Autopsy Round 1: Loss against the Saints

[Van_Dyke]

Have at it. Report any trolls instead of engaging with them please

 

[SupermanCapes]

I can't remember a game where I've had to turn off the highlights before they hit halftime.

Instead of trying to think about what needs to change, I'm just going to hope that literally everything does and that we got the rust out.

 

[arsesmart]

I don't know much about cricket, but I am not sure that's true of all the best sports people or even all the best cricketers
I recall watching Ian Botham getting interviewed once about his low opinions of cricket coaches, after Botham had smashed a ball for six the coach came up to him and asked "Where's your footwork?" to which Botham replied 'Where's the ball?"

Is Botham the best? Or was he even the best version of Botham he could've been? Who knows?

But perhaps while nimble footwork was not part of his process, watching the ball out of the bowler's hand certainly would've been. Some players do rely on fewer/different processes for varying reasons. As far as batting in cricket goes, predicting a shot before the ball has been bowled is outcome driven, while watching the ball out of the hand and aligning head/body to play the best shot as it approaches is process. Neither is guaranteed to fail or succeed, but one (process driven) is a lot more closely aligned with actual control than the other (outcome driven).

 

[Square Peg]

Is Botham the best? Or was he even the best version of Botham he could've been? Who knows?

But perhaps while nimble footwork was not part of his process, watching the ball out of the bowler's hand certainly would've been. Some players do rely on fewer/different processes for varying reasons. As far as batting in cricket goes, predicting a shot before the ball has been bowled is outcome driven, while watching the ball out of the hand and aligning head/body to play the best shot as it approaches is process. Neither is guaranteed to fail or succeed, but one (process driven) is a lot more closely aligned with actual control than the other (outcome driven).

I have no idea if he was the best cricketer. You'll have to tell me. A Wikipedia search tells me he was named in the fantasy best XI ever for England and is widely considered one of the greatest all rounders to play cricket, so doesn't sound like he was a complete dud . You said all the best sportspeople are process driven.The point he was making in that interview ( I think. It was a long time ago) was many coaches over-coach and are obsessed with process (where is your footwork) over outcome (I just hit a six)
Not to say process is unimportant, it clearly is vital, just that its not so cut and dried

 

[tonygeeks]

Well that would all depend on the process. But if the process is refined enough it allows you to adjust it without being too reactive/jumpy.

Collingwood, for example, is probably the most process driven side out there at the moment. They keep their process regardless of scoreboard and time of match.

The best sports people have always been more process driven (eg Bradman), it's just more widely communicated and adopted these days.

The 50 interviews of Collingwood players saying how much they have enjoyed the freedom Mcray let’s them play with after the stifling control of Bucks must all be lying I guess

 

[tonygeeks]

Who’s taking it at this stage ?

 

[s_wd6]

The 50 interviews of Collingwood players saying how much they have enjoyed the freedom Mcray let’s them play with after the stifling control of Bucks must all be lying I guess

If the process is to play with freedom and they play with that freedom even when they're losing then it is still very much process driven

 

[tonygeeks]

If the process is to play with freedom and they play with that freedom even when they're losing then it is still very much process driven

This convo has gone along way away from wether a team that’s winning taps but losing clearances should hit the ball out to open spaces

 

[Square Peg]

If the process is to play with freedom and they play with that freedom even when they're losing then it is still very much process driven

But if you didn't have any coach at all, no strategy, just threw the ball to a bunch of guys and said we're after an outcome, the outcome being you have to get it up the other end between those posts, they would instinctively play a hell of a lot more like Collingwood than like Fremantle.
In business speak, the fundamentals of process driven workplaces are that you give your employees processes to follow in a logical reproducible sequence and rely on the assumption this will produce the outcome you desire just by training them to follow the steps and not deviate from it. The fundamentals of outcome driven workplaces is you give the employees the outcome you want them to achieve and leave it up to them how they get there to achieve it.
Clearly no workplaces are either entirely one or the other, they're a blend, but some are more one way than the other way and to make it work for you, you have to get the balance right. I suspect sport teams are the same.

