Neil Craig

[- PC -]

Just clicked on the AdelaideNow website and see the headline ''41,000 in cry for help'' .... knew it wasnt about Port due to membership numbers

 

[Damp Squarie]

If you read between the lines (like i always do ) Mr Rucci in one of his distraught pieces in this mornings advertiser more or less blamed N Craig, S Trigg & over 600000 Crow supporters for the most disgraceful capitulation by the Port Power on saturday last

He couldnt resist could he.
I thought it was interesting that there was not only a unanimous backlash on the adelaidenow website aimed at the powerchoke but also at Rucci...what does that tell you?

 

[vB7]

If you read between the lines (like i always do ) Mr Rucci in one of his distraught pieces in this mornings advertiser more or less blamed N Craig, S Trigg & over 600000 Crow supporters for the most disgraceful capitulation by the Port Power on saturday last

I LOL'd at this paragraph...

They (PAP lovers) will be baited, even by supporters who seem to have no reason to crow considering their team has not been back to the MCG for an AFL Grand Final since it's entire Northern Stand was bulldozed and rebuilt for the 2006 Commonweath Games in Melbourne..



He just has to throw in a jibe.

The Obsession Continues.....

 

[- PC -]

And this

When Geelong half-forward, Norm Smith Medallist Steve Johnson, was asked if the Cats took comfort in watching the Power players chip the ball among themselves in the back third of the field, Thompson's eyes widened, his grin turned to a smile and he nodded his head.

Thompson admitted he – while the Geelong board dithered over his future at Kardinia Park – planned a new strategy, following the lead from the Western Bulldogs in 2006, to play high-scoring, attacking football.

That no team can stop the Cats with defensive play, the rest of the 16-team AFL competition is compelled to follow Thompson's theme. He has not only saved Geelong – after a 44-year premiership drought – but AFL football from the very tedium now to come from carefully scripted coaches aiming to say nothing.

Sounds like BunsenBurner

 

[crow87]

To say some posters here are getting a bit carried away I think is an understatement. I think next year is the beginning of the second phase of Craig's coaching career at the Crows, and this is going to be quite different from the first 3.

In some respect Craig is a victim of his own success in terms of some of the flak he is copping here. In 05 and 06 he turned what in reality wasan average list at best, into a high quality top of the table side. He clearly got the jump on the rest of the competition by introducing something new to the game. The reasons for success were a defensive system that was employed all over the ground, and pure gut running, the likes of which had never been seen in the AFL before. We lacked (and still lack) game breaking stars forward of centre, but we were in essence the complete team in the way we went about our footy.

It was not until the end of the 06 H&A season that this gameplan was finally starting to be broken down. The fact though that he was almost able to pinch a premiership, with that list, would have been one of the more remarkable coaching performances in the modern game.

07 was such a disjointed year with personnel it is hard to know what to make of it. We could not get into any sort of groove the whole season. Given how poorly we played at times and the lack of personnel I cannot fathom how we were able to be competitive in just about every game. If we had had some luck with the close games and got a couple of extra wins to finish in the top four then it could have been quite an exciting September.

Now moving onto 08 it is clear that the 05 and 06 gameplan has well and truly been cracked and we won't win a premiership with the talent we have. We therefore desperately need to develop or get some game breakers forward of centre that can win us some games with just pure football talent. The only other option is for Craigy to pull another rabbit out of the hat, but I thinik we are all out of rabbits.

Good post. The main concern I have is that we're not working effectively to that next premiership, I hope I'm wrong and I know it's early to tell but its just the feeling I get.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

again, this is computer simulation fairy tale stuff.

A team is made up of 22 individuals and to assume that they are all feeling at their best, will perform at their best, will match up perfectly against the opposition team each and every team is nothing short of away with the pixies.

Pixies? Fairies? Try Swans maybe.

I don't it's fair to be so dismissive of a strategy that has delivered us three finals series in a row, including two preliminary finals. Whilst we haven't made it to a grand final we would be up there as far as games won over the last three seasons, comparable with most other clubs. Behind West Coast and perhaps Sydney but few others.

As I mentioned in another thread, what I'd question is if Neil Craig did have a more flexible approach, was quicker to react on match days, threw his players around more often, changed a match up if an opposition player looked threatening etc... as many people wish, then would we have been more successful than we have been over the last three seasons? Would we have had an elimination or a preliminary final to lose?

