View Full Version : Attack, take risks is Craig's new order
Mad Dog
16 Jun 2007, 08:55
thought this was worth a read
Attack, take risks is Craig's new order
adelaidenow (http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21913612-21543,00.html)
michaelangelo rucci
ADELAIDE has a Plan B. While Crows coach Neil Craig yesterday was not laying out his cards for tonight's AFL clash with the sixth-placed Kangaroos at Carrara, the basis of his new gameplan was clearly on public record.
Adelaide - which ranks 14th of 16 for goalkicking with 127 goals in 11 matches (average 11 goals) - will play more attacking football.
"We certainly want to see more attacking play - more risk-taking," said Craig.
Adelaide - which has played a calculated game built on defensive "zones" and putting numbers behind the play - is to gamble.
Craig notes a licence to take risks can also bring mistakes.
"We have to put up with some errors; we might have to go backwards a little bit in that area before we come forward," Craig said.
"Certainly we'll encourage guys to have a go at them - because we need to do it.
"The ground is a good size. The (fine) conditions will be conducive to play that sort of footy. We need to start to see more and more (of that attacking football).
"We've talked about it - now we need to see action."
Adelaide - which has been repeatedly challenged to settle its attack - will make no "structural" changes to its line-up.
"I'm sure it is not a structural thing," said Craig, who is challenged to decide which of Nathan Bock, Ken McGregor and Scott Stevens plays at centre half-back and how the other two work in attack with half-forward Scott Welsh and captain Mark Ricciuto.
"We can't change too much up forward," added Craig, noting Adelaide's progress to the finals is not so much in regaining injured players in the second half of the season but, "more importantly, the way we play the game".
Adelaide's foundation on a tough defensive game - regardless of where the ball is being contested - remains in Craig's Plan B.
"We've spoken in the past about our defence and how it has been reasonably good," Craig said. "It's not just our back six - it is defence all over the ground.
"It is the same concept with us searching for more attack all over the ground.
"It's not just our forwards kicking more goals, or our midfielders (being more attacking), but our defenders as well. That will be the expectation."
Basically, Adelaide is looking for the quick-moving, running game that was once its trademark. At Carrara, this Plan B should see the Crows laying tracks through the centre corridor and igniting its attacking play with forward handpasses.
"Against Essendon (in the season opener) we had too many numbers in the corridor - and trying to get through there rather than us taking a risk," Craig said.
"We now have that organised better; we actually spread more. So we have to look for the opportunities that exist and be prepared to take them."
Adelaide has been reluctant to engage in shoot-outs. But the new spirit Craig wants to inject in his team and, as his assistant Paul Hamilton put it, the "free spirit" coach Dean Laidley has pumped into the Kangaroos, suggests a high-scoring game on the Gold Coast.
"The Kangaroos are not dissimilar to Carlton," Craig said. "Their style of play is very similar - it is reasonably quick, they kick fairly long and direct, their contested ball at stoppages is very good. So our guys, after playing Carlton (on May 26), have a reasonable feel as to what to expect."
The Kangaroos have to guess what Adelaide intends to deliver - or rather how.
Tonight's winner goes to the mid-season break with a 7-5 win-loss count and firmly in the top eight. The loser will be at 6-6 and in the pack.
jenny61_99
16 Jun 2007, 09:02
And that's exactly how they trained yesterday afternoon.
Our comment was, if they play like that tomorrow night (tonight) then we will win!
Mad Dog
16 Jun 2007, 09:10
And that's exactly how they trained yesterday afternoon.
Our comment was, if they play like that tomorrow night (tonight) then we will win!
Apparently they've been training like that all week.....:thumbsu:
hopefully someone has realised that enough is enough
jenny61_99
16 Jun 2007, 09:13
Apparently they've been training like that all week.....:thumbsu:
hopefully someone has realised that enough is enough
Im confused though MD... didn't we play like this all last year?? We had a percentage of what 170 or something? I wonder if Craig felt he had to change the game plan because other teams (ie. Weagles) had figured us out?
maccas_no1
16 Jun 2007, 09:22
Like I pointed out on the thread I started Hawthorn a much younger list than ours with far less senior players and missing their two key forwards produced an attacking game that netted 27 goals..............even the AFC can produce that sort of return and lets take nothing away from Carlton here, because the AFC struggled to beat Carlton and Port lost to Carlton.