 

[nurries]

But if you didn't have any coach at all, no strategy, just threw the ball to a bunch of guys and said we're after an outcome, the outcome being you have to get it up the other end between those posts, they would instinctively play a hell of a lot more like Collingwood than like Fremantle.
In business speak, the fundamentals of process driven workplaces are that you give your employees processes to follow in a logical reproducible sequence and rely on the assumption this will produce the outcome you desire just by training them to follow the steps and not deviate from it. The fundamentals of outcome driven workplaces is you give the employees the outcome you want them to achieve and leave it up to them how they get there to achieve it.
Clearly no workplaces are either entirely one or the other, they're a blend, but some are more one way than the other way and to make it work for you, you have to get the balance right. I suspect sport teams are the same.

But outcome driven workplaces leave themselves open to all sorts of liabilities and safety issues. Some structure definately required but do agree leaving some things autonomous can empower the employees for sure.

 

[Square Peg]

But outcome driven workplaces leave themselves open to all sorts of liabilities and safety issues. Some structure definately required but do agree leaving some things autonomous can empower the employees for sure.

Agreed

 

[arsesmart]

The 50 interviews of Collingwood players saying how much they have enjoyed the freedom Mcray let’s them play with after the stifling control of Bucks must all be lying I guess

I think it's becoming more apparent you guys might actually be confused about what process is. Process doesn't necessarily hinder you playing on instinct. Process isn't the same as micromanagement by someone else.

I hope you're not saying Collingwood doesn't have a process (ie no game plan)?

Mind you, you'll have to quote those "50 interviews" for me. I have heard them saying they enjoy the atmosphere and the game plan. I'm also sure they're enjoying the winning and the clarity (ie understanding the process).

 

[Ysaye]

Henry was fine in this game and a huge improvement on last year . Fingers crossed it’s starting to click .
I can only recall one play where he made a bad choice .

Question I have is why is Freddy such a protected species around here ?
Plays about 10 minutes of good football most games and then is invisible for the rest

Probably the most inconsistent player in the team IMO.
Runs up and down the ground a lot I’ll give him that , but it would be better if he did it with the ball in his hands.

my guess to his inconsistency is that he is playing hff role, so when we are being flooded he will be trying to draw opposition players out of the forward fifty.

 

[arsesmart]

I have no idea if he was the best cricketer. You'll have to tell me. A Wikipedia search tells me he was named in the fantasy best XI ever for England and is widely considered one of the greatest all rounders to play cricket, so doesn't sound like he was a complete dud . You said all the best sportspeople are process driven.The point he was making in that interview ( I think. It was a long time ago) was many coaches over-coach and are obsessed with process (where is your footwork) over outcome (I just hit a six)
Not to say process is unimportant, it clearly is vital, just that its not so cut and dried

Well avoiding the nipicking over all the best and Botham as a singular diversionary example.

A lot of old blokes think it was better in their day and that the way they did is the way it should always be done.

But he was answering a very specific criticism, not trying to make a sound logical argument about outcome vs process. There are a number of people who can make a pretty good fist of batting without much footwork. Given their proficiency in other processes they get the outcomes.

I'm sure, however, if you asked Botham (or anyone with any sort of career batting in cricket) which would more likely get you a six, the process of watching the ball or fixing yourself in the outcome of which ball being bowled or having to hit a six, he'd take the process.

 

[Square Peg]

Well avoiding the nipicking over all the best and Botham as a singular diversionary example.

A lot of old blokes think it was better in their day and that the way they did is the way it should always be done.

But he was answering a very specific criticism, not trying to make a sound logical argument about outcome vs process. There are a number of people who can make a pretty good fist of batting without much footwork. Given their proficiency in other processes they get the outcomes.

I'm sure, however, if you asked Botham (or anyone with any sort of career batting in cricket) which would more likely get you a six, the process of watching the ball or fixing yourself in the outcome of which ball being bowled or having to hit a six, he'd take the process.

I'll have to defer to your mind reading capacities that enable you to be sure what arguments Botham was making in an interview you never saw, let alone how he would respond if he were asked a new hypothetical question

As long as we now agree that when you responded to a poster saying

Sometimes you just wish players would react to the immediate situation a bit more and freelance.

with

You don't get outcomes without process.

that you were missing the point, it's all good.

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

Who’s taking it at this stage ?View attachment 1636427

I reckon we will do better than that projection.

Every year under Longmuir Rd1 has been disappointing and then the team gets better after a few games into the season.

