MM too Structured in his Game Plan

[Dave The Man]

I'm not here to rah rah rah the team, I'll leave that to the mindless drones that wont hear of anything negative, even while it slaps them in the face. I will always tell it like I see it

Will See Will See

 

[zan5hin]

we will be 7th to 9th this year.

A slight decline on last year.

Not so much a decline in standards, but the result of a few resurgent teams. Carlton, Freo possibly and Richmond.

I honestly believe that we are a better side then 7th to 9th! I still think we are top 4 material. You have the extra conditioning that Collingwood players get, both in Arizona and the junior development 'university' they have setup down at Lexus. Add onto that two drafted future elite mid-fielders, who can't even slot into the side because of a resurgent Johnson, and up and coming Clarke, Wellingham and McCarthy as well as Leon and Dale pushing up. Reid playing up back because in the forward line Dawes and Rusling are both ready to go. Forget about John Anthony at your peril.

I will admit Carlton will improve, no doubt about that, I have four of those bastards in my Supercoach team. Richmond will improve as well, but this is Richmond we're talking about - they will make 8th position and finally play some finals but they are still vulnerable. Freo are you kidding? No way.

I can only see us losing to the Hawks, Cats, Blues, Roos, Dogs.

 

[shawthing09]

He seemed to have good Speed on Friday and Beat L Brown quite a lot on the lead

Dave you could beat Leigh Brown on the lead. You could probably beat him in a body on body contest too.

As for MM's gameplan, I still think the jury is out on the whole thing. It is very old school. Everyone is required to stick to the gameplan, play with high defensive intensity and accountability. We also play a very one on one style game. I think from an education point of view this is perfect. Playing this style of game also holds us in good stead come finals time. I think there needs to at some point be some flexibility and freedom added to our offensive game but this may come as players develop and the skills of the group increase.

As for the tagging issue it is almost impossible to tag an in and under midfielder like Mitchel or Bartel and it is almost wasting a man in trying. S Burgoyne we tried to tag and failed, maybe part of the reason we don't tag too often is we don't have someone that the coaching staff is confident to give the job too.

 

[Skade]

Actually, I would have thought it best to get him develop both sides of the game, if he has the ability to play both. He doesnt strike me as overly quick player, he might be powerful, but that does not always translate to speed. The thing is: we have no pack busting forward, Rocca cant get on the park often enough to be a stable influence in the team, either thru suspension or injury. Who is the next Rocca type forward at Collingwood? Because Cloke isnt.

Obviously its Dawes but if he doesn't cut the mustard we could be in strife, Brown probably the only other option. I'm not very footy articulate, but FuManchu seems to be winning the argument IMO. AS for drafting well lately, we may not know for several years, it might be very good, but its has to be better than everyone else also.

 

[shawthing09]

I don't think we need a direct Rocca replacement if our skill level and ball movement improve. Right now we need a big pack crashing foward to grab big contested mark and bring the ball to the ground for the crumbers becasue we move the ball so slowly and often have a congested 50 to kick into and a player like Ben Johnson or Trav just bombing the ball into the 50.

I don't we have a player who is gonig to be as effective as Rocca for this to work because as I repeat constantly to play that role you have to be very very strong at taking the ball at it's highest point. Dawes is poor in this aspect which is worlds away from where he needs to be to play that role. What we do have however is 2 or 3 very appealling lead up targets in Rus, Medders and JA. So if the big guys in Cloke and Dawes can clear the space, be the get out of target option and we move the ball well and with precision it's not all doom and gloom. FWIW Cloke is an excellent contested mark too and would be fine in a Rocca type role with more freedom to roam.

 

[well left]

I'm not so sure that MM is too structured in his game plan. I think he allows players such as Medhurst, Thomas, Didak and Davis to play with flair but if they are to do that they must also do the defensive things required. Medhurst still does the same things he did at Freo - it's just that MM has made him do the defensive things as well which he did not do as well at Freo. Even Harry O plays with flair coming out of the backline.

Now that's not to say that I agree with MM's game plan. If we continue to play down the wings then I think we are in trouble. I can understand the reluctance to go down the wings in the past as we have not had the footskills to necessarily go down the corridor (that's another topic - MM also has to take some blame for drafting) but we need to start playing players that will allow us to do this. We have on paper one of the best forward lines - we need to give them every opportunity and we do not do that at present.