Yes you have to have a good defence but to base your whole game plan around it and still not get the desired result questions have to be asked.
Mad Dog
16 Jun 2007, 09:26
Im confused though MD... didn't we play like this all last year?? We had a percentage of what 170 or something? I wonder if Craig felt he had to change the game plan because other teams (ie. Weagles) had figured us out?
I'm confused also Jenny - and this is what I was rabbiting on about earlier in the week.
On one hand the coach says in his presser after last week (essentially) that the players weren't responding to his directive to play more attacking football as a defensive mindset wouldn't get the job done...
...and yet this year so far has been just about the lowest scoring period in our Club's history.
maccas_no1
16 Jun 2007, 09:30
I'm confused also Jenny - and this is what I was rabbiting on about earlier in the week.
On one hand the coach says in his presser after last week (essentially) that the players weren't responding to his directive to play more attacking football as a defensive mindset wouldn't get the job done...
...and yet this year so far has been just about the lowest scoring period in our Club's history.
Put me in the same basket:confused:
Wayne's-World
16 Jun 2007, 09:53
I'm confused also Jenny - and this is what I was rabbiting on about earlier in the week.
On one hand the coach says in his presser after last week (essentially) that the players weren't responding to his directive to play more attacking football as a defensive mindset wouldn't get the job done...
...and yet this year so far has been just about the lowest scoring period in our Club's history.
:mad: FFS people how can you play full on attacking footy when your trying to cobble a side together what with so many injuries.
We've had some powerful attacking performances over the last couple of seasons ......Craigs gameplan hasn't changed ......we're playing more kids now due to injuries "which everyone wanted" ......but we expect these kids to get it right immediately .....
Hawthorn ....is Roughead, Doyle and (?who normally plays CHB) ...having no forwards. Hawthorn was criticized just a couple of weeks ago for being dour and defensive .....now they're the attacking champions of the league :rolleyes:
Each game on its merits ......Iam happy with our gameplan since Craig has been coach .....Iam happy that being injury riddled with no team continuity that we have been in winning positions every week.
And if you didn't enjoy last weeks game against Geelong then you just don't appreciate good footy!!!!!
Sure I'd like to win by 10 goals every week ....but do people seriously think the opposition will allow that every week :mad:
Wayne's-World
16 Jun 2007, 09:59
Im confused though MD... didn't we play like this all last year?? We had a percentage of what 170 or something? I wonder if Craig felt he had to change the game plan because other teams (ie. Weagles) had figured us out?
How about having 26 players to choose from
How about having two different ruckman - one who hasn't cemented a position in Centrals yet.
How about losing Hentschell, Bode and Roo .....our most influential forwrds last year
Yep ....lets play attacking footy where in todays game one loose link (young inexperienced player) ....one turnover .....has a two goal swing.
Guys lets be real here .......Craig will play attacking footy when he has the side to do it.
If he gets beaten by 6 goals against the Roos ....he'll be criticized for NOT going defensive :rolleyes:
Wayne's-World
16 Jun 2007, 10:03
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Two preliminary finals in two years ....when all the "EXPERTS" had us as wooden spooners who had to rebuild ......even experts on this board said it was a mandatory 5 years before we would be competitive again.
We've had a wonderful ride .....every week we're in the game
We've had the worst run of injuries that I can remember ..... And no-one's happy with our gameplan ...... :rolleyes::rolleyes::mad:
Try and learn about the game ...rather than listen to your media to garnish opinion :rolleyes:
Mad Dog
16 Jun 2007, 10:12
:mad: FFS people how can you play full on attacking footy when your trying to cobble a side together what with so many injuries.
here's a "for instance"
Round 10 v Essendon last year we kicked 30 goals with no
Torney
Bock
Hudson
Welsh
Perrie
Hart
Clarke
against Geelong we had no
Burton
Hentschel
Biglands
Perrie
Reilly
Bode
against Essendon we cobbled together a side with argueably a comparable number of injuries to important forward line players. Sure - Essendon were crap last year and Geelong are firing this year - but we were without much of our fwd line last year but still kicked big scores....and there are numerous more examples where it could be argued that our injuries were more severe last year than this.
There are really only 2 possibilities here.
