Bickley does things Craig could never do

[Elite Crow]

Whilst I don't want Bicks as coach, what did everyone expect him to achieve in 6 weeks? He has the same unskilled players with a game plan brainwashed into them.

I know I harp on about Reilly, but he symbolises all that is wrong with our list. He is lauded for his elite skills but he makes stupid decisions and his kicking just isnt that good. Those 2 turnovers in the last quarter sums his season up. Supporters of Reilly can't whinge about our current predicament because if your happy to have players like him then your happy to be mediocre or worse shit.

 

[Allefgib]

I thinks Bicks shows his difference to Craigy in the following remark:

"It would be silly to say that everything there is great and we'll just roll on the same. There needs to be a lot of effort in identifying the real key areas to improve."

Is he actually saying Craigy has been silly? I think he is. No wonder Craigy openly stated, whilst Bicks was working for him, that Goody was the clubs greatest ever captain

 

[Allefgib]

ah.. found it. the bit i really wanted to quote.

Bickley said changes needed to be made at the club for it to once again challenge for a top-eight berth.

"It would be silly to say that everything there is great and we'll just roll on the same," Bickley said.

"But what we've seen a little bit over the last six weeks is that we've played a little bit of a different style of footy, we've tried to be more aggressive in both the way we move the ball and our tackling.

"So I guess we want to keep building on that and become a powerful footy club."

From the horses mouth. Case closed. Close thread please.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl...top-job-for-2012/story-e6frf3e3-1226129063185

 

[fabs33]

Before the Geelong game began Jakovich asked Bickley this:

"You're coaching; you've been prepared to throw things around. We saw Johncock in the last quarter go forward and did a good job for you, can we expect that today?"

To which Bickley replied:

"Look, hopefully it'll all unfold beautifully and we won't have to make too many changes. But I guess if things don't go as planned, we'll try and make some adjustments. We'll see how it goes."

Personally I interpreted Bickley's comments as him acknowledging that when things don't go according to plan something needs to be changed in order win. A way of thinking that conflicted with Craig's own philosophy which was to persist with the same strategy but with added effort.

 

[Vader]

Personally I interpreted Bickley's comments as him acknowledging that when things don't go according to plan something needs to be changed in order win. A way of thinking that conflicted with Craig's own philosophy which was to persist with the same strategy but with added effort.

That's not quite true. Craigy didn't believe in changing his fundamental structure, but he was quite happy to tweak things around the edges.

For example, he'd often throw an extra man or two back into defence when the opposition were getting on top; he'd sometimes swing Johncock into attack if he was getting beaten in defence; he'd swing Stevens or the resting ruckman into the forward line to create options..

These were mostly minor changes, which didn't change the overall structure - but he wasn't about playing harder to turn things around.

 

[Slippery Pete]

^^

That doesn't need clarification, Vader. Nobody is saying he never made a single match day move. It's more about his football philosophy in general. He was proud of his robotic machine.

 

[Vader]

^^

That doesn't need clarification, Vader. Nobody is saying he never made a single match day move. It's more about his football philosophy in general. He was proud of his robotic machine.

He was.. and most successful teams operate in the same manner. They all have a fixed game plan and they aim to beat you by executing their plan better than you can execute yours.

Where Craig fell down was in failing to recognise that his plan was no longer suitable after 2006. This was partly because the game evolved to counter it (and he failed to evolve our gameplan suitably to keep ahead of the countering moves). It was also partly because the gamplan he had was suited to the physically hardened and mature bodies he inherited from Ayres - it was completely unsuited to the less fit and physically softer bodies of the younger players that replaced Dad's Army.

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

ah.. found it. the bit i really wanted to quote.

Bickley said changes needed to be made at the club for it to once again challenge for a top-eight berth.

"It would be silly to say that everything there is great and we'll just roll on the same," Bickley said.

"But what we've seen a little bit over the last six weeks is that we've played a little bit of a different style of footy, we've tried to be more aggressive in both the way we move the ball and our tackling.

"So I guess we want to keep building on that and become a powerful footy club."

From the horses mouth. Case closed. Close thread please.




Bicks said it, hence it is true.

We really became tackling machines over the last 6 weeks. After laying more tackles than Port, we went on to have less tackles than our opponents in each of the last 5 games. Over the last 6 games we had a tackle difference of -4.3 per game and that included playing the bottom 4 teams. Just as well that we were really focussing on it.

