Strategy Our Next Senior Coach: 2019 & Beyond... is Matthew Nicks

Our next senior coach...

  • Total voters
    389
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
slice said:
The list management strategy is guided by the game plan.

You don't build a list of random young players and then go "right, how do we make a game plan from this pile of bodies?".

Doesn't matter when the list management strategy was signed off, it was under a different game plan. There will be a new one but they can't figure out what it is until they have a coach.
Click to expand...

Bit of column A, bit of column B.

Gameplan certainly should influence list management strategies, but ultimately you have to design your gameplan to fit the cattle you have. Coaches last what 3-5 years on average? Your key players should be at the club for 8-15 years. You can't be turning over your list every new coach that you have, you can make adjustments to the list, which is ideally what trade period is for, but the game plan has to be fluid. The best coaches are able to do this, the one hit wonders are often the ones who can't evolve/adjust their gameplan.

I'd agree that at the moment, without a coach, without a gameplan, its very hard to do any meaningful trading/list management. The list manager is there to monitor the list longer term and prevent coaches from compromising the future for their own gains.
 
GrommoT said:
Propa English:

Should have vs Should of
[ http://www.elearnenglishlanguage.com/blog/english-mistakes/should-have-vs-should-of/ ]

MISTAKES + DIFFICULTIES
Should have vs Should of


The phrase should have indicates a missed obligation or opportunity in the past. In informal speech, it is contracted to should’ve, not "should of."

You should have (should’ve) called me!
You should of called me!

I should have (should’ve) known you were lying.
I should of known you were lying.

Tom and Pauline are so selfish, they should have (should’ve) been there for you.
Tom and Pauline are so selfish, they should of been there for you.

Should have should never be written "should of." However, the latter does exist: when should is followed by an expression that begins with of.

You should, of course, compare prices.
Past: You should, of course, have compared prices.

He should, of his own will, do the right thing.
Past: He should, of his own will, have done the right thing.

The Bottom Line

The erroneous phrase "should of" likely came about from the very similar pronunciation of should’ve. Perhaps I should’ve mentioned this sooner.


Would Have or Would of?
[ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/would-of-could-of-should-of/ ]

Would Have or Would of?
BASICS
When spoken aloud, would of and its fellows should of and could of sound exactly like would’ve, could’ve and should’ve. But even if no one can tell the difference when you’re speaking, the mistake becomes obvious as soon as you write it down.

559969_2e12e1292af81e5e2e8483a41d78459a.jpg



The Right Way to Spell Would of, Should of, and Could of

When people write would of, should of, could of, will of or might of, they are usually confusing the verb have with the preposition of. So would of is would have, could of is could have, should of is should have, will of is will have, and might of is might have:

I would of come earlier, but I got stuck at work.
He would have stayed if he’d known you were coming.
You should of called yesterday.
You should have finished your homework by now.


This common mistake is likely caused by the similar pronunciation of the words ofand have, especially when have is contracted, as in should’ve. This mistake also happens with the negations of modal verbs:

Stella couldn’t of known she was going to win the lottery.
John couldn’t have come any earlier.
Click to expand...
Good work Grom. Final comment on the topic - I'm quite ok with coulda, woulda and shoulda, slang is fine with me. I just don't like totally wrong grammar, it makes us sound like our cross town rival supporters. :eek:
 

Log in to remove this ad.

slice said:
The list management strategy is guided by the game plan.

You don't build a list of random young players and then go "right, how do we make a game plan from this pile of bodies?".

Doesn't matter when the list management strategy was signed off, it was under a different game plan. There will be a new one but they can't figure out what it is until they have a coach.
Click to expand...
Your list mgt stategy is guuded by various things which are lot broader than game plan

List profile
Game Analysis
Ruke changes
Depth Charts
Forward draft assessments and talent depth

Game plan is a consideration however its not the ultimate deciding factor

On SM-N960F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Sounds like the head coach has been selected but they are waiting to finalise the assistant coaches before they announce anything. Now Hocking and Yze have announced they are staying put, process of elimination leaves us with Nicks as head coach and maybe Kingsley as his senior assistant?

The whole process is obviously dragging out as they need to rebuild the entire coaching team.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Geoffa32 said:
Unless we can get a truly elite player we should lay low this trade period in terms of bringing players in.

No point sticking up on average players when we have a fair few younger guys stuck in the Reserves team because our coaches have preferred to play average older playerrs a over them.

2020 should be about guys like Gallucci, Butts, Hamill, McPherson, Jones, McHenry, Fog, Hberg playing as many games as possible to see of they will be good AFL players.

Not to mention the mid we pick with pick 4 should be playing as well.

No point bringing in a 25 (or older) year old to get in the way of a kid coming through.

Unless that guy is an elite player.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I kind of agree, and I kind of don't. I'd be looking at trying to creatively add to that list by plugging a couple of holes with players who need a new home with cheap types who are unloved by their current club. The Framptons, and maybe Allens of this world (The West Coast one profile does intrigue me). I wouldn't be gunning for anyone older than 25 unless it's an absolute bargain.

These also aren't the players you need a coach for, more just the chance to go into a weakened system and fight for your place is probably enough. Just the chance to speed up our rebuild with a type like this who offers a point of difference is not something I'd be ignoring.
 
crows dude said:
Its going to be Nicks. With Kingsley coming as well I think. But Apparently Burns still a chance. Just announce it already
Click to expand...
Burns will stay in Melbourne I think but will be happy if were to land him.
 
The media would have no idea.
Wouldn’t surprise me if it’s Lyon or Clarkson.
I’m guessing we’ve thrown a blank cheque out this time too.
I think it’s gonna be big, whatever it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
Strategy Who should be our next coach?
17 18 19 20 21
Replies
513
Views
19K
Pugsley
Pugsley
imagifED
Our list is beyond repair. We barely have half a dozen AFL standard footballers.
Replies
5
Views
322
ABAB
ABAB
adelaidecrows
  • Poll
Opinion Matthew Nicks: Adelaide's Coach (Part 2) - Full Support of the Board
298 299 300 301 302
Replies
8K
Views
234K
Interloperer
I
Executive Landlord
NICKS OUT
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
3K
Brookster
B
W
  • Poll
Who stays: Nicks, Hamish, Kelly, Roo
2 3
Replies
73
Views
3K
WeeBlake
W
George Kramer
Toast Our Defence
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
2K
Pugsley
Pugsley
1970crow
  • Poll
Prediction Next debutante
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Multiballz
M
Back
Top