Coaching Staff Senior Coach: John Worsfold - Thank you John

Remove this Banner Ad



All 18 coaches will slide, Worsfold included! :O Wonder how they'll manage that if their own teams are playing interstate that day? :eyes:
 
Lore said:


All 18 coaches will slide, Worsfold included! :O Wonder how they'll manage that if their own teams are playing interstate that day? :eyes:
Click to expand...
Given that QB is on the Monday...
 

Log in to remove this ad.

eth-dog said:
Given that QB is on the Monday...
Click to expand...
True. Still interesting logistically though. Goodwin and Bucks have to coach a game right after it as well... just a minor distraction I suppose.

Screen Shot 2018-06-01 at 11.47.15 pm.png

Four of them are in the middle of their bye weekend, and half the interstate coaches will have to make special trips. Pyke probably has it worst... hope he likes flying haha :grimacing:

I'm glad they're doing it, really nice gesture and hopefully it raises some decent money for the cause. But it looks like they're putting a bit more into it than just getting dunked in ice.

Actually when they said Dimma was first one nominated I was saying to someone that I'd like to see the premiership coach from the previous year always go down the slide the following year as some sort of tradition (especially because Clarkson would have to have done it a few years in a row XD ).
 
I saw nothing tonight that indicated that execution of skills under pressure (and even under no pressure) were good enough for there to be any issue with the tactics letting us down. How many fumbles and missed opportunities were there in the first half? There were two or three scoring opportunities that didn't even register.

There is a problem with Hooker and Goddard in defence together but that's about it.

The only other things I have a problem with, i.e. continually giving players like Baguley and Dea chances to prove that they are not good enough, are the same dumb decisions that all coaches make and certainly had no bearing on the result.
 
BrunoV said:
I saw nothing tonight that indicated that execution of skills under pressure (and even under no pressure) were good enough for there to be any issue with the tactics letting us down. How many fumbles and missed opportunities were there in the first half? There were two or three scoring opportunities that didn't even register.

There is a problem with Hooker and Goddard in defence together but that's about it.

The only other things I have a problem with, i.e. continually giving players like Baguley and Dea chances to prove that they are not good enough, are the same dumb decisions that all coaches make and certainly had no bearing on the result.
Click to expand...
Hurley and Goddard can’t ever be allowed to play together again. Both can’t defend and both just want the cheapies out the back
 
BrunoV said:
I saw nothing tonight that indicated that execution of skills under pressure (and even under no pressure) were good enough for there to be any issue with the tactics letting us down. How many fumbles and missed opportunities were there in the first half? There were two or three scoring opportunities that didn't even register.

There is a problem with Hooker and Goddard in defence together but that's about it.

The only other things I have a problem with, i.e. continually giving players like Baguley and Dea chances to prove that they are not good enough, are the same dumb decisions that all coaches make and certainly had no bearing on the result.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you're whacking Baguley, given the only guys he's holding out of the team at the moment are Josh Green and Jackson Merrett, whom I seem to recall you don't much like either? He may not be brilliant but there's no one else under 185cm that isn't already on the park, or injured... unless you want McNiece as a defensive forward.



That aside, I think what we have here is a coach that is trying to teach on-field leadership skills to the players, get them to take ownership of it and to play their structures and hold each other accountable, adapt as they go themselves. Sometimes they're on the money and sometimes they're not... but I think that might explain why we have experienced heads like Goddard, Hooker and Hurley down back together, as they seem to be the ones expected to provide that on-field leadership. Not that it worked tonight... we've let ourselves be sucked up the field again in some misguided effort to stem the number of inside 50s Richmond were getting.

What on-field leadership do we have in the forward group at the moment? McKernan, Stewart, Stringer, Baguley, Laverde, Walla. None of these players have the experience to be telling each other what to do up forward. Baguley might have half a chance as a defender I suppose. They're flat out keeping charge of their own games and what they should be doing.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BrunoV said:
I saw nothing tonight that indicated that execution of skills under pressure (and even under no pressure) were good enough for there to be any issue with the tactics letting us down. How many fumbles and missed opportunities were there in the first half? There were two or three scoring opportunities that didn't even register.

