Opinion Don Pyke general discussion

[MarcusP2]

"that was unlike us"

Proof he still doesn't get it. I have no faith in Don Pyke.

I don’t think it was effort it was method and as player and coaches, we have to look at how we set the game up and take responsibility for the result,” said Pyke.

OK yes. Good observation. We are doing the wrong things.

So are we going to see something different at some point?

 

[Kerleys Ghost]

No. Games against the true contenders are ones you must win or at least be extremely competitive against. Personally I would have been ok if we went down the way port did but we rolled over in the first half.

Exactly. Our season is technically in good shape, but it's become apparent that we aren't real contenders.

What shits me about last night is that we didn't even make a run at them. At no point did we look like a threat.

 

[Samcro24]

Exactly. Our season is technically in good shape, but it's become apparent that we aren't real contenders.

What shits me about last night is that we didn't even make a run at them. At no point did we look like a threat.

That's the issue in these type of games- at no stage do we ever look likely. Completely and utterly powerless to execute our game. You can see it unfold from a mile away.

 

[kulak]

But wait, there's more.
Pyke also said:
"I don’t think it was effort it was method and as player and coaches, we have to look at how we set the game up and take responsibility for the result" which is even more mystifying.
If he thinks it was method he's in denial.
Clearly beaten in contested possessions = an effort inferior to your opponents'.

"Take responsibility" reminds me of (was it?) Sanderson or Craig who used to sing the same song --- "We'll OWN that result ...". Never mind about responsibility --- you took the same tactics and effort into the game and got done in the same ways as last year.
Time to select some different players and tell the rest to do something different, as well. TAG Selwood. Protect Sloane. STICK your tackles. STOP bombing aimlessly into the forward 50.

You are wrong. Pyke's assessment is correct.

Every other effort, ball-winning stat was tied. Clearances tackles one percenters etc.

IMO they had more contested possessions because they handballed out of congestion, while we slammed it on the boot at the first opportunity.

Geelong retained possession with handballs and short kicks, while we kicked quickly down the line.

The result was that they had vastly more uncontested possessions and time in possession.

Because of that, and some defensive breakdowns, their attacks were effective and ours weren't.

At least Pyke can see the reason for the loss. Let's see if he can come up with a response.

 

[Large 1]

You are wrong. Pyke's assessment is correct.

Every other effort, ball-winning stat was tied. Clearances tackles one percenters etc.

IMO they had more contested possessions because they handballed out of congestion, while we slammed it on the boot at the first opportunity.

Geelong retained possession with handballs and short kicks, while we kicked quickly down the line.

The result was that they had vastly more uncontested possessions and time in possession.

Because of that, and some defensive breakdowns, their attacks were effective and ours weren't.

At least Pyke can see the reason for the loss. Let's see if he can come up with a response.

Great post.

That is all.

 

[Kerleys Ghost]

At least Pyke can see the reason for the loss. Let's see if he can come up with a response.

He can't.

Please refer to previous two encounters with Geelong.

 

[feenix67]

You are wrong. Pyke's assessment is correct.

Every other effort, ball-winning stat was tied. Clearances tackles one percenters etc.

IMO they had more contested possessions because they handballed out of congestion, while we slammed it on the boot at the first opportunity.

Geelong retained possession with handballs and short kicks, while we kicked quickly down the line.

The result was that they had vastly more uncontested possessions and time in possession.

Because of that, and some defensive breakdowns, their attacks were effective and ours weren't.

At least Pyke can see the reason for the loss. Let's see if he can come up with a response.

Nah.

Our "ground ball" measure, aka contested possessions, was -30. Clearance stats arent contested stats, tackles can skew with time in possession and don't measure effectiveness, 1% are just a mystery.

The only way we beat Geelong is to match them at the contest, move the ball aggressively by hand through their midfield zone and match numbers when they put extras down back.

1. We got poleaxed at the coal face.
2. We panicked with ball in hand
3. We didn't match numbers until it was all over.

Plus, we didn't tag Selwood until too late, we hardly laid an effective tackle, we didn't run defensively.

Pyke is flat out lying when he says it's method, because his whole gameplan hinges on winning the ground ball stat. It allows first use, quick ball movement and field position. We are horrific when we lose CP.

He let it play out far too long. Surely there's a "what if they beat us at the contest" contingency. He didn't put numbers behind the ball at any stage, he allowed them to clear out their F50 whilst clogging up ours. We needed to shut the game down for two quarters and play ugly and have a crack in the last. But no, we just have to take learnings from a match that played out exactly the same way every game plays out when we lose CP.

