Sando: where is he at?

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

True, but be honest now, you would have moved Douglas on too.

I would have let him go for nothing in the preseason draft

 

[Damp Squarie]

Sandos lost his marbles making stupid comments like this...

"My message has been 'I don't care if you turn the ball over, but take a risk, play on, try and find a target and if it turns over, it turns over'.
OMG
He may as well endorse a midfielder as a forward line coach with this approach...Oh wait

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Sandos lost his marbles making stupid comments like this...

"My message has been 'I don't care if you turn the ball over, but take a risk, play on, try and find a target and if it turns over, it turns over'.
OMG
He may as well endorse a midfielder as a forward line coach with this approach...Oh wait

IMO yes he needs to promote the team to be brave, attack the game and take risks however the "I don't care if you turn the ball over" could have been thought through and presented differently

 

[Tex200]

IMO yes he needs to promote the team to be brave, attack the game and take risks however the "I don't care if you turn the ball over" could have been thought through and presented differently

There's a growing list of quotes that he could have thought through and presented differently

 

[Cleric]

Im starting to think Sando is out of his depth as an AFL coach.

 

[Rear Admiral]

Maybe I am looking at the term "fitness" in the wrong light. I always seem to equate it only to endurance.
From what Ive seen sofar(T.V perspective) this season, we arent moving well right from the outset. Now surely even the most slobbenly of professional footballers has the fitness base at this time of year to push hard for one single opening quarter? Nope none in this team.
I understand that fatigue impacts skill level but surely this cannot be used as reasoning when considering our movement in first and second quarters?
What comes first the chicken or the egg? Exhaustion from chasing turnovers caused by lack of cohesion and shithouse kicking/decision making or turnovers caused by lack of fitness/fatigue?
Id be more inclined to blame this on either laziness, confusion as to gameplan/structure, or just being an uninspired team low on both football smarts and confidence.
After 10-15 minutes of sustained application in each third quarter played this year, shocking skill level has been the trigger for collapse, so come 4th quarter they just drop heads and long for the shower. This is more mental fitness than anything I reckon.
Same as in Craigs last couple of seasons..I dont know, was fitness an issue under him also?

As to foot speed, I couldnt agree more with the recruitment side of things. Im just not that sure how effectively you can train a drafthorse into sprinter.

Still, even in this day and age, Id back a team of 18 Darren Jarmans or Sam Mitchells over a team of Nathan Vanberlo`s, Lewis Jettas or Brent Stantons any day of the week.

I just fear that as per usual over the years, the coaching staff in all their wisdom will flog this team with even more aerobic fitness base training (as they have meant to have done all pre-season) instead of focusing on short sharp kicking and tackling and goalkicking drills(as they should have done all preseason).


I honestly believe that Sando had part of the winning equation right in the first year, but saw us getting somewhat ragdolled by bigger, more battle hardened teams as being the only difference between us and a flag winning side..
I think his answer was the right one in that he tried to beef up his stocks,but he seemed to do it at the sacrifice of many other areas.
From here, it all went pear shaped when he neglected to realise that the teams he was basing his gameplan on consisted of players ,with whom on average, had a far higher skill level than the team currently under his command.
Once all this was realised,and on the back of a couple of key injury hiccups and a scandal or two, too much time had been lost and from there on in nothing well considered seems to have been put into effect in order to address these major issues, instead only resorting to knee-jerk yet familiar gameplans being handed down to him by Niel Craig/Triggies minions.

Some very valid points, particularly what's bold. But even more so what's in blue.
I think what's happening now isn't that Sando's new high possession, handball and carry gameplan is horrendous....as it can work brilliantly with some teams....it just seems to me that the players on our list just don't have the razor-sharp skills to make it work.

I've read and watched some of the stuff Sando is saying, particularly regarding training drills for skills under pressure and winning contested ball -



But to be honest, I'd like to see that take a back seat to manning up COSNTANTLY, and plain, simple running and chasing. Forget the footy - just concentrate on shutting down opponents if/when we cough the ball up.

Although we're very high in coughing up turnovers, it's the goals we concede from turnovers are what's killing us. Just to show how our lack of footspeed is killing us, in The Advertiser Friday 11th April, they showed turnover-goals stats - we actually concede more goals from turnovers from inside our own Forward 50, compared to when we cough the ball up in our Defensive 50. Normally, you'd think it's the other way around, but not the case. This points to one very simple issue - we can't chase in the open. For me, this is the #1 issue we have to fix.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The handball stuff is pure Geelong.

Both Cameron Ling and Tom Harley use the phrase 'Kamikaze Handball' in their commentary. Clearly it was a tactic Geelong used to clear congestion and cope with defensive football.

