Preview Round 6 vs Port Adelaide

[LuvtheKangas]

I'll take your word for last week. And agree about the discrepancy between performanmce and capability. Honestly, if I was in the camp that believed everything has been terrible for a long time, at least I wouldn't be as shocked as I am. Players can play, coach can coach, assistants can assist, all to a pleasingly high level. Why TF is it all so bad now?

But the level hasn't ever been "pleasingly high" in any sustained sense since Scott took over. And I agree that the players can play to that level. So, the fact that they haven't been able to do so consistently means that something else is not working.

 

[buttox]

im not angry bscott
im just disappointed.
surely larkey gets a run for wood.
lmac in for someone.
north by 19 points
go kangas.
ps. i dont want any coach sackings until the end of the year.
should be more options around then.

 

[Heaps of fun]

im not angry bscott
im just disappointed.
surely larkey gets a run for wood.
lmac in for someone.
north by 19 points
go kangas.
ps. i dont want any coach sackings until the end of the year.
should be more options around then.

Sack as soon as possible. Tudor would be a good caretaker and we could actually see some players get to play footy with confidence and instinct again.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

the correlation is 1 win 4 losses.... its not that hard is it ??

It's not hard. It's just a bit basic.

 

[KiwiRoo]

How about YOU "harden the F*** up" princess!

Most of us can see the wood from the trees and accept that the only way forward now is without Scotts. The sooner it happens the better.

We are still "supporters" but we support the club and what we believe is best long term.

Unfortunately it is supporters like yourself that constantly accept the mediocity that's been going on for far too long which is part of the reason why we are going nowhere and why certain underperforming figures like Scotts have been at the club for as long as they have.

The blind loyalty of supporters like yourself makes me sick.

Princess ?? hehe well I've been called far worse !

Blind loyalty makes you sick ?.. that's a strange call . I thought supporting through thick and thin was a good thing ?.
and if you don't think things can change ..go read the tigers board for the 5-6 years with Hardwick in charge before their flag.. Same crap different board

anyways I'm going to support the club through all this .. I'll leave you to your posturing

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Princess ?? hehe well I've been called far worse !

Blind loyalty makes you sick ?.. that's a strange call . I thought supporting through thick and thin was a good thing ?.
and if you don't think things can change ..go read the tigers board for the 5-6 years with Hardwick in charge before their flag.. Same crap different board

anyways I'm going to support the club through all this .. I'll leave you to your posturing

So you're happy to support mediocrity then?

You're happy to support a coach that has devised a game plan that exposes all of our weaknesses then puts all of the blame on the players?

You're happy to support a board that seems content to just paper over cracks at every opportunity rather than making some tough calls?

Let's just call ourselves St. Kilda then and not win a premiership for the next 50 years!

But you know, as long as we stay supportive through it all. Thick and thin etc....

 

[75-77-96-99]

It's not hard. It's just a bit basic.

whatever

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

View attachment 660883

If Essendon can bring in Daniher, we can go one better.

As gaso might say, wut?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

whatever

Tell you what, I'll do a lap around Arden St. naked if we win the flag this year!

 

[KiwiRoo]

So you're happy to support mediocrity then?

You're happy to support a coach that has devised a game plan that exposes all of our weaknesses then puts all of the blame on the players?

You're happy to support a board that seems content to just paper over cracks at every opportunity rather than making some tough calls?

Let's just call ourselves St. Kilda then and not win a premiership for the next 50 years!

But you know, as long as we stay supportive through it all. Thick and thin etc....

who said I was happy ? I said I would keep supporting them, not that I was happy

and my post was aimed at those saying they want us to lose so the coach cant get sacked.. That's just crap in my book

 

[hcd199]

I don't think there's anyone here whose ultimate ideal for the team is the same milquetoast mediocrity we've dished up for the best part of the last two decades; nobody's cheerleading for a ninth-placed finish. We all have the same interest in seeing North win a flag, and discussing what the best ways of getting to that outcome are is obviously going to be a topic on a board like this. Frankly, after this pathetic start to 2019, most of us are on the same page when it comes to needing a significant change of direction, including a change of coach.

