Don Pyke: The Next Blight or Neil Craig?

[Southerntakeover]

Mackay didn't play a game in his Year 1. Sloane who was drafted a year overage played one.

A planned introduction of young players is sensible and something we've rarely done.

I would have liked to have seen Milera play again in the back half of the season, until I saw him play at SANFL and he looked done.

8 games Year 1, double that Year 2, ready for 22 games with three preseasons behind him Year 3 - a plan stuck to irrespective of team results, form, opposition match ups etc would be gold and a welcome sea change for the club.

'A planned introduction' now meaning that we should go slow with player development. Let's not rush them you say. That's the precise opposite of what you've previously argued, when you correctly suggested that our failure to meaningfully back in our younger players had a negative impact.

 

[Iron]

Well, when you're comparing 2 coaches, you're going to be looking for similarities and also for differences. I'm unaware of another way to run a comparison. Keen to be enlightened on that. As for Simpson, it's very hard to comment, I don't watch anywhere near enough Eagles games.

Have you watched Simpson's demeanour in press conferences? They could be brothers.

Gameday related, Simpson has attracted cricitism for backing in players in poor form, to a fault. So did Pyke pick this trait up from Simpson or Craig?

I just don't see why his having worked under Craig for 2 years means they're clones, when the evidence is pretty flimsy. Lots of coaches make mistakes like the ones Pyke has this year. Especially new coaches. So other than the 2 years, what reason is there to assume they're the same? As I said, romanticism.

Craig didn't adapt when his means we're proven ineffective. Maybe others would disagree but that was his main fault in my opinion. Stubborn as all get out. But initially he was fantastic, and had a few bad games and a few badly timed injuries that stopped him from being a premiership coach. I don't think that's a fair criticism to make of Pyke given he's had 1 year to look at the squad, with what can only have been a limited role behind the scenes in the 2016 off season.

That's all. Idiotic and delusional? Unnecessary btw. We've all got different perspectives here and we're dealing with the same facts.

 

[Sanders]

I just don't see why his having worked under Craig for 2 years means they're clones, when the evidence is pretty flimsy.

I don't think anyone has said they are clones, and equally I don't think the evidence of similarities is flimsy either

 

[Iron]

I don't think anyone has said they are clones, and equally I don't think the evidence of similarities is flimsy either

But the thread is literally asking if Pyke is the next Craig. Or Blight. And I don't see many people expecting him to set fire to the older end of our list like Blight did.

So is that not the point that people are trying to make?

 

[Sanders]

But the thread is literally asking if Pyke is the next Craig. Or Blight. And I don't see many people expecting him to set fire to the older end of our list like Blight did.

So is that not the point that people are trying to make?

The point quite clearly is that Blight and Craig were polar opposites and the question is who do you think Pyle will most resemble?

Particularly as there is a sense that a certain Blight style incineration is needed on some levels

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

'A planned introduction' now meaning that we should go slow with player development. Let's not rush them you say. That's the precise opposite of what you've previously argued, when you correctly suggested that our failure to meaningfully back in our younger players had a negative impact.

No it isn't. I've never expected our first year draftees to get 22 games instantly. Jarryd Lyons taking six seasons to reach 50 games is at the other end of the scale. Somewhere in between would be nice

 

[Iron]

The point quite clearly is that Blight and Craig were polar opposites and the question is who do you think Pyle will most resemble?

Particularly as there is a sense that a certain Blight style incineration is needed on some levels

Must be reading a different thread to you. I don't see an implied scale of blightiness v craiginess. Especially not with that thread title. Seemed to me the question was being posed that at this point in time, which path with Pyke take? ...to become the next Craig or Blight.

Anyway this thread got fun! Let's move on.

 

[Southerntakeover]

No it isn't. I've never expected our first year draftees to get 22 games instantly. Jarryd Lyons taking six seasons to reach 50 games is at the other end of the scale. Somewhere in between would be nice

No one's advocating for 22 games for youngsters though. Milera is an example of the change of our approach, because there was a clear intention to promote him and develop him (even if not 'best 22'), and that is a clear contrast to the selection policy once we declared ourselves contenders.

Even if we decided it wasnt in Milera's interest to play, we didnt adopt a similar approach to any other players. We notably retreated back into the 'senior players are best' approach.

Are we really suggesting that anything could possibly have been lost by giving Harry Dear a game against Essendon for example? (NB, that actually hurt us on the season, as i'd argue not having blooded him earlier in the season hampered our ability to not play an obviously injured Jenkins. Wigg not up to it?

Analysis of policy isnt something that should be turned on and off based upon whether you like the coach.

 

[Sanders]

I think the question of how much and how early we should be introducing our young players is a bit of a furphy

The answer is clearly a lot; but that's not my point

Take Blight (on topic) and Longmire on the weekend.

