Past Coach NMFC Senior Coach - David Noble has parted ways with NMFC

[LB2Snake]

Some good posts in here this morning. Lots to like.

 

[Chadwiko]

Why can't it be personnel AND gameplan?

Because you can't have one without the other.

Yes, that's an over-simplification, but that's the crux of my whole point.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I have a lot of respect for Rick, his blog and his posting.

But it's not like my side of the fence is on its lonesome - both Lyon and Dunstall were ripping into our forward structures and ball movement, it's been pointed out by numerous commentators previously, and I reckon there's a fair representation of equally astute people here who have also noticed it, or who are starting to.

1) Rick is an adult who is open to adult debate on his views.
2) Watch out for impostors who hijack his views in order to shoehorn imprimatur for their own horse s**t. It's a classical postmodernist arts degree stunt.

 

[Themanbun]

Because you can't have one without the other.

Yes, that's an over-commercialised, but that's the crux of my whole point.

So if we have Harry McKay and Charlie Cameron in the side, how do they lead at the ball carrier on a fast corridor break when they're busting their gut trying to outrun fast ball movement from their zone starting point of CHB?

 

[Ry009]

Our forward line structure needs a lot of work, no doubt. I would hope we have our eye on some KPF in the next draft, and try and nab someone decent elsewhere to help Souv and Cam. Because they won't be able to do it on their own.

With that being said, some of the complaints about the list and club as a whole have lacked fair bit of perspective in the past few months.

 

[King Corey]

ALL THESE IDIOTS WHO ARE BAGGING OUT NOBLE ON HERE AND SOCIAL MEDIA HAVE FRICKEN LOST THE PLOT EOS.

Name them.

I'm seeing discussion of his approach. If that's too vigorous for anyone then avoid the discussion rather than issue generic cheerleading emotive statements.

 

[Snake_Baker]

So if we have Harry McKay and Charlie Cameron in the side, how do they lead at the ball carrier on a fast corridor break when they're busting their gut trying to outrun fast ball movement from their zone starting point of CHB?

Good question

I suspect it requires Clarkson zig zag style foot skills to maintain possession and hope that an opening appears upfield.

Chris Scott's current Geelong game plan isn't that much different either.

Personally, I reckon it's an eye sore.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Our forward line structure needs a lot of work, no doubt. I would hope we have our eye on some KPF in the next draft, and try and nab someone decent elsewhere to help Souv and Cam. Because they won't be able to do it on their own.

With that being said, some of the complaints about the list and club as a whole have lacked fair bit of perspective in the past few months.

Are you certain that Noble would play a quality CHF even if he had one?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Watch out for impostors who hijack his views in order to shoehorn imprimatur for their own horse sh*t.

...followed by.

It's a classical postmodernist arts degree stunt.

You're actually demented. Your brain is damaged.

 

[Themanbun]

I suspect it requires Clarkson zig zag style foot skills to maintain possession and hope that an opening appears upfield.

That's my conclusion as well. We have to consciously slow up the play and retain possession, to give time for us to roll forward and re-establish leads.

My main concern is that it nullifies the best benefit of going through the corridor, being fast ball movements to one on ones ahead of the ball. We're taking on all the risk of biting off the inside pass and perhaps missing out on the best reward for doing so.

It's why we see a lot of guys steaming towards goal away from the ball carrier and IMO actually invites pressure, indecision and eventually turnovers.

 

[Snake_Baker]

That's my conclusion as well. We have to consciously slow up the play and retain possession, to give time for us to roll forward and re-establish leads.

My main concern is that it nullifies the best benefit of going through the corridor, being fast ball movements to one on ones ahead of the ball. We're taking on all the risk of biting off the inside pass and perhaps missing out on the best reward for doing so.

It's why we see a lot of guys steaming towards goal away from the ball carrier and IMO actually invites pressure, indecision and eventually turnovers.

I don't like it, and I don't think it's exciting to watch.

IMO, it's a "safe" game plan, and as Chris Scott AND Clarkson have shown with their list strategies, it requires senior experienced players, so what North is currently attempting to achieve defies logic.

 

[Chadwiko]

I do enjoy discussing football perspectives and analysis. However...

Watch out for impostors who hijack his views in order to shoehorn imprimatur for their own horse sh*t. It's a classical postmodernist arts degree stunt.

... when this dribble is the basis from where you're starting, there really isn't much point attempting to engage in good faith.

I'd happily talk at length about how I believe Larkey is consistently out of position and how comments from Noble have subtly alluded to the same thing.

Unfortunately, it's as if your brain has inhaled too many meth-lab fumes or something, because the mental gymnastics you perform to suit your own agenda are bewildering and non-sensical.

 

[Themanbun]

Stuff it. Just a few exhibits from the match.

