Did he always ‘have the players’? No I don't think he ever lost the players. He did have an advantage though of having been with bulldogs for the better part of 20 years as both a player and a coach. Could he have taken them further. I don't think so because he had allowed West, Johnno, Smitty etc to developmbad football habits.
Did he favour anyone in your team? Were there any players you thought should have been dropped who were given massive chances? - Nathan Brown was an obvious favoutite, but aside from that I get the impression Eade has more of a favourites culture (ie Addison, Morris, power to an extent)
Why did you lose the 97 Prelim? Was it caused by the coach? - Now mentioning the 97 GF is just plain nasty ;) We lost it because we weren't good enough. A good team from 20 points up would never have let the Crows within coo-ee. We believed at 3/4 time that the job was done. Oh and Libba's goal was a goal :)
Thanks in advance!
Hope that the above helpes
I'll let some of the more experienced posters reply to the disgruntled players questions. But purely as a coach, Terry had the tendency to out coach himself. I mean he'd approach finals with different game plans, and players in different positions, and sometimes playing players who hardly had a crack all year in pivotal roles(Mark West). This is make or break stuff, but if you watch the great coaches they don't do this, (Malthouse, Matthews, Sheedy). But its not just in finals either, on the few occasions when this has worked, it looks brilliant, like the Essendon game in round 21, 2000(Flooding) and last year with your mob against Adelaide.
As for playing favorites, there is no doubt Brown was his love child. Theres a story about how they went swimming in the Brisbane river early in to the morning after our lose to the lions in the finals, bit of a bondage session. Maybe he plays friends with the players to much?
Theres no doubt Wallace has lost a lot of respect from the bulldogs and the AFL community with his 'interstate coaching job' *cough Sydney cough*. Why should any Richmond supporters/players trust him?
Edit: FrediKanoute - i see you said Terry invented the Flood. I totally agree, Eade gets the praise for starting it, but it had never been implemented as hardcore or as successfully until Wallace used it. Mind you he used it sparingly, so i suppose thats why nobody associates it with him.
Dry Rot
15 Jun 2007, 01:19
I am no troll just wanting to understand a few things.
Did Grant and Wallace get on? Why / why not?
What style of game did Wallace use for you guys? Uncontested or contested footy?
Did he always ‘have the players’?
Did he favour anyone in your team? Were there any players you thought should have been dropped who were given massive chances?
Why did you lose the 97 Prelim? Was it caused by the coach?
Thanks in advance!
Are you the 10 Questions guy from the Chaser?
Pembleton
15 Jun 2007, 01:40
I am no troll just wanting to understand a few things.
Did Grant and Wallace get on? Why / why not?
What style of game did Wallace use for you guys? Uncontested or contested footy?
Did he always ‘have the players’?
Did he favour anyone in your team? Were there any players you thought should have been dropped who were given massive chances?
Why did you lose the 97 Prelim? Was it caused by the coach?
Thanks in advance!
Grant/Wallace: I think they disagreed about where Grant should be playing in the last couple of season's. No coincidence that Grant slotted into CHB immediately when Rohde took over. It's tough to get much of a read on it, because comments that come after Wallace walked out are obviously going to be coloured by that, but i don't think its any secret that they weren't close, and Grant has since stated that he had lost respect for him by the end.
Wallace had us playing in what you might call a 'mixed' style. His idea of balance in the midfield wasn't having players that took care of both their defensive and attacking duties, but to have some purely defensive guys and some purely attacking guys. The same went for having purely inside types shovelling it out to some purely outside types. Over time the balance went more and more to the outside types, and we suffered because of it.
The playing group were definitely behind him as a coach. They seemed to believe he would take them to a premiership, with a number of big names only agreeing to long term contracts after he had agreed to one himself.
I think he favoured the guys who had earned his trust in his first couple of years. By about 2001 some were struggling but seemed to get generous treatement from Wallace.
When you lose a game by 2 points after leading comfortably for most of the game, you can always pick out a coaching move or two that you think could have changed the result. Not changing the Jarman match up is the most obvious one from this game, but i wouldn't go as far as saying he cost us the game, we stuffed up a lot of chances to kick goals in the last quarter, and that had nothing to do with the Jarman match up.
Libba_39
15 Jun 2007, 10:37
In that awful, dismal last quarter of the 1997 Prelim Final, the problem was that Wallace thought the game was as good as won. Adelaide had all the momentum in the second half of the quarter and were winning most of the one on one contests around the ground. With the game in the balance in the last few minutes and when the Bulldogs still held a slender lead, the move of Grant to the backline was the obvious choice. It would have provided an extra man in defence and a block on Jarman's space to run into. The move should have been made when the Bulldogs were still 2 or 3 goals up.
