Remove this Banner Ad

Chapman/Costa interview

  • Thread starter Thread starter GeeCat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

GeeCat

Premiership Player
Joined
Sep 26, 2003
Posts
4,912
Reaction score
721
Location
TJBC
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
TDot, LFC
Briefly caught Chapman being bombarded with questions from the Sunday Footy Show panel. For those who care:

- Lowest point in his career, hasn't experienced anything like this in his time down at Geelong
- Thinks it's more confidence that's the issue than a lack of fitness, though he didn't rule out the 'fitness' theory behind fade-outs
- Knew WC would come back; that's why they're on top of the ladder
- Confidence is hard to regain, especially after winning solitary game over past few weeks
- Learning curve for all of them, need to get themselves out of hole, hopefully this week
- Bomber was, in Chappy's words, "surprisingly positive" after the game
- Bomber stressed how they'd done some good stuff for 2 and a half quarters

Costa interview down at Geelong followed (I question if it's the same one recorded and aired earlier in the week...)

- Costa repeated his previous effort: guarantees Bomber's contract in '06, signed till '07 so no need to go back on that now
- Mentioned that everyone will be reviewed at the end of season though (Tony Jones, reading between the lines, suggests that Costa merely bringing up the 'review' statement suggests Bomber is not safe for the last year of his contract)
- Brought up the fitness concerns [not enough base done in pre-season?]
- Mentioned that, for all bar one game, we've been in the hunt at 3 quarter time before 4th quarter fadeout

Perhaps what interested me the most was the acknowledgement of our fitness base, or lack thereof. Certainly downplayed as the major cause of our fade-outs (Chappy suggests it's a 'confidence' thing - methinks that has some merit to it. Lack the necessary leadership etc to stand up), but nonetheless conceded it as an issue and matter of concern.
 
Bugger the fitness, after the game Thompson said that the players are told they can chip it around a bit if they tired - this is just plain wrong.

If you give somebody an excuse to slacken up, if you give them that crutch, then more-than-likely they will grab it and embrace it rather than face the push beyond the pain barrier. And its when we start to chip it around that things invariably come unstuck for us, its called giving a sucker an even break.

Hasn't Bomber heard of rotations to rest players?
 
Totally agree JB, that was a dumb thing to say and a dumb thing to allow them to do. Its a soft option. And now he's let the 15 other teams know that when you see Geelong chip it around, it means they're tired and that if you press them at that stage, they're likely to wilt.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I HATE chippy-chippy footy with a passion. It drives me insane! Especially when Geelong do it coz they ALWAYS stuff it up and then the other team gets the turn over and kicks a goal. We shouldn't do this sort of footy because it's crap but also coz over this entire season the kicking has been poor. They don't seem to be hitting there targets, it drives me insane they practice so much how can they do so many STUPID kicks! GRRRRRRRRr
 
chapmanmagic35 said:
The buck is with the players, IMO. I don't think Bomber coached badly, although I was suprised with mooney switching from attack to defence so quickly.

oh wise one, you didnt see harley leave the ground with an injury and mooney obviously plugging that gaping hole.

or were you too busy following your man and great clubman mr c. ling through your rose petal glasses??
 
darren forssman said:
oh wise one, you didnt see harley leave the ground with an injury and mooney obviously plugging that gaping hole.

or were you too busy following your man and great clubman mr c. ling through your rose petal glasses??

Dazza your being a bit harsh IMO. He obviously has different oppinions to us so respect that and move on. *runs and hides*
 
Gotta go with Chappy here.

Surely Dasher was able to plug that hole?

He wasn't doing much up the field, so replace Harls with him.

Mooney was a match winner at CHF and became a roadblock across CHB that the eagles just went around.

My 2c worth.
 
Having watched the game and most of the others this season I think the real reason we are going down is our stupid decisions in front of goal and general poor kicking at the sticks. We must have one of the worst goal kicking ratios in the AFL. I am still bemused at an interview with our forward coach Ken Hinkley before the Richmond game where he declared he thought we had a pretty good forward set up. If we could just kick the goals that most teams kick (I'm not talking the freak goals that guys like Davis (Neon and Nick) and Daveys seem to kick every week, but the ones 20-40 metres out in front) then I reckon we would have at least 3 or 4 more wins and be looking good.
 
