Maybe its not thompson?

[rizzo]

I agree.. Thompson himself is to blame I feel. Far too soft with the group.

How do you know this? What happens behind closed doors is another story. Just because he doesn't come out and be little players infront of the media doesn't mean he doesnt do it. Im sure a player would be more hurt hearing in front of his mates then having his name dragged through the media

 

[rizzo]

Football is far more than 1% physical.

Its a saying. But what happens on the field is mostly mental. If a player is turned on in the head he will do the physical stuff.

 

[chapmanmagic35]

Its a saying. But what happens on the field is mostly mental. If a player is turned on in the head he will do the physical stuff.

Agreed - much of the game is mental. However, got to have the physical capabilities to perform.

 

[catempire]

Not really. All he can do is say what he can. Its then up to the players to motivate themselves more. Not everyone can be motivated by one man. Its not possible

But if he can't motivate then he can't coach. Get out.

Charlie Gardiner kicks 10 goals. Are you saying that this is his ability?

Sure is. What else is it?

PS. Charlie will never kick 10 goals.

It is possible and has happened that players spend a season playing better then what they are capable of.

This is absolutely nonsensical. Players played better than they were capable of. I've heard it all now.

Maybe they aren't able to put it into practice, How can the coach control what a player does?

It's not controlling. It's called coaching. That's what he's paid for.

 

[rizzo]

What PLAN ? What STRATEGIES ? The players were all picked during Bombers reign bar 4.Isn't the coach supposed to develop the players skills? Isn't the coach supposed to develop the mental toughness and nous of the players?

Doesn't the coach oversee the physical preperation of the players? Isn't he supposed to change the loser culture that exists?
Bomber has done none of these things ,he has had 8 years enough is enough, Bye Bye!!

Just because he doesn't tell us doesnt mean there is no "plan" or "strategies". Huh i dont get it, bomber has? Chapman, Bartel, Gaz, Nablett, Harley etc what a poor job he has done developing?

The skills were looked at over the preseason, were they not? So he has done something about that. Your pretty much asking him to kick the ball for the players.

How can a coach change what a person is thinking. If someone is wanting to learn then they can. He can do what he wants to change it. If the players aren't willing to change to then thats where the problem lies

 

[catempire]

The skills were looked at over the preseason, were they not?

The focus was on fitness, was it not?

If the skills were "looked at" over the preaseason they certainly weren't acted on because they are as woeful as ever.

 

[chapmanmagic35]

Our skills are still flawed, we are still mentally fragile and we lack on-field discipline and leadership.

I am loathe to say things have changed from last year. They haven't thus far.

Rizzo, the buck stops with Thompson. He is there to motivate the players, take them to another level, instill discipline and leadership.

 

[rizzo]

But if he can't motivate then he can't coach. Get out.

So its not possible for players to motive themselves? Its a fact that 22 people cannot always be motivated by the one person at any given time. It just doesn't happen. So your saying that John Worsfold or Leigh Matthews would be shit coaches if they couldn't motive?

Sure is. What else is it?

PS. Charlie will never kick 10 goals.

Its a freak of nature. He may have played on a smaller opponent or been free in the forward line. The ball might have fallen into his lap 10 times. Hardly ability.

This is absolutely nonsensical. Players played better than they were capable of. I've heard it all now.

Ok, maybe wrong choice of words. However it has happened time and time again where players have had one or two good years then dissapeared again. What do you call that?

It's not controlling. It's called coaching. That's what he's paid for.

So because a player is in his own little wolly world, and doesnt lay a tackle or run to space then its the coaches problem. A coach cannot control what a player does on the ground. he can tell them what he wants them to do, but if they dont do it then he cant be blamed.

 

[rizzo]

The focus was on fitness, was it not?

If the skills were "looked at" over the preaseason they certainly weren't acted on because they are as woeful as ever.

Which is why riccardi came in to the club as skills coach over the preseason?

 

[chapmanmagic35]

So its not possible for players to motive themselves? Its a fact that 22 people cannot always be motivated by the one person at any given time. It just doesn't happen. So your saying that John Worsfold or Leigh Matthews would be shit coaches if they couldn't motive?


Its a freak of nature. He may have played on a smaller opponent or been free in the forward line. The ball might have fallen into his lap 10 times. Hardly ability.


Ok, maybe wrong choice of words. However it has happened time and time again where players have had one or two good years then dissapeared again. What do you call that?