Jesus, it shouldn't be that hard, surely?

 

[CrowBloke]

IMO they had more contested possessions because they handballed out of congestion, while we slammed it on the boot at the first opportunity.
Geelong retained possession with handballs and short kicks, while we kicked quickly down the line.
The result was that they had vastly more uncontested possessions and time in possession.

Handballing out of congestion is the consequence of contested possession and results in an uncontested possession for the handball receiver.
Contested possession = getting the ball ie making a contest with an opposition player at a centre bounce or throw-in or with a loose ball in a pack or one-on-one.
Retaining possession = uncontested possession ie a handball receive or foot pass receive or even a tap-on receive in general play from a teammate.

Geelong had 30+ more contested possessions ie they contested for, and won, the ball 30+ times more than us and that IS "effort". After that, they handballed out of congestion, often several times, or short-kicked to an unmarked teammate, racking up the uncontested possessions (like we did against Freo the week before). The handballs and short kicks are the method by which they moved the ball around, and that requires intense effort (to get the ball) and extra effort to get into loose positions to receive. In fact, the number of times Motlop bobbed up, unmarked by any Crow, to receive the ball and make a play was irritating. Good on him, for effort (to get clear), I have to admit.
Pyke is wrong.
Our effort to get the ball via contested possession was lacking. After we get the ball and especially when we win the contested possession count, our method to get/run into space, overlap and move the ball quickly by uncontested possessions (method) is very good.
Every time we have won the contested possession count (= effort), we have won the game.

Edit: sorry, wrote and posted this as the above --- very good --- reply from feenix67 came in which also refuted you're "Pyke is correct" comment.

 

[SugarShane]

Exactly. Our season is technically in good shape, but it's become apparent that we aren't real contenders.

Weirdest thing about this season though is you could make a case for every club not being a real contender.

 

[Golumless]

He can't.

Please refer to previous two encounters with Geelong.

I disagree, he can, but most likely not with our current best 22.

 

[feenix67]

I disagree, he can, but most likely not with our current best 22.

There's this thing in most conflict situations called retreat and regroup. It blows my mind that coaches let blowouts occur without making changes. It's akin to the Gallipoli strategy (sorry to invoke a war tragedy analogy). Just storm the beaches and if we get cut down so be it.

Most people here watching that game knew we were in trouble pretty early on. Our CP differential should have been an alarm bell in the coaches box that we were about to get cut down. So what did we do? Kept our best mid off for 9 minutes and let their two guns run riot, whilst not changing a thing.

It's bloody dumb coaching and lacks any practical awareness of how to impact the game from the coaches box. We never saw Charlie or Betts off the back of the square (a tactic Geelong used with Guthrie), we never matched numbers up forward, we never chucked numbers behind the ball, we never had our leaders get involved at the coalface.

Hell, I would have been happy to see us chuck 4 behind the ball. Cause confusion, mismatches, disruption. Close the game down, crowd the contest, play man on man. Do effing something.

Remember that game Richmond win under Wallace where he just denied us the ball? It was the death of football and he was roundly criticised. Guess what, he got the 4 points.

Remember that game when some genius decided to play a plodding half back flanker up forward, then clear out our forward line later and let a gun work his magic one out? Won that team a flag.

Coaches can impact games. I wish ours would.

 

[Sanders]

Neil Craig mk 2.

i think he could be Neil Craig MK 1

craigy was only good for 2 seasons 2005, 2006 which he had pyke for. was useless after that. went to other clubs and was still useless.

Pyke comes back to west coast and gives them the web

he comes to us, and we're structured, rigid, efficient and brittle - just like craigys team

I wonder if its been him all along, and Neil Craig was a myth, an invention, a stooge.

Don Pyke => Keyser Soze?

 

[huludicidal]

i think he could be Neil Craig MK 1

craigy was only good for 2 seasons 2005, 2006 which he had pyke for. was useless after that. went to other clubs and was still useless.

Pyke comes back to west coast and gives them the web

he comes to us, and we're structured, rigid, efficient and brittle - just like craigys team

I wonder if its been him all along, and Neil Craig was a myth, an invention, a stooge.

Don Pyke => Keyser Soze?

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Nah.