There is a problem with Hooker and Goddard in defence together but that's about it.

The only other things I have a problem with, i.e. continually giving players like Baguley and Dea chances to prove that they are not good enough, are the same dumb decisions that all coaches make and certainly had no bearing on the result.
Click to expand...
Baguley is not our problem, he was one of the best at working hard to provide options when others weren’t.
 
Lore said:
Not sure why you're whacking Baguley, given the only guys he's holding out of the team at the moment are Josh Green and Jackson Merrett, whom I seem to recall you don't much like either? He may not be brilliant but there's no one else under 185cm that isn't already on the park, or injured... unless you want McNiece as a defensive forward.



That aside, I think what we have here is a coach that is trying to teach on-field leadership skills to the players, get them to take ownership of it and to play their structures and hold each other accountable, adapt as they go themselves. Sometimes they're on the money and sometimes they're not... but I think that might explain why we have experienced heads like Goddard, Hooker and Hurley down back together, as they seem to be the ones expected to provide that on-field leadership. Not that it worked tonight... we've let ourselves be sucked up the field again in some misguided effort to stem the number of inside 50s Richmond were getting.

What on-field leadership do we have in the forward group at the moment? McKernan, Stewart, Stringer, Baguley, Laverde, Walla. None of these players have the experience to be telling each other what to do up forward. Baguley might have half a chance as a defender I suppose. They're flat out keeping charge of their own games and what they should be doing.
Click to expand...



It's pretty simple, you don't hold any kid out of a side, no matter what position he plays, to play Baguley as a small forward. Any player with a modicum of ability should be able to run around and tackle and get some goals out the back.

Look at Langford now that he's getting a run, he's adapting to the pace and intensity of AFL and looking a player. He'd have gotten there 12 months ago if we didn't refuse to select him in a position other than midfield.

If we were a good side competing for the top 4 and some specialist knowledge of playing as a small forward would be important there would be a much stronger case for playing players like Baguley and Green.

Baguley wasn't even good last week, he just got out the back to kick two goals because GWS had no respect for him. That's more than enough for cult worship to cloud all judgement which was why there was not point having this debate in the last seven days.
 
Great8 said:
Hurley and Goddard can’t ever be allowed to play together again. Both can’t defend and both just want the cheapies out the back
Click to expand...


Hurley isn't the problem, now it's Hooker.

Hurley was playing loose footy at the start of the year because we had Ambrose, Hartley and Brown. Now that Hooker is back there he doesn't have a role to play.

Hurley could revert to playing shut down roles tomorrow and he'd be fine.
 
Mr Mojo Risin said:
Baguley is not our problem, he was one of the best at working hard to provide options when others weren’t.
Click to expand...


He did that in the last 10 minutes of the game until which point he had something like 6 possessions.

It's funny that he's the one that can't get near the ball when we play against a good team.
 
BrunoV said:
It's pretty simple, you don't hold any kid out of a side, no matter what position he plays, to play Baguley as a small forward. Any player with a modicum of ability should be able to run around and tackle and get some goals out the back.

Look at Langford now that he's getting a run, he's adapting to the pace and intensity of AFL and looking a player. He'd have gotten there 12 months ago if we didn't refuse to select him in a position other than midfield.

If we were a good side competing for the top 4 and some specialist knowledge of playing as a small forward would be important there would be a much stronger case for playing players like Baguley and Green.

Baguley wasn't even good last week, he just got out the back to kick two goals because GWS had no respect for him. That's more than enough for cult worship to cloud all judgement which was why there was not point having this debate in the last seven days.
Click to expand...
What kid would you play as a small forward in place of Baguley?
 
BrunoV said:
It's pretty simple, you don't hold any kid out of a side, no matter what position he plays, to play Baguley as a small forward. Any player with a modicum of ability should be able to run around and tackle and get some goals out the back.

Look at Langford now that he's getting a run, he's adapting to the pace and intensity of AFL and looking a player. He'd have gotten there 12 months ago if we didn't refuse to select him in a position other than midfield.

If we were a good side competing for the top 4 and some specialist knowledge of playing as a small forward would be important there would be a much stronger case for playing players like Baguley and Green.

