Meek, Mild Adelaide Crows!!

[Bicks]

Noticed an interesting quote from Melbourne Footy Journalist John Ralph in an article written by Jesper Fjeldstad on the Adelaide Now website.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/can-neil-craig-raise-the-dead/story-e6frecoc-1225855074182

Colleague Jon Ralph from the Sunday Mail's sister paper the Herald Sun, voicing the sentiments from across the border, was scathing in a recent report.
"Meek, mild Adelaide, unwilling to attack an inferior opponent, sat back rather than apply the killer blow," Ralph wrote about the Melbourne loss, before finishing with another swing: "Sympathy is reserved for teams that fight and scrap, Adelaide is a long way from that right now."

Pretty much sums up the AFC of 2010....MEEK and MILD!!!!!

I cannot honestly remember an Adelaide player delivering a full bore "bone crushing" bump or a "bone rattling" tackle a la Mark Riccuitto, Mark Bickley all year, we seriously need a massive injection of passion and "mongrel" into our list.

The old saying "Nice Guys Finish Last" = AFC!!!!!

 

[Craigie]

This is only due to Neil Craig's poor coaching...get rid of Neil Craig and problem goes!!

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

This is only due to Neil Craig's poor coaching...get rid of Neil Craig and problem goes!!

Champ, your game is about to start on tv. Shouldn't you be watching it?

 

[relapse]

This is only due to Neil Craig's poor coaching...get rid of Neil Craig and problem goes!!

So you have opened an account today called "craigie" yet you have bagged him every post. Makes no sense, unless you are a port troll which are you obviously. Can one of the mods do an ip check as this is obviously a duplicate account of a Port supporter.

 

[fairfooty]

Not true. Problems as deep and complex as AFC have at the moment are not due to one person. Simplistic solutions will not imporve our performance. In fact a coach change at this point of the season is porbably the worst thing we could do to an already very unsettled and low confidence side.

This is only due to Neil Craig's poor coaching...get rid of Neil Craig and problem goes!!

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

definitely need more passion, agression and physicality, however mongrel I'm not so sure

we were once respected for always being competitive, the facts are that you can lose respect very quickly just as we have done

 

[PCORF]

This is only due to Neil Craig's poor coaching...get rid of Neil Craig and problem goes!!

Its the players, not just the coach.

 

[Allbetsroff]

Its the players, not just the coach.

No, they're both equally pissweak.

Apart from Bernie Vince, Taylor Walker, Graham Johncock, Ivan Maric, Patrick Dangerfield, Chris Schmidt, Phil Davis, Jared Petrenko, David Mackay and Brent Reilly.

Honorary mention to Andrew Mcleod.

 

[Encanto]

Perhaps the games have got too physical and that could explain why the teams with the longest breaks are winning most games this early in the season. Every team that went into this weeks game with just a six day break has lost badly.

 

[fairfooty]

Now thats interesting... couple that with our horrendous injury list... hmn... food for thought...

 

[Allbetsroff]

Now thats interesting... couple that with our horrendous injury list... hmn... food for thought...

hmm sounds like another excuse.

 

[Epic J]

This scientific style of structured footy is shite! Don't get me wrong there needs to be a system in place but we play with no passion at all!
If one of our guys gets crunched we all just look at each other and go "oh well, poor bugga! hope that doesnt happen to me!". Get in there and earn some respect, that doesn't mean cheap shots ala barry hall punching someone in the face while they're not watching, that means stand up for ur mate and maybe he'll do it for u next time (but it doesnt fit into craigies game plan and never has)
When it comes to physicality (last time i checked it was a physical game) this current Adelaide team would rank as the softest outfit among its peers. Meek and mild!!
Our hardest player is a 20 yr old kid! Good on ya Danger, keep leading by example

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

I have met some Crows supporters who actually think only having one true aggressive player in the last 6-8 years is a good thing. Our tackling is crap and aggression non-existent. We are too obessed with zones to worry about tackling and work rate.

Mind you, the problem starts at the top as we are being led by a guy who doesn't have an ounce of aggression or passion.

I'm sick of playing nice, sociable football. I want to be feared.

We won't win a premiership until we get a harder edge.

 

[Kennyrocks]

CD, Geelong has clearly been the best team over the past three seasons and they're hardly an unsociable football club. I'd rather their results than those of the notorious "bad boys" Hawthorn.

Toughness at the footy and the man with the ball is the key, in this respect Geelong have been exceptional, the same with St Kilda. We could certainly use a Max Rooke or Campbell Brown type.

You can the best gameplan in the world, but if you're not hard at it then there's no point whatsoever.

 

[amer]

Toughness at the footy and the man with the ball is the key, in this respect Geelong have been exceptional, the same with St Kilda.

Yeah. But CD is talking about something other than just attacking the contest. He's talking about "unsociable" footy, i.e. going out with the intention to hurt other sides, to play nasty, rather than simply attacking to gain possession. "Aggressive" footballers are fine, but they're at their most effective when they're applying plenty of pressure and winning contested ball, not wasting time and energy on dirty tactics.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

CD, Geelong has clearly been the best team over the past three seasons and they're hardly an unsociable football club. I'd rather their results than those of the notorious "bad boys" Hawthorn.