Either the gameplan has been turned more defensive to counter the kind of caning we received in the 3rd qtr of the Prelim last year...
or
the personnel missing this year are more important than those missing last year.
Mad Dog
16 Jun 2007, 10:17
Two preliminary finals in two years ....when all the "EXPERTS" had us as wooden spooners who had to rebuild ......even experts on this board said it was a mandatory 5 years before we would be competitive again.
We've had a wonderful ride .....every week we're in the game
We've had the worst run of injuries that I can remember ..... And no-one's happy with our gameplan ...... :rolleyes::rolleyes::mad:
Try and learn about the game ...rather than listen to your media to garnish opinion :rolleyes:
hahaaaa - yes we've only been watching the game for 5 minutes........:D:rolleyes:
I think you've just made the point here that I was trying to make.
Last year we had heaps of injuries - but it didn't affect our gameplan
This year we have heaps of injuries - but it is affecting our gameplan
jenny61_99
16 Jun 2007, 10:35
Hey WW - don't get me wrong, I'm not bagging our game-plan, just don't understand it. Hence the :confused:. I loved watching our open, free-flowing attack last year, but I also understand we didn't end up winning so perhaps some tweaks needed to be made. Perhaps out of necessity (due to injuries) - but maybe it has manifested into something even the coach wasn't aiming for?
I must admit Rucci made me smile ... Plan B :D
I think NC does have Plan A Plan B and Plan C... I think the problem I see is that he dictates the style according to the opponent and not the match situation.
How about having two different ruckman - one who hasn't cemented a position in Centrals yet. According to my eyes he doesnt need to cement a spot at Centrals...hes doing quite fine at the AFC
Yep ....lets play attacking footy where in todays game one loose link (young inexperienced player) ....one turnover .....has a two goal swing. Says who? As long as the players remember the JOhn Kennedy sr adage of who has the ball etc then the players should be experienced enough to work to get the ball.
Even with the game plan we have now of waves of players moving up the ground in rugby scrum style we are still susceptible to the turnover. See Geelong last week.
Guys lets be real here .......Craig will play attacking footy when he has the side to do it.Who was available round 2?
If he gets beaten by 6 goals against the Roos ....he'll be criticized for NOT going defensive :rolleyes:Unfortunately that is true. Human nature Im afraid
Markthirtytwo
16 Jun 2007, 11:37
Craig notes a licence to take risks can also bring mistakes.
"We have to put up with some errors; we might have to go backwards a little bit in that area before we come forward," Craig said.
And that is the most important part of the article.;)
Markthirtytwo
16 Jun 2007, 11:40
Last year we had heaps of injuries - but it didn't affect our gameplan
This year we have heaps of injuries - but it is affecting our gameplan
For the last couple of years we have had plenty of players kicking goals, but this year they seemed to have gone into their shell and are afraid to try.
That's the confusing part for me. :confused:
maccas_no1
16 Jun 2007, 11:42
here's a "for instance"
Round 10 v Essendon last year we kicked 30 goals with no
Torney
Bock
Hudson
Welsh
Perrie
Hart
Clarke
against Geelong we had no
Burton
Hentschel
Biglands
Perrie
Reilly
Bode
against Essendon we cobbled together a side with argueably a comparable number of injuries to important forward line players. Sure - Essendon were crap last year and Geelong are firing this year - but we were without much of our fwd line last year but still kicked big scores....and there are numerous more examples where it could be argued that our injuries were more severe last year than this.
There are really only 2 possibilities here.
Either the gameplan has been turned more defensive to counter the kind of caning we received in the 3rd qtr of the Prelim last year...
or
the personnel missing this year are more important than those missing last year.
This is how I see also and this is why I brought up Hawthorn's performance last night..................missing key players....................didnt go well geez we arent going to be able to produce our running, attacking game style so lets just shut the game down and make it ultra defensive because Carlton forward structure 'on paper' looks a hell of alot better than ours.
For the last couple of years we have had plenty of players kicking goals, but this year they seemed to have gone into their shell and are afraid to try.
That's the confusing part for me. :confused:
''Hahaha Hey Knighta you missed a sitter haha look for a Drummond thread on BF tomorrow''
''Shut up Pez at least they think Im a Gun and not a nug''
McLeod23
16 Jun 2007, 13:18
Tonight's winner goes to the mid-season break with a 7-5 win-loss count and firmly in the top eight. The loser will be at 6-6 and in the pack.