Our "ground ball" measure, aka contested possessions, was -30. Clearance stats arent contested stats, tackles can skew with time in possession and don't measure effectiveness, 1% are just a mystery.

The only way we beat Geelong is to match them at the contest, move the ball aggressively by hand through their midfield zone and match numbers when they put extras down back.

1. We got poleaxed at the coal face.
2. We panicked with ball in hand
3. We didn't match numbers until it was all over.

Plus, we didn't tag Selwood until too late, we hardly laid an effective tackle, we didn't run defensively.

Pyke is flat out lying when he says it's method, because his whole gameplan hinges on winning the ground ball stat. It allows first use, quick ball movement and field position. We are horrific when we lose CP.

He let it play out far too long. Surely there's a "what if they beat us at the contest" contingency. He didn't put numbers behind the ball at any stage, he allowed them to clear out their F50 whilst clogging up ours. We needed to shut the game down for two quarters and play ugly and have a crack in the last. But no, we just have to take learnings from a match that played out exactly the same way every game plays out when we lose CP.

Jesus, it shouldn't be that hard, surely?

Excellent post. I've been saying this for weeks.

When we look good, we look GOOD because our whole game plan is tied to us being allowed to play our way.

When we play against a team set up to stop us (instead of taking us on) then we go to water.

You see it in some of the big wins we've had too. We still concede far to easily.

Also explains why our first quarters are so poor. Other team is switched on and takes it up to us. As game progresses, fatigue sets in and game opens up and we can play our way.

What's interesting is we don't have a single defensive minded coach in our group.

Allowing Bassett to join the scum is pure incompetency.

 

[Elite Crow]

Excellent post. I've been saying this for weeks.

When we look good, we look GOOD because our whole game plan is tied to us being allowed to play our way.

When we play against a team set up to stop us (instead of taking us on) then we go to water.

You see it in some of the big wins we've had too. We still concede far to easily.

Also explains why our first quarters are so poor. Other team is switched on and takes it up to us. As game progresses, fatigue sets in and game opens up and we can play our way.

What's interesting is we don't have a single defensive minded coach in our group.

Allowing Bassett to join the scum is pure incompetency.

Bassett has clearly helped Port, the other coaches even talk him up.

His defensive footprint is all over the way they are currently playing and he's saving Kens arse in the process.

 

[Elite Crow]

Nah.

Our "ground ball" measure, aka contested possessions, was -30. Clearance stats arent contested stats, tackles can skew with time in possession and don't measure effectiveness, 1% are just a mystery.

The only way we beat Geelong is to match them at the contest, move the ball aggressively by hand through their midfield zone and match numbers when they put extras down back.

1. We got poleaxed at the coal face.
2. We panicked with ball in hand
3. We didn't match numbers until it was all over.

Plus, we didn't tag Selwood until too late, we hardly laid an effective tackle, we didn't run defensively.

Pyke is flat out lying when he says it's method, because his whole gameplan hinges on winning the ground ball stat. It allows first use, quick ball movement and field position. We are horrific when we lose CP.

He let it play out far too long. Surely there's a "what if they beat us at the contest" contingency. He didn't put numbers behind the ball at any stage, he allowed them to clear out their F50 whilst clogging up ours. We needed to shut the game down for two quarters and play ugly and have a crack in the last. But no, we just have to take learnings from a match that played out exactly the same way every game plays out when we lose CP.

Jesus, it shouldn't be that hard, surely?

No it shouldn't be.

Don is one more bad loss away from losing me.

He's failed to counter the breakdown of our gameplan and sticks to his guns just like his mate Neil did.

Special mention also goes to our recruiters for failing to address a need, big bodied aggressive mids. You can't have organic growth if these players aren't actually in your squad.

Last year on the market were Neale, Rockliff and Gibbs. Between them they had traits we needed and we didn't land one of them. Neale should have been a must.

 

[CrowBloke]

His defensive footprint is all over the way they are currently playing

Yes ... and is reflected by the fact that they have the best defence in the AFL, conceding an avge of 72.7 points/game after 10 matches.
I've been hoping the Crows would head-hunt Bassett, sooner the better. He's gotta be on their radar for Head Coach, eventually.
In 2012 SANFL GF West Adelaide scored a miserly 3.12 --- in 2013 North Adelaide scored 4.8 --- against Bassett-coached Norwood.
The 12 behinds in particular suggest intense defensive pressure, whether from rushed behinds or pressured shots for goal.

 

[hey shorty]

He can't.

