Maybe Goody didn't make it to highschool..
He went to Unley - I know people taught him there.
I think his weakness was his tactics and ability to adapt. He was very confident in his own approach, but similar to Pyke, appeared to ignore the opposition, conditions, state of the game and current team performance. I like a measured coach, but sometimes you need to play on passion and gut, rather relying on the system. It's a fine line though
Having watched Hinkley go about it for too many years these comments would raise massive alarm bells for me if I was a Crows fan.I'm liking what I've seen of Nicks so far, but I'm not a fan of coaches coming out with statements like this. “seeking out the contest” and “inflicting damage on the opposition”.
It's so 'Hinkley', and just sets the scene for more constant ridicule.
I remember Hinkley saying they wanted the opposition "to s**t themselves" every time they went near the ball...how has that worked our for ya Ken?
“It's a game of errors. It's a game of turnovers,” Nicks said.
Well, no, it's not merely a game of errors and turnovers.
“When you look at a game, if we’re winning the turnover score, it shows that we're winning a lot of contests and that we were playing the game in the positions we want to play the game in.
“If an opposition makes a mistake in their back third, well it's more than likely we're going to punish them on that. Whereas, if we spend the whole time in our back 50 it's hard to score from that area.”......this has got 'no s**t Sherlock' dripping all over it.
I'm hoping there's a strategist coming in to assist.
You're not so your opinion means nothing.
Yeah, I wasn't doing any such thing.
Very true , but it was unsustainable and easily exploited once figured out ( 2006 ) .
I'm liking what I've seen of Nicks so far, but I'm not a fan of coaches coming out with statements like this. “seeking out the contest” and “inflicting damage on the opposition”.
It's so 'Hinkley', and just sets the scene for more constant ridicule.
I remember Hinkley saying they wanted the opposition "to s**t themselves" every time they went near the ball...how has that worked our for ya Ken?
“It's a game of errors. It's a game of turnovers,” Nicks said.
“When you look at a game, if we’re winning the turnover score, it shows that we're winning a lot of contests and that we were playing the game in the positions we want to play the game in.
“If an opposition makes a mistake in their back third, well it's more than likely we're going to punish them on that. Whereas, if we spend the whole time in our back 50 it's hard to score from that area.”......this has got 'no s**t Sherlock' dripping all over it.
I'm hoping there's a strategist coming in to assist.
Easy. There's no hidden meaning. What he said was banal and Hinkley-like. What's there to interpret?
I understood that. The better part of your post was just complaining about his phrasing which is mostly subjective. It was the last bit where you say "I'm hoping there's a strategist coming in to assist". I'm trying to figure out why you think his press conference is somehow an indication of a lack of tactical nous? I would have thought you've heard enough press conferences to know that footy coaches mostly speak in platitudes.
Fair enough, but what he actually said isn't a hackneyed coaches' phrase I've heard in the past. It was though, indeed the bleeding obvious, like saying if we kick more goals than the opposition we'll win. I was expecting something a tad more enlightening.
Had a pretty good record under Blight