Great research from the Rooch again - the Kangaroos are actually 7-4 at present, so if they won they'll be 8-4.
Anyway, we need to attack when we have the footy. Its fine to get numbers back and press when we don't, but lets GO down the middle and long into the forward line when we have the pill. We've got Kenny who is a brilliant contested mark, Roo (nuff said) and Welsh who can carve anyone up when given space to lead into - so lets get it in there quickly so the opposition doesn't have time to fill that space.
"Its not rocket surgery"...
maccas_no1
16 Jun 2007, 13:29
Great research from the Rooch again - the Kangaroos are actually 7-4 at present, so if they won they'll be 8-4.
Anyway, we need to attack when we have the footy. Its fine to get numbers back and press when we don't, but lets GO down the middle and long into the forward line when we have the pill. We've got Kenny who is a brilliant contested mark, Roo (nuff said) and Welsh who can carve anyone up when given space to lead into - so lets get it in there quickly so the opposition doesn't have time to fill that space.
"Its not rocket surgery"...
Exactly spot on, open up the forwardline and give your forwards space, leave Roo one out in the square, have Mcgregor and Welsh out wider and push into the middle of the F50 area.
Attack, take risks is Craig's new order
adelaidenow (http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,21913612-21543,00.html)
michaelangelo rucci
Tonight's winner goes to the mid-season break with a 7-5 win-loss count and firmly in the top eight. The loser will be at 6-6 and in the pack.
This Rucci clown knows his stuff doesn't he?:rolleyes:
A win for us sees us go to the break with an 8-4 record. A loss to you mob would see us 7-5.
As much as I hate the phrase, tonight is one of those '8 point' games. Always good to have a win against those around you on the ladder and build a buffer for later in the year.
Attacking is good but it can be a lot harder to do in practice. If the game is fairly open and we are pilling goals on in the first quarter I can't see NC not trying to shut down the game.
We typically force a lot of teams to play negative with our pretty good starts. I think for NC's plan to work the Crows would need to go out on the front foot early in the game.
If I was NC planning against us I would look to play defensive in the first and third quarters, go on the offensive in the second and last quarters. It is the first and third quarters that usually win us the games and we usually lose them in the 2nd and 4th quarters. I guess Laidely puts them to sleep at the minor breaks. :p
RoosterLad
16 Jun 2007, 16:10
This Rucci clown knows his stuff doesn't he?:rolleyes:
A win for us sees us go to the break with an 8-4 record. A loss to you mob would see us 7-5.
As much as I hate the phrase, tonight is one of those '8 point' games. Always good to have a win against those around you on the ladder and build a buffer for later in the year.
You can see why we love Rucci.
It is a huge game tonight, I'm looking forward to it.. I just hope we play a good brand of footy.. I want to be excited! (thanks Jars)
You can see why we love Rucci.
It is a huge game tonight, I'm looking forward to it.. I just hope we play a good brand of footy.. I want to be excited! (thanks Jars)
I hear ya.
But our hatred of Caroline Wilson is even greater than yours of Rucci.
birdmanptr
16 Jun 2007, 17:07
Playing attacking footy is all well and good IF you have someone up forward to take a mark or even bring the ball to ground i hope mi am wrong but if we play that style tonight it will be a interesting result to say the least.
Wayne's-World
16 Jun 2007, 18:38
There are really only 2 possibilities here.
Either the gameplan has been turned more defensive to counter the kind of caning we received in the 3rd qtr of the Prelim last year...
or
the personnel missing this year are more important than those missing last year.
Last year were losing players for whom we had able replacements .....more mid size
This year it's the talls ....but also our next midfield group have had injuries ...our structure has been much more fragile this season what with the injury to talls and other KPP out of form.
But hey ...we've still been competitive in most games and as a supporter Iam not going to "can" Craig for being competitve.