IMO this is MM's last chance at putting a list together. This is his 3rd build and if he does not get it right this time it is time to move on. The only other coach I have known to have that long a tenure with no flag was Neale Daniher. Melbourne had success with making finals but as Fu Manchu has stated coaches are hired to deliver premierships and we have now gone 19 long years without one.

 

[FuManchu]

I honestly believe that we are a better side then 7th to 9th! I still think we are top 4 material. You have the extra conditioning that Collingwood players get, both in Arizona

that training is only effective in the immediate lead up to any sporting event, The whole premise of that training in Arizona is really a camp, like Hawthorn going up on the Kokoda trail, it is to bond and sort out some personality issues. It is not effective 9 months later unless reinforced on a heavy basis. To go into a 'high altitude' room occassionally is not enough to have the effects last well into the season. Dont over rate the effects of this camp.

and the junior development 'university' they have setup down at Lexus.

This was innovative, but would be being emulated in a number of clubs by now. I take it Richo is trialling something similar over at Essendon. (Richo is a big loss to us)

Add onto that two drafted future elite mid-fielders, who can't even slot into the side because of a resurgent Johnson,

I like Johnno, I think he is top 7 or 8 at the club when he has his mind on the job. But that remains to be seen. Just because he is training well doesnt mean he is playing well. I will say this about Johnno, he likes breaking the rules, even on field he breaks the rules, he is one that likes to run the lines and thru the middle. MM must hate him!!

and up and coming Clarke,

mmmmm, maybe

Wellingham

has the goods, yes

and McCarthy

I have my doubts he will be more than a HBF, of which we already have two very good types

as well as Leon and Dale pushing up

My argument all along is that these players and Didak are essentially Flankers and FP players. That is where they are the most damaging. So why havent we developed mid fielders prior to this to allow these players remain where they are their most dangerous? Leon in my opinion is now the most dangerous small forward in the league, so we take him out of there, put someone less damaging and put him in somewhere potentially less effective!!!!

. Reid playing up back

has to do something this year, or will become a wasted top draft pick ( again)

because in the forward line Dawes and Rusling are both ready to go. Forget about John Anthony at your peril.

You can only have so many leading type forwards. Anthony and Rusling are the same type player. Not sure about Dawes yet, if he is the same, then there really is only room for two, maybe even only one. Rusling is less versatile than Anthony, not too mention way too injury prone. He is on his last chance. I wouldnt be putting too much on Rusling remaining on the list the way he keeps hurting himself. Shoulders are very hard to fix once they have gone. Trust me, I speak from experience.

I will admit Carlton will improve, no doubt about that, I have four of those bastards in my Supercoach team. Richmond will improve as well, but this is Richmond we're talking about - they will make 8th position and finally play some finals but they are still vulnerable. Freo are you kidding? No way.

I can only see us losing to the Hawks, Cats, Blues, Roos, Dogs.

Dont underestimate Freo, they tore us apart thru running the lines last time we met. In fact they showed us how a fleet or small runners can do that. I hope MM was watching. Funnily enuf, straight up the guts ( mind you it was the most unskilled game of football I have ever seen live)

But we won 12 games last year in the H&A season. So we dropped 10 games. This was after everyone got carried away with losing to geelong by a kick the year before. 10 games!!! We were not all that good, in the year a lot thought we would improve. We really didnt improve at all. Some players went backwards, some were found wanting due to more scrutiny from the opposition.

It will be interesting, but as I said before, just because you expect improvement from our list, doesnt mean other clubs wont pass us because of greater improvement. Some might shoot ahead unexpectingly, like we did after 2005. There are always surprises. To mine freo is a lot better than 14th. Port had a horror last year, even the Dons could surprise, let alone carlton and Richmond. Yes Sydney and the Crows probably will fall, but just dont automatically assume we will take their spots and the others fall in behind us. In fact dont assume that at all. I'm figuring carlton will be 5th thereabouts, richmond 7th maybe even higher. Forget all this nonsense about them imploding because of who they are. Clubs break trends eventually. Geelong did it in 2007, we did it 1990. Eventually a break out season occurs.

 

[loki04]

Most of what FU says is spot on, our 3 biggest wins last year came from us being more direct through the middle and faster ball movement (as well as an absurd amount of tackling pressure).

