Match Day Moves

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

There has been a fair bit of criticism directed at Neil Craig and the coaching staff lately for not reacting quickly enough in games when things are going wrong. There are probably a few doubts over Craig as a match day tactician, certainly when compared with the likes of Rocket Eade.

The Richmond game earlier in the year was one example. Examples from the weekend include allowing Cornes to run around loose in defence without being responsible for a man and Graham Johncock's match up on Brett Ebert.

I'm not so sure that it is a good thing to be making a lot of moves on match day. If you are constantly reacting to the opposition you are playing into their hands by compromising your own structure. Teams that rely on quick-fixes and bandaid solutions can end up chasing their tail.

The problem Craig has is that Malcolm Blight was very successful, by his own admission, throwing the names up in the air and seeing where they landed. Ellen to full forward, Jameson tagging Dale Lewis, Pittman to CHB, Ormond-Allen in the ruck... and countless other examples. If things were going wrong Blight was prepared to up-end his entire line up to search for that winning formula whether it was before the game, quarter time, half time or three quarter time. Craig is much more likely to stick with his initial line up:

"Same batting order. Better batting" - Geoffrey Boycott.

Take Johncock on Sunday as an example. It is becoming apparent that the best way to nullify his run is to drag him back to the last line of defence. His opponents may be able to expose him particularly if they can double as a marking option (Robbins another example). This is a weakness in Johncock's game. Now, should Craig a) avoid exposing his weakness by removing Johncock from these types of match ups, allowing him to play across half back or b) let him be dragged back to the goal square and try to improve at coping with this type of situation. In other words, turn a weakness into a strength.

His entire coaching style revolves around Sustainable Success. Bandaid solutions are rare and I for one applaud him for having faith in his players, his match ups and our game plan. I hope he is rewarded and that our current situation doesn't cause him to lose faith in his own philosophies.

We were spoiled with success in the Blight era but I don't think that you can build dynasties around the Blight style. I feel that under Craig we can.

 

[- PC -]

Do we have any?

I think NC is a firm believer in the adage ''once assigned a role the player must stick manfully to the task''

I also wonder how much concentration is required on midfield rotations? With the excessive numbers of interchanges is one facet of the game over riding other issues?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I also wonder how much concentration is required on midfield rotations? With the excessive numbers of interchanges is one facet of the game over riding other issues?

I'm sure that there are enough people in the coaches box to cover both interchange rotations and tactical moves. It looks like a policy to me rather than not having the time to devote to the tactical side of things.

 

[marvin]

I'm sure that there are enough people in the coaches box to cover both interchange rotations and tactical moves. It looks like a policy to me rather than not having the time to devote to the tactical side of things.

I heard Neil Craig on SEN earlier this year. He said that with the dramatic increase in interchanges this year, the coaches in the box couldn't really monitor what was going on as far the other team was doing in shuffling players on and off, and therefore the coaching panel focussed on what the Adelaide players needed to be doing.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Interesting that people are stating that Craig never manned up Cornes. He did during the 2nd quarter but Williams kept sending a spare man down so that they always had a loose man in our forward lines and we would have ended up with a forward area with no space for our forwards to lead into.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Interesting that people are stating that Craig never manned up Cornes. He did during the 2nd quarter but Williams kept sending a spare man down so that they always had a loose man in our forward lines and we would have ended up with a forward area with no space for our forwards to lead into.

Very true.

Even in the 3rd quarter (I think it was) Craig send Bock into our forward line to man up on Chad but Choko countered that move by moving Willits on Bock straight away which still left Port with a spare man in defence. What was Craig supposed to do, flood our forward line with our own players?

Some questions on Craig's match day coaching are warranted but I laugh when I see people giving Craig credit for "having faith in his players and sticking with it" when one Gary Ayres copped a lot of **** for doing exactly the same thing. I guess his **** stank

 

[jenny61_99]

As Malcolm once said: You make unexpected moves on game day and they pay off, you look like a genious. If they dont? You look like a fool.

Carl, I agree with everything you have said. Craig is a master at assessing people's strengths and building on that. He does have faith in his players and uses the "collective" knowledge at the club (including both players and trainers) to get the best out of everyone. Of course he acknowledges that the bottom line decision making lands with him.

