Brad Scott can you please concede that your gameplan is crap!

[Tas]

Lets be frank, we look like millionaires when it comes off, but we look absolutely shithouse when it breaks down (50% of the Essendon match).

Personally, after two seasons, I gave him until this mid season to get it right. He looks like he might achieve that deadline.

I have never been a fan of using entire seasons as experimental football laborotories, nor have I ever really witnessed that kind of thing before in all my years following North.

If it gets us to deep September, then I will be the first to applaud him.

This sounds like 'I made a bad call but don't want to admit it' post.

Every time something doesn't work you have to experiment with different things until you find things that do work, we have never reached the state of perfection in which we haven't needed to experiment.

I think our game fell apart vs the bombers because we couldn't get our hands on the ball for two quarters. Part of the problem was our ruck structure was putrid round 1. We had 30 hitouts vs 44, we had 26 clearances vs 40, 130 contested possessions vs 155. We were soundly beaten at getting the ball.

Ziebell was a massive out, a bigger blow than any peanut they had missing. We still need to win the ball for this style of footy to work, while some of our mids did okay, none of them really had stand out performances.

We didn't work hard enough, 338 disposals is low for our style of football. 505 vs GWS is ridiculously high, we probably wont achieve that many times. 385 we got vs Geelong is closer to the mark, that is factoring we fell asleep in the last quarter somewhat, so we should be averaging around the 400ish mark if we handball a lot because many of them are just disposals to get around someone zoning or pressing which generate more disposals than a long kick.

When we pull off this style of play we are in possession of the ball for a big chunk of games and the ball in in attacking half a lot more than it is in our defensive half. We are so far averaging 21 goals a game with 16 goal assists, our average last year was 14 goals and 9 assists, this style is encouraging the mids to run and carry and be aggressive. Even if we don't play like that all the time or every week, getting scoring power out of Swallow, Ziebell, Bastinac, Wells, Harvey, Adams and Harper shows these guys what they are capable of as offensive players.

Once they believe and have the confidence then that is a big part of the journey.

 

[Old Skool]

This sounds like 'I made a bad call but don't want to admit it' post.

Lordy, the king of pessimism calling me out for having doubts.

I have now officially heard it all.

I gave him until the middle of this year, if you cared to do a skerrick of research. This totals two and a half years of my support champ.

 

[Tas]

Lordy, the king of pessimism calling me out for having doubts.

I have now officially heard it all.

I gave him until the middle of this year, if you cared to do a skerrick of research. This totals two and a half years of my support champ.

You know you are in strife if I am the voice of optimism.

 

[Twinkletoes]

When Tarrant was in the side it appeared we were using the Rucks more to help out in defence with Taz forward.

Against Geelong we had Delaney instead, and he was anchored in defence with the Rucks being used forward.

Much better setup IMO.

As far as multiple game plans go, I wonder if teams will try to go man on man against us. As long as we have players prepared to block and shepherd it should make little difference, but it could be interesting if we are off our game.

You won't have to wait long to see that Husk as Sydney will go man on man this Sunday.

 

[Tas]

You won't have to wait long to see that Husk as Sydney will go man on man this Sunday.

Is the mardi gras on?

 

[Twinkletoes]

Is the mardi gras on?

It'll certainly look like it is once those Swans latch onto our blokes hip to hip for 120 minutes.

 

[Old Skool]

........
Bump!

 

[Elite Master]

Not only the gameplan but the lack of balls at the ****ing selecation table! It was pretty obvious that given the ground and the conditions that going tall wasn't the way to go.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Yeah, if today isn't clear evidence that the 2010 game plan is for the tip I don't know what is.

 

[Passmore]

Wouldn't matter what the game plan is if the players don't fully commit to the contest. A lesson here in not believing what in your own hype.

 

[Old Skool]

Levi and Cruize would have been very, very handy.

We either completely misread the conditions or have halfwits running the football department.

Brad is showing all the inflexible character traits of Dean Laidley.

The grand final is not played at Docklands.

 

[naturally north]

Correct the grand final is played at the MCG, but it's a bit hard to built a game plan around a venue we don't ****ing play on.Just sayin'..

 

[Old Skool]

We have West Coast, Port, Hawthorn, GC and GWS away for the rest of the season. We also get Richmond at the G.

There has to be a minimum 3-3 result from these matches.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Today was a test in work rate and execution under duress. We failed badly.