Baguley wasn't even good last week, he just got out the back to kick two goals because GWS had no respect for him. That's more than enough for cult worship to cloud all judgement which was why there was not point having this debate in the last seven days.
Click to expand...
Well that's just a complete cop out from you. Baguley was good last week and hiding behind the 'no point' excuse is weak.

Baguley doesn't have a long term future in the team but hiding behind that just reeks of you only piping up when a game allows you to beat a drum you've already beat before. Why can't you just man up and admit he did play good football in the previous couple of weeks?
 
BrunoV said:
He did that in the last 10 minutes of the game until which point he had something like 6 possessions.

It's funny that he's the one that can't get near the ball when we play against a good team.
Click to expand...
I saw him do it most of the game.

Only player I’d be half happy with replacing him in the forward line is Long, but only if Long provided as much work rate and pressure.
 
BrunoV said:
It's pretty simple, you don't hold any kid out of a side, no matter what position he plays, to play Baguley as a small forward. Any player with a modicum of ability should be able to run around and tackle and get some goals out the back.

Look at Langford now that he's getting a run, he's adapting to the pace and intensity of AFL and looking a player. He'd have gotten there 12 months ago if we didn't refuse to select him in a position other than midfield.

If we were a good side competing for the top 4 and some specialist knowledge of playing as a small forward would be important there would be a much stronger case for playing players like Baguley and Green.

Baguley wasn't even good last week, he just got out the back to kick two goals because GWS had no respect for him. That's more than enough for cult worship to cloud all judgement which was why there was not point having this debate in the last seven days.
Click to expand...
So who would that be then?

Currently not injured:

Aaron Francis - 193cm - 20yo defender
Mason Redman - 187cm - 20yo defender/mid?
Dylan Clarke - 186cm - 19yo mid
Jake Long - 185cm - 22yo ???
Jordan Houlahan - 185cm - 19yo ???
Trent Mynott 185cm - 18yo mid
Jackson Merrett - 184cm - 25yo mid/forward
Josh Green - 178cm - 25yo forward
Ben McNiece - 178cm - 26yo defender


So I'm thinking... Redman if he plays forward, Long, or Houlahan. Long seems closest to fitting the bill structure wise without being 25+ and a depth player. Redman has been playing much better in the VFL and probably deserves it more. Houlahan I don't know anything about, but you might. Which one?
 
Lore said:
So who would that be then?

Currently not injured:

Aaron Francis - 193cm - 20yo defender
Mason Redman - 187cm - 20yo defender/mid?
Dylan Clarke - 186cm - 19yo mid
Jake Long - 185cm - 22yo ???
Jordan Houlahan - 185cm - 19yo ???
Trent Mynott 185cm - 18yo mid
Jackson Merrett - 184cm - 25yo mid/forward
Josh Green - 178cm - 25yo forward
Ben McNiece - 178cm - 26yo defender


So I'm thinking... Redman if he plays forward, Long, or Houlahan. Long seems closest to fitting the bill structure wise without being 25+ and a depth player. Redman has been playing much better in the VFL and probably deserves it more. Houlahan I don't know anything about, but you might. Which one?
Click to expand...



You don't limit it to the forwards.

McGrath could do it, too. There is no reason Clarke couldn't do it. In reality Long could do what Baguley has been doing but he won't get that chance.
 
BrunoV said:
You don't limit it to the forwards.

McGrath could do it, too. There is no reason Clarke couldn't do it. In reality Long could do what Baguley has been doing but he won't get that chance.
Click to expand...
McGrath is already in the side. In which case, I assume you bring in Clarke for McGrath, and move McGrath forward?

Oh and I wasn't limiting it to the forwards. That's everyone not injured and not playing seniors under 193cm :$
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

RedmanWasHere
Traded #42: Massimoe D'Ambrosioe - Thank you for your service
35 36 37 38 39
Replies
959
Views
58K
owen87
owen87
Lore
Coaching Staff Women's Coaches 2022 - Deadly Bentley paints boots for Dreamtime
Replies
17
Views
203
Lore
Lore

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top