Thread closed???

 

[fabs33]

That's not quite true. Craigy didn't believe in changing his fundamental structure, but he was quite happy to tweak things around the edges.

For example, he'd often throw an extra man or two back into defence when the opposition were getting on top; he'd sometimes swing Johncock into attack if he was getting beaten in defence; he'd swing Stevens or the resting ruckman into the forward line to create options..

These were mostly minor changes, which didn't change the overall structure - but he wasn't about playing harder to turn things around.

Like Pete said I wasn't implying that Craig never made any changes at all on match day, only that his coaching philosophy was mostly against change. To a certain extent I would think that the frequency, variety and timing of the changes he did make to be somewhat proof of this. It's also possible that the issue you highlighted regarding his game plan was brought about as a result of that same philosophy.

 

[Allefgib]

Bicks said it, hence it is true.

We really became tackling machines over the last 6 weeks. After laying more tackles than Port, we went on to have less tackles than our opponents in each of the last 5 games. Over the last 6 games we had a tackle difference of -4.3 per game and that included playing the bottom 4 teams. Just as well that we were really focussing on it.

Thread closed???

Give me a ****ing break.

So the outcomes weren't ideal. He can't change everything about our mode of play in such a small timeframe.

But the guy making the calls says he made different calls. With a different philosophy. And had mixed results but some good ones that Craigy would never have achieved as he had different philosophies to some of the way Bicks asked the team to play and who he played where.

The richmond and west coast games are total write offs IMO. Richmond game had a really weird feeling - still significant issues at the club, really needs shaking up. West coast game I presume built on that and being the last game under and 'old era' sounds like the players barely turned up. I think the new coach needs to build a gameplan that captures the players imagination more, that they have faith in and builds in a bit more accountability being given back to the players. Something that isn't all about the 'care for them' crap that Craig said as he left. (I've been thinking for years that they don't feel they own the gameplan and often the reasons for drop off in intensity is that they don't have 100% confidence in it and therefore believe they are doing as they are told and sit guarding space whilst an opponent takes a chest mark in the middle of 3 of them)

Anyway - from the horses mouth. Got some change in results. Everyone dropped their bundle in the last 2 hanging out for end of season and the change I suspect they been wanting for years.

Got any states on clearances? Centre clearances? Disposals per goal? Time in Possession? for the final 6 games. Love to see some of those. Particularly the 4 before the last 2.

 

[Allefgib]

Righto AFGM, I decided to do a bit of additional research given your, IMO, ridiculously obstinate stance.

Check out these tackle differentials from AFC's perspective over the season...

Craigy coach:
R1: -11
R3: -12
R4: -15
R5: -19
R6: +1 (vs saints.. guess what happened next week...)
R7: -22
R8: -13
R9: -4
R10: -14
R11: -5
R12: -9
R13: -12
R14: -12
R15: -1
R17: -6
R18: -31

Bicks:
R19: +10
R20: -11
R21: -6
R22: -2
R23: -3
R24: -14

Averages
Craig: -11.8 (same teams for craigy, no tiges: -12.6)
Bicks: -4.3
Enough to show a difference in intent? I'd think so.

Few other things to consider (averages only, can't be arsed typing match by match)
Numbers for Craig in brackets are for the same teams (no tiges obviously but that would only support your arguments not mine)

Disposals differential
Craig: -27.6 (-8.8)
Bicks: 33.7

That's a turn around of 60 touches of the footy a game.

Marks Differential
Craig: -4.4 (-5.8)
Bicks: 3.8
Not a heck of alot in that, probably more related to how much more of the footy we had.

Scoring shots differential:
Craig: -7.3 (-3.4)
Bicks: -0.8

Moving to straight up average comparisons:
Disposals per goal averages:
Craig: 39 (35.6)
Bicks: 30.1

Inside 50s averages:
Craig: 47.8 (50.8)
Bicks: 53.3

Goal Assists:
Craig: 6.6 (7)
Bicks: 9.2

These just some things I found interesting that possibly reflect some of the differences to what Bicks got out of the team compared to Craigy.

Sure a ton of posting has been exaggerated or OTT at times when discussing Craig's coaching. He caused that much frustration I'm not surprised.. and surprised you are. But looking at the numbers... don't you think you need to get over being so argumentative about it given all the evidence?