 

[Groggyk]

Today was a test in work rate and execution under duress. We failed badly.

Yep.

I thought Swallow and Anthony showed the required application and were our only guys to either break even or have a win against their direct opponent.

When Swallow went down, we were effectively ****ed and were very underwhelming as a midfield unit.

Basically we were s**t in every aspect of the game compared to last week.

 

[Old Skool]

Today was a test in work rate and execution under duress. We failed badly.

Their bigger bodies and much better balanced side in the conditions played no small role in the outcome.

There wasn't much we could do about the bigger bodies or conditions, but the selection table let us down badly.

 

[tazaa]

We got beaten by a smarter team. Again.
Similar to the Saints game.
The trend Ive seen is that unless the game is on our terms from the start, then we fail badly.
We dont know how to grind out a win. Winning ugly is part of footy and at the moment its either win well or nothing.
Its all about application and Im positive were on the right track.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Their bigger bodies and much better balanced side in the conditions played no small role in the outcome.

There wasn't much we could do about the bigger bodies or conditions, but the selection table let us down badly.

To be honest I'm not sure what benefit Levi or Cruise would've been in there today. We got enough of the pill, just couldn't use it probably because of the pressure we were put under. Levi ain't the cleanest and Cruize wouldve been beaten up.

We rolled the dice with the two rucks and it failed because it rained and we were woeful in general.

 

[Old Skool]

To be honest I'm not sure what benefit Levi or Cruise would've been in there today. We got enough of the pill, just couldn't use it probably because of the pressure we were put under. Levi ain't the cleanest and Cruize wouldve been beaten up.

We rolled the dice with the two rucks and it failed because it rained and we were woeful in general.

Sydney were harder at the contest and importantly they got more numbers at the contest.

Levi and Cruize have their weaknesses, but certainly not in those categories.

 

[Groggyk]

We over used the ball in the first quarter and our run and carry whilst trying to pinpoint disposal going forward was found wanting under the greasy conditions.

I thought we adjusted and employed a more direct avenue via quick long kicking in the second quarter, but after the non commitment from Flash resulted in the Jetta goal halted our momentum, we went back into our shell and were done from that point on.

It's easy to blame the coach, but ultimately if the players aren't committed, then it matters sfa what happens in the box.

They were up for it, we weren't.

End of.

 

[Roosurgence]

To be honest I'm not sure what benefit Levi or Cruise would've been in there today. We got enough of the pill, just couldn't use it probably because of the pressure we were put under. Levi ain't the cleanest and Cruize wouldve been beaten up.

We rolled the dice with the two rucks and it failed because it rained and we were woeful in general.

Sydney were just cleaner. We contested well, but just weren't as clean in close. I think we either had more contested posession or broke even and more inside 50's.

Sydney executed better as simple as that, we gave up to many easy turnover goals and released the pressure with each stupid one.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

Sydney were just cleaner. We contested well, but just weren't as clean in close. I think we either had more contested posession or broke even and more inside 50's.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics
North Melbourne won the inside 50s 60-57, the clearances 50-44 and had 168 contested possessions to the Swans' 149. 362 to 332 possessions.

Sydney 77% to North 63% disposal effectiveness.

 

[Bigeasy]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics
North Melbourne won the inside 50s 60-57, the clearances 50-44 and had 168 contested possessions to the Swans' 149. 362 to 332 possessions.

Sydney 77% to North 63% disposal effectiveness.

And therein lies the tale. Cruise and Levi would not have helped today. The supporters were frustrated, the players looked frustrated and the coach definitely was frustrated so let's look at the positives like contested possies and inside 50's and move on and improve. It just doesn't happen overnight.

 

[sutcliffe's hotel]

And therein lies the tale. Cruise and Levi would not have helped today. The supporters were frustrated, the players looked frustrated and the coach definitely was frustrated so let's look at the positives like contested possies and inside 50's and move on and improve. It just doesn't happen overnight.

Agree - but against Geelong we were never headed. In this game, realistically we were never in it. Once we conceded that start it just felt like all those games against top sides the last few years.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

Agree - but against Geelong we were never headed. In this game, realistically we were never in it. Once we conceded that start it just felt like all those games against top sides the last few years.

Except we brought it back in the last quarter instead of throwing it away. If we win games by more when we're on top and lose by less when we're not, as well as beating some opponents we've found it hard to beat, that all looks like progress to these tired old eyes.