Exhibit A: pretend this isn't Cam Zurhaar and another medium North tall contesting here. In this image we have just won a contest in St Kilda's attacking half and are trying to rebound. So, pretend it's a jet of a KPF and a lightning quick small forward. If we win this contest, in which we're outnumbered to begin with - who do they kick to? They are the two North players furthest forward of the ball. They'll have to slow it up and wait for someone to stream forward.



Exhibit B: About a second after this frame as St Kilda start moving forward, Larkey (top left of the image) starts running as hard as he can to CHB. He consciously makes a decision to do this, which I can only imagine is instruction. If we do manage to force a turnover, who is going to present to allow us to start going forward?



Exhibit C: Thanks to Tom Powell, we won a contest about 40m out from St Kilda goals, and we start moving toward the left of screen. Tom handballs off to LDU who bites off a fantastic corridor kick. Larkey marks. He can't kick it to Zurhaar at the bottom of the screen, because Zurhaar has to steam forward to provide a presence in our 50 and structure up there. So he has to hold play up a tad to allow us to roll forward.



Who are his options in sight? He chooses and successfully hits Taylor Garner, who is actually leading away from the ball carrier, probably no more than 20m away. He could have hit whoever the blur is at the bottom of the screen, but that's where our structure invites indecision and causes turnovers. There is not a single player leading at him and demanding the ball in a lane. Not one. They're all heading back towards the goals to re-establish a structure.



Personnel alone is not going to fix this, IMO. I don't have access to scores from opposition turnovers but my guess is we'll be dead last, or thereabouts. We look much better coming off a centre clearance with the 6-6-6 rule mandating forward structure.

 

[Merlin007]

Stuff it. Just a few exhibits from the match.

Exhibit A: pretend this isn't Cam Zurhaar and another medium North tall contesting here. In this image we have just won a contest in St Kilda's attacking half and are trying to rebound. So, pretend it's a jet of a KPF and a lightning quick small forward. If we win this contest, in which we're outnumbered to begin with - who do they kick to? They are the two North players furthest forward of the ball. They'll have to slow it up and wait for someone to stream forward.

View attachment 1141170

Exhibit B: About a second after this frame as St Kilda start moving forward, Larkey (top left of the image) starts running as hard as he can to CHB. He consciously makes a decision to do this, which I can only imagine is instruction. If we do manage to force a turnover, who is going to present to allow us to start going forward?

View attachment 1141172

Exhibit C: Thanks to Tom Powell, we won a contest about 40m out from St Kilda goals, and we start moving toward the left of screen. Tom handballs off to LDU who bites off a fantastic corridor kick. Larkey marks. He can't kick it to Zurhaar at the bottom of the screen, because Zurhaar as to steam forward to provide a presence in our 50 and structure up there. So he has to hold play up a tad to allow us to roll forward.

View attachment 1141175

Who are his options in sight? He chooses and successfully hits Taylor Garner, who is actually leading away from the ball carrier, probably no more than 20m away. He could have hit whoever the blur is at the bottom of the screen, but that's where our structure invites indecision and causes turnovers. There is not a single player leading at him and demanding the ball in a lane. Not one. They're all heading back towards the goals to re-establish a structure.

View attachment 1141178

Personnel alone is not going to fix this, IMO. I don't have access to scores from opposition turnovers but my guess is we'll be dead last, or thereabouts. We look much better coming off a centre clearance with the 6-6-6 rule mandating forward structure.

I respect your frustration and the effort that's gone into the analysis, but the day of the stay at home forward seems to have passed. The gameplan would look a bit better with the likes of Stephenson instead of (for example) a journeyman like Young

 

[Themanbun]

I respect your frustration and the effort that's gone into the analysis, but the day of the stay at home forward seems to have passed. The gameplan would look a bit better with the likes of Stephenson instead of (for example) a journeyman like Young

Stay at home is unnecessary, and is not what I suggest the solution is. But a full 18 man press all the way to CHB coupled with a risky corridor-first game plan? Suicidal. I think it's now Lyon, Dunstall, Riewoldt and Brereton who have pointed this out. They watch enough footy to know it's unusual even in the modern age, and most of those blokes understand how important KPF positioning is to maintaining structure and allowing transition.

The difference of having a key forward at about the centre circle, and another slightly, (even just 20m) closer to goal, versus a full defensive press right up to CHB is tremendous. Other sides generally have blokes hitting up at the ball carrier. Our game plan especially in regard to rebound 50s precludes this. It's not so much of an issue with centre clearances or stoppage wins in the forward half.


It's why we always seem to be outnumbered going both ways, coupled with our poor fitness of course.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I respect your frustration and the effort that's gone into the analysis, but the day of the stay at home forward seems to have passed. The gameplan would look a bit better with the likes of Stephenson instead of (for example) a journeyman like Young

He's not referring to them sitting in the goal square.

 

[Chadwiko]

Personnel alone is not going to fix this, IMO. I don't have access to scores from opposition turnovers but my guess is we'll be dead last, or thereabouts. We look much better coming off a centre clearance with the 6-6-6 rule mandating forward structure.