We can all look at games like the Hawthorn final and Round 1 against the Bombers and say that moves should have been made and we'd have won those matches. You might be right. But what about all the matches that have been won with Neil's structured, consistent, faith-based approach? What value do you give to the confidence this approach has created amongst the playing group and the self-belief that this faith has delivered? Surely this has been the absolute fundamental ingredient to our (relative) success over the last three seasons.

 

[hugecannon]

But surely the key to successful coaching is knowing when to make some positional changes and when to keep the faith in the players, that's why they're paid so much money.

 

[Mighty Eagles]

Matchday - He's useless... he is a quite pathetic matchday coach. Doesn't make correct decisions... refuses to admit he's wrong. Stubborness is the major issue. Doesn't make the hard calls. Doesn't take risks.

How can you judge a Level 4 coach? How long have you been coaching at AFL level for? How do you know what happens in the box on match days?

I dare say alot more happens that we would know about unless we coached at that level. I'm puzzled to why someone out of place could judge on the issue and make those strong comments.

 

[King Elvis]

How can you judge a Level 4 coach? How long have you been coaching at AFL level for? How do you know what happens in the box on match days?

I dare say alot more happens that we would know about unless we coached at that level. I'm puzzled to why someone out of place could judge on the issue and make those strong comments.

The last 3 years, we've overperformed massively - but also under delivered.

 

[Dogga79]

How can you judge a Level 4 coach? How long have you been coaching at AFL level for? How do you know what happens in the box on match days?

I dare say alot more happens that we would know about unless we coached at that level. I'm puzzled to why someone out of place could judge on the issue and make those strong comments.

Look I tend to agree with you on what people think happens in a coaches box. Some AFC supporters definitely have Munchausen By Proxy syndrome when it comes to Neil Craig's coaching at times. But I must agree there are glaring examples of where there is an obvious mismatch or a clear breakdown in play somewhere on the ground and he has been slow to react. It seems odd though that he would let things like this happen when he seems calm, well prepared and somewhat intelligent. The Massie V's Buddy Franklin matchup is a real head scratcher for me. I would love to explain something credible on why he went with the matchup for as long as he did, but I cant.

 

[BunjiMac]

I think theres a fine line between backing your judgment and being stubborn/pig headed. Unfortunately for Neill the end result is what determines which one your labeled. If results had gone his way we'd probably be complementing him on backing his judgment and having faith in his players to complete the task at hand. However the results haven't quite gone his way and some (me included) have been critical of his ways.

I do think that NC will get better as a match day coach and as he improves he will adapt and i think realize that it isn't an all or nothing approach. There will be times when he should back his judgment and persist with a player, and there will be times when he needs to make fast moves. I think you can only learn these things with experience and I will give NC the benefit of the doubt and support him 100% next year. Good Luck NC

 

[NikkiNoo]

Look I tend to agree with you on what people think happens in a coaches box. Some AFC supporters definitely have Munchausen By Proxy syndrome when it comes to Neil Craig's coaching at times. But I must agree there are glaring examples of where there is an obvious mismatch or a clear breakdown in play somewhere on the ground and he has been slow to react. It seems odd though that he would let things like this happen when he seems calm, well prepared and somewhat intelligent. The Massie V's Buddy Franklin matchup is a real head scratcher for me. I would love to explain something credible on why he went with the matchup for as long as he did, but I cant.

Interesting that dumb and dumber had Williams on last night and they asked him about the 'surprise' move of Chaplin on Steve Johnson. He stated that it wasn't a surprise, chaplin had played on him and got brownlow votes in their win at Kardinia Park over the cats. This reminded me so much of the massie v franklin debate. They then asked if him if he would have moved chaplin at all or gone ahead with the same plan if he had it over again. William's response was the same as Craigs - Nope would do it over again.

 

[Cap]

Interesting that dumb and dumber had Williams on last night and they asked him about the 'surprise' move of Chaplin on Steve Johnson. He stated that it wasn't a surprise, chaplin had played on him and got brownlow votes in their win at Kardinia Park over the cats. This reminded me so much of the massie v franklin debate. They then asked if him if he would have moved chaplin at all or gone ahead with the same plan if he had it over again. William's response was the same as Craigs - Nope would do it over again.

yes, but you don't see every questioning Williams do you.