When we come against teams who own the corridor we get killed as we take too long and too wide when going forward we allow numbers to get back and then try hit a cloke in a 3 v 1 situation.

Ball hits the ground to a swarm of opposition and gets rebounded fastly straight up the guts into an open 50, which for a fev or buddy results in 8 -9 goal day.

 

[shawthing09]

Not to pick for the sake of it Fu but

What are you doubts over McCarthy specifically. What is lacking for him to play midfield IMO or what makes you sceptical?

I agree re Anthony and Rusling however only one of these two needs to work. Cloke is a marking target and Dawes projects as a CHF who should play a similar role to what Cloke has previously except unlike Cloke should use the ball better going into the 50.

Why the urgency re Reid???? His hardly behind the other Kpp drafted around the same pick in the same year. Young kpp take time especially when drafted with such an immature body. Also the fact that his role has changed. I understand he needs to break in sometime soon but he has deffinately shown enough to this point so I don't see where the urgency is.

 

[FuManchu]

Not to pick for the sake of it Fu but

No its good to question, this is a discussion, and these are my opinions, most of which may be wrong

What are you doubts over McCarthy specifically. What is lacking for him to play midfield IMO or what makes you sceptical?

havent seen enough of him, but so too havent the opposition coaches. But he will heavily scrutinised because he had a reasonable first year. I dont think he is creative enuf for the middle. He looks to me to be a run forward player, not a lateral mover required in the middle. perfect for a back flanker or back pocket. Pendlebury being the benchmark now at Collingwood who can step sideways, make space, see options, open up the play with a deft disposal.

He also doesnt seem to have the grunt to be a power middle player either, like Mitchell at Hawthorn. He needs to have either one of these attributes. Or better still, Scotty Burns, pure grunt and mongrel for the ball.

I agree re Anthony and Rusling however only one of these two needs to work. Cloke is a marking target and Dawes projects as a CHF who should play a similar role to what Cloke has previously except unlike Cloke should use the ball better going into the 50.

watched Cloke last year, in my opinion he went backwards a little. Started chasing kicks ala tarrant up the wings. Is he a marking option? A real tall marking option? He doesnt play like it. He is not a pack mark, he tends to avoid pack situations. A bloke that tall ( and now Rocca is so so) really needs to become the focal point, not run away from the focal area like he did last season, looking for kicks way from goals

Why the urgency re Reid???? His hardly behind the other Kpp drafted around the same pick in the same year. Young kpp take time especially when drafted with such an immature body. Also the fact that his role has changed. I understand he needs to break in sometime soon but he has deffinately shown enough to this point so I don't see where the urgency is.

I have my doubts about Reid. It may be just in my mind, but is he another Rusling? Injury prone? When he does get a gig, he doesnt seem to look at home anywhere. Is he lacking in confidence. I dont know, he just doesnt seem to ........... how do I say it? own a spot?

I still believe in the force of personality and he just doesnt seem to be imposing his at the club. Its like he is constantly referred to as the bloke that will fill the deficiencies. Be it in the forward line, or up back. But really it doesnt work that way. He needs to find a spot he wants and win it, own it. At the moment he is just drifting

 

[popathon]

I reckon you're pretty much spot on FU. I think most of the players love MM and i don't doubt his off field abilities. But on field i would like to see him give more of a role to one of the assistants. Don't get me wrong MM comes up with moments of brilliance but the other 90% of the time i'm sitting there frustrated as hell watching us kick along the sidelines.

 

[shawthing09]

On Cloke I think last year he struggled due to the predictable nature of our game plan and the lack of other options. He was stuck between going up and giving the player up field and option or staying back where he was needed. When he stayed back too often the ball never got there or the delivery was not to standard. When he goes kick chasing his kicking is not good enough. It is very hard for a foward who is not quick to be the only option inside 50. His marking is good and I think that will shine as we get better ball movement or get more option up foward to create space.

On McCarthy he IMO has everything to make it as a midfielder. His attack on the ball is top notch and his hands are clean. His not a Pendleberry style predator around the pack but he is a run in straight lines type player which I think will become more evident as he develops the bigger body. His very good in contested situations. Has decent toe to get out of trouble with a quick first step rather then with lateral movement and uses the ball very well. For what it's worth I think he not only has what it takes to be a midfielder but one of the better midfielders going round.

