Coach John Longmire

[SM]

No, it's worse in my book. I can laugh about anything said to my face. People slagging off others that I respect is offensive. It also makes that poster look small and pathetic.

If you say so champ.

 

[6yearsold]

That's demonstrably false.


The second quarter allowing them the loose man still got us what would have been four marks inside 50 / shots at goal of not for poor calls from the umpires. Assuming Parker kicks his from the top of the square and Mills(?) Shot from 25 goes through, and the other two miss, we would have been leading at the half.

I know it's hypothetical, but the point is the way we were setting up was still allowing the team opportunities in dangerous positions.

if you are going to say something is demonstrably false it might be a good idea to demonstrate it. For me we are always trying to slow the game down with stoppages and play extras in defence. Just like with roos.

i know its hypothetical too... apparently his defensive tactics got us back in the game against adelaide and hypothetically we could of won it.

sorry, but i switch off when people talk about umpiring to justify anything let alone poor coaching.

the umpiring was just poor in general.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

It was only when we went back to man on man and made Stewart accountable that we got control of the game again. Kudos to the coaching group for doing this and the players for executing it, but it is reasonable to ask why it took so long to make the decision.

 

[replicant]

It was only when we went back to man on man and made Stewart accountable that we got control of the game again. Kudos to the coaching group for doing this and the players for executing it, but it is reasonable to ask why it took so long to make the decision.

Perhaps it was deliberate? We might have allowed it so we got control of the contest and restricted their scoring. Them putting one more behind the ball means we have a spare somewhere else. For a good 15 minutes of the 2nd quarter, after they made that move, they didn't score and didn't look like scoring. In the same period, we got called for a free when Heeney marked in the goalsquare, and Parker (i think) shanked one from about 15m out. So while they had a spare, we still had control of the game.

They then got a run on, and we had to change it, and we did eventually.

But it may be that the coaching staff were confident we could run out the game in Q4, and therefore we were going to save energy in Q2 ans Q3 and just restrict their scoring. It's a game of 4 quarters, and no-one says you have to have the same plan in each of them, some you go hard, so you try and contain the opposition.

To me, it looked like a great 4Q plan, and the celebration in the box after the game had a "i love it when a plan comes together" kind of atmosphere. I suspect allowing then a loose man in Q2 and Q3 was part of the plan, not a move they didn't react to.

 

[bungee]

If you say so champ.

I said so chump

 

[SM]

I said so chump

Please don't personally insult me.

 

[bungee]

Please don't personally insult me.

Sniping decent people behind their backs is fine ? Toughen up sunshine.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

... and here was I thinking Chump(y) was the humorous chook who runs the Swans Blog

 

[bungee]

... and here was I thinking Chump(y) was the humorous chook who runs the Swans Blog

In that case....my most sincere apologies to the chook

 

[bungee]

Good points. Well thought out. It's not chess. In chess there's no luck, no tiredness, no injuries and no umpires. The pieces do exactly what you ask of them. In football the strategy is laid down and all the coaching staff can do is hope the players can execute it barring any luck, tiredness, injuries or umpires getting in the way.

In the end the team pulled off an improbable win despite everything and four of the last five against Geelong suggest it was both well planned and well executed (for the most part). "The proof is in the pudding"

Perhaps it was deliberate? We might have allowed it so we got control of the contest and restricted their scoring. Them putting one more behind the ball means we have a spare somewhere else. For a good 15 minutes of the 2nd quarter, after they made that move, they didn't score and didn't look like scoring. In the same period, we got called for a free when Heeney marked in the goalsquare, and Parker (i think) shanked one from about 15m out. So while they had a spare, we still had control of the game.

They then got a run on, and we had to change it, and we did eventually.

But it may be that the coaching staff were confident we could run out the game in Q4, and therefore we were going to save energy in Q2 ans Q3 and just restrict their scoring. It's a game of 4 quarters, and no-one says you have to have the same plan in each of them, some you go hard, so you try and contain the opposition.

To me, it looked like a great 4Q plan, and the celebration in the box after the game had a "i love it when a plan comes together" kind of atmosphere. I suspect allowing then a loose man in Q2 and Q3 was part of the plan, not a move they didn't react to.

 

[BloodySwan]

Perhaps it was deliberate? We might have allowed it so we got control of the contest and restricted their scoring. Them putting one more behind the ball means we have a spare somewhere else. For a good 15 minutes of the 2nd quarter, after they made that move, they didn't score and didn't look like scoring. In the same period, we got called for a free when Heeney marked in the goalsquare, and Parker (i think) shanked one from about 15m out. So while they had a spare, we still had control of the game.

They then got a run on, and we had to change it, and we did eventually.

