A Dare.....

[taylor_walker_13]

........to Neil Craig say to the players this week we are going to throw caution to the wind because clearly whatever we are doing isnt working and tell the players your free to play your natural game with flair and arrogance and a bit of hardness and toughness, take the game on and lets see what happens, honestly what have we got to lose???

 

[WALL-e]

 

[taylor_walker_13]

Face palm all you want wally boy but they arent doing it at present.

 

[cammo6556]

We would be smashed. No structure and our defence would leak like sieve.
Horrid suggestion.

 

[NTRabbit]

 

[SydCrow]

 

[TDRP]

 

[Cap]

vote 1 this thread

 

[cmndstab]

The reality is, even those sides that you would think are playing "with flair" and "showing their natural game" are finely honed to play to a certain strategy. If you asked 22 players to just "play their natural game" and to throw the structures and strategies out the window, it would be an absolute disaster - opposition players would carve through us like a knife through butter.

What we need to do is either get better at executing our current structures strategies, or to alter them somewhat, but not to disregard them altogether. It's one of those idealistic concepts that sounds good but in practice doesn't work.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

NC always says he wants the players to take the game on, to take risks and to play with flair.

But even while he says these words you can almost see him buttoning his mittens to his sleeves just in case they fall off.

Neil Craig is to risk-taking what Andrew McLeod is to forgiveness.

Porplyzia in the backline, Doughty as acting captain, Davis back to the SANFL, Walker back to the SANFL, no torps, veterans should play on... safe safe safe. The only time he ever took a risk was when he put Massie on Franklin. And that ended poorly. It was the last time.

 

[chigwidden]

Neil Craig is to risk-taking what Andrew McLeod is to forgiveness.

Hey, careful with the generalisations, there, Carl.

This is the man who wears a t-shirt to coach from the bench. In 6C! There's your risk-taking, right there!

 

[taylor_walker_13]

NC always says he wants the players to take the game on, to take risks and to play with flair.

But even while he says these words you can almost see him buttoning his mittens to his sleeves just in case they fall off.

Neil Craig is to risk-taking what Andrew McLeod is to forgiveness.

Porplyzia in the backline, Doughty as acting captain, Davis back to the SANFL, Walker back to the SANFL, no torps, veterans should play on... safe safe safe. The only time he ever took a risk was when he put Massie on Franklin. And that ended poorly. It was the last time.

Thats my exact point we are playing without going outside the set boundries, maybe I worded my orginal post wrong but I really want to see some risk instead of going safe all the time, reality is with the veterens playing on it was a major balls up of monumental proportions, most coaches heads would be on the chopping block over a decision like that.

 

[jenny61_99]

Thats my exact point we are playing without going outside the set boundries, maybe I worded my orginal post wrong but I really want to see some risk instead of going safe all the time, reality is with the veterens playing on it was a major balls up of monumental proportions, most coaches heads would be on the chopping block over a decision like that.

Against Geelong we saw nothing but risk taking.

As for "this wouldn't have happened if the senior players hadn't played on"... all I say to that is bullshit. It just would have happened sooner.

 

[SydCrow]

Thats my exact point we are playing without going outside the set boundries, maybe I worded my orginal post wrong but I really want to see some risk instead of going safe all the time, reality is with the veterens playing on it was a major balls up of monumental proportions, most coaches heads would be on the chopping block over a decision like that.

what would our win/loss record be like without the veterans?

 

[King Elvis]

Against Geelong we saw nothing but risk taking.

As for "this wouldn't have happened if the senior players hadn't played on"... all I say to that is bullshit. It just would have happened sooner.

This is true.

Until our woeful kicking robbed the side of confidence and intensity, we played good footy the last couple of weeks.

We can play with all the flair in the world, but if we kick 4.9 again, we'll still lose.

 

[taylor_walker_13]

Against Geelong we saw nothing but risk taking.

As for "this wouldn't have happened if the senior players hadn't played on"... all I say to that is bullshit. It just would have happened sooner.

Well you highlight for me the influence they have had this year Burton has ended up barely even playing, Edwards gone half way through the year, Mcleod pretty much has only played half the year and Goodwin is now missing the last third of the season, you know why they were kept on.........DEPTH and to save face because the AFC didnt want to completely bottom out, it was the wrong desicion, Im sick of safe and not taking a risk and avoiding controversy and non explinations to the members/supporters from the AFC.

 

[King Elvis]

Yea, because taking those players in was totally risk free.