On Ried I think there is certainly confidence issues but that can often be off loaded pretty quick by feeling comfortable in your role. He was a very good player who played a variety of roles when drafted and was straight away ear marked for Kpf. His kicking clearly was not up to scratch and hopefully he can get comfortable down back and the improvements will follow although there is still a lot to go under the bridge I don't think that this year needs to be the telling year.

 

[FuManchu]

On Cloke I think last year he struggled due to the predictable nature of our game plan and the lack of other options. He was stuck between going up and giving the player up field and option or staying back where he was needed. When he stayed back too often the ball never got there or the delivery was not to standard. When he goes kick chasing his kicking is not good enough. It is very hard for a foward who is not quick to be the only option inside 50. His marking is good and I think that will shine as we get better ball movement or get more option up foward to create space.

I was going to say another reason he shouldnt get involved in general upfield play is because his field kicking, hell ........ his allround kicking is not up to scratch. It like he is better taking shots at goal, at least they will produce something, rather than trying t pin point passes he is not qualifed to do!

On McCarthy he IMO has everything to make it as a midfielder. His attack on the ball is top notch and his hands are clean. His not a Pendleberry style predator around the pack but he is a run in straight lines type player which I think will become more evident as he develops the bigger body. His very good in contested situations. Has decent toe to get out of trouble with a quick first step rather then with lateral movement and uses the ball very well. For what it's worth I think he not only has what it takes to be a midfielder but one of the better midfielders going round.

Time will tell, he does have good attack, but maybe it is the body size thing, I just dont see him as a cousins type, or even a rent Harvey type, let alone a Burns type or a player with sublime skills. Do we have better option for the middle than him? I still cant go past developing Wellingham for the middle. But who knows perhaps one of the new fellas might have something. But I just hope that we dont rob Peter to pay Paul by taking Davis and co away from their most damaging possies

On Ried I think there is certainly confidence issues but that can often be off loaded pretty quick by feeling comfortable in your role. He was a very good player who played a variety of roles when drafted and was straight away ear marked for Kpf. His kicking clearly was not up to scratch and hopefully he can get comfortable down back and the improvements will follow although there is still a lot to go under the bridge I don't think that this year needs to be the telling year.

This year he has a chance to cement a spot in an undeveloped backline. My fear is that L Brown was recruited to fill a spot in a very conservative move by MM or the recruiters or whoever makes these decisions. Hopefully he is just a backup rather than the solution.

 

[Col Davies]

I'm not here to rah rah rah the team, I'll leave that to the mindless drones that wont hear of anything negative, even while it slaps them in the face. I will always tell it like I see it .....................

........................and in the process get it mostly wrong

 

[FuManchu]

........................and in the process get it mostly wrong

Is that like getting it wrong for 9 years without any proper discussion of it?

 

[Buckley is my hero]

Is that like getting it wrong for 9 years without any proper discussion of it?

Happy for people to express their opinion but suggest you do a bit of homework before you post laughable assertions about a two time premiership coach who coached us into the last two season's finals. You could do no worse than start with a fine biography on the life of Norm Smith, called "The Red Fox". You seem to rate the performance of the coach as the difference between winning and losing and then look at some isolated plays on the football field as justification that MM can't coach. If life were that easy. Players are human beings who make mistakes and usually the side that wins makes the fewest mistakes. The champion players make the fewest mistakes and champion teams usually win the premierships. Please enlighten us as how the coach fits into this picture.

 

[FuManchu]

Happy for people to express their opinion but suggest you do a bit of homework before you post laughable assertions about a two time premiership coach who coached us into the last two season's finals. You could do no worse than start with a fine biography on the life of Norm Smith, called "The Red Fox". You seem to rate the performance of the coach as the difference between winning and losing and then look at some isolated plays on the football field as justification that MM can't coach. If life were that easy. Players are human beings who make mistakes and usually the side that wins makes the fewest mistakes. The champion players make the fewest mistakes and champion teams usually win the premierships. Please enlighten us as how the coach fits into this picture.

You dont get nine years to continually fall short, not in AFL football.

If you dont believe that buck stops with the coach after nine years of a game plan that can only take you so far, then you are deluding yourself. If MM is there for any other reason than to win a flag, then lets us all know what it is. Because I am pretty sure that is his brief.

