smoovy
Premiership Player
He was on Cassisi early.
Bickley's Performance - Rate
- Thread starter Brenton Davy
- Start date
- Tagged users None
He was on Cassisi early.
toddflanders
Senior List
i felt that in the 3rd when port started to make a comeback he changed something to stop the flow, whereas neil would have let it continue....!
kudos!
kudos!
Adelaide Cows
Team Captain
I liked what I saw.
You heard during the week it would be a more intense approach. and they brought it and kept it up most of the night, even when challenged. The aggression at player and ball breeds confidence in the playing group.
The moves of Knights and VB where they belong, brought both into the game and will no doubt bring form.
Will it be a game style they can play for a full season or even the next 6 weeks, I hope so.
Good start from a reluctant coach
You heard during the week it would be a more intense approach. and they brought it and kept it up most of the night, even when challenged. The aggression at player and ball breeds confidence in the playing group.
The moves of Knights and VB where they belong, brought both into the game and will no doubt bring form.
Will it be a game style they can play for a full season or even the next 6 weeks, I hope so.
Good start from a reluctant coach
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 77,395
- 152,136
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #29
Geoffa32 made a really good observation in another thread that belongs here:
We always preferred to have our own loose man in defence as a bit of a safety net. It's a very defence-first mindset and of course it leaves Hurn, Scarlett or whoever free to do as they please at one end while Stevens or Doughty are able to extend their careers at the other.
As Geoffa32 points out, tonight was subtly different. We made sure it was one on one and made their defenders accountable. It worked tonight, I hope we continue with this approach against the better teams.
We always preferred to have our own loose man in defence as a bit of a safety net. It's a very defence-first mindset and of course it leaves Hurn, Scarlett or whoever free to do as they please at one end while Stevens or Doughty are able to extend their careers at the other.
As Geoffa32 points out, tonight was subtly different. We made sure it was one on one and made their defenders accountable. It worked tonight, I hope we continue with this approach against the better teams.
Not sure if I am right completely, but I think I saw Vince even go to a half back flank at times and looked pretty good of it.
Also whilst at times I find Maric frustrating, I admire him for his passion and they way he sticks up for his team mates etc., I thought he was in Ports face early on, something we haven't seen much all year!!
Also whilst at times I find Maric frustrating, I admire him for his passion and they way he sticks up for his team mates etc., I thought he was in Ports face early on, something we haven't seen much all year!!
It was a tad concerning that Westhoff and Schulz tag teamed as Port's spare man in attack for the first 10-15 minutes!! WTF?? They were unmanned at the centre bounces and were at least 30-40m clear on their own. Fortunately we had control of the ball for the majority of that time.
It is early days but he was hard to fault tonight.
Cant say the gameplan was exactly the same- we were more direct and didnt go into our painfully slow switch routine. Forward entry while still wasteful at times was alot better.... quite refreshing to actually hit a leading forward.
Not saying hes the man for the job, but I dont think he would be a craig clone that alot of people have feared.
Cant say the gameplan was exactly the same- we were more direct and didnt go into our painfully slow switch routine. Forward entry while still wasteful at times was alot better.... quite refreshing to actually hit a leading forward.
Not saying hes the man for the job, but I dont think he would be a craig clone that alot of people have feared.
I liked the lack of spare man in our forward 50, it makes us a least a little dangerous when going forward.
There were a couple of obvious differences in positional changes:
The ones I liked were:
Knights in the Midfield
Reilly out of the middle and into the backline
Vince off Half Back
Dangerfield on the ball!
I didn't like Petrinko stuck in the forward pocket. I think he only got put in the centre in the last 10 minutes and created well.
Would be good to see how well the basic changes stack up against better teams.
There were a couple of obvious differences in positional changes:
The ones I liked were:
Knights in the Midfield
Reilly out of the middle and into the backline
Vince off Half Back
Dangerfield on the ball!
I didn't like Petrinko stuck in the forward pocket. I think he only got put in the centre in the last 10 minutes and created well.
Would be good to see how well the basic changes stack up against better teams.
Honestly, we were still pretty s**t tonight.
We're just very lucky that Port were even shitter; a better team would've made us pay for the huge number of mistakes we made - Port couldn't - we'd execute terribly and turn it over, then we'd be lucky enough that they'd stuff up as well.
Nice to have a win, but we were pretty crap.
We're just very lucky that Port were even shitter; a better team would've made us pay for the huge number of mistakes we made - Port couldn't - we'd execute terribly and turn it over, then we'd be lucky enough that they'd stuff up as well.
Nice to have a win, but we were pretty crap.
NTRabbit
Brownlow Medallist
Knights played midfield in his last game under Craig, more on a wing than directly in the middle.
Reilly was tagging Ebert, and followed him around the ground.
Two "genuine ruckmen" was a forced change due to the absence of Tippett, and the rubbish of Moran. In any event, Maric was played in exactly the same way Tippett is used, just with slightly more time in the middle and much less effectiveness around the ground.