As I have said many times here .......we moan the demise of hard tough footy in favour of the open no contest style played by some clubs .......hell !! I love our style of footy
Are we saying we're losing because we're not attacking ...or because we're short of key personnel ....personally I favour the latter ;)
Stiffy_18
16 Jun 2007, 18:40
here's a "for instance"
Round 10 v Essendon last year we kicked 30 goals with no
Torney
Bock
Hudson
Welsh
Perrie
Hart
Clarke
against Geelong we had no
Burton
Hentschel
Biglands
Perrie
Reilly
Bode
against Essendon we cobbled together a side with argueably a comparable number of injuries to important forward line players. Sure - Essendon were crap last year and Geelong are firing this year - but we were without much of our fwd line last year but still kicked big scores....and there are numerous more examples where it could be argued that our injuries were more severe last year than this.
There are really only 2 possibilities here.
Either the gameplan has been turned more defensive to counter the kind of caning we received in the 3rd qtr of the Prelim last year...
or
the personnel missing this year are more important than those missing last year.
Oh I strongly disagree with the assertion that we were without much of a forward line last year! We had a great mix in the forward line last year. Hentschel and Burton were the 2 X-factors, unpredictable forwards that are genuine match winners. Hentschel kicked 8 goals in that game. Roo was our FF who was in some real form and we had a crumber that would fight for the ball like his life depended on it.
Last year we had a great mix of contrasting, complementing styles in our forwards line. This year we have too much of the same and not enough variation or unpredictability to be match winners. We have too meany weaknesses in our forward line this year.
Roo and Welsh are practically the same types who get in each others way. Porplyzia is no crumber, Bock, Stevens are both leading forwards and there is absolutely no one in that forward line with a bit of unpredictability like Burton and Hentschel. To underestimate the loss of these players is not being understanding of the game.
Get Burton, Hentschel and Bode into that forward line and I can guarantee you it will be raining goals.
At the start of the year we pretty much didn't have a very potent and enough variety in our forward line and two players we could least afford to lose through injury were Burton and Bode because they bring something to that forward line that can't be replaced because we just don't have the replacements for them.
And people bring in his Hawks like they are some hot to trot attacking team into the conversation is just fuuny. 2-3 weeks ago they got bagged for playing the most boring game of football in a long long time. Now people say they kicked a lot of goals last night without their best forward but can they do it consistently without the personell there?! I don't think they can. One game is not big enough sample to form that argument. We can cover for one game, maybe two but covering for a whole season is a hell of a lot harder than a game or two.
People just seriously underestimate what a HUGE loss Hentschel, Bode and Burton have been. They have been irreplacable.
Wayne's-World
16 Jun 2007, 18:41
Hey WW - don't get me wrong, I'm not bagging our game-plan, just don't understand it. Hence the :confused:. I loved watching our open, free-flowing attack last year, but I also understand we didn't end up winning so perhaps some tweaks needed to be made. Perhaps out of necessity (due to injuries) - but maybe it has manifested into something even the coach wasn't aiming for?
Maybe the young players who come out of the U18 comps with great attacking skills but poor defensive skills are concentrating on the defensive aspects more ....because that may the focus of discusions with the coaching group
Wayne's-World
16 Jun 2007, 18:46
Oh I strongly disagree with the assertion that we were without much of a forward line last year! We had a great mix in the forward line last year. Hentschel and Burton were the 2 X-factors, unpredictable forwards that are genuine match winners. Hentschel kicked 8 goals in that game. Roo was our FF who was in some real form and we had a crumber that would fight for the ball like his life depended on it.
Last year we had a great mix of contrasting, complementing styles in our forwards line. This year we have too much of the same and not enough variation or unpredictability to be match winners. We have too meany weaknesses in our forward line this year.
Roo and Welsh are practically the same types who get in each others way. Porplyzia is no crumber, Bock, Stevens are both leading forwards and there is absolutely no one in that forward line with a bit of unpredictability like Burton and Hentschel. To underestimate the loss of these players is not being understanding of the game.
Get Burton, Hentschel and Bode into that forward line and I can guarantee you it will be raining goals.
At the start of the year we pretty much didn't have a very potent and enough variety in our forward line and two players we could least afford to lose through injury were Burton and Bode because they bring something to that forward line that can't be replaced because we just don't have the replacements for them.
And people bring in his Hawks like they are some hot to trot attacking team into the conversation is just fuuny. 2-3 weeks ago they got bagged for playing the most boring game of football in a long long time. Now people say they kicked a lot of goals last night without their best forward but can they do it consistently without the personell there?! I don't think they can. One game is not big enough sample to form that argument. We can cover for one game, maybe two but covering for a whole season is a hell of a lot harder than a game or two.