Just let the play unfold, back the in-close talent of your players. First give, move it on, something will open up. Unpredictable for the other team. Just initiate play. Don't wait to ask yourself "Should I pass it to him?" - just do it and make it work.

Called Kamikaze because it is chaotic, not safe. For them it worked because they have a group of highly skilled footballers who can get themselves out of a tight spot and have amazing awareness of what is around them.

Trying to do it with telegraphed high, loopy, slow handballs that hit the ground though is taking Kamikaze to the next level. A stupid level.

 

[TheMetricSystem]

I honestly believe that Sando had part of the winning equation right in the first year

Let's be honest with ourselves about 2012. No injuries, excellent fitness base, easy draw, Kurt Tippett and a new coach to add a bit of excitement to the group. All the ingredients for a big lift from 2011.

 

[FR0GGY]

Let's be honest with ourselves about 2012. No injuries, excellent fitness base, easy draw, Kurt Tippett and a new coach to add a bit of excitement to the group. All the ingredients for a big lift from 2011.

Kurt played in 2011

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Kurt played in 2011

And we were super fit in 2011. And we had an easy draw then too.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

In 2012 we played on more than any team.

This is a less risky more effective way of moving the ball quickly than being handball happy

 

[Rear Admiral]

The handball stuff is pure Geelong.

Both Cameron Ling and Tom Harley use the phrase 'Kamikaze Handball' in their commentary. Clearly it was a tactic Geelong used to clear congestion and cope with defensive football.

Just let the play unfold, back the in-close talent of your players. First give, move it on, something will open up. Unpredictable for the other team. Just initiate play. Don't wait to ask yourself "Should I pass it to him?" - just do it and make it work.

Called Kamikaze because it is chaotic, not safe. For them it worked because they have a group of highly skilled footballers who can get themselves out of a tight spot and have amazing awareness of what is around them.

Trying to do it with telegraphed high, loopy, slow handballs that hit the ground though is taking Kamikaze to the next level. A stupid level.

Spot on.

It CAN work....but you need players with a high skill level to make it work, along with a huge aerobic capacity....which clearly we don't have at the moment.

It's not exactly identical to what Craigy tried to implement, but very, very similar. The one drawback to this style of play is that when you handball-and-carry, you have to see much fitter, cos you're carrying the ball the length of the ground, as opposed to kicking it. The real problem is that when you don't score from this style of play, you're burning so many damn petrol tickets, that by 3 Quarter Time, you're completely and utterly stuffed.
If you want to implement this type of gameplan, you need to focus 99.99% of your training on good old fashioned middle-long distance running....laps of the oval, and cut back massively on the weights/power exercises....cos you're planning on "gassing out" your opponents with high mileage running, much more so than long kicks, contested packs, and in-close power running-crumbing and crash & bash. This style of gameplan generally means less contested body-work, but more out in the open running.....cos you're carrying the Pill.

To be perfectly honest, with all the weights, boxing, wrestling, power-emphasis drills Sando has placed in his time at Adelaide....the Crows would be much, much better suited to long kicking, lower mileage running, lots of crashing contested packs, agility, and crumbing. And he keeps talking about wanting to "grind out" lower scoring games?

Unless he's ramped up the running mileage to Neil Craig proportions , I'm struggling to understand why he's implemented this game style. As I said, it can work, but you need to have razor-sharp skills and be aerobic beasts....which Mr. Magoo could tell you we're anything but. That's why when we cough the ball up, we're utterly spent and cannot run back the other way.

 

[Rear Admiral]

In 2012 we played on more than any team.

This is a less risky more effective way of moving the ball quickly than being handball happy

One of the big things that very few coaches and commentators mention is that you're far better off being caught holding the ball, compared to coughing up a handball turnover. When you get caught holding the ball, you slow the game down....give our teammates a chance to man up on their opponents down field....and doesn't let the opposition quickly run off with the ball.
Handballing the ball on to someone in the clear that has a clear advantage - that definitely helps. But just being "handball happy", cos you don't really know what to do with the Pill....that's stupidity. If you've got no options to kick to, keep running with the ball.
You're better off carrying the ball as far as you can, then kick it. But to just run 10-20m and bounce, then bl00dy well HANDBALL it someone next to you who fumbles it and turns it over to the opposition? Ridiculous. All you've done is waste energy for nothing, and this is exactly what the Crows are doing.

 

[Rear Admiral]

In regards to hard calls: let's see what happens this afternoon with selection.

If we bring Jason Porplizia and Brodie Martin back, that won't be a good indication. However, if we bring CEY and promote a rookie fir a couple if under performing senior players, that's a good start at making a few hard calls for the future.

Very good point raised. But you're replacing "o's" with "i's" by mistake .