It's a good post, and the kind of stuff you're highlighting is frustrating, I agree.

It's a complex issue, which is why I acknowledged earlier that calling it a 'personnel' problem is somewhat of an over-simplification.

The reason I still view it as more of a 'personnel' problem and not a 'game plan' problem comes down to why our forwards are often so far up the ground + out of position; we are losing the vast majority of one-on-one battles, and opposition players know it.

If a guy like Larkey pushes up to the wing to try and take a mark, the opposition defenders are playing like they assume he wont take the mark. Therefore a 2nd defender pushes up with them, knowing the ball is likely to spill to the ground, and if they keep their feet it's an easy turnover/rebound. We have seen this time and time again.

If our guys start winning the one-on-one battles, that all changes and suddenly our game plan looks fantastic as we move the footy quickly and efficiently.

I can't wait to see it in full action. The early signs are there and the future excites me. And I'm glad Noble is not trying to treat this current list with kid-gloves, and is instead showing them what the plan is moving forward.

 

[Themanbun]

Stay at home is unnecessary, and is not what I suggest the solution is. But a full 18 man press all the way to CHB coupled with a risky corridor-first game plan? Suicidal. I think it's now Lyon, Dunstall, Riewoldt and Brereton who have pointed this out. They watch enough footy to know it's unusual even in the modern age, and most of those blokes understand how important KPF positioning is to maintaining structure and allowing transition.

The difference of having a key forward at about the centre circle, and another slightly, (even just 20m) closer to goal, versus a full defensive press right up to CHB is tremendous. Other sides generally have blokes hitting up at the ball carrier. Our game plan especially in regard to rebound 50s precludes this. It's not so much of an issue with centre clearances or stoppage wins in the forward half.


It's why we always seem to be outnumbered going both ways, coupled with our poor fitness of course.

I should also add - this set-up allows opposition sides to sit an extra or two behind the play, to the defensive side. They know that even if we win a contest in the opposition's forwardline, they can restrict the get-out options due to outnumbering us on the next line (hence all those horrendous hack kicks we see). They also know that they will probably have time to roll back to the next line, the extras sitting behind the play can identify and pick up our blokes who are streaming forward, and they can slow us up through the middle of the ground, should we manage to hit a target between the centre circle and CHB.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I should also add - this set-up allows opposition sides to sit an extra or two behind the play, to the defensive side.

Oh boy, do they love this.

When the North game comes around on the calendar, then cherry picking season is officially open.

 

[shinboner magic]

1) Rick is an adult who is open to adult debate on his views.
2) Watch out for impostors who hijack his views in order to shoehorn imprimatur for their own horse sh*t. It's a classical postmodernist arts degree stunt.

Why do you always choose to go the man instead of ball?

 

[Orange Peanut]

It's a good post, and the kind of stuff you're highlighting is frustrating, I agree.

It's a complex issue, which is why I acknowledged earlier that calling it a 'personnel' problem is somewhat of an over-simplification.

The reason I still view it as more of a 'personnel' problem and not a 'game plan' problem comes down to why our forwards are often so far up the ground + out of position; we are losing the vast majority of one-on-one battles, and opposition players know it.

If a guy like Larkey pushes up to the wing to try and take a mark, the opposition defenders are playing like they assume he wont take the mark. Therefore a 2nd defender pushes up with them, knowing the ball is likely to spill to the ground, and if they keep their feet it's an easy turnover/rebound. We have seen this time and time again.

If our guys start winning the one-on-one battles, that all changes and suddenly our game plan looks fantastic as we move the footy quickly and efficiently.

I can't wait to see it in full action. The early signs are there and the future excites me. And I'm glad Noble is not trying to treat this current list with kid-gloves, and is instead showing them what the plan is moving forward.

Disappointing that it took you this long to realise you've been calling this bloke a fool. His questioning of the game plan was soundly explained and deserved better IMO.

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Colbys Boots]

Far too "adult" for this place.

Needs more Disney.

He's bringing the intellectually comatose "it's all marketing" argument into this thread too?

 

[Ligma]

Why do you always choose to go the man instead of ball?

It really pisses me off and makes this place a grind to read.

Like instead of a grown adult disagreeing politely he has to have a go at them. You can’t even have a disagreement without him instigating and throwing insults.

I was really enjoying reading what chadwiko and themanbun were discussing.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Chadwiko]

Disappointing that it took you this long to realise you've been calling this bloke a fool. His questioning of the game plan was soundly explained and deserved better IMO.

Look, fair call.

However he wasn't really the one I was referring to.

It was directed at the person who has been spamming every thread with snarky comments about Noble and 'the process' ad nauseum, all day every day.

As the discussion in here shows, when someone demonstrates an actual desire to discuss football, I'm always amenable to engage in-kind.