 

[srv23]

Against Geelong we saw nothing but risk taking.

As for "this wouldn't have happened if the senior players hadn't played on"... all I say to that is bullshit. It just would have happened sooner.

Yeah you're right, it would have happened sooner. However what it would have done is allowed the club to phase more younger players into the side giving them more AFL experience and importantly fast tracking their development getting them towards that 50+ game mark when guys start to feel comfortable with the tempo of AFL and start htting their straps. Most premiership sides have a fair number of players in that 100-150 game mark and the sooner we get that development into the players who we see as being part of our next flag side, the quicker we will get to the point of being a genuine premiership contender with this current list of players.

I also don't think anyone has called for all of the senior players to have reitired at the end of 09 but for list management we needed to move at least 1 or 2 of them on last year. We didn't and we now have to deal with the fallout of losing them all at once.

 

[Slippery Pete]

But even while he says these words you can almost see him buttoning his mittens to his sleeves just in case they fall off.

He's a perfectionist, and he's got the players operating a perfectionist regime. It literally doesnt matter what the game plan is - risk taking, conservative..whatever - it's still under the guise of Neil Craig perfectionism.

Collingwood actually play a very conservative, safe brand of football and never use the corridor - the difference is they're permitted to play with flair and arrogance.

It's not about the gameplan - it's about Neil's mentality toward the gameplan.

 

[PCORF]

Neil Craig isn't a bad coach.

The biggest problem is the players. That has been the problem all year. Oh I'm too scared to kick an easy goal. And we miss an easy shot and suddenly we are under pressure we get defensive and all worried. The team gives up so easily.

Here is a solution. Kick the damn thing from 50m out on a tighter angle (30-50 degrees).

We beat Geelong, we are good enough to beat any side if we are focussed. We will be a very good team in the next few years if we get it right mentally. Give it a few years but we'll be back up there again. 2005 still hurts, that was our best chance at winning a flag. We blew it by playing way too scared in that preliminary final. Win it in 2005 and we would have become a powerhouse side like Geelong and Brisbane.

 

[Interceptor]

The biggest problem is the players. That has been the problem all year. Oh I'm too scared to kick an easy goal. And we miss an easy shot and suddenly we are under pressure we get defensive and all worried. The team gives up so easily.

Mental toughness in other words.
Probably Craig's worst failing is to instill true resiliance into the player's heads.
In his defence it's never easy for any coach to achieve this.
There have been too many matches in the past few years where we have failed to maintain or extend 4-5 goal leads and this has been largely due to players who don't have the toughness to fight it out.

 

[jenny61_99]

Yeah you're right, it would have happened sooner. However what it would have done is allowed the club to phase more younger players into the side giving them more AFL experience and importantly fast tracking their development getting them towards that 50+ game mark when guys start to feel comfortable with the tempo of AFL and start htting their straps. Most premiership sides have a fair number of players in that 100-150 game mark and the sooner we get that development into the players who we see as being part of our next flag side, the quicker we will get to the point of being a genuine premiership contender with this current list of players.

I also don't think anyone has called for all of the senior players to have reitired at the end of 09 but for list management we needed to move at least 1 or 2 of them on last year. We didn't and we now have to deal with the fallout of losing them all at once.

One of the reasons our veterans were kept on, I believe, is because of our distinct lack of talent in this 100-150 game bracket - due to the failed Ayres recruiting era. We don't have many players that fit into that category - certainly not the core group of 8-10 or so of good quality players (like the Geelong/St Kilda/Collingwoods). Rather we've got two or three good quality players (Thompson, Johncock, Rutten) in the 100-150 game category and the rest (6) are "solid" players who show occasional brilliance but not consistently outstanding (Burton, Rutten, Stevens, Reilly, VB and Bock) . On the other hand we have 3 exceptionally talented players in the 275+ category. Whilst all are at the end of the careers, their knowledge and experience is irreplaceable, particularly when you consider the void at the next level. I am sure the hope of the selection panel was that we would get some reasonable output from these senior players, who would also act as steadying influences, while we got valuable game time into the youngsters.

It was a calculated risk to take, and one that unfortunately didn't pay off.

When you consider our players in this core group, how many of them had interrupted pre-seasons or were injured during the season? You add to that the injuries/loss of form of our veterans and you end up with a season like the one we've had.