People just seriously underestimate what a HUGE loss Hentschel, Bode and Burton have been. They have been irreplacable.
Completely agree .....and IMO Craig has done a marvellous job in maintaining a competitive and winning attitude capable of winning every week.
For those who claim our gameplan is different .....we were also criticized LAST YEAR for being ultra defensive along with Sydney ......yet we also had games where it was a goal avalanche
Mad Dog
16 Jun 2007, 23:09
Last year were losing players for whom we had able replacements .....more mid size
This year it's the talls ....but also our next midfield group have had injuries ...our structure has been much more fragile this season what with the injury to talls and other KPP out of form.
But hey ...we've still been competitive in most games and as a supporter Iam not going to "can" Craig for being competitve.
As I have said many times here .......we moan the demise of hard tough footy in favour of the open no contest style played by some clubs .......hell !! I love our style of footy
Are we saying we're losing because we're not attacking ...or because we're short of key personnel ....personally I favour the latter ;)
you'll never convince me that we've been decimated in 2006 or 2007 to the point of justifying departing from our 2005 / 2006 style.
it's all about
Gameplan
Gameplan
Gameplan
maccas_no1
16 Jun 2007, 23:21
Worked very nicely tonight and proved the point that the defensive game plan was not working.
We ran the game out well, we opened up the space and it worked, I never ever want to see that defensive rubbish ever again because it was proven tonight that it is not needed and not the way to win a game off football.
Kane McGoodwin
17 Jun 2007, 13:56
Worked very nicely tonight and proved the point that the defensive game plan was not working.
We ran the game out well, we opened up the space and it worked, I never ever want to see that defensive rubbish ever again because it was proven tonight that it is not needed and not the way to win a game off football.
Our defensive part of the game plan was the same ... but it was our attacking part of the game - play on quickly & get the ball quickly into the forward line to give our forwards at least a 50/50 chance that was the difference.
jenny61_99
17 Jun 2007, 14:32
We didn't need to use the tempo footy because we were in control all night. Only time we "slipped" back into it was when all of Kangas players were ahead of the ball and we had nowhere to kick it to. Happened only for a few minutes and ended up in the predictable turn-over and goal scored to them.
maccas_no1
17 Jun 2007, 20:51
Our defensive part of the game plan was the same ... but it was our attacking part of the game - play on quickly & get the ball quickly into the forward line to give our forwards at least a 50/50 chance that was the difference.
What I mean by defensive is we werent defenisve around the middle of the ground rather as you say we moved the ball quickly, I dont feel there is a need to be defensive in the middle of the ground. Just make sure you are accountable win the ball and move it forward with purpose...........I would like to see us handball less.....sometimes it pays off other times we are putting players under too much pressure.
Carl Spackler
17 Jun 2007, 21:11
you'll never convince me that we've been decimated in 2006 or 2007 to the point of justifying departing from our 2005 / 2006 style.
You're not convinced that Hentschel, Ricciuto, Bode and Burton is a fair slice of our first choice forward line? Stunning.
it's all about
Gameplan
Gameplan
Gameplan
... and
Personnel to carry it out
Personnel to carry it out
Personnel to carry it out
Personnel to carry it out
Personnel to carry it out
Personnel to carry it out
The point made was that the ball movement should follow the same lines on most attacks.
Player A has the ball who gives to receiver B who gives to kicker C whose job is to kick it into the forward line based on : Forward player A moving left, Forward player B moving right and Forward player C dropping back .
Your argument suggests that you need certain personnel to do this is not quite correct
Carl Spackler
17 Jun 2007, 21:20
The point made was that the ball movement should follow the same lines on most attacks.
Player A has the ball who gives to receiver B who gives to kicker C whose job is to kick it into the forward line based on : Forward player A moving left, Forward player B moving right and Forward player C dropping back .
Your argument suggests that you need certain personnel to do this is not quite correct
Quality forwards present well, provide an option, read the play well, straighten up a team's ball movement and attract/demand the ball.