Neither has any fear of young players because it doesn't matter, they don't make the difference.

What makes the difference is the high end talent, the top 10 or so. They provide the quality, they are the difference between winning and losing

Roo said before the match we'd win because Sydney fell off too much after their top 10.

Which explains our failed mindset all the way back to Craig (also on topic), which is that you don't need top talent you need an even spread.

Phooey.

Our even spread in the middle is important because we lack talent, which in turns limits our willingness to try and develop young players

It's an invidious position.

You can blood more young talent the more high end talent you have to carry the load.

We've gotten it wrong for too many years now. The slow and steady even spread can work in the regular season but when the speed and pressure gets dialed up? No way

And paradoxically our system that militates against baptisms of fire for young blokes means we struggle to develop top end talent

Round and round it goes.

To the trade trade table Batman. Need some ZAP & KAPOW!

 

[Southerntakeover]

Isnt the point that prioritising young players will have one of two effects:

1) those players develop/stand up and you might increase team quality, or;

2) Those players do not, and you're more likely to access premium talent in the draft.

Strategically, absolutely nothing can be gained by persisting with mediocre teams. You can't win the premiership with them, and you won't get close enough to the talent in the draft to get out of that pattern.

 

[Sanders]

Strategically, absolutely nothing can be gained by persisting with mediocre teams.

Depends on what your strategy is?

If it's to keep memberships humming with just enough hope for fans and sponsors...

 

[adelaidecrows]

Why is Ayres, Cornes, Shaw, Bickley, Campo, Walsh and Sanderson excluded from this thread. I can see a lot of shaw and bickley in Campo who reminded me of Sanderson who reminded me of Cornes which funnily enough i see as Pyke.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Depends on what your strategy is?

If it's to keep memberships humming with just enough hope for fans and sponsors...

Precisely.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

No one's advocating for 22 games for youngsters though. Milera is an example of the change of our approach, because there was a clear intention to promote him and develop him (even if not 'best 22'), and that is a clear contrast to the selection policy once we declared ourselves contenders.

Even if we decided it wasnt in Milera's interest to play, we didnt adopt a similar approach to any other players. We notably retreated back into the 'senior players are best' approach.

Are we really suggesting that anything could possibly have been lost by giving Harry Dear a game against Essendon for example? (NB, that actually hurt us on the season, as i'd argue not having blooded him earlier in the season hampered our ability to not play an obviously injured Jenkins. Wigg not up to it?

Analysis of policy isnt something that should be turned on and off based upon whether you like the coach.

Definitely right that even whilst having a crack at the top two there were a couple of opportunities to give Dear or Doedee or someone else a game or two without upsetting the apple cart and it's disappointing that we didn't. Still, it was a couple of games. Not multiple positions across multiple rounds in season after season like previously. It's easy to carry over the frustrations from previous seasons.

I found as the season wore on my weekly Thursday night vent (Mackay again) ran out of steam. Eventually it dawned on me that this was the team. We had the most predictable selection nights in club history. Everyone was correctly calling the changes within minutes of the previous game finishing. Only forced changes and almost always like for like.

So I started wondering what it meant. He's a smart bloke. He's not a broken down Craig turned looney tunes by cruel finals defeats. He's not a Sando wavering from one whim to the next. He's not Campo yelling down the phone at Dangerfield or putting a line through a bloke for a trampoline injury. He's a smart, calculating bloke who has known mostly success inside and outside of football.

So what was the deal? Thommo, Dougie and Mackay's selection continued unfettered despite average form and our reserves doing well which was frustrating. On the flip side he sat through some mediocre football from Cameron, Atkins, McGovern and Lever at times this season without dropping them a single time. Henderson and van Berlo all but disappeared. We got some of what we wished for, just not all that we wished for.

Games are won and lost in the midfield and we've done alright with a fairly ordinary one which goes against the grain. There's something he's doing worth continuing. Personnel-wise, he looks to me like someone with a clear plan. Much more patient than I am. Not chopping and changing. Methodically bedding down our game plan, allowing the first choice personnel to play full seasons so that they can be judged on their merits.

Or this is all wishful thinking. There is no plan in place. It's best 22 all the way. We'll play the same team next season, he's Craig to the MAX and we'll see Thompson, Douglas and Mackay outlive him at the club.