Its a bloody disgrace we keep being under-prepared for Rd1

But we have plenty of talent to ride out the humps.

I bet by August however, when we are, say, 6th but a game a % out of the top 4 we will all be spewing that we let last week slip.

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

Well avoiding the nipicking over all the best and Botham as a singular diversionary example.

A lot of old blokes think it was better in their day and that the way they did is the way it should always be done.

But he was answering a very specific criticism, not trying to make a sound logical argument about outcome vs process. There are a number of people who can make a pretty good fist of batting without much footwork. Given their proficiency in other processes they get the outcomes.

I'm sure, however, if you asked Botham (or anyone with any sort of career batting in cricket) which would more likely get you a six, the process of watching the ball or fixing yourself in the outcome of which ball being bowled or having to hit a six, he'd take the process.

Yeah, I wasn't talking about ball skill fundamentals and techniques. I was talking about reacting to game day situations when plan A isn't really working

 

[arsesmart]

I'll have to defer to your mind reading capacities that enable you to be sure what arguments Botham was making in an interview you never saw, let alone how he would respond if he were asked a new hypothetical question

As long as we now agree that when you responded to a poster saying

with

that you were missing the point, it's all good.

What's all good? How you feel?

I presume your feelings about it are the most important thing, given you seem happy to cherry pick to manipulate the context and disregard the facts. There was a pretty large slab in that (somebody else's) post I was responding to on preferencing outcomes over process. I was just presenting a counter.

Let me make it clearer then about Botham's comment... whatever his intent, it wasn't a logically sound case against process over outcomes. It was a reasonable case of pointing to outcomes to defend his process though.

 

[Taylor]

Our players were in the right places, the kicks went generally to those players, enough times to win the game - we just fluffed the kicks and spilled the marks too often.

 

[Square Peg]

What's all good? How you feel?

I presume your feelings about it are the most important thing, given you seem happy to cherry pick to manipulate the context and disregard the facts. There was a pretty large slab in that (somebody else's) post I was responding to on preferencing outcomes over process. I was just presenting a counter.

Let me make it clearer then about Botham's comment... whatever his intent, it wasn't a logically sound case against process over outcomes. It was a reasonable case of pointing to outcomes to defend his process though.

No no, all good as in no point continuing the discussion to allow you to embarrass yourself further.
Which I shan't.

 

[Piggy Smalls]

Who’s taking it at this stage ?View attachment 1636427

Lol Collingwood at the ‘G again!

 

[Madas]

This convo has gone along way away from wether a team that’s winning taps but losing clearances should hit the ball out to open spaces

On this
If Darcy was tapping it straight to Jackson surely we would never lose a centre clearance ?

 

[Yeti]

On this
If Darcy was tapping it straight to Jackson surely we would never lose a centre clearance ?

 

[tonygeeks]

On this
If Darcy was tapping it straight to Jackson surely we would never lose a centre clearance ?

The double tap !!!

Revolutionary

 

[Lach72]

Well that would all depend on the process. But if the process is refined enough it allows you to adjust it without being too reactive/jumpy.

Collingwood, for example, is probably the most process driven side out there at the moment. They keep their process regardless of scoreboard and time of match.

The best sports people have always been more process driven (eg Bradman), it's just more widely communicated and adopted these days.

Collingwood’s process is fats corridor ball movement…

everyone knows that. The problem is that fast corridor movement doesn’t allow defensive set up, they’re also not scared to move it out if they need to

 

[blue shark]

Our players were in the right places, the kicks went generally to those players, enough times to win the game - we just fluffed the kicks and spilled the marks too often.

I’d like us to have the vision to look at the half backs, midfield and go with youth.
That means Walker, Johnson, with Erasmus rotating with Fyfe for stints in the
middle.
Wilson even Ryan maybe long kicks, but I’d rather play Walker and Ryan needs to
know his limitations.
Young, Chapman or Clarke, one of them needs to get midfield minutes.
Serong should also rest forward.
Just feels to me that we play safe, midfield and backs very predictable.
Sure we get plenty of inside 50’s, but it’s not quality ball or at speed to
help the forwards find separation.
Jlo needs to show some trust, and also keep an eye on the future. Some of these
guys are depth at best.