So because a player is in his own little wolly world, and doesnt lay a tackle or run to space then its the coaches problem. A coach cannot control what a player does on the ground. he can tell them what he wants them to do, but if they dont do it then he cant be blamed.

If the coach can no longer extract anything out of the player, then move the player on.

Why hasn't Thompson done it then?

 

[rizzo]

Our skills are still flawed, we are still mentally fragile and we lack on-field discipline and leadership.

I am loathe to say things have changed from last year. They haven't thus far.

Rizzo, the buck stops with Thompson. He is there to motivate the players, take them to another level, instill discipline and leadership.

Agreed, but can bomber be blamed for that? He cannot control the players themselves when they are out there. He can tell them all he wants to be disciplined but if THEY themselves dont do it then he cant do anything.

Agreed they haven't but surely you cannot put the blame on thompson. There are more people to a footy club then the coach.

I disagree, its stops with the players. They are the ones out there doing the stuff he says. If they dont do it he cant do anything about it.

How can discipline happen when we have players like Johnson and Scarlett running around doing what they want?

 

[catempire]

rizzo, we're going to have to agree to disagree - nothing you have said in this thread has convinced me that there is not a lot in BT's control that he has failed to do with this club - but I'll make a couple of final points.

So its not possible for players to motive themselves? Its a fact that 22 people cannot always be motivated by the one person at any given time. It just doesn't happen. So your saying that John Worsfold or Leigh Matthews would be shit coaches if they couldn't motive?

Players can certainly motivate themselves. In fact, they must. Doesn't mean the coaches don't have a role to play. They do and it's critical.

If any coach can't motivate (Worsfold or Matthews included) then yes, they can't coach. Fact is, Worsfold and Matthews can and do motivate.

Its a freak of nature. He may have played on a smaller opponent or been free in the forward line. The ball might have fallen into his lap 10 times. Hardly ability.

Again, nonsensical. If he has kicked 10 goals then he has the ability to by definition.

Ok, maybe wrong choice of words. However it has happened time and time again where players have had one or two good years then dissapeared again. What do you call that?

Playing to their ability and then falling away for whatever reason. Collingwood got the most out of their team that they could.

So because a player is in his own little wolly world, and doesnt lay a tackle or run to space then its the coaches problem. A coach cannot control what a player does on the ground. he can tell them what he wants them to do, but if they dont do it then he cant be blamed.

Didn't say it was the coaches problem. Didn't say the coach should control.

A coach should coach.

If a player continually doesn't run to space, continually doesn't tackle or continually won't do something else that's required of him, then it's the coaches job to coach him to do so. If the player continues to fail, he should be sacked (by the coach).

Which is why riccardi came in to the club as skills coach over the preseason?

First I've heard of it.

 

[chapmanmagic35]

Agreed, but can bomber be blamed for that? He cannot control the players themselves when they are out there. He can tell them all he wants to be disciplined but if THEY themselves dont do it then he cant do anything.

Agreed they haven't but surely you cannot put the blame on thompson. There are more people to a footy club then the coach.

I disagree, its stops with the players. They are the ones out there doing the stuff he says. If they dont do it he cant do anything about it.

How can discipline happen when we have players like Johnson and Scarlett running around doing what they want?

Lay down the law to the players. if they don't want to comply, then goodbye.

WCE have done that with Gardiner and Edwards.

 

[rizzo]

If the coach can no longer extract anything out of the player, then move the player on.

Why hasn't Thompson done it then?

Because 80% of the time the player does do it. However its the times that they dont that makes the team look bad.

Look don't get me wrong. Bomber has made some mistakes, however i think it is unfair to put the blame fair a square on him, when there are inbuilt mental problems in the club. That starts and stops at the players. THey are the ones out there trying to win games of football. All bomber can do is tell them what he wants them to do. If they listen is another story.

As i said before its shown by both Blight and Ayres.


The way people are carrying on its like bomber doesn't give a shit whether we win or lose. Well let me tell you he is hurting. He is seething. Its just easier to blame the face of the club then the players who we love to cherish.

 

[rizzo]

Lay down the law to the players. if they don't want to comply, then goodbye.

WCE have done that with Gardiner and Edwards.

Agree with you. But this isn't going to be released to the public is it?

 

[chapmanmagic35]

Agree with you. But this isn't going to be released to the public is it?