But when people use false dichotomies to justify wanting to see their own team lose games of football (and, more, lose badly), I don't see how that's constructive. Whether it's "we need to spend 3-4 years tanking for 'top-end talent' before we'll be contenders" or "we need to get belted this week so that the board will finally sack the coach", it all amounts to the same thing - pretending that the only options are 'losing worse now but being better in the long run' or 'remaining inconsistent and middle-of-the-road forever', when we have ample evidence that that's not the case (from detrimental sackings, to perennial cellar-dwellers, to teams who have achieved success without ever 'bottoming out'...). It's one thing to look for the upsides to a negative situation, but quite another to actively wish for negative situations to occur beforehand, especially when it's based on nothing but the faint possibility of a beneficial outcome and the fallacy that suffering now is the only way to achieve it. Such is the case with any suggestion that the solution to the present problem of bad losses is more of the same.

Our problems go far beyond whether we win or lose against Port, and obviously it's cause for concern if winning the game will mask those issues and delay resolving them. But why should that mean any self-respecting North fan wants to see us lose on Friday night? Again, it requires a false dichotomy (win and carry on being dragged down by the same problems, or lose badly and start taking the necessary steps to resolve them). If your desire for the club you support to win games is going to be based on fallacies anyway, you may as well pick one that makes you want us to win.

 

[Themanbun]

I don't think there's anyone here whose ultimate ideal for the team is the same milquetoast mediocrity we've dished up for the best part of the last two decades; nobody's cheerleading for a ninth-placed finish. We all have the same interest in seeing North win a flag, and discussing what the best ways of getting to that outcome are is obviously going to be a topic on a board like this. Frankly, after this pathetic start to 2019, most of us are on the same page when it comes to needing a significant change of direction, including a change of coach.

But when people use false dichotomies to justify wanting to see their own team lose games of football (and, more, lose badly), I don't see how that's constructive. Whether it's "we need to spend 3-4 years tanking for 'top-end talent' before we'll be contenders" or "we need to get belted this week so that the board will finally sack the coach", it all amounts to the same thing - pretending that the only options are 'losing worse now but being better in the long run' or 'remaining inconsistent and middle-of-the-road forever', when we have ample evidence that that's not the case (from detrimental sackings, to perennial cellar-dwellers, to teams who have achieved success without ever 'bottoming out'...). It's one thing to look for the upsides to a negative situation, but quite another to actively wish for negative situations to occur beforehand, especially when it's based on nothing but the faint possibility of a beneficial outcome and the fallacy that suffering now is the only way to achieve it. Such is the case with any suggestion that the solution to the present problem of bad losses is more of the same.

Our problems go far beyond whether we win or lose against Port, and obviously it's cause for concern if winning the game will mask those issues and delay resolving them. But why should that mean any self-respecting North fan wants to see us lose on Friday night? Again, it requires a false dichotomy (win and carry on being dragged down by the same problems, or lose badly and start taking the necessary steps to resolve them). If your desire for the club you support to win games is going to be based on fallacies anyway, you may as well pick one that makes you want us to win.

If people think the coach is the problem, and snagging a few wins here or there are going to preclude dealing with that problem, then the dichotomy people are constructing isn't really false.

 

[shintemaster]

Realistically this can’t happen till the end of the season.

Fundamentally disagree on this point, but otherwise well said. We are however way too conservative over the last decade to make this likely. Ironically BS selection and gameplan tends to reflect that conservatism well.