Please refer to previous two encounters with Geelong.

We played this game in a different fashion to our 2 Cats games last year. Held forwards back to counter their loose defenders, won the clearances and had deep inside 50 entries.

He has learned, but under pressure the players revert to form.

 

[marty36]

No it shouldn't be.

Don is one more bad loss away from losing me.

He's failed to counter the breakdown of our gameplan and sticks to his guns just like his mate Neil did.

Special mention also goes to our recruiters for failing to address a need, big bodied aggressive mids. You can't have organic growth if these players aren't actually in your squad.

Last year on the market were Neale, Rockliff and Gibbs. Between them they had traits we needed and we didn't land one of them. Neale should have been a must.

Don't worry there will be few more HBF s available in the draft this year but don't forget that will be the best available player at our pick FFS!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Yes ... and is reflected by the fact that they have the best defence in the AFL, conceding an avge of 72.7 points/game after 10 matches.
I've been hoping the Crows would head-hunt Bassett, sooner the better. He's gotta be on their radar for Head Coach, eventually.
In 2012 SANFL GF West Adelaide scored a miserly 3.12 --- in 2013 North Adelaide scored 4.8 --- against Bassett-coached Norwood.
The 12 behinds in particular suggest intense defensive pressure, whether from rushed behinds or pressured shots for goal.

Bassett isn't the sort of coach we'd take on. Abrasive, questioning, opinionated. That wouldn't fly as one.

 

[Elite Crow]

We played this game in a different fashion to our 2 Cats games last year. Held forwards back to counter their loose defenders, won the clearances and had deep inside 50 entries.

He has learned, but under pressure the players revert to form.

He set up a midfield that allowed Danger and Selwood to run amok and Sloane be the only one tagged.

Then he allowed loose Geelong defenders.

He finally tagged Selwood and manned up their defenders, both too late and by doing so he acknowledged the error in not doing these from the start.

Our starts have been poor, the last thing we could tolerate was to let them get on top. We should have had counter measures in place from the beginning.

 

[marty36]

He set up a midfield that allowed Danger and Selwood to run amok and Sloane be the only one tagged.

Then he allowed loose Geelong defenders.

He finally tagged Selwood and manned up their defenders, both too late and by doing so he acknowledged the error in not doing these from the start.

Our starts have been poor, the last thing we could tolerate was to let them get on top. We should have had counter measures in place from the beginning.

He left the Geelong defenders loose as I was watching a starting forward line of four crows in attack with Cameron coming off the HB and lever loose in defence

No wonder they were picking it off I was watching it and could see the entire field set up


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Are we too 'sectional' in our approach? Players split into forwards, midfielders, defenders. Little groups working in isolation with their structure, their personnel, their line coach, their planned rotations. Is it too structured?

Very difficult for there to be movement across groups or for instance to suddenly play a tagger in one game because that changes our mix. Can't play Gallucci ahead of Mackay because the kid hasn't trained with the defensive group. Can't throw Sloane or Lynch behind the ball because they are structurally important.

 

[1970crow]

Nah he's a good minor round coach. We'll finish top 4 in the minor round.

But he won't win anything.

He's too nice and has a misguided belief in "systems". Refuses to learn from other teams' successes.

Puts too much faith in the most ordinary group of assistants you could concoct

I don't think it's necessarily true that he has faith in them. He either works with them or moves them on, the only middle ground is trying to steer their views towards his way of thinking. With arrogant knobs like Campo, that's not really possible. Assuming he's not balls deep in the same beliefs.

 

[MRB37]

Are we too 'sectional' in our approach? Players split into forwards, midfielders, defenders. Little groups working in isolation with their structure, their personnel, their line coach, their planned rotations. Is it too structured?

Very difficult for there to be movement across groups or for instance to suddenly play a tagger in one game because that changes our mix. Can't play Gallucci ahead of Mackay because the kid hasn't trained with the defensive group. Can't throw Sloane or Lynch behind the ball because they are structurally important.

Wasn't that the point of him wanting "flexible" players? He talked in the pre-season about Brad Crouch and Sloane perhaps resting forward and Douglas across half back. None of it happened though. Don't see why Sloane can't sit at FF instead of on the bench for 10 minutes instead?

Gallucci I can maybe understand cause he's in his first year and the knowledge and systems we'd run are a probably a step up from what he's used to, but Pyke does seem big on system, structure and the traits that fit those roles as being more important than form at times.