 

[fightingdreamer88]

Imo we will certainly be in a better position talent-wise to build a premiership side with the likes of Knights, Reilly, Porplyzia, Maric, Griffin, Pfeiffer, Douglas, Hentschel, Tippett, Vince, MacKay etc than with the mix we had in 05 and 06. While not nearly complete, there is some genuine class to be nurtured in that lot and it's up to the club to do the right thing and develop these players properly.

 

[King Elvis]

yes, but you don't see every questioning Williams do you.

The Power lost because 22 of their players were soundly beaten.

We lost because one or two of ours were.

 

[fightingdreamer88]

yes, but you don't see every questioning Williams do you.

It comes back to the simple fact that good players are going to play good games at least some of the time, regardless of who you put on them. They wouldn't be good players otherwise. Franklin and Johnson are both very good, no, brilliant, players. Chaplin may well be the best match up for Johnson, but Stevie J. was right on his game and when that happens he becomes hard to contain, defender or no defender. Same goes for Franklin.

 

[fightingdreamer88]

The Power lost because 22 of their players were soundly beaten.

We lost because one or two of ours were.

So the **** what? Doesn't change the fact that both defenders were smashed.

 

[macca23]

Pixies? Fairies? Try Swans maybe.

I don't it's fair to be so dismissive of a strategy that has delivered us three finals series in a row, including two preliminary finals. Whilst we haven't made it to a grand final we would be up there as far as games won over the last three seasons, comparable with most other clubs. Behind West Coast and perhaps Sydney but few others.

As I mentioned in another thread, what I'd question is if Neil Craig did have a more flexible approach, was quicker to react on match days, threw his players around more often, changed a match up if an opposition player looked threatening etc... as many people wish, then would we have been more successful than we have been over the last three seasons? Would we have had an elimination or a preliminary final to lose?

We can all look at games like the Hawthorn final and Round 1 against the Bombers and say that moves should have been made and we'd have won those matches. You might be right. But what about all the matches that have been won with Neil's structured, consistent, faith-based approach? What value do you give to the confidence this approach has created amongst the playing group and the self-belief that this faith has delivered? Surely this has been the absolute fundamental ingredient to our (relative) success over the last three seasons.

Well, the club must be concerned with the lack of moves etc as well.

On 5AA this morning Pilko was baiting KG about changes in the coaches box next year and whether Jonas would be moved out of the box to become a development officer.

KG's response was it's not about anyone going - it's about the possibility of an addition to the coaches box to assist Craig on match day.

That's something I would totally support, having written to Triggy and made that very suggestion.

It's done in other sports such as rugby and soccer, and I see no reason why not to do it.

I do hope the club does go down that line, and wonder whether an ex coach such as Neil Daniher, who's supposed to be a whiz with the mid-field, might be approached for such a role.

 

[Crow-mo]

Pixies? Fairies? Try Swans maybe.

I don't it's fair to be so dismissive of a strategy that has delivered us three finals series in a row, including two preliminary finals. Whilst we haven't made it to a grand final we would be up there as far as games won over the last three seasons, comparable with most other clubs. Behind West Coast and perhaps Sydney but few others.

which strategy was this, you know the one, the one soley responsible for us having any success at all. I can't seem to work our what one that was? was it the strategy that enabled us to have very few injuries in 2005, lots of injuries in 2007 or was it the strategy that saw us fade in 2006?

lets not get into making up cause and effect to support a theory.

As I mentioned in another thread, what I'd question is if Neil Craig did have a more flexible approach, was quicker to react on match days, threw his players around more often, changed a match up if an opposition player looked threatening etc... as many people wish, then would we have been more successful than we have been over the last three seasons? Would we have had an elimination or a preliminary final to lose?

if that were the obvious implication, then match day coaching would be the exception, not the rule. can't forget the history of the game

We can all look at games like the Hawthorn final and Round 1 against the Bombers and say that moves should have been made and we'd have won those matches. You might be right. But what about all the matches that have been won with Neil's structured, consistent, faith-based approach? What value do you give to the confidence this approach has created amongst the playing group and the self-belief that this faith has delivered? Surely this has been the absolute fundamental ingredient to our (relative) success over the last three seasons.

well there you go again, with imagined cause and effect. you might have forgotten, we won 2 premierships with a matchday genius, and consistently made finals with a similarly immobile match day coach.

Neil Craig's era does not exist in a vacuum.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Well, the club must be concerned with the lack of moves etc as well.

