McRae Coaching From Ground Level

[jathanas]

Whatever happened, happened as far as i'm concerned. The people are different and you cant compare teams or people and think you're going to get an answer.

The figures I used were general and so you can say some general things...

And i've the references to the current pies team as being young. I look at the team. I wouldnt call it young.

I think mcrae is trying to get the best team playing at their best. He apparently does not intend to get rid of players like the hawks did, to give opportunities to younger players. St. Kilda did it too and it was a bad outcome...Carlton too probably. It doesnt have to be, but it's not a simple solution. North got rid of their experienced players too and they are strugging for traction. Maybe the crows did too but they appear to have done it well.

I would try the browns out, the rest of the players like will kelly and murphy and all those types and give them to the end of the year and then turf them if they cant do something. If the browns complained that macrae wasnt giving them a shot, he could sue them. I have lost patience with both but the old man is legend and members will weep and wail if they arent given a shot - people are complaining now that callum isnt in the midfield when clearly he is too small and not good enough.....but macrae is new and he cant offend the old members so give the brown extra chances etc.

and then re-evaluate at the end of the year and I would sweep the browns, kelly, murphy and a few others out. They picked bianco so they need to give him a try but is he really going to end up as a goalkicker as he did in the vfl last week?...

And by next year we can get more of the current VFL guys into the team as howe and roughhead and others go out the door.

But overall, unless we jag a premiership next year because some miracle happens, this slow turnover plan with slowly easing the older players out the door etc etc, is going to mean a slow chase for the next premiership...

so I wouldnt expect a premiership until reef and ollie have 50 games at least...and we need our first round the next two years to be spot on the money...

now pick each word of this and make reasons for why i'm wrong but I'm just painting a general picture of what i think in a quick burst.

but in short, macrae isnt developing, he's managing the retirements and doing an assessment of the blokes who have been in the system since before 2018.

I'd argue that you come to this thread with a very narrow definition of what developing is.

A coach is always developing his players with a view to optimising their performance and contribution.

Our average & median age belies the number of inexperienced players we need to take the next step; players who need "development".

EDIT: Similarly a good coach will continue to develop the more experienced lot. Players like Grundy & Pendles who might be doing doing slightly different jobs and are fitting into a new game-plan.

 

[Markfs]

I'd argue that you come to this thread with a very narrow definition of what developing is.

A coach is always developing his players with a view to optimising their performance and contribution.

Our average & median age belies the number of inexperienced players we need to take the next step; players who need "development".

EDIT: Similarly a good coach will continue to develop the more experienced lot. Players like Grundy & Pendles who might be doing doing slightly different jobs and are fitting into a new game-plan.

well there you go. I suppose it's all about perceptions. I thought the appointment of mcrae was an indication that he would promote younger players and would rely heavily on his experience as a developmental coach for younger players.....but all coaches are developmental coaches so the appointment of mcrae didn't mean that...

 

[jathanas]

well there you go. I suppose it's all about perceptions. I thought the appointment of mcrae was an indication that he would promote younger players and would rely heavily on his experience as a developmental coach for younger players.....but all coaches are developmental coaches so the appointment of mcrae didn't mean that...

The club was already promoting young players before Fly got the gig.

His success as a teacher of young men both at Collingwood and other clubs is an advantage, but if that's all the club needed he would only have been offered a development role.

As senior coach he has overall responsibility for our game strategy and has to manage his team of assistants.

Arguably his current brief is much broader than "development" but I see your point, even if your comment was tongue-in-cheek. He was bought in to take this playing group, not just the young players, to finals and further... a large part of that is developing the players.

 

[Markfs]

The club was already promoting young players before Fly got the gig.

His success as a teacher of young men both at Collingwood and other clubs is an advantage, but if that's all the club needed he would only have been offered a development role.

As senior coach he has overall responsibility for our game strategy and has to manage his team of assistants.

