Coach Comparisons

[Crow-mo]

I disagree wholeheartedly. Some randomly selected posts from the last few days from this board:

"Craig's lack of coaching response today made him look like a clone of Gary Ayres or Grant Thomas"

"our current style, while extremely exciting, will not hold up under finals pressure"

"Today's game was lost from the coaching box. It took us 3 and a half quarters to realise that playing man on man will not allow richmond to play keepings off game that they did today. Blind Freddy would see that."

"Craig can say what he likes, but even though our players played sh ithouse today, the game was lost in tthe coaching box."

"I really don't like Neil Craig's slow reactions during games."

"Game day coaching - been said before but still our weakest link."

"does Neil Craig have a plan B?"

"Craig's game day coaching was utter crap today!"

"He's not a great match day coach, never has been"

"Craigy is never going to be much in the box"
​

Hardly a ringing endorsement of Craig as a great coach, more like a typical post-game analysis of Scott Stevens performance.

My point is that Wallace did not out-perform Craig as a match day coach. Wallace came up with his tactics early in the week (as he is loudly proclaiming to every media outlet in Australia), but if we'd kicked straight early, got anywhere near Richmond's intensity, threatened to win a clearance, or if either Kris Massie or Graham Johncock had scored an after the siren goal (instead of both missing everything) there's every chance Wallace would not have been able to implement plan A.

There's also every chance that if we went man-on-man from the 2nd term, we break down the structure that has served us so well for a season and a bit, we don't play it all that well because the players aren't as switched on as we'd like, our weak links get isolated in the defensive 50, and we still lose. In which case Craig gets derided for being a poor match day coach because he panicked.

Marvin,

aside from taking a number of quotes selectively and out of context - poor form, you are then taking different arguments and trying to suggest they say the same thing. that's not on.

however, nor do I agree with your suggestions that Wallace did not outperform craig. I am not sure what exactly you are basing that on, the thing is match day coaching is about forcing reactions, exploiting match ups, and re-adjusting. Wallace had his game plan, and craig put no pressure on him to change too much. in that situation, he does not HAVE to change things. he and his team are making the running.

the criticism of craig, which is fair, relates to one specific area. It has not been blown up as a some damnation of his overall worth - aside from a couple of outliers - but as a point for discussion. As it is, he prepares his teams - very well - and backs them in to execute and adjust. He has had a lot of success so far doing that, and when it doesn't work, there is a tendency to let it ride - broadly speaking. This has nothing to do with the esoteric issue of match day adjustments, which aren't a strong point.

what might be considered an issue in a wider context is finals football, which as a rule, tend to be all about matchday adjustments. This is however speculation for the moment, and we all hope it doesn't become an issue again this season.

frankly perhaps we should ask, do you feel he is infallible?

 

[Crow-mo]

Under NC the Crows have the most disciplined structure in the comp and it has been working pretty well for us. It has been working with large changes in playing personnel. If the coaching staff were to react to every single move made by the opposition the structure would become less disciplined and more anarchaic. NC wants the team to get used to their structure and playing styles. Moving everyone all over the shop to react to everything that happens on game day (You put a monkey on a piano long enough he will eventually play a tune) is just not his style. He admits it himself.

I agree, I think you're right. but this does not bare relevance to the esoteric point at hand. Which is not whether he should be doing something, it is whether this particular area is a strength.

 

[marvin]

Marvin,

aside from taking a number of quotes selectively and out of context - poor form, you are then taking different arguments and trying to suggest they say the same thing. that's not on.

Whatever. I'm not trying to say that anybody in particular is saying anything - frankly, I don't even know who I quoted - if I've quoted you, and if it's out of context, I apologise. I was responding to a particular comment that no-one was suggesting that Craig was not a great coach. That's clearly wrong, as about 2 minutes of scanning showed. A great coach to me suggests a pretty complete package.

however, nor do I agree with your suggestions that Wallace did not outperform craig. I am not sure what exactly you are basing that on, the thing is match day coaching is about forcing reactions, exploiting match ups, and re-adjusting. Wallace had his game plan, and craig put no pressure on him to change too much. in that situation, he does not HAVE to change things. he and his team are making the running.

Of course Wallace didn't have to change things. Having been at the match, and having sat 2 seats behind the AFC interchange bench, I can tell you why. Players who I have seen come off spent for a rest in the other games I've been at this season came off under little or no distress on Saturday. The players just didn't work hard enough - witness clearances, hard ball gets, 1%ers, any meaningful effort statistic.

Let's make things clear.

Craig couldn't force reactions, because his team couldn't get the ball.
Craig couldn't exploit match ups, because his team couldn't get the ball.
Craig couldn't show whether he was a brilliant match day coach, because his team couldn't get the ball.

Now, he could have switched to man-on-man. Even if he did, unless the effort and intensity across the board went up dramatically (and frankly, it did lift in the last quarter - players who were jogging all day suddenly found a will to sprint when the game had nearly slipped away), we would still have lost.