You have the raw aggression of Mooney, Chapman, Scarlett, Milburn, Johnson and then the genuine toughness of Ling, Corey, Enright, Bartel, Rooke, Kelly and Selwood. Bad example amer.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Yeah. But CD is talking about something other than just attacking the contest. He's talking about "unsociable" footy, i.e. going out with the intention to hurt other sides, to play nasty, rather than simply attacking to gain possession. "Aggressive" footballers are fine, but they're at their most effective when they're applying plenty of pressure and winning contested ball, not wasting time and energy on dirty tactics.

You think Geelong play "sociable" football. You think the great Brisbane side of 2001-2004 played sociable football. Did Sydney play sociable football in 2005. Hawthorn in 2008. Essendon 2000.

 

[Kennyrocks]

Amer, I see where you're coming from but I'm finding myself agreeing with CD's point of view. No-one mentioned any dirty tactics, but if you've got a chance to hurt your opponent physically you take it.

If you're hard at the ball, the man and the contest generally then the you will deal out some hard knocks to opposition players. As a result you are more likely to win the ball in a contested situation, and more likely to cause a turnover multiple ways when the other team has the ball.

As a fast bowler I liken it to bowling a bouncer at a batsman. If I hit the batsman and hurt him badly, that's not why I did it. It's about putting doubt in your opponents mind and gaining a mental edge, and if even for a split second they've thought "I'm not sure if I want to be out here" then you're ahead.

Staying with the above analogy, it is not my intention when I'm standing at the top of my mark to hurt or injure my opponent, but when the bowl leaves the hand it comes out with all the pace and venom I can summon.

That's sport, play it any other way and you wont win the contest.

 

[Epic J]

You think Geelong play "sociable" football. You think the great Brisbane side of 2001-2004 played sociable football. Did Sydney play sociable football in 2005. Hawthorn in 2008. Essendon 2000.

This is the point exactly! No mild team won a grand final. Play the game hard but within the rules. All of these teams had an uncompromising attack on the ball and the man carrying it.
When was the last time u saw a decent shepherd layed? They want to play on all the time but dont protect the guy they've put under the pump!

 

[Kennyrocks]

You think Geelong play "sociable" football. You think the great Brisbane side of 2001-2004 played sociable football. Did Sydney play sociable football in 2005. Hawthorn in 2008. Essendon 2000.

 

[amer]

You have the raw aggression of Mooney, Chapman, Scarlett, Milburn, Johnson and then the genuine toughness of Ling, Corey, Enright, Bartel, Rooke, Kelly and Selwood. Bad example amer.

Don't watch a lot of footy do you? Geelong -clearly- is not an unsociable football side. They're uncompromising in how they hunt the ball but they are hardly a nasty unit, some of those names you've listed there, laughable.

"Unsociable" football is not the answer.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Also add Port in 2004 to that list.

 

[amer]

Amer, I see where you're coming from but I'm finding myself agreeing with CD's point of view. No-one mentioned any dirty tactics, but if you've got a chance to hurt your opponent physically you take it.

If you're hard at the ball, the man and the contest generally then the you will deal out some hard knocks to opposition players. As a result you are more likely to win the ball in a contested situation, and more likely to cause a turnover multiple ways when the other team has the ball.

As a fast bowler I liken it to bowling a bouncer at a batsman. If I hit the batsman and hurt him badly, that's not why I did it. It's about putting doubt in your opponents mind and gaining a mental edge, and if even for a split second they've thought "I'm not sure if I want to be out here" then you're ahead.

Staying with the above analogy, it is not my intention when I'm standing at the top of my mark to hurt or injure my opponent, but when the bowl leaves the hand it comes out with all the pace and venom I can summon.

That's sport, play it any other way and you wont win the contest.

You're missing the point. I do not disagree with your justification, aggression in football is crucial. Dirty footy is not. CD likes to mix the two together and talk about each as he pleases. They are not one and the same.

We are not hunting the football enough, we are not making our tackles stick.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Don't watch a lot of footy do you? Geelong -clearly- is not an unsociable football side. They're uncompromising in how they hunt the ball but they are hardly a nasty unit, some of those names you've listed there, laughable.

"Unsociable" football is not the answer.

Only watch about 6-8 games every week. I wont bother wasting both our times debating this as you won't change your opinion, I wont change mine. Whether you are right or I'm right, one thing is for sure, there hasn't been a team win a premiership in the last 10 or so years who play the "nice" football that we are so fond of.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

You're missing the point. I do not disagree with your justification, aggression in football is crucial. Dirty footy is not. CD likes to mix the two together and talk about each as he pleases. They are not one and the same.

We are not hunting the football enough, we are not making our tackles stick.

Jeez you just go around in cirles going nowhere. So you don't think all those premiership teams I mentioned didnt play "dirty" football at some point on the way to their premiership.