 

[Vader]

It's a bit difficult to make judgements on the stats. I suspect Bickley's may well be biased due to the fact that his sample size is much smaller and 4 of his 6 games were against the 4 bottom sides (excluding Adelaide themselves).

That said, I do appreciate the analysis you've provided and I'm not intending to knock it in any way.

 

[jenny61_99]

Not sure you can put much in those stats Bigfella - you aren't allowing for the size 9 boot up the ass factor in at least the first 3 games, that shocked the players into actually playing. Not sure you can attribute any of that to Bicks or his apparent different methods.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Shall we have a look at Craig's stats versus the bottom four sides?

 

[Allefgib]

Come on guys, the craig numbers for the same sides when we played them earlier in the year are in brackets... There is still a trend there. I was thinking I could do a weighting of the respective averages by ranking of the teams played.... But that's getting a bit to much bs factor.

The clear facts are we have players and coaches saying different things were done. We also have stats supporting the changes had different outcomes in some areas. Not sure why some care so much to keep disputing it.

jen... Its a size 9 now is it? Well at least the imaginary boot is getting smaller. I highly doubt there was any boot with the leadership model we have at the club. New coaching staff can hopefully change that.

 

[Allefgib]

It's a bit difficult to make judgements on the stats. I suspect Bickley's may well be biased due to the fact that his sample size is much smaller and 4 of his 6 games were against the 4 bottom sides (excluding Adelaide themselves).

That said, I do appreciate the analysis you've provided and I'm not intending to knock it in any way.

Knock it all you want. I just wasnt convinced his cursory comment on a negative tackle average differential allowed for where we had come from. Imo the numbers clearly showed we lifted this area of our game as bicks had indicated he wanted to. What's not you get? The rest of it was hastily done, pull it to pieces.

On the sides we played... Using the spackler model of grouping to support the fixture... Under bicks we played 2 top 6 sides, 1 middle 6 side and 3 bottom 6 sides. Not quite as bad as you paint it...

 

[crowded house]

Well, considering that tackling was a huge part of Bick's game it wouldn't surprise me if there was a bit more emphasis on it. Actual tackles instead of guarding the 2 metre space in front of the player and waving hands around in the air was noticeable during Bickley's tenure.

 

[jenny61_99]

Come on guys, the craig numbers for the same sides when we played them earlier in the year are in brackets... There is still a trend there. I was thinking I could do a weighting of the respective averages by ranking of the teams played.... But that's getting a bit to much bs factor.

The clear facts are we have players and coaches saying different things were done. We also have stats supporting the changes had different outcomes in some areas. Not sure why some care so much to keep disputing it.

jen... Its a size 9 now is it? Well at least the imaginary boot is getting smaller. I highly doubt there was any boot with the leadership model we have at the club. New coaching staff can hopefully change that.

I always used to say size 9, but the way the kids feet are growing these days, I thought I'd increase it to a size 12! Old habits die hard it seems!

The boot is a metaphor for a massive shake up by the sheer fact that the boys lost the coach their job. Acted as the metaphorical boot up the ass. Don't think you can deny that happened as it often happens after a coach is sacked/leaves.

And look, clearly Bickley has made some tweaks. Not much he can do given the short period he had to work. He wasn't going to be able to make wholesale changes to the game plan or structures.

Yes, Tex was brought back - I've got no doubt Craig would have played him too. Am glad Bicks gave Riley a go though, I was fearing we wouldnt get to see him this year (after hearing how well he'd been doing in the 2s).

How much of a difference can be attributed to Bicks' tweaks, and how much can be attributed to Craig leaving and the boys either feeling guilty for their part in his decision, or realising they might need to start playing for their very survival, I don't know.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Come on guys, the craig numbers for the same sides when we played them earlier in the year are in brackets... There is still a trend there. I was thinking I could do a weighting of the respective averages by ranking of the teams played.... But that's getting a bit to much bs factor.

The clear facts are we have players and coaches saying different things were done. We also have stats supporting the changes had different outcomes in some areas. Not sure why some care so much to keep disputing it.

jen... Its a size 9 now is it? Well at least the imaginary boot is getting smaller. I highly doubt there was any boot with the leadership model we have at the club. New coaching staff can hopefully change that.