Vince has played off halfback most of the year, as well as spending varying periods rotating through the middle. In fact, Vince spent more time in the midfield today than he has since very early in the season.
Dangerfield has played on the ball most games this year. People who claim otherwise take the two games he spent almost in their entirety forward, and his stints resting forward between rotations, and extrapolate that into "he never plays midfield". Utter trash.
If you think Walker would not have tried that miskicked checkside a few weeks ago, then you're kidding yourself. He would have attempted that every day of the week and twice on Sundays, no matter who the coach was. It's what he does, and what he has always done.
Exactly. Prime example was the awful kick from Knights at half back to the middle of three Port players - the one who marked it promptly turned the ball over to Petrenko with an equally poor kick, and we ended up with a set shot from the play. It was a terrible game to watch.
Reilly was tagging Ebert, and followed him around the ground.
Two "genuine ruckmen" was a forced change due to the absence of Tippett, and the rubbish of Moran. In any event, Maric was played in exactly the same way Tippett is used, just with slightly more time in the middle and much less effectiveness around the ground.
Vince has played off halfback most of the year, as well as spending varying periods rotating through the middle. In fact, Vince spent more time in the midfield today than he has since very early in the season.
Dangerfield has played on the ball most games this year. People who claim otherwise take the two games he spent almost in their entirety forward, and his stints resting forward between rotations, and extrapolate that into "he never plays midfield". Utter trash.
If you think Walker would not have tried that miskicked checkside a few weeks ago, then you're kidding yourself. He would have attempted that every day of the week and twice on Sundays, no matter who the coach was. It's what he does, and what he has always done.
Exactly. Prime example was the awful kick from Knights at half back to the middle of three Port players - the one who marked it promptly turned the ball over to Petrenko with an equally poor kick, and we ended up with a set shot from the play. It was a terrible game to watch.
**** me, how deluded are you?
Knights played the last qtr against Geelong in the middle before he was dropped, thats it.
Vince has played as a midfielder this year, the only game he spent some time down back was against Sydney and that as limited.
Reilly tagged a forward, is that what you are calling a defender now?
Danger has spent 75% up forward, 25% percent on the ball. Even Craig defended playing him as a forward.
Sometimes your enlightened posts are just wrong.
Knights played the last qtr against Geelong in the middle before he was dropped, thats it.
Vince has played as a midfielder this year, the only game he spent some time down back was against Sydney and that as limited.
Reilly tagged a forward, is that what you are calling a defender now?
Danger has spent 75% up forward, 25% percent on the ball. Even Craig defended playing him as a forward.
Sometimes your enlightened posts are just wrong.
DavidSaywell
Senior List
He played 6 forwards and 6 backs all night. Radical and probably only would work against Port but it actually gave our forwards a genuine chance instead of being double. triple or quadruple(!!!!!!!!!!) teamed.Tippett would have had a field day
In my first post in this thread I said this game was a throw away for rating the coaching.
But get over yourself already. We saw some different things tonight that many of us have been calling for, for ages... Reilly tagging ebert.... You idiot.
So, 14th beat 17th. You'd expect that in any year, in any season.
Except I didn't. I tipped Port in the five tipping comps I'm in. The Showdowns often contradict the season's form. And Port had more motive than Adelaide to construct a winning way tonight. Adelaide has had a lousy season, but they were not bottom. If ever Port had a reason to win, it was tonight. Refreshed from the bye, staring at a wooden spoon, tonight should have been their night.
And for a while it could have been. There were vast moments in this game where they looked like the better side but they couldn't complete their forward movements. They were incomplete, massively so. Their faults were critical, lethal, awful.
They made Adelaide look much better than they really are.
No-one can take any comfort out of this game. This was a supreme battle of the duds in a round where the size of the gap between the haves and the havenots has been revealed for all to see. Geelong's 31-goal win against Melbourne, Collingwood's thirteen goal win after being five goals down against Essendon, Hawthorn's cruising victory against Fremantle a long way from home, West Coast winning in Melbourne…
Adelaide and Port are so short of the standard, at the moment, a win either way in today's showdown was always going to be deceptive, teasing, just a double blind.
Bickley versus Craig.
Nothing has been added; nothing has been taken away. For all of Mark's microchanges, Johncock's game, which was most of the time very good, was also consistent with the way Craig coached him. Take on the contest, move forward, take the risk of leaving your forward behind.
There's too much focus on the coaches in the AFL. Too much dumb analysis of things that don't matter. What matters is whether players decide to play or whether they don't. Or whether they can.
van Berlo, Vince, Dangerfield turned it on for four quarters today. Was that because they had a new coach? No, I don't think so. They turned it on because they were playing against a team, at last, that were incapable of closing them down.
14th played 17th. This had little to do with the new coach, or new tactics, or new method. Adelaide played a team at its lowest ebb and had a good win.
The problem is when Adelaide plays a crap team and loses. And, being 14th, that problem is still there.
Except I didn't. I tipped Port in the five tipping comps I'm in. The Showdowns often contradict the season's form. And Port had more motive than Adelaide to construct a winning way tonight. Adelaide has had a lousy season, but they were not bottom. If ever Port had a reason to win, it was tonight. Refreshed from the bye, staring at a wooden spoon, tonight should have been their night.
And for a while it could have been. There were vast moments in this game where they looked like the better side but they couldn't complete their forward movements. They were incomplete, massively so. Their faults were critical, lethal, awful.
They made Adelaide look much better than they really are.
No-one can take any comfort out of this game. This was a supreme battle of the duds in a round where the size of the gap between the haves and the havenots has been revealed for all to see. Geelong's 31-goal win against Melbourne, Collingwood's thirteen goal win after being five goals down against Essendon, Hawthorn's cruising victory against Fremantle a long way from home, West Coast winning in Melbourne…
Adelaide and Port are so short of the standard, at the moment, a win either way in today's showdown was always going to be deceptive, teasing, just a double blind.
Bickley versus Craig.
Nothing has been added; nothing has been taken away. For all of Mark's microchanges, Johncock's game, which was most of the time very good, was also consistent with the way Craig coached him. Take on the contest, move forward, take the risk of leaving your forward behind.
There's too much focus on the coaches in the AFL. Too much dumb analysis of things that don't matter. What matters is whether players decide to play or whether they don't. Or whether they can.
van Berlo, Vince, Dangerfield turned it on for four quarters today. Was that because they had a new coach? No, I don't think so. They turned it on because they were playing against a team, at last, that were incapable of closing them down.
14th played 17th. This had little to do with the new coach, or new tactics, or new method. Adelaide played a team at its lowest ebb and had a good win.
The problem is when Adelaide plays a crap team and loses. And, being 14th, that problem is still there.
Mate, you're wrong here.
Our gameplan under Craigy featured a some distinct ball movement patterns that were missing today (although it reverted back a bit in the 2nd half):
- backwards movement and switch out of defense
- focus on movement through the corridor
Craig's philosophy centered around maintaining possession and preventing turnovers.
It was evident to me that there was a change this week, and i would not be surprised if the instruction was as simple as just move it forward at every opportunity.
I'm pretty sure I heard Craigy once mention that 'deep forward 50 entries' were preferable as it became easier for forwards to lock the ball in. As a throw-away statistic it's interesting - but the problem is I think he became obsessed with it and tried to coach it into our gameplan. The result of this was big bombs on Tippets head and the frustration that caused so many of us.
Most annoying of all, the plan was there to deal with what happens when we fail to score a goal. So our attacking philosophy was based on countering failure, not creating success. It was predictable and easy to defend. Interesting theory - zero practicality.
If there's a stat anywhere for marks on a lead inside 50 - I'm pretty sure the Crows would be rank 17 this year.
So I for one was happy to see players actually keeping their eyes down looking for players on a lead yesterday.
You can say what you want about the opposition (and I'm more than happy to agree) but the new style of attack was different and was positive.
Not saying Bickley's a genius either but it was bloody good to see. It will also be interesting to see how that style of attack matches up with a decent opposition and/or Tippett in the team.
Most annoying of all, the plan was there to deal with what happens when we fail to score a goal. So our attacking philosophy was based on countering failure, not creating success. It was predictable and easy to defend. Interesting theory - zero practicality.
If there's a stat anywhere for marks on a lead inside 50 - I'm pretty sure the Crows would be rank 17 this year.
So I for one was happy to see players actually keeping their eyes down looking for players on a lead yesterday.
You can say what you want about the opposition (and I'm more than happy to agree) but the new style of attack was different and was positive.
Not saying Bickley's a genius either but it was bloody good to see. It will also be interesting to see how that style of attack matches up with a decent opposition and/or Tippett in the team.
Yeah sorry, but this is fiction.
Thought the positional changes were good. Players obviously played with more flair, and the gameplan was definitely different - we used the corridor a bit more and were more willing to break a line with run, rather than chip around the back looking for an opening. Our kick out setup was also a little different.
Having said all that, Port were probably the perfect opponent for us this week. They are terrible, we were a little better and have better personnel. I think Bick's did everything he had to do, but this is not the game to rate him on.
lolz.
possibly the worst post I've ever seen. Do you actually watch the crows?
I'd argue, but I think everyone else has made the counter points (ie. told the truth) already.
Can't agree with this mate, especially the bold.
We still tried to switch it coming out of defence the vast majority of the time, it was painful to watch.
I was listening to the presser after, and Rucci trying to claim that we didn't go backwards or sideways anywhere near as much this week - not sure what game he was watching, but we still did the switch, still went backwards and sideways way, way too much.
The usual suspects (Stiffy, Danger etc) were trying to get the ball going forward, while the other usual suspects were stopping, propping and then going backwards or sideways.
We're just lucky Port are shitter than we are.
Pretty much my thoughts. Made the obvious calls we wanted, didn't have to do much reactive coaching and will have an easy run apart from Geelong, where we'll see how things go.