What released to the public? The players behaviour if they were moved on?

 

[rizzo]

rizzo, we're going to have to agree to disagree - nothing you have said in this thread has convinced me that there is not a lot in BT's control that he has failed to do with this club - but I'll make a couple of final points.

Thats fair enough. All i wanted was some good discussion from people around here and you made some good points.

Players can certainly motivate themselves. In fact, they must. Doesn't mean the coaches don't have a role to play. They do and it's critical.

He can motivate them from here to china, but whether the player acts on it is a different story. It should also be the players that motivate each other two. Thats why they appoint a captain. Id go as far to say that a captain has more influence on their motivation to the coach.

If any coach can't motivate (Worsfold or Matthews included) then yes, they can't coach. Fact is, Worsfold and Matthews can and do motivate.

And bomber doesnt?

Again, nonsensical. If he has kicked 10 goals then he has the ability to by definition.

By definition, but technically no. For someone to have the ability to they need to do it repeatedly ie Gary Senior, Doug Wade, Lockett etc. So IMHO they dont. It was just a fluke of nature (and in chalies case when every defender is injured and in a wheel chair. Even then i give him 5 goals max )

Playing to their ability and then falling away for whatever reason. Collingwood got the most out of their team that they could.

Cant be there ability if they fall away can it?

Didn't say it was the coaches problem. Didn't say the coach should control.

A coach should coach.

Well he is coaching by putting the team plans in place.

If a player continually doesn't run to space, continually doesn't tackle or continually won't do something else that's required of him, then it's the coaches job to coach him to do so. If the player continues to fail, he should be sacked (by the coach).

Agreed should be dropped. But there is more then one person that makes that decision.

First I've heard of it.

Now you do

 

[rizzo]

What released to the public? The players behaviour if they were moved on?

When the coach gives them the ultermatim either behave or goodbye.

 

[chapmanmagic35]

Can someone link me to an article or thread concerning Riccardi as a skills coach?

I've heard nothing of it.

 

[chapmanmagic35]

When the coach gives them the ultermatim either behave or goodbye.

Shouldn't have to be released because it should be a standard set amongst every club. Expected.

 

[rizzo]

Can someone link me to an article or thread concerning Riccardi as a skills coach?

I've heard nothing of it.

Dont think there was one. Its just information i have found out.

 

[omg_its_dennis]

Geelong's problem on the weekend was 100% mental. Did anyone notice the mood of the team as they walked out to hit the banner at the start of game? Crap it was. I knew we were in trouble right from the start. Body language was poor. Didn't see not one player try to gee another one up or any talk it up whatsoever.... We just wern't switched on.

We should've beaten the roos by 10 goals. There comes a point in time where players had to put there body on the line and some didn't.

Also some of the previous comments about Scarlett were also spot on.

 

[Archie Jnr]

So its not possible for players to motive themselves? Its a fact that 22 people cannot always be motivated by the one person at any given time. It just doesn't happen. So your saying that John Worsfold or Leigh Matthews would be shit coaches if they couldn't motive?


If they could'nt motivate , then yes they would be shit coaches

 

[catempire]

In answer to the thread title - "Maybe its not Thompson?"

The answer is yes, maybe it's not.

But for me, far too many signs point in the direction of the coach rather than the players.

The biggest one being that as a young team, we have gone from contenders to nowhere near it. A young team should be on the improve. Even if this squad wasn't premiership material they still should have shown natural improvement in the past few years. But only a couple of players have.

 

[Catsace]

This is a mythical concept. How does one "play above" one's self? You can only play to your ability. If you play well you are able to play well.


Quote:

There is no question that Wallace certainly DID get the Dogs to play above themselves in 1997 and 1998. Difference there was that Liberatore was willing to play the role of the 'Junk Yard Dog' and lose respect in all others eyes but the coach to become the niggling, tagging player he became in that era. Ditto for the other members of that little squad of Dimmatina and 'Hot Chile Dog' Romero. But in all reality, the Bulldogs of that era could not have been that good, which was proven after 1998.

But they did play with passion, and that's something Geelong just lacks in spades. I say again, compare from Rd 3 2004 until that Freo game Rd 10 2005, and see the passion Geelong showed. It was still evident at times later that season, certainly in the semi-final loss to the Swans, but has evaporated like Balyang Sanctuary in the last 12 months.