We never got to see how Wallace's match day coaching panned out - but my judgement, right or wrong, is that moving the deckchairs would have made no difference.

the criticism of craig, which is fair, relates to one specific area. It has not been blown up as a some damnation of his overall worth - aside from a couple of outliers - but as a point for discussion. As it is, he prepares his teams - very well - and backs them in to execute and adjust. He has had a lot of success so far doing that, and when it doesn't work, there is a tendency to let it ride - broadly speaking. This has nothing to do with the esoteric issue of match day adjustments, which aren't a strong point.

As I said in my first post in this thread, I still challenge you or anybody else to name a great "match day coach".

There's not a coach in the history of football who you can't pick to pieces either because he didn't make a move, or because he made the wrong move. Craig's no different. To me, he's fine as a match day coach, but my personal preference is to have a coach who errs on the side of backing his players in to work their way out of trouble, rather than a master puppeteer who has half his team looking for the runner at the first sign of trouble.

I can think of moves Craig hasn't made that I've cried out for him to make at the time - and moves that he has made that have made me tearing my hair out, sometimes in the same game. The final against St Kilda last year is a case in point. Craig was pilloried for not making a move (tagging Harvey) and pilloried for making a move (McGregor back to help out Hentschel with Riewoldt). He's not proactive enough for some, and too reactive for others. The life of a coach.

what might be considered an issue in a wider context is finals football, which as a rule, tend to be all about matchday adjustments. This is however speculation for the moment, and we all hope it doesn't become an issue again this season.

I disagree again, because IMHO finals footy has less to do with match day adjustments, and more about the performance of the bottom 6 players in the side on the day. The more players that are struggling, the fewer cards the coach has to play with - and that's the problem Craig was faced with on Saturday.

frankly perhaps we should ask, do you feel he is infallible?

Of course not. I'm not sure why you would even suggest I would think that.

 

[Crow-mo]

Whatever. I'm not trying to say that anybody in particular is saying anything - frankly, I don't even know who I quoted - if I've quoted you, and if it's out of context, I apologise. I was responding to a particular comment that no-one was suggesting that Craig was not a great coach. That's clearly wrong, as about 2 minutes of scanning showed. A great coach to me suggests a pretty complete package.

1. because aside from some of the more extremists, a number of those comments were balancing other credits.
2. of course a great coach is not the complete package. who is? Blight/Matthews/Sheedy/Malthouse etc. all have flaws. doesn't mean they're not super coaches.

Of course Wallace didn't have to change things. Having been at the match, and having sat 2 seats behind the AFC interchange bench, I can tell you why. Players who I have seen come off spent for a rest in the other games I've been at this season came off under little or no distress on Saturday. The players just didn't work hard enough - witness clearances, hard ball gets, 1%ers, any meaningful effort statistic.

Let's make things clear.

Craig couldn't force reactions, because his team couldn't get the ball.
Craig couldn't exploit match ups, because his team couldn't get the ball.
Craig couldn't show whether he was a brilliant match day coach, because his team couldn't get the ball.

sorry, but this is not what is being talked about. how does an inability to win the hard ball have anything to do with not being able to change match ups or force reactions? you may well be right in what you're saying, but they do not apply in this very specific discussion. if it's not working, that's usually when the coaching staff are meant to change things up, not vice versa. what drives the need for change, is that something is wrong.

Now, he could have switched to man-on-man. Even if he did, unless the effort and intensity across the board went up dramatically (and frankly, it did lift in the last quarter - players who were jogging all day suddenly found a will to sprint when the game had nearly slipped away), we would still have lost.

I don't know, you might be right. I don't think any one move makes much difference to me, mainly because it's pretty clear our coaching staff are very reluctant to make a change. that's the dynamic being discussed, for me anyway, not whether one particular move was appropriate. Wallace set the tempo (no pun intended ) and we did not attempt to disrupt.

Our guys were/are well prepared, well drilled, on what to do, and presumably when. what was worrying was that when something different was thrown at them, they weren't sure how to respond. fine, that happens sometimes - that's when we're looking to the box. the box didn't say anything back. 99 times out 100, we won't be faced with a situation like this, but if it does occur and we don't react it is fair to raise an eyebrow.

We never got to see how Wallace's match day coaching panned out - but my judgement, right or wrong, is that moving the deckchairs would have made no difference.

that's the point, we didn't get to see Wallace under pressure, having to respond.

as for the result, again you might be right. though for 3 points, I have sympathy for those who think it might have.

As I said in my first post in this thread, I still challenge you or anybody else to name a great "match day coach".

Eade/Wallace/Roos/Sheedy/Blight.
Sorry, if you didn't get a direct response, but this very point has certainly been answered multiple times in the last day or so.

