Bickley does things Craig could never do

[Slippery Pete]

the only reason the scoreboard has been positive for Bickley is the incompetence of our opposition.

Brisbane smashed us at AAMI earlier in the year. And so did Port.

Please explain.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Perhaps I'm a cynic, but without the freshening of minds that has resulted from the change of coach, and yes, some moves that Bickley made in the box yesterday, I don't reckon the "incompetence of the opposition" would have been enough to carry us over the line.

How anybody can testify that the Johncock move wasnt the defining influence on the result of the game is beyond me.

It's humourous to watch the same posters constantly make excuses for Craig though.

 

[relapse]

Fair enough. But I believe that credit should not be given where it is not due and the fact of the matter is that we are equally as horrible under Bicks and the only reason the scoreboard has been positive for Bickley is the incompetence of our opposition.

I was happy with the result but very concerned about the way we played yesterday.

We were challenged in both games by the opposition and both wins were very un-neil craig like. If Craig was subjected to the same circumstances I honestly think we would have definitely lost yesterday.

There is no way that Neil would have had us playing attacking footy when we were down by 4 goals nor would he have made a pro-active attacking move with the game still in the balance. Neil would have had us going ultra defensive, overusing the handball and playing uncontested football and we would have lost.

 

[Vader]

How anybody can testify that the Johncock move wasnt the defining influence on the result of the game is beyond me.

It's humourous to watch the same posters constantly make excuses for Craig though.

I think it's a case of chicken vs egg.

Nobody, Johncock included, would have had a chance of scoring in the 2nd & 3rd term the way our midfielders were bombing it into the F50. I remember one time where they bombed it to a 5-on-1 contest and another where a player 45m out on the boundary line bombed it to the top of the square - where there were 3 lions players loitering and no Crows within 20m.

The first thing that had to be fixed was our F50 entries from the midfield. The midfielders needed to stop, take the time to raise their eyes and search for a target. Once that happened our chances of scoring went up by about 1000%.

The Johncock move, one which Craig has frequently made under similar conditions (ie at 3/4 time when we were getting nothing from him in defence), was the icing on the cake. He was able to take advantage of the improved delivery from the midfield, slotting 2 vital goals when it mattered most.

Yes, the Johncock move proved vital to our success - but it would have been doomed to failure if that were the only change that Bickley made at 3/4 time.

 

[Vader]

We were challenged in both games by the opposition and both wins were very un-neil craig like. If Craig was subjected to the same circumstances I honestly think we would have definitely lost yesterday.

There is no way that Neil would have had us playing attacking footy when we were down by 4 goals nor would he have made a pro-active attacking move with the game still in the balance. Neil would have had us going ultra defensive, overusing the handball and playing uncontested football and we would have lost.

Not in 2010 or 2011 anyway. Prior to that? I think we would have fought our way out of it. Then again, prior to that we wouldn't have been trailing a team as bad as the 2011 Brisbane Lions outfit.

 

[Slippery Pete]

I think we also used the corridor less yesterday, and actually took less unnecessary risks against the forward press with our ball movement. We moved the ball quickly to score, but it was very measured and discriminatory. Looked like a direct implementation from Bickley.

That's the way I saw it anyway.

 

[SydCrow]

I think we also used the corridor less yesterday, and actually took less unnecessary risks against the forward press with our ball movement. We moved the ball quickly to score, but it was very measured and discriminatory. Looked like a direct implementation from Bickley.

That's the way I saw it anyway.

actually I saw plenty of turnovers by us in the corridor and a few close misses

the commentators made a point of this - noting at 3/4 time that we needed to clean it up and use the switch more

 

[SydCrow]

We were challenged in both games by the opposition and both wins were very un-neil craig like. If Craig was subjected to the same circumstances I honestly think we would have definitely lost yesterday.

There is no way that Neil would have had us playing attacking footy when we were down by 4 goals nor would he have made a pro-active attacking move with the game still in the balance. Neil would have had us going ultra defensive, overusing the handball and playing uncontested football and we would have lost.

funny, in Round 20 last year we won a similar game at the Gabba. VB kicked a goal with a minute to go.

[youtube]bum4bICP-xE&feature=player_embedded#at=312[/youtube]

Knights also went off injured

 

[jenny61_99]

How anybody can testify that the Johncock move wasnt the defining influence on the result of the game is beyond me.

It's humourous to watch the same posters constantly make excuses for Craig though.

I thought the man on man move in the fourth was far more telling than the Johncock move. It meant they had to kick to a contest and it turns out we were up to the task and started winning contests all over the ground.

Bickley hasn't turned our team to a winning one in two weeks without the influences of Craig's structures and intent. How the boys have played in the last two games, is how they were expected to play under Craig but didn't. The base elements were there, they just needed a size 12 boot up the clacker to wake them up.

This week will be the real test for Bicks.

 

[CrowFan83]

Bickley hasn't turned our team to a winning one in two weeks without the influences of Craig's structures and intent. How the boys have played in the last two games, is how they were expected to play under Craig but didn't. The base elements were there, they just needed a size 12 boot up the clacker to wake them up.

This week will be the real test for Bicks.

I would add his selection of players and where he had them play on the ground has contributed greatly to the wins in the last 2 weeks. I would almost bet my house Walker would not have played the last 2 with Craig at the helm - 8 goals and 2 wins later........
Also encouraging the team to take risks and not be afraid of making mistakes appears to have worked wonders too.

Bring on Geelong! Will we lose - most likely. But the boys lifted last year against them, hopefully they can at least repeat the effort and intensity too.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

I thought the man on man move in the fourth was far more telling than the Johncock move. It meant they had to kick to a contest and it turns out we were up to the task and started winning contests all over the ground.

Bickley hasn't turned our team to a winning one in two weeks without the influences of Craig's structures and intent. How the boys have played in the last two games, is how they were expected to play under Craig but didn't. The base elements were there, they just needed a size 12 boot up the clacker to wake them up.

This week will be the real test for Bicks.

Jenny

disagree, Bickley has significantly simplified the structure and game plan, this is what we have been screaming for all year

Bick's is also playing players in their best positions, VB and Knights (Midfield) and Walker (FF) are examples of this

you are drawing a long bow with your statement, I would go as far as saying that we would have lost yesterday if we played with Neil's robust structure and game plan

 

[Allefgib]

I agree alot of craigy's base plans have been seen more effectively last few weeks. The run and over lap at tunes yesterday was fantastic and a key element of craigy's plans.

I violently disagree a size 12 ass kick has been the difference.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I've been wondering... Could Bickley not share these ideas under Craig? Was Craig THAT set in his ways?

Very, very good question.

Even Neil's biggest fans would have to admit that Dangerfield to permanent midfield and Riley into the team wouldn't have happened while Neil was there. Possibly others too but I'll leave it at that for now. Why couldn't the remaining coaches have convinced him to try these fairly obvious, simple moves?

 

[Vader]

Very, very good question.

Even Neil's biggest fans would have to admit that Dangerfield to permanent midfield and Riley into the team wouldn't have happened while Neil was there. Possibly others too but I'll leave it at that for now. Why couldn't the remaining coaches have convinced him to try these fairly obvious, simple moves?

True.. but neither of those moves had any real impact on the result yesterday. Dangermouse was good against Port, but had almost no impact at all against Brisbane.

Walker probably would have come in under Neil Craig - if only because Tippett was MIA through injury and he would have had no alternative. To Bickley's credit, he announced Walker's selection before Tippett's injury was known.

 

[Allefgib]

disagree vader.

the change in approach breeds confidence and inspires desire irrespective of the individual performances.

it also prepares us for the future. something you never seem to consider with your cold, often wrong, analysis of what happened in the last 5 minutes.

making the players earn everything and ONLY doing what is best for the team today surely has to be one of the worst ways to prepare them for a long, successful AFL career. they are critical components but very lacking when used as the only criteria imo

 

[jenny61_99]

Jenny

disagree, Bickley has significantly simplified the structure and game plan, this is what we have been screaming for all year

Bick's is also playing players in their best positions, VB and Knights (Midfield) and Walker (FF) are examples of this

you are drawing a long bow with your statement, I would go as far as saying that we would have lost yesterday if we played with Neil's robust structure and game plan

Maybe so, but I don't think you can deny Craig's walking was a HUGE wake up call to all of them (assistant coaches included!). Much of the run and carry play that looked good yesterday was what we already have seen periodically under Craig this year (remember that thread I started about the signs for the future?) - much of the crap we saw in the 2nd and 3rd quarter has also been evident under Craig the last two seasons. No doubt in my mind that Walker would have been recalled by Craig for the Port game.