If he has players that make mistakes and cause the problem, then in reality they are his players, recruited by his team of recruiters and playing his brand of football.

The common denominator in the nine years of failure is MM.

Sorry, you just dont get nine years anywhere to keep coming up short.

P.S. He hasnt won a flag for 15 years, and even Matthews who has won one as recently as 6 years ago, was considered outdated in his methodology of coaching towards the end of his tenure at Brisbane. Sometimes you just have to accept that the game has evolved past your ideas on the game

 

[FuManchu]

Happy for people to express their opinion but suggest you do a bit of homework before you post laughable assertions about a two time premiership coach who coached us into the last two season's finals. You could do no worse than start with a fine biography on the life of Norm Smith, called "The Red Fox". You seem to rate the performance of the coach as the difference between winning and losing and then look at some isolated plays on the football field as justification that MM can't coach. If life were that easy. Players are human beings who make mistakes and usually the side that wins makes the fewest mistakes. The champion players make the fewest mistakes and champion teams usually win the premierships. Please enlighten us as how the coach fits into this picture.

Isolated!!!

if only it was isolated, this run wide, prop and look game plan he has.

It pretty much is accepted by all on this forum that that is the game plan.

 

[Col Davies]

MM is the best coach in the AFL and recognised as such by many current and ex-coaches.

I bet your suggestion is Choco Williams or Mick McGuane

 

[FuManchu]

MM is the best coach in the AFL and recognised as such by many current and ex-coaches.

I bet your suggestion is Choco Williams or Mick McGuane

No, I am willing to gamble as did Brisbane on a 'newbie', someone like Buckley perhaps, an exponent of the 'modern' game

I would have thought that the best coach in the AFL might have won a flag in the last 15 years. There might be a bloke at Glenferrie (read Waverley) who might dispute your claim that MM is better than him, and perhaps the bloke down the road at geelong also. Funnily those two have won a flag of late.

 

[Buckley is my hero]

No, I am willing to gamble as did Brisbane on a 'newbie', someone like Buckley perhaps, an exponent of the 'modern' game

I would have thought that the best coach in the AFL might have won a flag in the last 15 years. There might be a bloke at Glenferrie (read Waverley) who might dispute your claim that MM is better than him, and perhaps the bloke down the road at geelong also. Funnily those two have won a flag of late.

Happy that you mentioned Clarkson because Hawthorn has one of the most structured game plans in the league. So what is your point about MM again - Too structured? Not structured enough? Please explain your point?

 

[loki04]

Happy that you mentioned Clarkson because Hawthorn has one of the most structured game plans in the league. So what is your point about MM again - Too structured? Not structured enough? Please explain your point?

DTM is saying that MM is too structured, FU is saying the game plan sucks and I agree too wide too slow and plays into the oppositions hands.
Our biggest wins had us using the corridor more then usual, should be the message most games imo.

 

[FuManchu]

Happy that you mentioned Clarkson because Hawthorn has one of the most structured game plans in the league. So what is your point about MM again - Too structured? Not structured enough? Please explain your point?

Guess what? Its OK to have a structured game plan, I'd say all clubs have one, some would actually have two or three.

The problem is that MM's plan is not working, it hasnt won a flag for us in 9 years. And remarkably in our most dominant year, it was more of the same, go wide, push your two best forwards to lead to the boundaries and minimise their goal scoring chances. That was 2003, nothing has changed!! Well ............ except he doesnt have two very good marking options up front, now the players tend to get between the wing and HF and stop and look for an option!

MM has a 55% win loss record with Collingwood, in his best year it was 68%, hardly a period of domination. The game plan he implements does not win flags. Perhaps if the personnel were differnt it might, but he doesnt have that luxury, so what is he doing to make the game plan compliment the list he does have?

Allowing the opposition to continually flood back and starve your elite small forwards time and time again, choking their avenues for scoring is not a valid game plan, especially when the better sides can rebound so quickly to an empty forward line, with our back structure being so vulnerable now!

 

[Buckley is my hero]

DTM is saying that MM is too structured, FU is saying the game plan sucks and I agree too wide too slow and plays into the oppositions hands.
Our biggest wins had us using the corridor more then usual, should be the message most games imo.