 

[buttox]

Sack as soon as possible. Tudor would be a good caretaker and we could actually see some players get to play footy with confidence and instinct again.

world would be boring as hell if we all agreed all the time.
interesting take on it.
I would hope if we take a caretaker it is from outside our system.
need new voices imo
but tbh whatever works im fine with

 

[Black2Blue]

I'll take your word for last week. And agree about the discrepancy between performanmce and capability. Honestly, if I was in the camp that believed everything has been terrible for a long time, at least I wouldn't be as shocked as I am. Players can play, coach can coach, assistants can assist, all to a pleasingly high level. Why TF is it all so bad now?

I think it is a bunch of factors that have a history, now coming together in a perfect storm. But the two big issues are game plan and player development.

Brad's game plan has worked over the years when the players have brought the intensity to the contest, but without it our zoning style gets picked apart by fast movement and precise kicking. I can say that usually the likely outcome has been clear 10 minutes into the first quarter, especially if its obvious we haven't clicked the switch. And without any Plan B, which I initially thought was just a running gag but is actually so true, we are very one-dimensional and easy to coach against. For some reason, the players have not been motivated to go at 100% for most of the games so far this year. Whether that is due to gelling with the new players, a reaction to the new rules, or over-coaching, time will tell, but if the team doesn't raise a yelp this Friday with a 4-quarter effort then the signs are the players are no longer buying into Brad's style of footy (which appears dull, predictable, and robotic in 2019).

The player development issue is a deeper problem for me and has been seriously exposed. Brad has never had a great record in developing talent. Cunners was stalled for years before becoming a star. JZ has never reached his full potential and only just started playing as a forward. Ats still doesn't know where he should be playing. Maj held back for years. BBB is a self-made footballer. Goldy is probably the biggest success under Brad, with Froggy the other one showing steady development. But, in general, our most important players have been our old-gen (Boomer, Petrie, Wells, Spud, Taz, Thommo) and our imports (Higgo, Waite, BJ, Dal Santo, with Polec and Pittard now). What has happened to Wood, Simpkin, Turner, Ahern, LMac, Durdin, BMac, Larkey, etc? For me, this group shows how Brad's highly structured game plan doesn't encourage young players to develop their craft, rather it trains them to follow Brad's system. Where are the emerging stars at North? I'm terrified that LDU, Walker, TT, Scott, and Taylor will all regress too under this regime.

And the new 666 rules and efforts to reduce the influence of coaches seems to have exposed our brand of football. As other coaches are giving players more freedom, Brad seems to be unable to reinvent himself and his science of football. And all the talk of Boys Club suggests he simply has too much power and control of the club, such that the things that are plain to see externally aren't raised internally or his approach simply doesn't work well enough.

Put simply, we need a new coach (or coaches) to actually know if our players can play. And a win on the back of a 4-quarter 100% effort on Friday won't resolve that problem.

 

[Snake_Baker]

the correlation is 1 win 4 losses.... its not that hard is it ??

I was actually referring to your over-simplification.

 

[hcd199]

If people think the coach is the problem, and snagging a few wins here or there are going to preclude dealing with that problem, then the dichotomy people are constructing isn't really false.

So was the "Gold Coast or die" dichotomy also not false, just because the people who promulgated it thought our financial issues were the problem and that staying Melbourne-based would preclude dealing with it? It's the same logic. In both cases, it's simply assumed that there's only one 'negative now, positive later' solution (get thrashed/relocate) and only one 'positive now, negative later' solution (win the game/stay in Melbourne), with all other possibilities and nuances stripped. And to argue for something as unpalatable as wanting your own club to lose, you have to do better than to grossly oversimplify...

 

[Themanbun]

So was the "Gold Coast or die" dichotomy also not false, just because the people who promulgated it thought our financial issues were the problem and that staying Melbourne-based would preclude dealing with it? It's the same logic. In both cases, it's simply assumed that there's only one 'negative now, positive later' solution (get thrashed/relocate) and only one 'positive now, negative later' solution (win the game/stay in Melbourne), with all other possibilities and nuances stripped. And to argue for something as unpalatable as wanting your own club to lose, you have to do better than to grossly oversimplify...