I think it is easier for US watching the game to say this should or should not be done, but we have no idea what their overall plan is... and don't forget, whilst Craig would love to win a premiership this year, his goal is to build a winning, competitive team for years to come. Everyone had us rated in the bottom half of the bottom 8 last year and we far out-performed all expectations. This year, expectations were high - perhaps too high? Certainly our performances in the first 15 weeks had us all expecting great things... the events of the past month have brought us back to reality. The reality is there are 16 teams vying for the one goal... and really, it is anyone's game. Any team who finishes in the top 8 have a realistic chance of winning. They don't necessarily have to be the best team all year, but they do have to be the best team come September (ala us in 97/98).

 

[jenny61_99]

Very true.

Even in the 3rd quarter (I think it was) Craig send Bock into our forward line to man up on Chad but Choko countered that move by moving Willits on Bock straight away which still left Port with a spare man in defence. What was Craig supposed to do, flood our forward line with our own players?

Some questions on Craig's match day coaching are warranted but I laugh when I see people giving Craig credit for "having faith in his players and sticking with it" when one Gary Ayres copped a lot of **** for doing exactly the same thing. I guess his **** stank

Actually Gary Ayres had NO faith in his players. They had to stick by HIS game plan no matter what. We lost winnable games because of that. (A game that comes to mind is when we were up by a few points and there were seconds to go in the game... our boys should have been able to use their initiative and flood the backlines to stop the ball going in but they were not allowed to do this and as a consequence the opposition (either port or collingwood) got the ball down to the forward lines, scored a goal after the siren and we lost). We asked Roo at a function we had up here whether or not the players were encouraged to use their initiative under Ayres and it was a resounding NO. Whereas, Craig has given the players license to slow the game down (as much as we hate it) when they think it is getting away from them - and ok, they've stuffed that up a couple of times, but they are learning. They also move into the back lines to block things up when games are tight. I think Craig's philosophy is that many minds are ultimately more powerful than one and if they can see something obvious, they could react to it more quickly if they are given the opportunity.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Actually Gary Ayres had NO faith in his players. They had to stick by HIS game plan no matter what. We lost winnable games because of that. (A game that comes to mind is when we were up by a few points and there were seconds to go in the game... our boys should have been able to use their initiative and flood the backlines to stop the ball going in but they were not allowed to do this and as a consequence the opposition (either port or collingwood) got the ball down to the forward lines, scored a goal after the siren and we lost). We asked Roo at a function we had up here whether or not the players were encouraged to use their initiative under Ayres and it was a resounding NO. Whereas, Craig has given the players license to slow the game down (as much as we hate it) when they think it is getting away from them - and ok, they've stuffed that up a couple of times, but they are learning. They also move into the back lines to block things up when games are tight. I think Craig's philosophy is that many minds are ultimately more powerful than one and if they can see something obvious, they could react to it more quickly if they are given the opportunity.

I am sorry, I didn't know we had access to the coaching box

How many times on here have we heard, why didn't Ayres move player X when it was obvious that he was gettign beaten? What is the difference between that and what people have been asking of why wasn't Johncock moved off Ebert?

Craig's match day coaching is not a lot different to Ayres'. Both love to stick with what they are doing and have faith that we will do it better than an opposition. Both are slow to react when their player is getting comprehensively beaten. Craig is a bit more flexible in terms of slowing down the game and putting players behind the ball but in other aspects such as match ups and willingness to think outside the square, the 2 in question are very similar.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Craig's match day coaching is not a lot different to Ayres'. Both love to stick with what they are doing and have faith that we will do it better than an opposition. Both are slow to react when their player is getting comprehensively beaten. Craig is a bit more flexible in terms of slowing down the game and putting players behind the ball but in other aspects such as match ups and willingness to think outside the square, the 2 in question are very similar.

I agree.

I actually didn't mind Gary Ayers. He won me over in his first season when he kept playing Ricciuto in a forward pocket. We were losing matches and everyone was screaming out for Roo to return to the midfield. Ayers took all the flack at a crucial time in his coaching career and it emerged later that Ricciuto was playing with cracked ribs and Ayers was playing him forward to protect him. Ayers never sold out his player even though media/public were at his throat.