Catastrophe said:
Having watched the game and most of the others this season I think the real reason we are going down is our stupid decisions in front of goal and general poor kicking at the sticks. We must have one of the worst goal kicking ratios in the AFL. I am still bemused at an interview with our forward coach Ken Hinkley before the Richmond game where he declared he thought we had a pretty good forward set up. If we could just kick the goals that most teams kick (I'm not talking the freak goals that guys like Davis (Neon and Nick) and Daveys seem to kick every week, but the ones 20-40 metres out in front) then I reckon we would have at least 3 or 4 more wins and be looking good.

Cant disagree there. Saw some shockers in front of goal yesterday.

BTW, was it just me, or were the players almost completely ignoring Nablett??? I saw him leading, out in front, way out in front actually, of his opponent sometimes, yet twas ignored.

It was ironic that the poor guy kicked one to put us in front at the end.. but it was all too late.
 
Catastrophe said:
Exactly...he was having a go and making a contest - only one that kicks to him is his brother!

Glad i wasnt hallucinating there. (or maybe i wish i had been)

God, if it had been bloody Kingsley they would have passed it to him every time!!! Ya gotta give him a go, for gods sake.

Not happy Jan :mad:
 
The thing is Nathan, Bartel and Chapman are about the only players (maybe Ottens when he actually gets the ball) who want to kick goals and will have a crack....even Gary looks sideways. Ling against Richmond was criminal.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

GeeCat said:
Costa interview down at Geelong followed (I question if it's the same one recorded and aired earlier in the week...)

- Costa repeated his previous effort: guarantees Bomber's contract in '06, signed till '07 so no need to go back on that now
- Mentioned that everyone will be reviewed at the end of season though (Tony Jones, reading between the lines, suggests that Costa merely bringing up the 'review' statement suggests Bomber is not safe for the last year of his contract)
- Brought up the fitness concerns [not enough base done in pre-season?]
- Mentioned that, for all bar one game, we've been in the hunt at 3 quarter time before 4th quarter fadeout

Perhaps what interested me the most was the acknowledgement of our fitness base, or lack thereof. Certainly downplayed as the major cause of our fade-outs (Chappy suggests it's a 'confidence' thing - methinks that has some merit to it. Lack the necessary leadership etc to stand up), but nonetheless conceded it as an issue and matter of concern.

Thanks GeeCat :thumbsu:

What really annoys me is that the media take Costa's interview as...
AFL.com: "Costa has refused to guarantee coach Mark Thompson's future beyond this season, despite Thompson being contracted until the end of 2007"
http://afl.com.au/default.asp?pg=news&spg=display&articleid=271092

If he did refuse to guarantee it, then why not have the quotes in the article of his refusal. The only way I can see he refused it depends on the question asked, so why not report what question was asked.
Otherwise, to me it seems the start of another attempt by the media to decide what is best for a club, and twisting words to fit their own opinions. Tony Jones seems to do this a bit. In comparison to Jones, I could say reading between the lines Costa said absolutely nothing and the way he worded it talking more about fitness implies he trying to get the media attention on something other than Thompson and that he thinks Bomber is not the problem. And in saying he will review all positions as with every year will stop those who think Bomber should be sacked getting on Costa's back about it - that also fits Costa's statements, and like Jones, or AFl.com, could be totally wrong too.

Costa: "Mark is contracted until the end of next year and there is no reason to see why we wouldn't be doing anything other than honouring that at this stage,"

"However like everybody else we review everyone in the football club at the end of each year."

"We have done that since I came on the board at the football club and I don't see any reason why we won't be doing that this year."

How the hell is that a refusal or being under scrutiny???
That article at AFL.com has the heading "Thompson Under Scrutiny" - which reading that article is right, but only under scrutiny from whoever wrote the article.

It should read...
tima: "AFL.com has refused to guarantee coach Mark Thompson's future beyond this season, despite Costa saying otherwise... in this very article"

Sorry, the media really p1sses me off how they constantly twist things around to make a better story. They're like vultures.

Rant over :o :D :thumbsu:
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom