Neil Craig - Last Year

[SydCrow]

I wasn't asking why people express what they think about Neil Craig, I was asking why they keep doing it, for example, you say people stick their fingers in their ears and go I'm not listening then why do you all keep saying the same things, we all know what you are saying and agree with some of it but most of you keep going and going on with things you like to exaggerate about or put a twist to until Vader comes to explain what you've got wrong and you either disappear for a while or say oh I've had a bad day.

you will find that the ones who keep repeating no plan B, Massie on Franklin, can't win close games etc are also the ones who accuse him of being stubborn

he is a good coach there is no doubt about it but the team needs a big year next year or he is goneski

not many coaches can survive 7 years without a GF (Rocket is the only one in the current crop?) Even Mad Mick's time is up.

interesting the rumours about Bomber Thompson going to Essendon - he was supposed to be a one club coach. I wonder if Craigy could end up somewhere else if he left the Crows?

 

[footy4ever]

What are you two clowns on about?

You're "defending" Neil here by providing some damning criticism of him.

Let me try to follow your logic... Craig can't be expected to succeed because he doesn't have enough top ten draft picks, right? So that is how you achieve success? By having a lot of talented early picks in your line up?

Is that what you're saying?

Because that is the exact OPPOSITE of how Craig operates. He has dismissed the need to bottom out, to gift games in youngsters and to submit to the AFL cycle.

So are you two saying that his methods are wrong and we did need to spend some time down the bottom of the ladder after all?

Yair nah. What I have observed is that he is being blamed for everything which includes things that are out of his control.

But...what are you saying? You want the crows to play to lose? That we should have spent a few years tanking to come 16th, or aim for 17th over the next couple of years?

I'm sure Neil will apologise to us all for trying to win.

 

[footy4ever]

Malthouse, Thompson, Eade and Clarkson all come out of contract at the end of 2011.

I'll take Malthouse thank you. The rest ....hmmm, nope.

 

[VSTone]

Because he monumentally 'balls things up alot' the list continues the grow, the answers arent fourth coming from the club, people on here are too stupid to see them, despite hanging out like 'dogs balls' in their faces, a large amount of people on here stick their fingers in their ears and go 'lalalalala Im not listening' and are happy to support their nice club with nice players and give mediocrity a great big hug.

well said...

 

[Southerntakeover]

you're ****ing kidding right?

Wait, you mean Vader isnt some great sage coming in and shutting shit down while we cower from his almighty wit?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Yair nah. What I have observed is that he is being blamed for everything which includes things that are out of his control.

But...what are you saying? You want the crows to play to lose? That we should have spent a few years tanking to come 16th, or aim for 17th over the next couple of years?

I'm sure Neil will apologise to us all for trying to win.

No. You are saying that.

I like Craig's philosophy with regards to aiming for finals every year. However, he (and his supporters) can't use the inevitable outcomes of that philosophy as an excuse for poor performances.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

I'll take Malthouse thank you. The rest ....hmmm, nope.

You would take Craig, a coach whose team has regularly performed poorly in finals, over premiership coaches in Clarkson and Thompson. You must have found Tucks stash.

 

[dangerzone]

^^I think you'll find Hawthorn and Geelong had significantly better lists than the Crows when they won their premierships.

 

[Twist_of_Lemon]

Apologises for not reading through every post, but is there a chance Todd would take over? Or is the main job not something he really wants?

 

[jenny61_99]

Apologises for not reading through every post, but is there a chance Todd would take over? Or is the main job not something he really wants?

He wants it... it's not time.

 

[footy4ever]

You would take Craig, a coach whose team has regularly performed poorly in finals, over premiership coaches in Clarkson and Thompson. You must have found Tucks stash.

Ha ha WTF??

Really CD, I said "I'll take malthouse"...after the little hypothetical a few posts back asking "should the event arise at the end of next season" (that Craig goes)..."What should the crows do?"

And I chose Malthouse over Clarkson and Thompson.

I'll accept flowers for your misunderstanding.

 

[footy4ever]

Apologises for not reading through every post, but is there a chance Todd would take over? Or is the main job not something he really wants?

I would hope its not already his to have when the time comes.

Is there a lot of love on this board for Todd V? I would expect the AFC to look wider than that.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

Ha ha WTF??

Really CD, I said "I'll take malthouse"...after the little hypothetical a few posts back asking "should the event arise at the end of next season" (that Craig goes)..."What should the crows do?"

And I chose Malthouse over Clarkson and Thompson.

I'll accept flowers for your misunderstanding.

Woops, my mistake. I thought you meant you would take Craig over Clarkson or Thompson.

I will give Tuck back what's left of his stash.

 

[footy4ever]

No. You are saying that.

I like Craig's philosophy with regards to aiming for finals every year. However, he (and his supporters) can't use the inevitable outcomes of that philosophy as an excuse for poor performances.

So you are saying Craig should play to lose, because by winning too many games its a fact of AFL life that you don't get the picks?

 

[footy4ever]

Woops, my mistake. I thought you meant you would take Craig over Clarkson or Thompson.

I will give Tuck back what's left of his stash.

No! give the stash to me.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

So you are saying Craig should play to lose, because by winning too many games its a fact of AFL life that you don't get the picks?

This is getting frustrating.

You guys reeled off a string of names - Hodge, Goddard, Franklin... players Craig has never had access to because he has never finished low enough and we have never bottomed out.

In essence you were saying, "how can we expect Craig to win games without all these talented players?"

I'm saying that IF having players of this type is the key to winning matches and winning premierships, then do you disagree with Craig's philosophy of trying to be competitive and finish as high as you can every year?

Because you can't have it both ways.

You can't praise Craig for never giving away a season and always striving for finals and at the same time say that we don't have the early picks to achieve success.

Either he's following the right approach and success is nigh (without the early draft picks) or he's been wrong all along and we should have bottomed out.

 

[jenny61_99]

This is getting frustrating.

You guys reeled off a string of names - Hodge, Goddard, Franklin... players Craig has never had access to because he has never finished low enough and we have never bottomed out.

In essence you were saying, "how can we expect Craig to win games without all these talented players?"

I'm saying that IF having players of this type is the key to winning matches and winning premierships, then do you disagree with Craig's philosophy of trying to be competitive and finish as high as you can every year?

Because you can't have it both ways.

You can't praise Craig for never giving away a season and always striving for finals and at the same time say that we don't have the early picks to achieve success.

Either he's following the right approach and success is nigh (without the early draft picks) or he's been wrong all along and we should have bottomed out.

I guess they are asking which you think he should have done.

Which is more painless - being there and there abouts but not quite having the talent to pull it off or being rock bottom for a number of years while you collect the talent?

I think Rendell has shown you CAN get talent without having to bottom out. Perhaps our talent takes a little longer to develop?

When you consider the odds of winning the flag each year (or even seriously competing for it), I'd rather it the way we've done it. Bottoming out is no guarantee either, and I'd prefer to have some joy along the way.

 

[Crow-mo]

I guess they are asking which you think he should have done.

Which is more painless - being there and there abouts but not quite having the talent to pull it off or being rock bottom for a number of years while you collect the talent?

I think Rendell has shown you CAN get talent without having to bottom out. Perhaps our talent takes a little longer to develop?

When you consider the odds of winning the flag each year (or even seriously competing for it), I'd rather it the way we've done it. Bottoming out is no guarantee either, and I'd prefer to have some joy along the way.

what you're saying is that we are not trying to win a flag, and that you are ok with that.

 

[Mego Red]

You would take Craig, a coach whose team has regularly performed poorly in finals, over premiership coaches in Clarkson and Thompson. You must have found Tucks stash.

Clarkson stumbled ass backwards into his flag, and has done nothing else ever since.

Thompson - it will be interesting to see how he goes with a less talented side. My Aunt Doris could have coached Geelong to three flags - but that doesn't mean Bomber isn't a good coach.

 

[johnnypanther]

This is getting frustrating.

You guys reeled off a string of names - Hodge, Goddard, Franklin... players Craig has never had access to because he has never finished low enough and we have never bottomed out.

In essence you were saying, "how can we expect Craig to win games without all these talented players?"

I'm saying that IF having players of this type is the key to winning matches and winning premierships, then do you disagree with Craig's philosophy of trying to be competitive and finish as high as you can every year?

Because you can't have it both ways.

(i) You can't praise Craig for never giving away a season and always striving for finals and at the same time say that we don't have the early picks to achieve success.

(ii) Either he's following the right approach and success is nigh (without the early draft picks) or he's been wrong all along and we should have bottomed out.

Perhaps everyone is arguing at cross purposes.

Re your point (i) above: IMO why cant we praise Craig for always striving to finish as high as possible (ie always play to win).
The lack of achieving the ultimate prize (a premiership) can subsequently be put down to many factors, of which just one valid influence is that we havent had access to top 5 draft picks to gain elite players and of course this is partly due to our policy of not tanking and playing to win. However, this is only one contributing factor and does not of itself mean that we cant or wont win a premiership (certainly makes it harder).

I always thought that the essence of sport was competition and to always strive to win and IMO that is how our club should play the game (and they do).
Its not Craig's fault that the AFL system (over) rewards mediocrity.
I would never support tanking any game in any circumstance.
Why should we bottom out? - it is the antithesis of competition.

This leads me to a related but slightly of the thread topic but something i have for a long time wanted to put forward:
The basic issue appears to be that a club that never bottoms out is always denied access to the top 1-5 draft picks where the bulk of elite players tend to be found and hence such club is forever doomed to stay middle of the road to top 8 but no premiership.
At the same time, the AFL wants to make the "competition" more egalitarian by giving the mediocre performing clubs quick access to the better players.
The question then is how can the AFL achieve this rather more equitably.
In my opinion, the current system over-rewards the mediocre Clubs and disadvantages Clubs such as the Crows who never bottom out.

My proposal is that the draft system be slightly modified and yet still for the most part help to achieve the AFLs aims.

I think that the 1st round only of the AFL draft should become a rolling system over each 18 year period such that over that 18 years each Club gets one pick 1, one pick 2, and so on. The second and subsequent rounds of the draft can revert to the system we have in place now (ie in reverse order of premiership table ranking at end of year plus priority picks).

In regards to the rolling first round draft order:
- in year 1 of the 18 year period the order is based on reverse order of premiership table at end of that year
- in year 2 and subsequent years up to year 18, the order is based again on reverse order of table at end of that year with the exception that Clubs with same pick as a prior year drop down to the next lower pick that they havent previously had.
Consequently, over an 18 year period, each Club gets access to one number 1 draft pick, one number 2 pick and so on for Round one only.
Remember this only applies to the first round of the draft.
IMO this is fairer to Clubs such as the Crows, and to their supporters!! who currently are virtually denied ever getting to be able to support a top 3 player.

Given a strictly enforced salary cap, coupled with the other equalisation measures that the AFL carries out, and with the reverse draft order maintained for Rounds 2 onwards of the Draft, then IMO this is a more efficient and equitable (to ALL clubs) of doing the draft.
In addition, it eliminates tanking for top 3 draft picks (actually whole of round 1), whilst retaining the rewards for mediocrity over rounds 2 onwards.

Sorry for the lengthy rambling explanation (i come from the Oakshott school of speeches )

Any comments on the relevance/validity of my proposal?

 

[jenny61_99]

what you're saying is that we are not trying to win a flag, and that you are ok with that.

Where have I said that?

I believe we have just as much chance of winning a flag as the teams that bottom out and grab the stars. Fortunately, Rendell has been able to recruit well despite the fact he hasn't had access to the best in the land.

Mediocrity is never acceptable as the end result, however as a means to an end (ie. building up to a flag), it is far more preferable than tanking.

 

[conVINCEd]

johnnypanther - I love it!

A flippin great idea.

 

[VSTone]

johnnypanther - I love it!

A flippin great idea.

me too...

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I guess they are asking which you think he should have done.

I've said many times what I think he should have done, which is to change the selection policy which IMO over-rates mid range players.

Extremely simplified version... I think you should pick your stars first, pick your kids who might develop into stars second and after that you fill in the gaps with your depth players.

We pick our stars first, depth players second and then if we get a few injuries maybe squeeze in some kids.

From when I first joined the board in 2006 I was arguing that unless we fast tracked our more talented kids that McLeod, Goodwin, Edwards and our older stars would all be finished before the next generation were ready and had gained enough experience to have an impact.

 

[KUNG FU]

I've said many times what I think he should have done, which is to change the selection policy which IMO over-rates mid range players.

Extremely simplified version... I think you should pick your stars first, pick your kids who might develop into stars second and after that you fill in the gaps with your depth players.

We pick our stars first, depth players second and then if we get a few injuries maybe squeeze in some kids.

From when I first joined the board in 2006 I was arguing that unless we fast tracked our more talented kids that McLeod, Goodwin, Edwards and our older stars would all be finished before the next generation were ready and had gained enough experience to have an impact.

In this period I was certainly of the same opinion. We definitely missed an opportunity. However, in 2010 I think the incidents where a youngster has been held back by the policy have been minimal, if at all. If anything plenty of youngsters have probably gone in raw.