On 5AA this morning Pilko was baiting KG about changes in the coaches box next year and whether Jonas would be moved out of the box to become a development officer.

KG's response was it's not about anyone going - it's about the possibility of an addition to the coaches box to assist Craig on match day.

That's something I would totally support, having written to Triggy and made that very suggestion.

It's done in other sports such as rugby and soccer, and I see no reason why not to do it.

I do hope the club does go down that line, and wonder whether an ex coach such as Neil Daniher, who's supposed to be a whiz with the mid-field, might be approached for such a role.

Danniher would be a great pick-up IMO & would solve some of our defficiencies.

However, the main issue is whether Craig will take the comments of his assistants on board, because if he remains stuborn (like Jonas suggesting a change of matchup on Franklin), then it won't matter how many matchday assistants he has!

 

[Mad Dog]

I do hope the club does go down that line, and wonder whether an ex coach such as Neil Daniher, who's supposed to be a whiz with the mid-field, might be approached for such a role.

Daniher in the coaches box would be a great move - he is a very good tactician.

I just wonder about our ability to lure someone like that away from Melbourne and a pretty comfortable calling job with 3AW next year.

 

[TheLeftFist8]

Daniher in the coaches box would be a great move - he is a very good tactician.

I just wonder about our ability to lure someone like that away from Melbourne and a pretty comfortable calling job with 3AW next year.

Agree with this, Daniher be great in that role for us but may see it as a backwards step.

Given the dead-pan personalities that our coaches presently portray, i wonder if the Crowbot style (which has taken good aspects to negative extremes) could be modified by adding a person with flair and footy nous (? AN Jarman who may be ready for a change if the Roosters fulfill the his current mission this weekend)

This isn't new i am sure (have not read all previous ~19 pages) but to me victory requires good planning, structure and preparation BUT also requires the other side of the coin on the day (footy smarts, creative moves, a plan B!). Surely our premierships are proof that both these aspects are required.

The major issue i see is that NC is very autocratic on match-days (going by his press conferences). That's fine IF you are good in that area...he is not but i see no signs he recognises that or would be will to listen.

 

[- PC -]

Laird

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Well, the club must be concerned with the lack of moves etc as well.

On 5AA this morning Pilko was baiting KG about changes in the coaches box next year and whether Jonas would be moved out of the box to become a development officer.

KG's response was it's not about anyone going - it's about the possibility of an addition to the coaches box to assist Craig on match day.

That's something I would totally support, having written to Triggy and made that very suggestion.

Yes, I hope we go along with a few of KG's su-su-su-suggestions.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

which strategy was this, you know the one, the one soley responsible for us having any success at all. I can't seem to work our what one that was? was it the strategy that enabled us to have very few injuries in 2005, lots of injuries in 2007 or was it the strategy that saw us fade in 2006?

lets not get into making up cause and effect to support a theory.

Been to the house of mirrors lately?

It is you and others that are suggesting the "sole reason" for our lack of success is a lack of nous from the coaches box. The suggestion that a more tactically sound match day coach would have delivered us more wins (and maybe a flag) over the last three seasons is also a journey into the unknown.

What are you suggesting here - that it doesn't matter whether we have a flexible structure or a stable structure, a match day genius or a match day dunce, we should just sit back and hope we don't have any injuries?

if that were the obvious implication, then match day coaching would be the exception, not the rule. can't forget the history of the game

Match day "genius" is a relatively new concept if you want to talk about the history of the game. In the last 20 years we have seen success from adaptable, flexible coaches (Blight, Sheedy) and from rigid, stubborn, structured coaches (Roos, Jeans). Neither necessarily right or wrong. We have also seen hybrids like Worsfold who has a stable structure fused with a couple of gamebreaking wildcards - Embley and Hunter. Would love to see Neil go down this path, oh for the cattle.

well there you go again, with imagined cause and effect. you might have forgotten, we won 2 premierships with a matchday genius, and consistently made finals with a similarly immobile match day coach.

Neil Craig's era does not exist in a vacuum.

Haven't forgotten, remember our 4th and 5th finishes those years. Craig was there too and I'm sure he took note of the pros and cons of this style of coaching. Very exciting period in our history. Two fantastic Septembers. Were we the best team in the competition in either of those years? No. Therefore is that how we should base our strategy for success? Up-and-down, occasionally brilliant season followed by a scintillating September? Is that really how you build a successful club and era or did we take maximum advantage of an opportunity that presented itself?