I agree that the positional moves have been quite good - though too early to call them game winners. Vader correctly identified that Danger - while good last week - really only had one moment of brilliance yesterday (albeit that game saving tackle!). Knights was injured early and had little bearing on the game. So the jury must still be out on those moves. But I do like them - particularly with Gunston and Wright providing additional options in the forward set ups, allowing Danger to be in the middle.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

True.. but neither of those moves had any real impact on the result yesterday. Dangermouse was good against Port, but had almost no impact at all against Brisbane.

Walker probably would have come in under Neil Craig - if only because Tippett was MIA through injury and he would have had no alternative. To Bickley's credit, he announced Walker's selection before Tippett's injury was known.

It doesn't matter if they did or didn't have any real impact.

The question is why they are being tried now, and weren't previously.

 

[Vader]

It doesn't matter if they did or didn't have any real impact.

The question is why they are being tried now, and weren't previously.

Well, no. If the moves aren't having any observable effect (some are - most notably VB into the midfield, some aren't), then you need to ask if Craig was right in his previous positioning.

 

[afc1991]

Bickley is simply applying the george costanza philosophy that if every natural coaching instinct from craig, be it a positional move or team selection was wrong, then the opposite must be right.

The attacking mindset is the best part. Your always half a chance if you keep attacking. Id forgotten how much I missed that.

 

[moogerfooger]

Bickley is simply applying the george costanza philosophy that if every natural coaching instinct from craig, be it a positional move or team selection was wrong, then the opposite must be right.

The attacking mindset is the best part. Your always half a chance if you keep attacking. Id forgotten how much I missed that.

I loved that in the final play of the match, after Rutten passed to Hendo, he could have played classic NC tempo footy and kicked it backwards to a Crows player alone in the goal square. Instead he kicked it long to a contest on the wing and backed Talia to beat his man.

Bickley may not get the job but he deserves respect for the way he's going about it at the minute.

 

[moogerfooger]

I think we also used the corridor less yesterday, and actually took less unnecessary risks against the forward press with our ball movement. We moved the ball quickly to score, but it was very measured and discriminatory. Looked like a direct implementation from Bickley.

That's the way I saw it anyway.

Yes, especially in the first quarter. In the 2nd and 3rd we seemed to revert to old habits and try and get into the corridor which invariably got us into trouble. There were multiple instances in the first quarter where we moved the ball out of defense along the boundary line with low risk precision kicks, all the way into the attacking 50. Very Collingwood like.

 

[jenny61_99]

I wonder if all this praise will continue to be reaped on Bicks after the weekend.

 

[CrowFan83]

I wonder if all this praise will continue to be reaped on Bicks after the weekend.

Team selection will be a good starting point for him!

I still disagree with you that Craig would have selected Walker, and add to that Maric for the showdown. I think he only would have brought Knights in based on his SANFL form, the other two he would have found reason to leave out - my guess is he would have gone with Moran or McKernan (anyone but Walker to be honest, even with Tippett out).

If we get thumped but I can see that Bickley has tried changing things during the game I will be relatively satisfied (although would prefer an upset lol).

 

[Slippery Pete]

The attacking mindset is the best part. Your always half a chance if you keep attacking. Id forgotten how much I missed that.

disagree vader.

the change in approach breeds confidence and inspires desire irrespective of the individual performances.

it also prepares us for the future. something you never seem to consider with your cold, often wrong, analysis of what happened in the last 5 minutes.

Two very significant points here. People are missing the point with the Johncock move. We can argue all day about whether it was the actual difference in the result (I argue it was), but what's really important is the paradigm shift in mentality from the coaches box.

The Johncock move was a classic roll of the dice. We were down by 20 points at 3/4 time, away from home. A move like that was either going to see us lose by 7 goals, or win narrowly. It worked, and the latter occurred. Some days it won't work. But at least Bicks has shown he won't die wondering.