Instead Grant was left to languish in the forward line with no opportunities and when finally one very late opportunity did arrive to wrest back the lead, Hudson then failed to shepherd him and the game was lost.
It summed up Wallace's coaching, a roller coaster and a dash of arrogance. He could pull off remarkable victories then lose the ones you should never lose.
Despite kicking points in the first half of the last quarter and failing to get a goal (although Libba's was a goal), I believe that any other team in the competition, which found itself in the Bulldog's position midway through that last quarter, then leading by about 28 points (virtually a 5 goal buffer), would still not have lost that particular game from that position.
Yes, it's easy in retrospect to say this, but I could see and feel the momentum swing and the move of Grant to defence would have ensured a win. Adelaide would not have kicked 5 goals in the second half of the last quarter, but unfortunately they were allowed to.
The Coon Dog
15 Jun 2007, 11:32
Why do people persist in torturing me emotionally by bring up a game I have long since banished from my memory?
Benno From Berwick
15 Jun 2007, 11:41
Are you the 10 Questions guy from the Chaser?
He's half the guy from the chaser.....
Only 5 questions.
Libba_39
15 Jun 2007, 11:45
Why do people persist in torturing me emotionally by bring up a game I have long since banished from my memory?
Yes, it's history now and I should try not to dwell on it but I hope this game and the disaster, the following year in 1998, makes us tougher when we reach a Prelim Final next time.
John Gent
15 Jun 2007, 11:56
Wallace is like Fairy-floss.
It looks big but when you get down to it, its all fluff.
Cyberdoggie
15 Jun 2007, 12:09
Wallace is like Fairy-floss.
It looks big but when you get down to it, its all fluff.
and leaves you with sticky fingers. :thumbsd:
The Hawk 7
15 Jun 2007, 12:27
I spoke to Terry at my cousins funeral about 2 months before he left the Dogs. I asked him whether he had any ambitions to go "home" to Hawthorn one day, and his reply was that it was in the back of his mind, but the one place he would never set foot in again was Richmond. Apparently he never got paid after getting injured half way through the year he played there, and then they shafted him at the end of the season, and "it was something he would never forget".
They were his exact words.
Now I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but looking at Richmond's performances since he arrived, perhaps he is exacting revenge???:)
scooter600x
15 Jun 2007, 12:31
I am no troll just wanting to understand a few things.
Did Grant and Wallace get on? Why / why not?
What style of game did Wallace use for you guys? Uncontested or contested footy?
Did he always ‘have the players’?
Did he favour anyone in your team? Were there any players you thought should have been dropped who were given massive chances?
Why did you lose the 97 Prelim? Was it caused by the coach?
Thanks in advance!
1. Grant/Wallace - I don't think there was any real issue while Wallace was coach, although in the movie 'Year of the Dogs' Grant remains loyal to Joyce, but then, Grant is always loyal. The falling out between the two of them happened when Wallace quit. Wallace wanted to coach the last game (his ego made him think it would be a good chance for the fans to give him a send-off), Grant made it clear, you're either with us or agin us, and you ain't with us - bugger off!
2. Wallace couldn't spell 'contested footy'. Wallace thought he was a visionary and was going to change the game. The worst thing that happened was the flood that beat Essendon in 2000. Wallace drank in the accolades and after that thought he would win games with his genious and started doing weird, stupid stuff. Mick McGuone (sp?) labelled us 'downhill skiers' and he was spot on.
3. I saw no evidence that he had lost the players. We did have a major clean-out so most of the players were new and/or very young.
4. Not a lot of the young guys got too many opportunities but the favourites thing was Peter Rhode more than Terry Wallace.
5. Prelim day 1997 was one of the worst coaching performances I have seen. To include Jose Romero two weeks after he dislocated a shoulder was ludicrous - regardless of what Romero told him - it is a 6 week injury. In that last quarter, when Adelaide were coming at us, Nigel Smart was tearing us a new one @ CHF while the best CHB I've ever seen was freezing in the goalsquare. Todd Curley had done a good job on Jarman in the midfield (with some help from Cookie :D) but Curley was never a FB. Steve Kretiuk was on the bench.
PS- Libba39 - I reckon Chris could have shepparded Huddo just as easily, I don't think Huddo was entirely to blame there.
PPS - I've never been able to watch a replay of that game so all this is from my memory of watching it first hand.