Arguably his current brief is much broader than "development" but I see your point, even if your comment was tongue-in-cheek. He was bought in to take this playing group, not just the young players, to finals and further... a large part of that is developing the players.

well a lot of this has to do with words...

macrae and number of coaches are coaching from the boundary line without headsets....he might have overall responsibility for our game strategy and it may be less or more than other coaches. Whether he made the decision to introduce pendelbury into the centre square at 3/4 time may be very important to some people. Some might see it as an indication that he is in charge. Others arent that fussed.

As I said in an earlier post, people are going to reinterpret words or my words or whatever. Whethre he is by definition a development coach or a coaching development is neither here or there for me. I made a comment that I dont believe the team that played last week could be referred to as a young team. Some see otherwise. That's their choice

 

[TheGreatGrundy]

Sorry , Young and inexperienced.

Look at the group of

Ginnivan, McCreery, Quaynor , N Daicoss , McInness , as young and inexperienced


Cameron , Kruger, Madgen, Noble , Lipinski, Daicos, Brown , these all have not hit 100 games despite their age.

12 out of that side on the weekend haven't hit that 100 game average.

Hardly say its an old group

The Essendon team was younger/less experienced.

 

[domus]

We needed a change. Bucks was a legend, but fell a shite not paid free of possible glory.
Fly gives us all confidence as it's honeymoon time. That's a fact.
But, i do like what I am seeing so far

I still go into a rage every time I see a soft shepherding/blocking free paid that is not in the same stratosphere as the one against Maynard. It is a simple truth to say a gutless umpire cost us the unimaginable joy of another flag in a memorable year. And 2018 was the year they said they were clamping down on the blocking of the third man in a contest.

 

[domus]

The Essendon team was younger/less experienced.

Essendon have had a lot more opportunities to stockpile young talent so they only have themselves to blame for being where they are.

 

[domus]

For the love of God fix the typo in the thread title.

Must have been an auto correct. I've spelt his name correctly in all of my posts.

 

[Anzacday]

For the love of God fix the typo in the thread title.

Done!

Now it's done!

 

[Markfs]

The Essendon team was younger/less experienced.

i think that goes without saying. They have been the baby bombers since 1982. They are always the baby bombers. I think tim watson still plays in a seniors team and they're called the baby bombers...

 

[OniAu]

The Essendon team was younger/less experienced.

Yeah can imagine , whats your angle with that ?

 

[sr36]

well there you go. I suppose it's all about perceptions. I thought the appointment of mcrae was an indication that he would promote younger players and would rely heavily on his experience as a developmental coach for younger players.....but all coaches are developmental coaches so the appointment of mcrae didn't mean that...

I'd suggest that you had the assumption that the best way of developing young players is to play them in the seniors. As a development coach, he may not agree with you.

 

[domus]

Now it's done!

Hope everyone can sleep better now!

 

[Markfs]

I'd suggest that you had the assumption that the best way of developing young players is to play them in the seniors. As a development coach, he may not agree with you.

well thats a good point...but i thought the "development tag" was going to be used to shift older players out and put younger guys in..... but not to overwelm the seniors with a load of youngsters. North has proven that you shouldnt do that...

but at the moment, we are hardly extending any of the youngsters...and you're probably right that they're not up to it ....yet... and will they ever be up to it?

whatever the plan, it's going to be a lot slower than what people thought the end of last year....pendles, side, howe wont be playing in the next premiership but they will be using up 60 games in the next 2 years. There are only 800 games approx available to pie players in the next 2 years. Roughhead next year? But also mason cox? how many games on him?

by the time you've pensioned these guys off, there's another batch ready to go like hoskin and jamie..

so it's only doing it slowly but you have to have some momentum..

but anyway, i'm happy to give the browns and the kellys a go, the wilsons, the biancos etc... even though i dont think any of them will make it... a nice orderly file through the gate...and have the youngsters wait until next year or the year after...