Under Craig, we would've lost that game by...around 20 points. The same margin we trailled by at 3/4 time. How many interstate games did Craig win when trailling at 3/4 time in his entire tenure??

Somebody brought up the Brisbane game last year - but I'm pretty sure we werent down by 3+ goals at 3/4 time that day.

The proof is in the pudding. We were rarely a come from behind team under Craig, and even more rarely were we a team that rolled the dice to win a one-off affair.

 

[srv23]

I wonder if all this praise will continue to be reaped on Bicks after the weekend.

The thing is Jenny, it's not all about wins and losses. There's a whole lot more to why people are enjoying the last couple of weeks.

Firstly selection - you say Craig would definitely have brought in Walker - he may well have after Tippett went down, but it's been mentioned on 5aa here (don't know if it's correct or not) that Craig told Walker he had a month back at Norwood to find form before he would get selected. Bicks brought him in before Tippo got injured - and apparently according to VB, one of the first things the leadership group did was approach Bicks and say they wanted him in the side.

Then there's Maric - he has been in good form for as long as Moran had been fairly ordinary at AFL level - I think the coaching panel under Craig had a predetermined opinion that Jacobs and Maric could not play in the same team - but straight after Craig goes, Ivan comes in.

Then there's Riley, less than a month ago Craig told us that he did not have the required fitness to play AFL and that he needed to work on his offensive running. He sat on the brink of selection for months having far better form than the likes of Cook for example who got selected. Straight after Craig goes, in he comes, Looked good in his 1 quarter against Port and then played a full game on the weekend - inadequate fitness? -Was still tackling like a mad man and getting in the right positions deep in the last quarter.

Then there's Armstrong - pretty sure his DUI meant he was stamped "never to play for the crows again". Had been in pretty good sanfl form - last week comes in - gets 19 touches, made a few blues but for the most part, his skills are sensational - he is just what we need - a guy who can pinpoint passes unlike some other guys who play week in week out. Armstrong was never getting a remote look in under Craig this year.

Then we come to game plan ahnd positional changes - The most obvious thing to watch is the play on at all costs approach. It was high risk, high reward exciting stuff. yeah we stuffed it up a bit, and for moments on the weekend reverted back to the bang it long and hope approach, but when we got it right it was an exciting brand of footy to watch. Then the positional changes - Tex at FF, Gunna roaming the forward 50 (as opposed to loose man in defence), VB/Danger into the guts, Reilly out of the midfield into defence. Actually trying something different when it was glaringly obvious to all except Craig that what we were doing clearly wasn't woroking.

The sub - For most of the year the 22nd man picked was generally the sub - and it probably did happen last week too with Riley. But in the showdown we recognised that Schulz went down leaving them shorter in the forward line, so we subbed off a tall in Talia who was having a fairly dirty day to bring on a runner. Then last week we used Hendo who is a great sub - he plays in bursts, he can make things happen and he's a versatile player as well. We have not seen tactical use of the sub all year until the last 2 weeks.

And finally - making proactive moves when the game needs to be won. A "not going to die wondering" approach rather than letting the game continue to meander to an "Honourable" or even "dishonourable loss" The johncock move has been done before (although I can't remember it recently) but often the moves came too late under Craig because he didn't sense momentum shifts well or realise he needed to be proactive to capitalise on other positive aspects of our game. Recently Danger is the guy who would have been moved forwward. Bickley recognised that he needed to keep Thomm/Danger/Sloane around the stoppages to continue to win them, but that we needed a change up forward as our forward 50 entries in the third quarter were huge but largely ineffective. So he kept Danger in the guts, moved Stiffy, who wasn't having one of his best days, up forward and then went man on man, encouraged the guys to take the game on, and got over the line in a tough come from behind victory.

We all know we are likely to get smashed this week - geelong are in scary scary form - but as long as we take the same positive attitudes into selection/game plan and match day coaching moves as we have done for the last 2 weeks I'll be happy. If we continue to be proactive rather than defensive and reactive I'll be happy.

Look I still don't really want Bicks as coach as I think there are better /more qualified candidates out there - but you have to be impressed with what he's done over the last couple of weeks. Not only that - he is certainly proving to be no Neil Craig clone as many of us thought.