Dry Rot
15 Jun 2007, 13:10
He's half the guy from the chaser.....
Only 5 questions.
There's actually 10 if you read closely. :)
Wonder if he can sing?
memberforever
15 Jun 2007, 13:29
Wallace had impeccable match day planning and usually assessed his opposition and worked on their weaknesses, however, if plan A didn't work, there was no plan B.
(fixed spelling error)
Hawkins Wing
15 Jun 2007, 14:43
5. Prelim day 1997 was one of the worst coaching performances I have seen. To include Jose Romero two weeks after he dislocated a shoulder was ludicrous - regardless of what Romero told him - it is a 6 week injury. In that last quarter, when Adelaide were coming at us, Nigel Smart was tearing us a new one @ CHF while the best CHB I've ever seen was freezing in the goalsquare. Todd Curley had done a good job on Jarman in the midfield (with some help from Cookie :D) but Curley was never a FB. Steve Kretiuk was on the bench.
Scooter - Your comments re point 5 are definitely right on the money!
RedWhite&Blue
15 Jun 2007, 15:52
5. Prelim day 1997 was one of the worst coaching performances I have seen. To include Jose Romero two weeks after he dislocated a shoulder was ludicrous - regardless of what Romero told him - it is a 6 week injury. In that last quarter, when Adelaide were coming at us, Nigel Smart was tearing us a new one @ CHF while the best CHB I've ever seen was freezing in the goalsquare. Todd Curley had done a good job on Jarman in the midfield (with some help from Cookie :D) but Curley was never a FB. Steve Kretiuk was on the bench.
PS- Libba39 - I reckon Chris could have shepparded Huddo just as easily, I don't think Huddo was entirely to blame there.
That was spot-on about Jose Romero. I remember thinking at the time that including him could cost us the game because he would re-injure his shoulder and we'd be a man down. Low and behold he cops a bump early and is straight off. Of all the 'events' that happened in that game, the Romero selection always sticks in my head. It was madness any way you look at it. How could anyone or any selection committe be so stupid.
PS. Huddo should have shepparded Grant - no doubt about it. But you can't blame Huddo to much as that goal hungry instinct probably got us into that game in the first place.
I remember Wallace as a very successful coach who turned the Bulldogs into a very tight aggressive team that was universally hated by opposition teams and supporters. He turned Tony Liberatore into the AFL's Number 1 villan. Whether that was the only alternative or not for Libba's future, I'm not sure, but Libba has been forever tainted. Only those with long memories remember Libba, the inspirational Brownlow Medallist.
Wallace had impeccable match day planning and usually assessed his opposition and worked on their weeknesses, however, if plan A didn't work, there was no plan B.
Unfortunatly that doesn't seem to have changed under Eade either.
memberforever
15 Jun 2007, 16:20
Unfortunatly that doesn't seem to have changed under Eade either.
Do you think so? I think Eade is prepared to throw players around where as Wallace would never move a player even if they were getting thrashed.
As for playing favorites, there is no doubt Brown was his love child. Theres a story about how they went swimming in the Brisbane river early in to the morning after our lose to the lions in the finals, bit of a bondage session. Maybe he plays friends with the players to much?
I hope you mean 'bonding'. :eek:
Prelim final '97 - the worst footy day of my life and the one and only time I have shed a tear at the footy. (although I came close the day Libba retired). As for Libba being tainted - well, the bloke is an absolute inspiration and club legend and will never be 'tainted' in my eyes.
Jean Claude Vas Deferens
15 Jun 2007, 20:02
Why do people persist in torturing me emotionally by bring up a game I have long since banished from my memory?
Hello all... just wanted to let you know that I've been outside all afternoon hitting myself in the head with a hammer. The reason, of course, is because it feels so good when you stop. The pain kind of... just goes away. I wish I could say the same thing for that Preliminary Final. :(
paul scholes
15 Jun 2007, 20:54
1997 I'm off to book an appointment with my therapist:(:(
bulldogrob
15 Jun 2007, 21:28
This thread means 2 things.
Chris Grant is a gentleman
Terry wallace is scum
This thread means 2 things.
Chris Grant is a gentleman
Terry wallace is scum
It also means F£")($*"£)(*!!!!!
dlanor the dog
16 Jun 2007, 01:09
[QUOTE=crashandbashruckmen;7837459]I am no troll just wanting to understand a few things.
Did Grant and Wallace get on? Why / why not?
What style of game did Wallace use for you guys? Uncontested or contested footy?
Did he always ‘have the players’?
Did he favour anyone in your team? Were there any players you thought should have been dropped who were given massive chances?