But it may be that the coaching staff were confident we could run out the game in Q4, and therefore we were going to save energy in Q2 ans Q3 and just restrict their scoring. It's a game of 4 quarters, and no-one says you have to have the same plan in each of them, some you go hard, so you try and contain the opposition.

To me, it looked like a great 4Q plan, and the celebration in the box after the game had a "i love it when a plan comes together" kind of atmosphere. I suspect allowing then a loose man in Q2 and Q3 was part of the plan, not a move they didn't react to.

While I wouldn't say it was entirely deliberate you are correct in that grinding the Cats down for 4 quarters was well in our plan. We played with a team that was about 2/3 midfielders taking rests in our forward 50. Worked as intended, we just didn't intend to be so far down at 3 quarter time

 

[bungee]

While I wouldn't say it was entirely deliberate you are correct in that grinding the Cats down for 4 quarters was well in our plan. We played with a team that was about 2/3 midfielders taking rests in our forward 50. Worked as intended, we just didn't intend to be so far down at 3 quarter time

One of the plan's quite reasonable assumptions was that Parker could kick a goal from 15m out dead in front.

Who knew ?

 

[J_Moore]

Good thing that nobody has said that then.




This is on the mark.

Contrast this with "It's not horse dropping marks, and missing sitters" type posts and that are easily countered with
"it's not horse kicking goals or taking marks either"

People fall into one of 2 camps (I believe)

1. The head coach is ultimately responsible for the performance of the team
2. The head coach is not ultimately responsible for the performance of the team (Recruitment manager, selection committees etc, all play a role).

I fall into camp #1 and I suspect others fall into camp #2.

If the team's not performing, whether it's players in bad form, poor gameplan or poor skills. There is someone who is responsible for all these areas.

I believe it's the head coach.

Other's don't and that's where the disconnect and the arguing comes from.

I could be wrong.

FFS, you've made me make a serious post.

I also think the head coach is ultimately responsible for the performance of the team, at least over an extended period (not necessarily isolated individual games. I think it’s possible for the playing group to **** those up).

I just think the performance of the team under Longmire’s watch has been pretty good. Better than 16 other teams.

I don’t think we have a list that should be automatically winning premierships. I don’t think any team does, really. Therefore, I don’t view, say, 2016 as a failure.

If we had an ordinary season (probably two, tbh), I’d happily contemplate a coaching change.

He’s not as good as Clarkson, but neither is anyone else.

edit: maths

 

[S120]

Please don't personally insult me.

Have you noticed that you often become involved in arguments involving insults/condescension when you post on here?

 

[SM]

Have you noticed that you often become involved in arguments involving insults/condescension when you post on here?

Sadly I have. Some seem to be unable to distinguish the point being made from the poster making it. Some need to grow up a bit.

 

[SM]

Sniping decent people behind their backs is fine ? Toughen up sunshine.

Who's sniping?

 

[The Swans Blog]

... and here was I thinking Chump(y) was the humorous chook who runs the Swans Blog

Here I am what did I miss?

I blogged about plan b for all those that continue to peddle that nonsensical shit about longmire.

 

[Blacky]

Guys let’s all agree to never say anything negative.

Now grab my guitar so we can sing kumbaya.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

Here I am what did I miss?

I blogged about plan b for all those that continue to peddle that nonsensical shit about longmire.

We all know about Plan B. The win was really down to Plan T (winning the toss and knocking over the Tossers in their own litter box)

 

[The Swans Blog]

We all know about Plan B. The win was really down to Plan T (winning the toss and knocking over the Tossers in their own litter box)

And knocking over their litter box

 

[Tedeski]

Don't be so reactionary. One win doesn't change anything, especially when it exposes the main criticism that he is too focused on buddy.

Exactly.
Sack Horse!

 

[Tedeski]

And watching the replay it took him 3 quarters to make obvious adjustments that commentators kept wondering about.

If anything should of led all day not need a miracle comeback , hardly sustainable

The main change he made was to allow JPK to dominate the middle in the last.
Prior to that Horse just restricted JPK's ability to win the ball, including the last 2 weeks.

 

[Blacky]

The main change he made was to allow JPK to dominate the middle in the last.
Prior to that Horse just restricted JPK's ability to win the ball, including the last 2 weeks.

Only took him two weeks to figure it out.

Progress.

 

[Tedeski]

Friendly reminder: the topic of this thread is Longmire's coaching, not other people's posts. If you disagree with the opinions being posted, you're more than welcome to provide your own opinion on the topic.

As long as you agree that Horse can't coach.

 

[Tedeski]

Only took him two weeks to figure it out.

Progress.

Are you serious? Why couldn't JPK win his position prior to that?