So you're aiming to logically defeat (supposed) false dichotomies with false equivalencies?

I see their logic. Their logic is as follows.

1. Brad is the problem (you may agree or disagree).
2. Honourable performances and a middling finish will prevent the board from removing him (given that he's contracted, surely you can't disagree with this?).
3. Therefore the choice is between a middling finish and sacking Brad.

Of course, I want my team to win, but the dichotomy being drawn is hardly false. The board will not move against Brad if he takes us to a middling finish again. They will more likely move against him if we get pumped, as these crises often provoke change within a football club.

People aren't saying that losing will automatically guarantee long term success. They believe that if we lose, the board will move to remove what these posters believe is the main factor precluding long term success - the coach.

 

[DesertRoo]

Fundamentally disagree on this point, but otherwise well said. We are however way too conservative over the last decade to make this likely. Ironically BS selection and gameplan tends to reflect that conservatism well.

It would be a first, overhauling the football department mid season, while most of the top candidates are coaching other teams at present.

But hey if you believe you could pull it off, I’m all for it.

Make it happen Euge!

 

[LuvtheKangas]

It would be a first, overhauling the football department mid season, while most of the top candidates are coaching other teams at present.

But hey if you believe you could pull it off, I’m all for it.

Make it happen Euge!

I highly doubt that our next coach would be one of the other 17 current senior coaches. Even if a couple of them become available at the end of the year, they'd be the couple being pushed out (e.g. Hinkley if Port underperform, Bolton because ... Carlton) and not desirable to us. Clarkson wouldn't jump from Hawthorn to us, ditto Simpson. Maybe Horse, but I've never been too rapt in his coaching style.

So, it's far more likely that our next coach is currently an assistant coach, which suggests we don't need to wait until the end of the year.

 

[Snake_Baker]

So, it's far more likely that our next coach is currently an assistant coach, which suggests we don't need to wait until the end of the year.

I agree with this, in the short term.

 

[DesertRoo]

I highly doubt that our next coach would be one of the other 17 current senior coaches. Even if a couple of them become available at the end of the year, they'd be the couple being pushed out (e.g. Hinkley if Port underperform, Bolton because ... Carlton) and not desirable to us. Clarkson wouldn't jump from Hawthorn to us, ditto Simpson. Maybe Horse, but I've never been too rapt in his coaching style.

So, it's far more likely that our next coach is currently an assistant coach, which suggests we don't need to wait until the end of the year.

Hahaha, if you think you’d be able to pull a team of coaches together, while they’re currently working for other teams, I’m all for it.. it would piss off the other 17 clubs but would be worth the price for a laugh.

But in all seriousness, do you really want someone who bails on their responsibilities mid season?

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Hahaha, if you think you’d be able to pull a team of coaches together, while they’re currently working for other teams, I’m all for it.. it would piss off the other 17 clubs but would be worth the price for a laugh.

But in all seriousness, do you really want someone who bails on their responsibilities mid season?

Sort of the point I was making, perhaps I was unclear.

So, to be more clear, you would only want either an existing North assistant, or an assistant who came to us with the blessing of their current club (this is not implausible, e.g. if Ratten wanted to come to us, the Saints would probably allow it so as not to stand in his way for a better role).

 

[DesertRoo]

Sort of the point I was making, perhaps you missed it.

Let me make it clearer, there is No way Sam Mitchell or any other assistant coach is leaving, while they’re still in contention for the flag. It’s not happening.

And that’s only for the head coaching role.. what do you do with the others? Leave them on until the end of the year? Or do you think we’ll be able to poach a group of assistant coaches mid year as well?

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Let me make it clearer, there is No way Sam Mitchell or any other assistant coach is leaving, while they’re still in contention for the flag. It’s not happening.

And that’s only for the head coaching role.. what do you do with the others? Leave them on until the end of the year? Or do you think we’ll be able to poach an assistant coaches mid year as well?

Yeah, I realised and edited my post. Cheers.