Prediction Brisbane Lions 2017 Coach is Chris Fagan

[notliondown]

I think what did Leppa in was less the "wins and losses" and more the character of the losses. Plenty of measureables mentioned in four quarter efforts, quarters won, scores conceded. Get them improving, and the wins will follow.

Yeah... I fully get that... and agree with the philosophy 110%. It just seemed an odd choice of phrase given the timing. Bloody hard not to be impressed with the direction these guys want to take us but... basic, solid, team based footy, something we've been missing in hindsight by the looks.

 

[John_Proctor]

Leppa said it after being sacked by the club. He believed he'd done the hard work cleaning up the clubs list and getting in the kids that would form a nucleus for sustained success.

 

[jackess]

Leppa said it after being sacked by the club. He believed he'd done the hard work cleaning up the clubs list and getting in the kids that would form a nucleus for sustained success.

Good list management

 

[Roylion]

Leppa said it after being sacked by the club. He believed he'd done the hard work cleaning up the clubs list and getting in the kids that would form a nucleus for sustained success.

He also said it before he was sacked.

From November 2015

 

[Roylion]

Any and every coach would take the very same position given the state of the club

My point exactly. Whether it was Leppitsch, Fagan, Barker, Montgomery, Dew or Ratten, the list strategy would be much the same.

 

[lioninthesand]

Yeah... I fully get that... and agree with the philosophy 110%. It just seemed an odd choice of phrase given the timing. Bloody hard not to be impressed with the direction these guys want to take us but... basic, solid, team based footy, something we've been missing in hindsight by the looks.

Over coached from day 1. He is a footy nerd so thats his mandate. Moving kids out of position and making demands, switching the game plan week to week, all 3 phases etc.. just needed 1 simple job per player and a high pressure defense. Not having a go, its what will make him a great assistant, obsessing over the strengths of a few players, just not good for 48 young guys on a list.

 

[notliondown]

Over coached from day 1. He is a footy nerd so thats his mandate. Moving kids out of position and making demands, switching the game plan week to week, all 3 phases etc.. just needed 1 simple job per player and a high pressure defense. Not having a go, its what will make him a great assistant, obsessing over the strengths of a few players, just not good for 48 young guys on a list.

Well it's a pretty circular argument.

The general philosophy for many many years and many many coaches was that you had to strengthen weaknesses. Often players in successful teams are multi dimensional and capable of adapting to different styles. Hawthorn mastered this in spades.

Now Beveridge has achieved success in shunning that idea and focusing on strengths.

Who's right and who's wrong? History would suggest well rounded, adapted and multifaceted players are the right answer. The future might prove that wrong... but I doubt it.

I would suggest we were simply not ready to make that leap, not that the philosophy was wrong.

 

[dlanod]

Now Beveridge has achieved success in shunning that idea and focusing on strengths.

The other thing worth noting is that I'm sure there are definitely non-negotiables at the Dogs. If your tackling or your running or your pressure or X, Y or Z was a weakness, they'll need you to bring it up to speed before they play you. It's not that different. The main thing seems to be that Beveridge plans to take advantage of his players' strengths better than most, and let's them play to them.

 

[winged1]

The other thing worth noting is that I'm sure there are definitely non-negotiables at the Dogs. If your tackling or your running or your pressure or X, Y or Z was a weakness, they'll need you to bring it up to speed before they play you. It's not that different. The main thing seems to be that Beveridge plans to take advantage of his players' strengths better than most, and let's them play to them.

Borne out by the dropping of Macrae and Stringer during the year.

 

[notliondown]

Borne out by the dropping of Macrae and Stringer during the year.

I think that's really important. Sometimes fate/luck/whatever forces your hand... and by accident you discover that little "extra" thing that makes the difference.

Like dlanod said there was no question Beveridge had "not negotiable's"... the skills the Dogs showed at times were bloody impressive... but when injury forces you to change the structure of the team to play strengths almost out of necessity, sometimes a door opens you didn't even know was there.

 

[winged1]

I think that's really important. Sometimes fate/luck/whatever forces your hand... and by accident you discover that little "extra" thing that makes the difference.

Like dlanod said there was no question Beveridge had "not negotiable's"... the skills the Dogs showed at times were bloody impressive... but when injury forces you to change the structure of the team to play strengths almost out of necessity, sometimes a door opens you didn't even know was there.

Keep in mind they won the two's as well, so guys right through the list have been able to step up.

 

[13Beast]

Borne out by the dropping of Macrae and Stringer during the year.

The best thing about Stringer getting dropped was not hearing McAvaney rub one out every millisecond howling "The Package!" everytime a WBD game was on the telly.