Mate people will believe what they want to believe, regardless of facts or evidence. Id have thought that the existence of any number of gods, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy would make that clear.

 

[srv23]

Yes, Tex was brought back - I've got no doubt Craig would have played him too. Am glad Bicks gave Riley a go though, I was fearing we wouldnt get to see him this year (after hearing how well he'd been doing in the 2s).

.

Allegedly (according to Rowe for what that's worth) Craig told Tex he had a month back at Norwood before even being considered for selection - when Craig left, the leadership group went to see Bickley and requested his selection. I expect Craig would have played him once Tippett got injurued, but I'm not convinced he would have come back in against Port otherwise if Craig was still coach.

 

[Allefgib]

I also don't believe he would have been given the run of the forward line.

I suspect Craigy would have preferred the structure with Danger down there as well rather than in the middle for every centre bounce and playing onball at every possible opportunity.

 

[Geoffa32]

I am hoping the new coach can build on the Tex/Gunston tandem. With Tip/Jacobs making cameos.

It freed up Danger to the midfield. Who will have a big year next year methinks, his contract is due...........

 

[Allefgib]

Some analysis of player averages under Craigy/Bicks.

I picked these players given their much debated use/effectiveness under Craigy. Bicks made changes with his use of all of them. I for one, from a development point of view, like the change in trends for most of them. Vince still a concern, I've been banking of him coming good under a new coach... *crosses fingers*

Danger under Craig:
K HB D M G B T HO GA GC I50 FF FA DT SC
8.9 6.9 15.8 3.0 1.4 0.4 2.6 0.1 0.4 1.8 2.7 2.0 0.9 67.7 78.9
Under Bicks:
K HB D M G B T HO GA GC I50 FF FA DT SC
10.2 10.2 20.3 2.7 0.2 1.2 5.2 0.0 0.2 0.3 4.3 0.7 1.2 78.8 84.2

VB under craig:
K HB D M G B T HO GA GC I50 FF FA DT SC
11.4 10.1 21.4 5.6 0.4 0.4 2.7 0.7 0.2 0.6 2.9 0.6 1.0 83.0 80.4
Under Bicks
K HB D M G B T HO GA GC I50 FF FA DT SC
16.7 12.5 29.2 6.2 0.8 0.8 5.5 0.2 1.0 1.8 5.5 1.7 0.5 121.7 107.2

Tex under craig:
K HB D M G B T HO GA GC I50 FF FA DT SC
6.6 5.6 12.1 4.9 2.7 0.6 1.0 0.0 0.4 3.1 2.3 0.7 0.4 65.7 69.3
Under Bicks:
K HB D M G B T HO GA GC I50 FF FA DT SC
7.3 6.2 13.5 5.7 3.0 0.5 1.2 0.0 0.5 3.5 2.3 0.8 0.3 74.3 75.3

Bernie under Craig:
K HB D M G B T HO GA GC I50 FF FA DT SC
13.9 8.5 22.4 3.6 0.7 0.5 2.1 0.4 0.7 1.5 3.6 1.1 1.5 79.9 87.2
Under bicks:
K HB D M G B T HO GA GC I50 FF FA DT SC
12.3 11.7 24.0 4.8 0.5 0.3 1.7 0.2 0.7 1.2 3.2 0.7 1.0 82.7 88.8

Relentless under craigy:
K HB D M G B T HO GA GC I50 FF FA DT SC
10.3 7.8 18.1 3.3 0.7 0.7 5.2 0.5 0.8 1.4 3.3 1.7 1.0 80.9 81.6
Under bicks:
K HB D M G B T HO GA GC I50 FF FA DT SC
9.7 15.0 24.7 5.5 0.5 0.5 4.8 0.0 0.5 1.0 4.2 1.8 0.5 98.7 101.8

 

[Vader]

Most of those changes are fairly marginal - less than 5%. VB & Thompson were the big movers - in VB's case it was clearly caused by a positional move. Thompson had been outstanding all year, just found an extra gear as the season drew to a close.

 

[jenny61_99]

I also don't believe he would have been given the run of the forward line.

I suspect Craigy would have preferred the structure with Danger down there as well rather than in the middle for every centre bounce and playing onball at every possible opportunity.

I agree with this bit. Although this was enabled due to Tippetts injury to some extent?