I don't think that a coach's actual game plan is as important as making sure that his players share his vision. This is where I feel Neil Craig is ahead of Ayers. I don't think the players were buying what Gary Ayers was selling, particularly in the last couple of season. You get the impression that the players believe in what Neil Craig is doing. They are sharing his vision and if the players believe in the game plan they will help make it work.

The Crows under Ayers had a team rule that you never kick to a contest in the corridor. The players hated it as it meant that they found it hard to go direct or move the ball quickly.

The two-way communication under Craig means that the players are an integral part of his vision, as they have helped shape it. The players have some ownership over what is happening which is very different to being told to do something.

 

[Crow-mo]

Some questions on Craig's match day coaching are warranted but I laugh when I see people giving Craig credit for "having faith in his players and sticking with it" when one Gary Ayres copped a lot of **** for doing exactly the same thing. I guess his **** stank

don't get me started on this.

how very true.

 

[Crow-mo]

there are a few issues here.

1. Neil Craig is not a great match day coach. so what? you can't be everything to all people. I do get the **** with numpties who somehow believe he can walk on water.
2. He is obviously very good in other areas
3. Ayres and craig have a lot more similarities than some aforementioned numpties would have us believe.
4. We're in a crisis of confidence, let's stop trying to feed on our own.

 

[CrowMagnum]

there are a few issues here.

1. Neil Craig is not a great match day coach. so what? you can't be everything to all people. I do get the **** with numpties who somehow believe he can walk on water.
2. He is obviously very good in other areas
3. Ayres and craig have a lot more similarities than some aforementioned numpties would have us believe.
4. We're in a crisis of confidence, let's stop trying to feed on our own.

You hardly need to walk on water to have good match day tactics. Most of the crowd could see that Johncock on Ebert wasn't working - it wasn't rocket science.
It gives me the numpties, whatever they are, that Craig, as good a coach as he is, is seen as untouchable when none of the players are.

 

[Crow-mo]

It gives me the numpties, whatever they are, that Craig, as good a coach as he is, is seen as untouchable when none of the players are.

the problem has been, that if you suggest craig isn't a brilliant match day coach - which he's not - that you are suggesting he is bad coach.

the thing with Eade, that got him kicked out of sydney was that he didn't work hard enough on that track, and he neglected the preparation side. He start to coast, and rely a little too much on his game day skills, not unlike the latter years of John Northey.

you have to view all coaches as a package, and it is crazy to think any one coach will excel in every single area.

and yes, you are right. Craig has been seen as untouchable in a way the players have not enjoyed.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

the thing with Eade, that got him kicked out of sydney was that he didn't work hard enough on that track, and he neglected the preparation side. He start to coast, and rely a little too much on his game day skills, not unlike the latter years of John Northey.

Rubbish. Eade had run his race at Sydney. He was exceptionally tough on his players both on the track and during games and the players grew to resent him. Remember how unbelievably worked up he got during games? The police had to speak to him after a game in Perth because members of the crowd had been so 'shocked' at his obscene language, delivered at volume. He has mellowed a little at the Bulldogs and I think is a better coach now.

 

[CrowMagnum]

the problem has been, that if you suggest craig isn't a brilliant match day coach - which he's not - that you are suggesting he is bad coach.

the thing with Eade, that got him kicked out of sydney was that he didn't work hard enough on that track, and he neglected the preparation side. He start to coast, and rely a little too much on his game day skills, not unlike the latter years of John Northey.

you have to view all coaches as a package, and it is crazy to think any one coach will excel in every single area.

and yes, you are right. Craig has been seen as untouchable in a way the players have not enjoyed.

Don't get me wrong, I think Craig is an exceptional coach in just about all other areas other than match day. The problem is that its such an important aspect of the game.

An analogy would be a footballer who can do everything except kick. He either has to learn to kick or he handballs to someone who can. If Craig can't "kick" well he should get better at it or have an assistant coach who can fill in the gaps. Whether this happens in the coaching box I have no idea about but the evidence for it is not strong you'd have to say.