Mad Dog
17 Jun 2007, 23:42
You're not convinced that Hentschel, Ricciuto, Bode and Burton is a fair slice of our first choice forward line? Stunning.
no - what is stunning is your continued chronic struggle with grasping a point.
sure - some personnel will get the job done better than others.....but what is unnecessary is to throw the gameplan out with the injury list.
If you don't believe me - source a transcript of NC's press conference after the game where he admits (essentially) he should have showed a little more faith.
it's all about
Gameplan
Gameplan
Gameplan
and
State of Mind
State of Mind
State of Mind
Keep up the positive thinking and the Crows will give this flag a shake:thumbsu:
Carl Spackler
19 Jun 2007, 22:01
sure - some personnel will get the job done better than others.....but what is unnecessary is to throw the gameplan out with the injury list.
I don't think there has been any major changes to our game plan this season, beyond some minor tinkering. Do you think that NC wanted us to score less this season? Was his plan to decrease our emphasis on attacking football? Yes, we have scored less this season but I don't believe for a second that it has been part of our planning. I think the games we have struggled in have been due to form and available personnel, nothing more.
If you don't believe me - source a transcript of NC's press conference after the game where he admits (essentially) he should have showed a little more faith.
That's not what I've heard. What I have gathered from Neil Craig's press conferences is that we have been down on our skill level and execution for a couple of weeks. Neil described himself as being in charge of 'quality control' and that there would be an increased focus on our skill and execution under pressure at training. He took responsibility for the standards slipping in this area. He said that when the skill level was down the players would lose confidence, would go into their shell, start hesitating and look for the 'perfect' play all the time and not be prepared to take risks. Hence less quick ball movement and attacking football.
He summarised by saying that whilst the defensive side of our game was at an acceptbale standard, the attacking side wasn't (for the reasons listed above) and we would have to improve in this area. He did not say that our game plan was too defensive. Rather that that particular part of our game plan had fallen away and that steps were being taken to address it.
Lastly, I don't think the Kangaroos game can be used as evidence that we have successfully employed a more attacking brand of football. We absolutely own the Kangaroos and have not lost against them for years. Also we were never behind/under pressure at any stage in the game so never had to use the chipping sideways tempo football to change the flow. If we see the direct, long kicking, higher scoring style against West Coast and Hawthorn in our next two games then we can draw the conclusion that our skills and attacking football have improved.
jenny61_99
19 Jun 2007, 23:35
I don't think there has been any major changes to our game plan this season, beyond some minor tinkering. Do you think that NC wanted us to score less this season? Was his plan to decrease our emphasis on attacking football? Yes, we have scored less this season but I don't believe for a second that it has been part of our planning. I think the games we have struggled in have been due to form and available personnel, nothing more.
That's not what I've heard. What I have gathered from Neil Craig's press conferences is that we have been down on our skill level and execution for a couple of weeks. Neil described himself as being in charge of 'quality control' and that there would be an increased focus on our skill and execution under pressure at training. He took responsibility for the standards slipping in this area. He said that when the skill level was down the players would lose confidence, would go into their shell, start hesitating and look for the 'perfect' play all the time and not be prepared to take risks. Hence less quick ball movement and attacking football.
He summarised by saying that whilst the defensive side of our game was at an acceptbale standard, the attacking side wasn't (for the reasons listed above) and we would have to improve in this area. He did not say that our game plan was too defensive. Rather that that particular part of our game plan had fallen away and that steps were being taken to address it.
Lastly, I don't think the Kangaroos game can be used as evidence that we have successfully employed a more attacking brand of football. We absolutely own the Kangaroos and have not lost against them for years. Also we were never behind/under pressure at any stage in the game so never had to use the chipping sideways tempo football to change the flow. If we see the direct, long kicking, higher scoring style against West Coast and Hawthorn in our next two games then we can draw the conclusion that our skills and attacking football have improved.
:thumbsu: Good post!
Lastly, I don't think the Kangaroos game can be used as evidence that we have successfully employed a more attacking brand of football. We absolutely own the Kangaroos and have not lost against them for years.
Funny how things go round in circles.
Our '98 Grand Final victory was the first time we'd beaten North in ages, following 5 consecutive losses (we also lost the next 3 consecutive games against them as well).
As it stands, we haven't lost to them since Craig took over as coach (though we lost the last two against them under Ayres).
The record now stands at 14 wins each.