 

[Slippery Pete]

One of the reasons our veterans were kept on, I believe, is because of our distinct lack of talent in this 100-150 game bracket - due to the failed Ayres recruiting era. We don't have many players that fit into that category - certainly not the core group of 8-10 or so of good quality players (like the Geelong/St Kilda/Collingwoods). Rather we've got two or three good quality players (Thompson, Johncock, Rutten) in the 100-150 game category and the rest (6) are "solid" players who show occasional brilliance but not consistently outstanding (Burton, Rutten, Stevens, Reilly, VB and Bock) . On the other hand we have 3 exceptionally talented players in the 275+ category. Whilst all are at the end of the careers, their knowledge and experience is irreplaceable, particularly when you consider the void at the next level. I am sure the hope of the selection panel was that we would get some reasonable output from these senior players, who would also act as steadying influences, while we got valuable game time into the youngsters.

It was a calculated risk to take, and one that unfortunately didn't pay off.

When you consider our players in this core group, how many of them had interrupted pre-seasons or were injured during the season? You add to that the injuries/loss of form of our veterans and you end up with a season like the one we've had.

You'd certainly place Bock in the good quality category, along with Rutten, Johncock and Thompson.

The other one who would've been there if not for injuries is Trent Henstchel.

Guys coming up to that 100-150 bracket though are guys like Knights, Tippett, Porplyzia, Vince - who I think can all be in the elite category.

And as far as under 21 talent goes, we've got some of the best in the comp.

 

[srv23]

One of the reasons our veterans were kept on, I believe, is because of our distinct lack of talent in this 100-150 game bracket - due to the failed Ayres recruiting era. We don't have many players that fit into that category - certainly not the core group of 8-10 or so of good quality players (like the Geelong/St Kilda/Collingwoods). Rather we've got two or three good quality players (Thompson, Johncock, Rutten) in the 100-150 game category and the rest (6) are "solid" players who show occasional brilliance but not consistently outstanding (Burton, Rutten, Stevens, Reilly, VB and Bock) . On the other hand we have 3 exceptionally talented players in the 275+ category. Whilst all are at the end of the careers, their knowledge and experience is irreplaceable, particularly when you consider the void at the next level. I am sure the hope of the selection panel was that we would get some reasonable output from these senior players, who would also act as steadying influences, while we got valuable game time into the youngsters.

It was a calculated risk to take, and one that unfortunately didn't pay off.

When you consider our players in this core group, how many of them had interrupted pre-seasons or were injured during the season? You add to that the injuries/loss of form of our veterans and you end up with a season like the one we've had.

Look I do agree with what you've said and I think a major issue is the fact that we oversetimated where this list was at at the end of last season. We felt we had the best list we've ever had and one that was capable of finishing top 4 and a real chance for the flag. We therefore thought the vets would be the icing on the cake and may well take us deep into the finals and possibly to a GF. We didn't anticipate how dramatic the decline in form would be for the likes of Edwards and Burton and to a lesser extent Macca. And we didn't make the hard call on Hentschel either.

And obviously we didn't count on the fact that so many of our players who needed to take the next step to becoming senior players ie Knights, Porps, Vince or players who were senior players but needed to take on leadership roles ie Bock, Thommo would have interrupted/limited preseasons.

The problem is if we're looking at premiership teams having those 100-150 game players - it comes down to whether or not the club made a realistic appraisal of our list and it's capabilities. If you believe they did and it's only injuries that stopped us pushing into the top 4 then keeping the senior players on was the right call. If you believe the appraisal was wrong and that realisitically our next premiership flag push was when our new crop of young players start to become regular AFL players, then the decision was wrong and we should have moved on at least 1 or 2 senior players andfocussed on getting our youngsters gametime and fasttracking their development to get to that point. It all comes down to what you believe to be the true appraisal of where we were at at the end of 2009.

 

[jackster83]

You'd certainly place Bock in the good quality category, along with Rutten, Johncock and Thompson.

The other one who would've been there if not for injuries is Trent Henstchel.

Guys coming up to that 100-150 bracket though are guys like Knights, Tippett, Porplyzia, Vince - who I think can all be in the elite category.

And as far as under 21 talent goes, we've got some of the best in the comp.

The problem is that we get these talented youngsters who never take the step up to the next level. van Berlo and Reilly are classic examples who looked like becoming guns but are really just run of the mill AFL players. Bock did for a while but his fitness is not AFL standard atm. Vince did for a season but this year has regressed badly (apart from the Geelong game).

I'm sick of Goodwin/McLeod (and Roo before them) always being our only hope of making the AA team. We need others to step up to tier 1 level (and do it for more than just a season).