 

[Crow-mo]

Rubbish. Eade had run his race at Sydney. He was exceptionally tough on his players both on the track and during games and the players grew to resent him. Remember how unbelievably worked up he got during games? The police had to speak to him after a game in Perth because members of the crowd had been so 'shocked' at his obscene language, delivered at volume. He has mellowed a little at the Bulldogs and I think is a better coach now.

sorry Carl, that's not right.

he got worked up during games sure, but the club even released a statement at the time saying how they had concerns about his preparation.

though I am not sure why you're trying prove of his preparations by referring to his game day antics. that doesn't follow whichever way you see it.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Seems that not many are buying my theory. The general opinion is that Craig is not a great match day coach.

"Catch a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."

Craig could have swung Mattner on to Ebert. Or van Berlo. Or someone else. But then every time Johncock ends up matched up against an Ebert-type player do we have to re-shuffle? Surely that limits our options and destabilises our side.

Maybe Stevens is no good on strong players. Or Rutten is no good on fast players. Or van Berlo is no good on marking types... You end up juggling all these weaknesses, frantically making moves and changing your structure to cover them whilst the opposition seeks to exploit them.

Improving your players, making them adaptable, able to handle playing on different types of players... surely this is what a coach should be striving for? Moves on match day are over-rated. Short-term, bandaid solutions for perennial strugglers. Might buy the odd win with everyone saying you're a genius but I don't think this is the formula for a strong, successful club.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

sorry Carl, that's not right.

he got worked up during games sure, but the club even released a statement at the time saying how they had concerns about his preparation.

though I am not sure why you're trying prove of his preparations by referring to his game day antics. that doesn't follow whichever way you see it.

Sorry I might have misunderstood you.

I'm not doubting that Eade's match day tactics were excellent. And a coach will not be able to make the right moves on match day without meticulous planning and intimate knowledge of his own players, the opposition players and their game plan. I wasn't doubting his preparation skills at all, they were second to none.

What I meant was that he'd lost his players. He was brutal with them and got worse the longer he was there. The Swans obviously weren't going to come out and say 'the players don't like him' when he got the flick were they? But, as we saw with the eventual appointment of Paul Roos, the playing group played a key role in the coaching appointments.

 

[Crow-mo]

Sorry I might have misunderstood you.

I'm not doubting that Eade's match day tactics were excellent. And a coach will not be able to make the right moves on match day without meticulous planning and intimate knowledge of his own players, the opposition players and their game plan. I wasn't doubting his preparation skills at all, they were second to none.

you did get me wrong, his preparation skills weren't the issue, the neglect of his preparation was the problem.

What I meant was that he'd lost his players. He was brutal with them and got worse the longer he was there. The Swans obviously weren't going to come out and say 'the players don't like him' when he got the flick were they? But, as we saw with the eventual appointment of Paul Roos, the playing group played a key role in the coaching appointments.

he had certainly lost the players, and no one is saying they weren't worked hard - but it wasn't by him much of the time. he was becoming a coach in absentia except for match days.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Seems that not many are buying my theory. The general opinion is that Craig is not a great match day coach.

"Catch a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."

Craig could have swung Mattner on to Ebert. Or van Berlo. Or someone else. But then every time Johncock ends up matched up against an Ebert-type player do we have to re-shuffle? Surely that limits our options and destabilises our side.

Maybe Stevens is no good on strong players. Or Rutten is no good on fast players. Or van Berlo is no good on marking types... You end up juggling all these weaknesses, frantically making moves and changing your structure to cover them whilst the opposition seeks to exploit them.

Improving your players, making them adaptable, able to handle playing on different types of players... surely this is what a coach should be striving for? Moves on match day are over-rated. Short-term, bandaid solutions for perennial strugglers. Might buy the odd win with everyone saying you're a genius but I don't think this is the formula for a strong, successful club.

I think you are missing the point here.

At what point does the coach stop? When the players confidence is shattered? Also at what cost does he teach?

I was under the impression that Craig's main objective after a month of poor for was to win. When ever we have won this year there has been one constant. Great rebound from the backline. Not only did Johncock get smashed, he didn't provide anything in terms of running out of defence. Johncock dropped his head on many occasions on the weekend against Ebert. A coach should realise when that sort of thing happens and when the player's confidence is slipping.

For us to win, we need Johncock's rebound and creativeness off the HBF. He is not going to provide that when he is stuck on an opponent in the back pocket and that opponent is giving him the run around.