 

[maxlilly]

With a low amount of injuries, we played only 27-20 players for the whole year.
I thought being a new coach, Pyke may have wanted to look at a few more players to see what they have to offer.
I wonder what he will do next year, does he pick his best 25-27 players again and stick with them or do you give the fringe players a go and see what they have to offer and run 33-35 players through out the year ?
I think not giving more young guys a go earlier in the year hurt when we had injuried and sore players come finals time.
I think Pykes first real test will be if Thommo goes around again or if Pyke lets him go.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Definitely right that even whilst having a crack at the top two there were a couple of opportunities to give Dear or Doedee or someone else a game or two without upsetting the apple cart and it's disappointing that we didn't. Still, it was a couple of games. Not multiple positions across multiple rounds in season after season like previously. It's easy to carry over the frustrations from previous seasons.

I found as the season wore on my weekly Thursday night vent (Mackay again) ran out of steam. Eventually it dawned on me that this was the team. We had the most predictable selection nights in club history. Everyone was correctly calling the changes within minutes of the previous game finishing. Only forced changes and almost always like for like.

So I started wondering what it meant. He's a smart bloke. He's not a broken down Craig turned looney tunes by cruel finals defeats. He's not a Sando wavering from one whim to the next. He's not Campo yelling down the phone at Dangerfield or putting a line through a bloke for a trampoline injury. He's a smart, calculating bloke who has known mostly success inside and outside of football.

So what was the deal? Thommo, Dougie and Mackay's selection continued unfettered despite average form and our reserves doing well which was frustrating. On the flip side he sat through some mediocre football from Cameron, Atkins, McGovern and Lever at times this season without dropping them a single time. Henderson and van Berlo all but disappeared. We got some of what we wished for, just not all that we wished for.

Games are won and lost in the midfield and we've done alright with a fairly ordinary one which goes against the grain. There's something he's doing worth continuing. Personnel-wise, he looks to me like someone with a clear plan. Much more patient than I am. Not chopping and changing. Methodically bedding down our game plan, allowing the first choice personnel to play full seasons so that they can be judged on their merits.

Or this is all wishful thinking. There is no plan in place. It's best 22 all the way. We'll play the same team next season, he's Craig to the MAX and we'll see Thompson, Douglas and Mackay outlive him at the club.

I don't think it's ever sensible to begin with the conclusion and try to reverse engineer your way towards a justification.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I don't think it's ever sensible to begin with the conclusion and try to reverse engineer your way towards a justification.

If you're just upset about two games midseason it's hardly worth it

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

With a low amount of injuries, we played only 27-20 players for the whole year.
I thought being a new coach, Pyke may have wanted to look at a few more players to see what they have to offer.
I wonder what he will do next year, does he pick his best 25-27 players again and stick with them or do you give the fringe players a go and see what they have to offer and run 33-35 players through out the year ?
I think not giving more young guys a go earlier in the year hurt when we had injuried and sore players come finals time.
I think Pykes first real test will be if Thommo goes around again or if Pyke lets him go.

Under Sando we had a dream injury run one season and somehow used about 38 players. This was because we gave a whole bunch of guys 1-5 games to keep everyone happy.

 

[maxlilly]

Under Sando we had a dream injury run one season and somehow used about 38 players. This was because we gave a whole bunch of guys 1-5 games to keep everyone happy.

38 players is a lot and probably too many.
But at least you are able to make decision on players if they have had a few games and seen if they can perform or not perform, especially if they are the younger guys.

 

[hippyhippy]

At this stage.. no premiership first season so more like craig. The question becomes... how many finals campaigns can u run before your expiry date ... like ross lyons?

My main critisms would have to be playing thommo far too much this season. There were many games we could have blooded the likes of wigg and dodoe. Could have rested more players.

Also pykes inability to be competitive with geelongs gameplan... sorta shows hes a bit rigid in the gameplan like craig. Blight would have changed things up... give the opposition coach something to think about.

 

[Southerntakeover]

If you're just upset about two games midseason it's hardly worth it

Yeah, that's absolutely the sum total of the issue.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Yeah, that's absolutely the sum total of the issue.

Yeah look, Don. You might have your own way of doing things but we're simmering away from nearly two decades of frustration so can you swing the axe already

 

[Southerntakeover]

Yeah look, Don. You might have your own way of doing things but we're simmering away from nearly two decades of frustration so can you swing the axe already

'Hi Don, you're doing the exact same thing that I criticised before, but I just can't stay mad at you so I'll praise it instead'.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

'Hi Don, you're doing the exact same thing that I criticised before, but I just can't stay mad at you so I'll praise it instead'.

Hi Don, you're less than 12 months in to your role. Here's a breakdown of all the list management errors you've made.

 

[TrainRoo32]

Hi Don, you're less than 12 months in to your role. Here's a breakdown of all the list management errors you've made.

Come on, not many coaches walk into a football club with the same Goodwill given to them by the supporters and the admin! (Granted due to the unfortunate realities of last year)
He could have easily picked his own team and would have been under no pressure for finals or anything so long as he outlined a mid term plan!
Now he really must show something or risk being another could have coach!