Reply to thread

... once he was told, forcibly, to chill the **** out.

Look at the demands he made of his players.

Not enough to be good at one game style, he wanted his team to be capable of all of them. Be the best team at the short game and the best at going quick; be the best at contested and uncontested ball. Have the best contested marking game but also have the best small forwards. Be the best both with the ball and without it.

Just, be me guys. Be the best at marking, the best at kicking, the best at tackling. Be able to kick the running goal from the pocket or take an inspirational mark when your team needs you to.

Why aren't you as good as I was? It's not good enough.

It's telling that the second he let that go, allowed the team to be good at just one thing - transition footy - they made the granny.

I'm not casting aspersions over the criticism of us so much as I'm disputing the place where that criticism comes from.

There is always criticism for us, and there's always criticism for a team with no wins. They've got us coming and going; so much to criticise, so much time and many pages to fill.

Again: it comes back to what is good feedback versus shit feedback.

I'm minded of Ross Lyon's criticism of us under Teague: he took Teague's desired assessment of us - Teague wanted to be a high scoring and front half team - and marked us under Teague's parameters. In short, he looked at a) what we were trying to do, and then b) marked us successful or failing to get there.

That is good feedback, good advice. What Bucks is providing there is too general, too nebulous; 'can't run for long enough' is as close as he gets to something that's actionable.

That's my problem: so much criticism, not all that much to actually do.

That's the difference between good criticism and bad criticism. One is negativity without direction, the other addresses the failings in context. At the moment, an awful lot of the criticism - both on here and in the media landscape - is shit.