Play Nice Bye bye Brad

[Jack Reacher]

Who did you want in? Daw is under done and Tarrent injured. When you spend the summer planning for 3 talls in the forward line we had to play him. So you wanted Petrie and Currie in the twos? Who plays forward? Petrie had enough runs on the board to let him play his way out of a form slump.

Our players let us down - nothing the coach could have done - nothing would have changed the result at the selection table. You do know 2 of our best 5 are not playing?

So when we win its all because of Scott but when we lose its nothing to do with him.....umm no

 

[Wild Bill]

Err no Wild Bill, I think the fact that you're suggesting the result had 'nothing' to do with Brad Scott at all, makes you sound like the misinformed one.

Have you played or been involved at the highest level?

Sometimes you get out coached - sometimes the players were terrible. Yesterday the players were terrible. Taking the responsibility off what the players did yesterday is naive.

It is easier to blame the coach or umpires instead of the players - whom you have an emotional attachment with. My ten year does the same thing - everyone's fault except the players. They will hopefully grow out of it when they have a better understanding of the game.

Unfortunately not all do......

 

[Jack Reacher]

Have you played or been involved at the highest level?

Sometimes you get out coached - sometimes the players were terrible. Yesterday the players were terrible. Taking the responsibility off what the players did yesterday is naive.

It is easier to blame the coach or umpires instead of the players - whom you have an emotional attachment with. My ten year does the same thing - everyone's fault except the players. They will hopefully grow out of it when they have a better understanding of the game.

Unfortunately not all do......

Like yesterday............

 

[Wild Bill]

So when we win its all because of Scott but when we lose its nothing to do with him.....umm no

Did you watch the game or just look at the result. Cannot remember the last time Harvey made so many mistakes in a game. Brads fault.

Thompson played his worse game in 2 years. Brads fault.

Their mids destroyed us - but Ziebell and Swallows are out injured - brads fault.

Our third tall forward is terrible as our 3rd and 4th best tall are not fit - brads fault.

Roos beat the Swans and you give no credit to brad. Time to ignore.

 

[Wild Bill]

Like yesterday............

You have no idea - buckly did SFA - his good players played well - ours terrible. End of storey. You and my 10 year old have a lot to learn about the game. Stick with me and I will help educate you.

 

[verypoorboy]

Who did you want in? Daw is under done and Tarrent injured. When you spend the summer planning for 3 talls in the forward line we had to play him. So you wanted Petrie and Currie in the twos? Who plays forward? Petrie had enough runs on the board to let him play his way out of a form slump.

Our players let us down - nothing the coach could have done - nothing would have changed the result at the selection table. You do know 2 of our best 5 are not playing?

Okay. Let me break it down for you.
Whether you like it or not, Scott has the biggest influence on the outcome of a match before a single ball is bounced. To suggest he doesn't have anything to do with yesterdays result is bordering on idiotic. ...What is this? ...Amateur hour?
Don't be silly. While the players need to take some of the blame for poor decisions yesterday. Scott is the one that is most at fault. Players are effectively pawns. They can only play to the limitations that are set out by Scott.

 

[apollo_creed]

The most concerning this is we've completely changed our game style and we don't look a better side.
Last years game style was encouraging. We clearly matched it with the best, again and again. Fitness was our only downfall.

Yet for some pathetic reason we've decided to change that style and prefer a horrible defensive strangling style of football which has been exposed twice by good sides.

Why change the ******* game plan?

 

[Flawed Genius]

The most concerning this is we've completely changed our game style and we don't look a better side.

Disagree. Last year's team wouldn't have beaten Port or Sydney. Probably wouldn't have gotten close to the Dogs either.[/quote]

 

[apollo_creed]

Disagree. Last year's team wouldn't have beaten Port or Sydney. Probably wouldn't have gotten close to the Dogs either.

[/quote]
we beat Port and the Dogs last year. We're averaging 44 inside 50's, that is horrendous.

we have been horrible offensively so far this season. terrible to watch and absolutely smashed by essendon and collingwood already.

tell me how many times did we get smashed last season?

 

[Jack Reacher]

You have no idea - buckly did SFA - his good players played well - ours terrible. End of storey. You and my 10 year old have a lot to learn about the game. Stick with me and I will help educate you.

Funniest thing I've heard all year, lol, thus Scott had nothing to do with unmanned Pies players a kick off the ball

 

[Wild Bill]

Funniest thing I've heard all year, lol, thus Scott had nothing to do with unmanned Pies players a kick off the ball

We will play finals this year. Brads fault

 

[Wild Bill]

Okay. Let me break it down for you.
Whether you like it or not, Scott has the biggest influence on the outcome of a match before a single ball is bounced. To suggest he doesn't have anything to do with yesterdays result is bordering on idiotic. ...What is this? ...Amateur hour?
Don't be silly. While the players need to take some of the blame for poor decisions yesterday. Scott is the one that is most at fault. Players are effectively pawns. They can only play to the limitations that are set out by Scott.

All those woeful turn overs is on the players.

 

[Jack Reacher]

Deflect deflect deflectlol

 

[Bigeasy]

We got smashed on the ground. 7 of their 1st 9 goals were from our direct turnovers. That is not on Scot. Our ball use was atrocious.