There's not a coach in the history of football who you can't pick to pieces either because he didn't make a move, or because he made the wrong move. Craig's no different. To me, he's fine as a match day coach, but my personal preference is to have a coach who errs on the side of backing his players in to work their way out of trouble, rather than a master puppeteer who has half his team looking for the runner at the first sign of trouble.

and this is why I had a go at you for selectively taking things out of context, because if you hadn't, you'd see that Craig wasn't being 'picked to pieces'. exactly the opposite.

I can think of moves Craig hasn't made that I've cried out for him to make at the time - and moves that he has made that have made me tearing my hair out, sometimes in the same game. The final against St Kilda last year is a case in point. Craig was pilloried for not making a move (tagging Harvey) and pilloried for making a move (McGregor back to help out Hentschel with Riewoldt). He's not proactive enough for some, and too reactive for others. The life of a coach.

no one is saying he's too reactive. not once that I can recall anyway.
I appreciate what you're saying, but you're arguing against yourself not what is being said.

I disagree again, because IMHO finals footy has less to do with match day adjustments, and more about the performance of the bottom 6 players in the side on the day. The more players that are struggling, the fewer cards the coach has to play with - and that's the problem Craig was faced with on Saturday.

fundamentally disagree on every level. finals is all about adjustments, and not going "oh well, not our day I guess".

Of course not. I'm not sure why you would even suggest I would think that.

might we refer to the comment "A great coach to me suggests a pretty complete package." as an example.

 

[marvin]

2. of course a great coach is not the complete package. who is? Blight/Matthews/Sheedy/Malthouse etc. all have flaws. doesn't mean they're not super coaches.

I guess it comes down to how liberal or otherwise you use the term "great". I tend to be pretty sparing with it, so for someone to be "great" in my book, they have to be a pretty complete package - at least good in every critical area, and oustanding in some facet. I would call all of the coahes you've listed good, even very good, but perhaps only Matthews great.

I don't know, you might be right. I don't think any one move makes much difference to me, mainly because it's pretty clear our coaching staff are very reluctant to make a change. that's the dynamic being discussed, for me anyway, not whether one particular move was appropriate. Wallace set the tempo (no pun intended ) and we did not attempt to disrupt.

The one change the coaches could have legitimately made that would arguably have made a difference would have been to go man on man earlier. It's not like they sat around in the box watching DVD's while the game went on behind them - they took McGregor off and tried Biglands as a forward; they tried a number of different players (Burton, Bode, Thompson, Van Berlo, Reilly and Doughty) at various stages at half forward. We did attempt to disrupt (within the general framework we play), it just wasn't all that effective.

Our guys were/are well prepared, well drilled, on what to do, and presumably when. what was worrying was that when something different was thrown at them, they weren't sure how to respond. fine, that happens sometimes - that's when we're looking to the box. the box didn't say anything back. 99 times out 100, we won't be faced with a situation like this, but if it does occur and we don't react it is fair to raise an eyebrow.

Two things -

It wasn't that there was no reaction. It may not have been the reaction we're looking for.
The proof of the pudding will be the next team that tries the same tactic against us - how quickly will the coaches spot it, and how quickly will they adjust.

Eade/Wallace/Roos/Sheedy/Blight.
Sorry, if you didn't get a direct response, but this very point has certainly been answered multiple times in the last day or so.

I don't think there's a huge amount of evidence that Roos is a great match day coach. Sydney is a well drilled team, but they don't tend to change things a lot. I don't think Eade changes things a lot either. My personal opinion on Wallace, as I've expressed elsewhere, is that he works the media hard to publicise his own coaching genius (particularly after "famous" wins like Saturday), and blames his players for losses, and he's not as good as some think.

I've nominated Sheedy and Blight myself as guys who can pull off the spectacular left-field move, but for every successful move, there's an equal number of times they haven't made a switch when things go wrong. The outcry in Melbourne when Sheedy didn't move Kepler Bradley off the rampant Barry Hall, then Jonathon Brown in the first 2 weeks was pretty significant. Blight got caned for bringing a ruckman to Melbourne and leaving him on the bench when his first choice was spent, and the opposition ran down a 40 point 3-quarter time lead.

Craig makes moves, but generally hasn't changed the team structure.

and this is why I had a go at you for selectively taking things out of context, because if you hadn't, you'd see that Craig wasn't being 'picked to pieces'. exactly the opposite.

I beg to differ - I think Craig has been 'picked to pieces' here in the last few days. When we start having a thread where people are bringing up every perceived mistake he's made in the last 2 years, that's a case in point.

Sure, let's have a debate about what he should and shouldn't have done on Saturday, but there's a lot of baggage and history being brought up too.

no one is saying he's too reactive. not once that I can recall anyway.
I appreciate what you're saying, but you're arguing against yourself not what is being said.

Too reactive may have been too strong words on my part, but there's no doubt Craig's copped criticism around here for moves he has made as well as moves he hasn't made (the McGregor back, no tag on Harvey cases being an example).

 

[Crow-mo]

Marvin,

new day and all that, I still disagree on a number of points, but let's move on.