 

[winged1]

The best thing about Stringer getting dropped was not hearing McAvaney rub one out every millisecond howling "The Package!" everytime a WBD game was on the telly.

or at any other time. Especially in the men's room

 

[Fitzroy bears]

Really like the positive" no excuses" article from fagan it seems to me that the players wont be able to use facilities as an excuse from now on. Every day looks brighter.

 

[jjami15]

Really like the positive" no excuses" article from fagan it seems to me that the players wont be able to use facilities as an excuse from now on. Every day looks brighter.

Or any other excuse they would use!!

 

[Fitzroy bears]

Love the analogy of "10kg weight weighs the same in a woodshed as it does in the westpac centre" love it.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Love the analogy of "10kg weight weighs the same in a woodshed as it does in the westpac centre" love it.

Then Fagan finds out that our entire gym setup literally consists of one 10kg weight.

 

[Fitzroy bears]

Then Fagan finds out that our entire gym setup literally consists of one 10kg weight.

You can build strength building gyms

 

[frenchconnection]

Well it's a pretty circular argument.

The general philosophy for many many years and many many coaches was that you had to strengthen weaknesses. Often players in successful teams are multi dimensional and capable of adapting to different styles. Hawthorn mastered this in spades.

Now Beveridge has achieved success in shunning that idea and focusing on strengths.

Who's right and who's wrong? History would suggest well rounded, adapted and multifaceted players are the right answer. The future might prove that wrong... but I doubt it.

I would suggest we were simply not ready to make that leap, not that the philosophy was wrong.

Hope you don't mind my intrusion on your Board but think Bevo has got it right. Focus on a players strengths as agree that too many coaches try to make a player multi- dimensional. What happens in some cases is that the coach ruins the natural play of the player concerned. Of course there are always exceptions!!

 

[lioninthesand]

Well it's a pretty circular argument.

The general philosophy for many many years and many many coaches was that you had to strengthen weaknesses. Often players in successful teams are multi dimensional and capable of adapting to different styles. Hawthorn mastered this in spades.

Now Beveridge has achieved success in shunning that idea and focusing on strengths.

Who's right and who's wrong? History would suggest well rounded, adapted and multifaceted players are the right answer. The future might prove that wrong... but I doubt it.

I would suggest we were simply not ready to make that leap, not that the philosophy was wrong.

I think he over coached our list, given our age - i havent known of any clubs implementing his coaching methods on such a young group. He is credibly stats focused and tried various gane styles tbroughout the year - beveridge isnt the poster boy for devalopment, he has just been kissed by god.

Looking forward to a new style, no excuses and sensible devalopment.

Ps - leigh matthews mantra was 'you have one job and do it well'.. which is why almost everyone flourished under him.

 

[snooplions]

Hope you don't mind my intrusion on your Board but think Bevo has got it right. Focus on a players strengths as agree that too many coaches try to make a player multi- dimensional. What happens in some cases is that the coach ruins the natural play of the player concerned. Of course there are always exceptions!!

Leppitsch with Sam Mayes is a good example of this for us.

 

[notliondown]

I think he over coached our list, given our age - i havent known of any clubs implementing his coaching methods on such a young group. He is credibly stats focused and tried various gane styles tbroughout the year - beveridge isnt the poster boy for devalopment, he has just been kissed by god.

Looking forward to a new style, no excuses and sensible devalopment.

Ps - leigh matthews mantra was 'you have one job and do it well'.. which is why almost everyone flourished under him.

I'm not sure I'd agree on the Matthews thing at all. He may have had players settle into positions eventually but he had plenty of focus on players being multi faceted. Definitely agree on Beveridge... there's a massive amount of luck there, but sometimes you make your own along the way. Clearly his group believes in him which is critical - right message or not.

Leppitsch with Sam Mayes is a good example of this for us.

Mayes wanted to play back. He didn't like the pressure of playing forward and sought to be moved to where he felt more comfortable. I'm not sure what else a coach would do in that situation?

 

[dlanod]

Leppitsch with Sam Mayes is a good example of this for us.

Heh.

It's a bid sad Leppa will not get the credit for helping to unlock that potential.

 

[dlanod]

Ps - leigh matthews mantra was 'you have one job and do it well'.. which is why almost everyone flourished under him.

You mean the guy that is renowned for some of his master coaching moves like moving Aker to the half-back flank, and moving Leppa and Bradshaw back and forth from defence and attack, and moved Brown into the midfield at times? He loved flexible players that he could shuffle around as he saw fit.

 

[Dalions]

(/QUOTE)Mayes wanted to play back. He didn't like the pressure of playing forward and sought to be moved to where he felt more comfortable. I'm not sure what else a coach would do in that situation?[/QUOTE]
I guess we will find out where Mayes feels he plays his best footy. As fagan has said he would be likely to play them in their best position.