Not much flexibility in our game plan. The coach didn't try anything.

Sent from my waffle machine using Tapatalk.

 

[verypoorboy]

All those woeful turn overs is on the players.

Wow.
Everyone on here, even those who blame mainly the players can still seem to acknowledge that even a fraction of the loss yesterday came down to coaching.
But tell me. Are you really that arrogant and self-absorbed in your own mindset that you can't open up to the possibility that the coach had even a tiny effect on the outcome of yesterdays game? That he even influenced it 0.01%? Not even a teeny tiny chance?
Are you telling me you are that delusional?

 

[ChopChopDigDig]

we beat Port and the Dogs last year. We're averaging 44 inside 50's, that is horrendous.

we have been horrible offensively so far this season. terrible to watch and absolutely smashed by essendon and collingwood already.

tell me how many times did we get smashed last season?

We got port in Tassie last year and arguably they would have run over us without a few free kicks going our way. The dogs are also a much better team this season.

I agree with Flawed Genius, recon we would have lost to both those teams with last years plan. Our game plan is still evolving, the skills are letting us down and when the pressure is on we panic. The weather made last weeks win flattering as we smashed the swans in contested ball, but this week our skills and lack of intensity hurt us BADLY.

In saying that, I recon the Currie selection was a poor one. Collingwood traditionally have fast backs/flankers, and they just strolled our of our forward defense way too easily. A small forward such as Nahas would have helped IMO

 

[GarnerSmash]

Not much flexibility in our game plan. The coach didn't try anything.

Sent from my waffle machine using Tapatalk.

No there's not, but by necessity.

We know that they are trying to stick to a new structure which has proved effective defensively so far this year so that we don't get reamed on the rebound like we did last year. This requires the players to maintain intensity and effort for 100% of the game because of the reliance on winning the contests that this game style requires. Unfortunately when the intensity drops off we look horrid as there is no sexy, attacking aspect to fall back on. However, even if we did get the players to through the game plan out the window and attack we would likely have been reamed even more as they were 'on' and we were obviously not.

I am frustrated that one of the best attacking teams that we have ever had is being made to play this way and I would like to see more attack incorporated into the style of play, but not at the expense of our improved defensive capabilities. I for one am sick of losing games by under 10 points.

 

[naturally north]

VPB - I don't think 0.01% would be much of an influence, Wild Bill is correct on this one.

It wasn't the coaches fault, more a mix of sloppy skills and injuries.

I still can't work out how we lost by so little? That must be a positive?

 

[verypoorboy]

VPB - I don't think 0.01% would be much of an influence, Wild Bill is correct on this one.

It wasn't the coaches fault, more a mix of sloppy skills and injuries.

I still can't work out how we lost by so little? That must be a positive?

No he is not. He is saying that Scott as an AFL coach had zero influence on yesterdays match. Zero

 

[GarnerSmash]

VPB - I don't think 0.01% would be much of an influence, Wild Bill is correct on this one.

It wasn't the coaches fault, more a mix of sloppy skills and injuries.

I still can't work out how we lost by so little? That must be a positive?

New defensive structures. Even when we are off they work reasonably well.

Problem is we still can't attack properly so when we are off we look like s**t.

 

[apollo_creed]

No there's not, but by necessity.

We know that they are trying to stick to a new structure which has proved effective defensively so far this year so that we don't get reamed on the rebound like we did last year. This requires the players to maintain intensity and effort for 100% of the game because of the reliance on winning the contests that this game style requires. Unfortunately when the intensity drops off we look horrid as there is no sexy, attacking aspect to fall back on. However, even if we did get the players to through the game plan out the window and attack we would likely have been reamed even more as they were 'on' and we were obviously not.

I am frustrated that one of the best attacking teams that we have ever had is being made to play this way and I would like to see more attack incorporated into the style of play, but not at the expense of our improved defensive capabilities. I for one am sick of losing games by under 10 points.

6 goal losses and going inside 50 40 times is so much more enjoyable

 

[GarnerSmash]

6 goal losses and going inside 50 40 times is so much more enjoyable

They are s**t.

But I'd appreciate a heads up of a time where a team has implemented a much needed new set up and nailed it perfectly.

 

[Elite Master]

Currie is not AFL standard but I can understand Scott's view in bringing him in to help Goldstein out, just like I could understand he dropping him for a small in Nahas last week in the wet. Petrie is no 2nd ruck and is horribly out of form himself, Goldy also can't be expected to do it alone as has been proven many many times when he gets tired, and with other options like Brown, Daw and tarrent unavailable, I can see why he gave Currie another opportunity despite how unconvincing he has been.

 

[dus]

Currie is not AFL standard but I can understand Scott's view in bringing him in to help Goldstein out, just like I could understand he dropping him for a small in Nahas last week in the wet. Petrie is no 2nd ruck and is horribly out of form himself, Goldy also can't be expected to do it alone as has been proven many many times when he gets tired, and with other options like Brown, Daw and tarrent unavailable, I can see why he gave Currie another opportunity despite how unconvincing he has been.

Exactly.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

Look it is not BS fault that the players turned it over and Collingwood's first 40 points were from out turnovers.

What is is the selection of Currie and Petrie creating 2 statues for wasted inside 50s and easy rebounds.