Generally I would say you move the ball from the full back line along the flanks (or change direction to the opposite flank where you have players free) and once you pass the center you straighten up down the corridor to goal. Only problem is the opposition knows what you're doing and try to block your path to goal. MM likes the opposition to play man on man (which Sydney does all the time against us) because we tend to have a more disciplined game plan where we run off our man to create space down field. Our plan breaks down when not all players follow the plan. Hawthorn beats us because they play zones and we haven't yet been able to execute a plan to break their zone. It doesn't help also that we get clobbered by the Hawthorn midfield and simply don't get our hands on the football enough. Players like Mitchell, Foley and Kerr kill us all the time because they have the ability to get the ball out of packs. Till now we've had too many outside players who depend on being handed the ball. This seems to have been corrected in the recruitment of Beams and Blair who are inside players. If you gave MM the Hawthorn team to coach and Clarkson the Collingwood team to coach the result would be just the same IMO. I think coaches are overrated and easy scapegoats for the supporters to blame when their team loses.

 

[FuManchu]

Generally I would say you move the ball from the full back line along the flanks (or change direction to the opposite flank where you have players free) and once you pass the center you straighten up down the corridor to goal.

that is generally the method agreed

Only problem is the opposition knows what you're doing and try to block your path to goal.

geelong predictably ran thru the middle from CHB for the last two years, and carrying the ball thru the lines creates unpredictability further down for the opposition.

MM likes the opposition to play man on man (which Sydney does all the time against us) because we tend to have a more disciplined game plan where we run off our man to create space down field.

this is a 'labour' intensive exercise which requires you to be on your defensve game all the time. Go off the boil in intensity and you stand t get carved up. A young team is not always going to bring this intensity to every game. As evidenced by flogging Geelong and West Coast in succesive weeks, brillaint man on man pressure. the next week, go off the boil and struggle against melb.

Our plan breaks down when not all players follow the plan.

it breaks down in part of this and in part that other teams know how to counteract it. The plan only works against other teams that play free flowing football, that hate being checked, they want to run free and back themselves to run. Geelong love to run, they have to, because they need to run the lines, drive the ball in deep to an undermanned forward line. They love to run, we know that, we check them, its all about match ups

Hawthorn beats us because they play zones and we haven't yet been able to execute a plan to break their zone.

Hawthorn know if that they crowd our HF line, they can cause a turn over and run straight out thru the middle. We are so lateral in our play that the middle is like an open highway for them. Its not brain surgery after you see it 30 times in a game.

Hawthorn see the predictability of our game. One thing that might throw them out intead of the chip chip chip possesion game is to run and carry the ball. A ball in constant movement by hand or foot is easier to counteract than a bloke running with it, thru the lines, you dont know if he is going to go short or long, its called uncertainty. Once you dispose of it, you know where it is going. They run with the bloody thing, why dont we? Geelong run with the bloody thing!!!

It doesn't help also that we get clobbered by the Hawthorn midfield and simply don't get our hands on the football enough. Players like Mitchell, Foley and Kerr kill us all the time because they have the ability to get the ball out of packs.

Yes, we have a problem there, but I believe we MAY be on the way to fixing this obvious shortcoming.

Till now we've had too many outside players who depend on being handed the ball.

Not entirely true, we had serviceable players in the middle, Burns and co, but they were never elite ( sorry burnsy, good, but not elite). But we have persisted with such a pedestrian (serviceable) midfield since MM got to Collingwood. He never made a point of going for a speedy player in the guts or even a grunt player. We made do with work ethic. One day I'd like to make do with elite for a change

This seems to have been corrected in the recruitment of Beams and Blair who are inside players

Too early to say that. Its like saying all our problems were going to be solved at CHF because of Billy Morrison. You just cant say that yet.

If you gave MM the Hawthorn team to coach and Clarkson the Collingwood team to coach the result would be just the same IMO.

I bet the results wouldnt be precisely the same and why would you make Hawthorn play the way we do? What benefit is in making the ball come in slow and wide to Franklin and Roughead and Williams. What benefit is there making the ball come in slow to Davis, Medhurst, Thomas and Didak?

I think coaches are overrated and easy scapegoats for the supporters to blame when their team loses.

No, wrong, players that play with discipline play according to their coaches plans or they tend to get the boot. The game plan is king. In fact its one of the standard answers when players talk about the match. the plan, the plan ,the plan. Malthouse's plan sucks