 

[Rear Admiral]

They weren't really tough calls IMO. Those guys could have maybe squeezed out one more season. We dressed them up as tough calls.

A tough call is moving on a Brent Reilly/David Mackay at 23-24 years of age after deciding they just aren't going to develop into quality senior players.

MacKay should've gone years ago.
Reilly?....should never have been given a Guernsey to begin with. Simple.

Among a range of issues, arguably the biggest on-field problem this club has had for years has been our reluctance to offload players that just aren't up to it. Neil Craig (while a great Coach to begin with) was probably the worst Coach we had, in terms of hanging onto dead wood. By all means give players a fair chance, but once they've shown they just can't cut it, give them an honest handshake and pat on the back, then show them the door. We're not doing this.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

Sando, where is he at?

We will find out a little more after today

 

[Slippery Pete]

They weren't really tough calls IMO. Those guys could have maybe squeezed out one more season. We dressed them up as tough calls.

A tough call is moving on a Brent Reilly/David Mackay at 23-24 years of age after deciding they just aren't going to develop into quality senior players.

Aren't Spriggs/Rahilly/Kingsley all still playing for Geelong??

 

[maxlilly]

Aren't Spriggs/Rahilly/Kingsley all still playing for Geelong??

And also traded their ex captain in Stephen King.
I can only hope we start doing some of these things that Geelong have done

 

[weneverland]

In the past week or so Sando has stated:
I will stick to my beliefs.
The coaches and players are really close and united.
I will show faith in the players.

Now I know we were up against a much weaker opponent but supporters couldn't have asked for much more of a response from the club and Sando. So far at least he seems to have pushed the right buttons. We probably won't know for several weeks, after we have been tested by a more formidable opponent, whether the team have turned the corner.

Is this the path we should be taking for long term success? Are we likely to make the finals? Is this the way to go to challenge for the flag in the next couple of years? Or should we have made wholesale changes and got games into the kids?

I would hate to finish mid table again. I just hope Sando has a strategy that will bring us medium and long term success.

 

[Sanders]

OK here's what I think and have always said (inc 2012)

I don't think Sando is a bad coach at all, I just don't think he is a very good one either. He's middle of the road, a moderate. Nothing really wrong not so much super right either. Much like the club he coaches

The debate polarises into 2 opposing camps

1. Penalties hurt, fair go mate
2. He's a dud

Problem isn't with either view so much its just the need to be one or the other

I reckon its both. That's the problem. The penalties weren't fair on him, it has hurt his chances. But on top of that I don't think he has "it" anyway.

He's an ok coach perhaps given a get out of free card? Dunno but I think we could do worse and better

In many ways he's the perfect vanilla coach for a vanilla club. Unfortunately

 

[Rear Admiral]

In the past week or so Sando has stated:
I will stick to my beliefs.
The coaches and players are really close and united.
I will show faith in the players.

Now I know we were up against a much weaker opponent but supporters couldn't have asked for much more of a response from the club and Sando. So far at least he seems to have pushed the right buttons. We probably won't know for several weeks, after we have been tested by a more formidable opponent, whether the team have turned the corner.

Is this the path we should be taking for long term success? Are we likely to make the finals? Is this the way to go to challenge for the flag in the next couple of years? Or should we have made wholesale changes and got games into the kids?

I would hate to finish mid table again. I just hope Sando has a strategy that will bring us medium and long term success.

Valid post.
I think Sando definitely pushed the right buttons, where we got the desired result....albeit against a mediocre team. But we played well, all the same. Having said that, we seriously need to start playing as many Rookies as possible. Should've started AGES ago. Irrespective of whether or not Sando's coaching is up to scratch, we simply do not have the cattle to make serious inroads in Finals. The likes of Scotty Thompson, Rutten, Reilly, and a couple others will not play in a Premiership side....where every game they play is robbing youngsters of priceless AFL game time.
There were two major concerns for me in that win -
1) MacKay. He actually played really well, and that's what worries me. I'm worried this game will give the Coaching panel false belief into backing him in and keeping him on the list. He may pop up here and there with some top notch games, but his poor performances way, WAY outnumber his good ones. And that's basically the bottom line. We need to look at the bigger picture with this.
2) We played brilliantly and deserved to win. BUT....this was because we sharpened up our skills in the contested clinches....mainly handballs....stopped the fumbles brilliantly. But what I've yet to see is us seriously chasing down opponents out in the open....away from the congestion....and actually CATCH them. For me, this is the real measuring stick. Not just winning in the congestion, which Sando likes to focus on.
Make no mistake, I'm thrilled with the win....but I'll be truly convinced when we can force turnovers....out in the OPEN. Some time back, we played Hawthorn and beat them in contested ball....but we lost the game. We need to be able to chase down teams that carve us up with endless precision kicks to uncontested marks, just like bl00dy Hawthorn.