If you want to teach these players something they you do it in pre-season games, or in bursts in real games but not for the whole game.

Johncock has been towelled up for a month now. Sampi, Farmer, Robbins, Ebert. At what point does the coach say, well this isn't really working well and Johncock confidnce is deteriorating fast.

Reading between the lines, you like what Alister Clarkson did to Zac Dawson a number of times this year?

As for teh bit in blue, here is a newsflash, match day moves win games. Remember, if there was not match day moves and quick ones at that, We wouldn't have two premierships. By your reckoning, Malcolm Blight's coaching is over-rated because his strength is the match day coaching.

 

[The Crows Truth]

I think you are missing the point here.

At what point does the coach stop? When the players confidence is shattered? Also at what cost does he teach?

I was under the impression that Craig's main objective after a month of poor for was to win. When ever we have won this year there has been one constant. Great rebound from the backline. Not only did Johncock get smashed, he didn't provide anything in terms of running out of defence. Johncock dropped his head on many occasions on the weekend against Ebert. A coach should realise when that sort of thing happens and when the player's confidence is slipping.

For us to win, we need Johncock's rebound and creativeness off the HBF. He is not going to provide that when he is stuck on an opponent in the back pocket and that opponent is giving him the run around.

If you want to teach these players something they you do it in pre-season games, or in bursts in real games but not for the whole game.

Johncock has been towelled up for a month now. Sampi, Farmer, Robbins, Ebert. At what point does the coach say, well this isn't really working well and Johncock confidnce is deteriorating fast.

Reading between the lines, you like what Alister Clarkson did to Zac Dawson a number of times this year?

As for teh bit in blue, here is a newsflash, match day moves win games. Remember, if there was not match day moves and quick ones at that, We wouldn't have two premierships. By your reckoning, Malcolm Blight's coaching is over-rated because his strength is the match day coaching.

with stiffs form slump is it it time to move him forward or into the midfield for bursts?

 

[- PC -]

Some questions on Craig's match day coaching are warranted but I laugh when I see people giving Craig credit for "having faith in his players and sticking with it" when one Gary Ayres copped a lot of **** for doing exactly the same thing. I guess his **** stank

No GA copped a lot of shi t because he was a crap preparation coach.

I dont think I have ever said NC was a better match day coach than GA. I like how NC has the players playing for him , I also like NCs preparation. I sometimes struggle to see why moves arent made. But I could be wrong .. its just easier to ask when we lose

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

As for teh bit in blue, here is a newsflash, match day moves win games. Remember, if there was not match day moves and quick ones at that, We wouldn't have two premierships. By your reckoning, Malcolm Blight's coaching is over-rated because his strength is the match day coaching.

That's right, and that is the difficulty Craig faces. We have been successful previously by shuffling the deck chairs and crossing our fingers. Brilliance? Luck? Destiny? Genius? Miracle? I'm not sure but I don't believe that the Blight style of coaching can lead to sustainable success at a club. Is that sacrilege? Why do the brightest flames burn out the quickest?

You've highlighted one of the biggest issues facing Neil Craig. The stable line up is fine but when does the coach need to step in? When does leaving a match up unchanged do more harm than good? Nathan van Berlo emerged from 2005 when he had been completely out of his depth in AFL ranks and had minimal impact in the games he played as a better player. A future leader. Did Craig get that one right?

Does Johncock have to learn how to influence a game from the back pocket? Is that a skill that will help him become a better player? Or does leaving him there, out of his comfort zone, send him deeper and deeper into his form trough? I don't have the answer but I like the philosophy.

You have to stick to your coaching philosophy religiously. You can't change it because you are behind on the scoreboard. Coaches that change their ideals like the wind don't spend long at the top. I heard an interestng interview with Tony Hall about Robert Shaw. Hall said that Shaw started off great but as soon as we lost a few games he started doubting himself. Then the wheels fell off.

With the Dawson one I'd say that Clarkson got that wrong. I understand what he was trying to do but there was no opportunity for Dawson to experience success in those duels. He was simply out of his weight division. I think he could have learned the same lessons playing on the 2nd string forward.

 

[Crow-mo]

No GA copped a lot of shi t because he was a crap preparation coach.

did he?