Why did you lose the 97 Prelim? Was it caused by the coach?
Thanks in advance![/QUOTE
After some very knowledable replies .I would of expected some sort of reply
PS- Libba39 - I reckon Chris could have shepparded Huddo just as easily, I don't think Huddo was entirely to blame there.
PPS - I've never been able to watch a replay of that game so all this is from my memory of watching it first hand.
I errr.... ahem watched the game recently.... Huddo is the one to provide the shepherd for Grant, he was the closest to the man while Grant was closer to the ball..... It was painful watching it; seeing Smith smashing his hand on the turf was one thing ill never forget
I errr.... ahem watched the game recently.... Huddo is the one to provide the shepherd for Grant, he was the closest to the man while Grant was closer to the ball..... It was painful watching it; seeing Smith smashing his hand on the turf was one thing ill never forget
People focus on Huddo, but the guy was in the team to kick goals.
What about guys like Darcy missing goals from 20 out in the first quarter? Wynd dropped a mark from a kick in with about 2 mins left that would've pumped us right back into the forward 50.
You can't pin it on one moment.
Dogs_r_barking
17 Jun 2007, 01:45
The 97 preliminary was a painful memory for us all. I still get emotinal talking about it. Our loss to Melbourne in 2005 was nothing compared to that. But you can't change the past - just look ahead to the future.
At least Eade has tasted success as a player, which is something Wallace never did - Eade has also tasted failure - as when the Swans made the grand final and lost. Look to the future guys - there will be another opportunity - and we will have a much better coach more prepared for the occasion.
Borgsta
17 Jun 2007, 02:47
I am no troll just wanting to understand a few things.
Why did you lose the 97 Prelim? Was it caused by the coach?[/LIST]
Thanks in advance!
Not meaning to troll and you mention the 97 prelim.. A real mod would ban you for mentioning such a thing.;) I still can't believe I was stupid enough to watch it with a Crows supporter 2 years ago.
Anyhow I think everyone has answered your questions really well. Nothing to really add here from me.
Aquamarinejewel
17 Jun 2007, 02:51
I still can't believe I was stupid enough to watch it with a Crows supporter 2 years ago.
I refuse to watch my copy of it and haven't to this day...I have placed that police tape around the cover very tightly and vowed to only watch it once we win a premiership, that is the only way I will get closure on the whole situation.
Not meaning to troll and you mention the 97 prelim.. A real mod would ban you for mentioning such a thing.;) I still can't believe I was stupid enough to watch it with a Crows supporter 2 years ago.
Anyhow I think everyone has answered your questions really well. Nothing to really add here from me.
.... Why the hell would you watch 97 final with a crow supporter? You must have been smoking something :cool:
That would be like Jesus and Judas in heaven watching the betrayal. Oh wait Judas never made it to heaven - sorry N Brown :D
Borgsta
17 Jun 2007, 02:58
.... Why the hell would you watch 97 final with a crow supporter? You must have been smoking something :cool:
That would be like Jesus and Judas in heaven watching the betrayal. Oh wait Judas never made it to heaven - sorry N Brown :D
It was a really good mate of mine in Japan and we were chatting about the game and arguing about the Libbe "goal" so I wanted to prove it by downloading it off the net. The next 2 hours had me dreading my decision (read stupidity) and cursing at myself.
Thankfully i have blocked out all memory of that game through copius amounts of alcohol consumption.
Go_Dogs
17 Jun 2007, 12:20
The worst was watching it in Adelaide with your family who are all Crows supporters, with about 30 other Crows supporters at your house...horrible, horrible stuff.
crashandbashruckmen
17 Jun 2007, 23:53
The worst was watching it in Adelaide with your family who are all Crows supporters, with about 30 other Crows supporters at your house...horrible, horrible stuff.
Thank you to all the posters who commented.
Rapt to see Minson and your CHB playing well respectively. Go Dogs.
Difference between Eade and Wallace = Eade's teams tackle and do 1%s.
bulldogrob
18 Jun 2007, 00:00
I still have never watched the game. I couldnt
scooter600x
18 Jun 2007, 11:34
The 97 preliminary was a painful memory for us all. I still get emotinal talking about it. Our loss to Melbourne in 2005 was nothing compared to that. But you can't change the past - just look ahead to the future.
At least Eade has tasted success as a player, which is something Wallace never did - Eade has also tasted failure - as when the Swans made the grand final and lost. Look to the future guys - there will be another opportunity - and we will have a much better coach more prepared for the occasion.
Wallace was a premiership player in 78 & 83