 

[marshallfender]

OK here's what I think and have always said (inc 2012)

I don't think Sando is a bad coach at all, I just don't think he is a very good one either. He's middle of the road, a moderate. Nothing really wrong not so much super right either. Much like the club he coaches

The debate polarises into 2 opposing camps

1. Penalties hurt, fair go mate
2. He's a dud

Problem isn't with either view so much its just the need to be one or the other

I reckon its both. That's the problem. The penalties weren't fair on him, it has hurt his chances. But on top of that I don't think he has "it" anyway.

He's an ok coach perhaps given a get out of free card? Dunno but I think we could do worse and better

In many ways he's the perfect vanilla coach for a vanilla club. Unfortunately

Can you please explain

 

[Wright Away]

OK here's what I think and have always said (inc 2012)

I don't think Sando is a bad coach at all, I just don't think he is a very good one either. He's middle of the road, a moderate. Nothing really wrong not so much super right either. Much like the club he coaches

The debate polarises into 2 opposing camps

1. Penalties hurt, fair go mate
2. He's a dud

Problem isn't with either view so much its just the need to be one or the other

I reckon its both. That's the problem. The penalties weren't fair on him, it has hurt his chances. But on top of that I don't think he has "it" anyway.

He's an ok coach perhaps given a get out of free card? Dunno but I think we could do worse and better

In many ways he's the perfect vanilla coach for a vanilla club. Unfortunately

I agree with this.

There is a certain edge, nouse, ruthlessness that he lacks. Coaches like Longmire, Clarkson, Thompson, and Lyon have it. I think Nathan Bassett has it too from seeing what he did at Norwood. I also think Bassett knows how to implement a system and have everyone follow it.

 

[Mattrox]

Valid post.
I think Sando definitely pushed the right buttons, where we got the desired result....albeit against a mediocre team. But we played well, all the same. Having said that, we seriously need to start playing as many Rookies as possible. Should've started AGES ago. Irrespective of whether or not Sando's coaching is up to scratch, we simply do not have the cattle to make serious inroads in Finals. The likes of Scotty Thompson, Rutten, Reilly, and a couple others will not play in a Premiership side....where every game they play is robbing youngsters of priceless AFL game time.
There were two major concerns for me in that win -
1) MacKay. He actually played really well, and that's what worries me. I'm worried this game will give the Coaching panel false belief into backing him in and keeping him on the list. He may pop up here and there with some top notch games, but his poor performances way, WAY outnumber his good ones. And that's basically the bottom line. We need to look at the bigger picture with this.
2) We played brilliantly and deserved to win. BUT....this was because we sharpened up our skills in the contested clinches....mainly handballs....stopped the fumbles brilliantly. But what I've yet to see is us seriously chasing down opponents out in the open....away from the congestion....and actually CATCH them. For me, this is the real measuring stick. Not just winning in the congestion, which Sando likes to focus on.
Make no mistake, I'm thrilled with the win....but I'll be truly convinced when we can force turnovers....out in the OPEN. Some time back, we played Hawthorn and beat them in contested ball....but we lost the game. We need to be able to chase down teams that carve us up with endless precision kicks to uncontested marks, just like bl00dy Hawthorn.

Youngsters/inexperienced players played this year.

Promising
Brad Crouch 16
Sam Kerridge 16
Mitch Grigg 8
Matt Crouch 2
Kyle Hartgan 5
Laird 20

Depth
LJ 8
Shaw 18
Martin 20
Lyons 13

I arbitrarily drew the line at 20 games.

3 players under 10 games is good IMO. As some of the promising players push past 20 - 25 games we'll see more debutants.

8 players under 50 games is quite a lot in a single game.

 

[Rear Admiral]

Youngsters/inexperienced players played this year.

Promising
Brad Crouch 16
Sam Kerridge 16
Mitch Grigg 8
Matt Crouch 2
Kyle Hartgan 5
Laird 20

Depth
LJ 8
Shaw 18
Martin 20
Lyons 13

I arbitrarily drew the line at 20 games.

3 players under 10 games is good IMO. As some of the promising players push past 20 - 25 games we'll see more debutants.

8 players under 50 games is quite a lot in a single game.

It's the hanging onto Scott Thompson, Reilly, and Rutten.....that's the real crux of it for me; those guys just cannot cut it, and we need to blood each and every youngster on our list - yesterday.
Sure, Thompson has serious talent inside the stoppages and congestion, but the moment the Pill is out into general field play, forget it. He's got cement boots. What is costing us games, more than anything else, is lack of foot speed.