Review The Controlled how do we fix it thread

[noddy]

Um, sorry but I don't understand what you're saying there, mate. But it seems you are trying to make a point that's worth responding to - could you be clearer?

No offence will be taken, or apology required, for any response

I was trying to read between the lines (not good policy i know) of this part " Now, I have no idea how good Bickley and Hart are in their roles, but it disturbs me that 2 of our assistants are recent past players with no experience at another club. That just can't be right." of your post & it just clicked on something i have thought about for a while regarding the appointments of the coaching assistants in that there seems to be more that would agree rather than disagree with Craigy.

 

[Cap]

I liked one of the 5aa callers or hosts idea

lets get a few coaches who are ex-forwards

 

[noddy]

I liked one of the 5aa callers or hosts idea

lets get a few coaches who are ex-forwards

We had one.

He did improve the kicking of Ian Perrie so that was one i can think of.

Maybe we need someone from a different code.

 

[Cap]

Was that Fud or Caarey?

its more than just kicking, its giving an opinion on a gameplan and who it effects the forwards as well.

something that perhaps Craig has looked at

 

[arrowman]

I was trying to read between the lines (not good policy i know) of this part " ...

Fair enough, I'll expand on what I meant.

Having 2 recent past players on the panel could mean any or all of:

1. In terms of general coaching talent, they were not the best available choices, and were chosen more for their links to the club than their talent.
- In fact, I think it is true that they were chosen for their club links. It cannot possibly be true that not one but two times the best man for the job was a recent past player with no prior experience.

2. As former players under NC (and, I suspect, not the most aggressive of characters, either of them) they may not be outspoken enough when they disagree with NC. Not good for the flow of ideas in the box.

3. Worst of all (and this is not the same as 2 above) they were actually chosen because they wouldn't challenge the senior coach's thinking.

4. Edited to add: One more: Whether or not it involves coaching "talent" and/or willingness to question the head coach, just the mix of ideas that an outsider can bring in. Bickley and Hart can, by definition, offer nothing more than ideas that were already available to the club.

I don't profess to know which, if any, of these things are true - although I do believe 1. and 4. are true and 2. is extremely likely. And these alone are enough to question the composition of the coaching panel. They can question NC all they like - they can come to blows over the witches' hats all they like - but if it's not based on new ideas and/or coaching ability, then it's all for naught.

And that is what disturbs me.

- I think it's a good thing that NC has always said he loves the AFC and never wants to coach another club. I don't think that means we should adopt a general "club men first" approach to hiring.

 

[noddy]

Was that Fud or Caarey?

its more than just kicking, its giving an opinion on a gameplan and who it effects the forwards as well.

something that perhaps Craig has looked at

Fud, was only part time & very part time at that.

I don't know though how many assistants does a coach need ?

Thought Todd Viney was a brilliant pick up when we got him & i thought the same when we recruited Peter Jonas.

 

[noddy]

Fair enough, I'll expand on what I meant.

Having 2 recent past players on the panel could mean any or all of:

1. In terms of general coaching talent, they were not the best available choices, and were chosen more for their links to the club than their talent.
- In fact, I think it is true that they were chosen for their club links. It cannot possibly be true that not one but two times the best man for the job was a recent past player with no prior experience.

2. As former players under NC (and, I suspect, not the most aggressive of characters, either of them) they may not be outspoken enough when they disagree with NC. Not good for the flow of ideas in the box.

3. Worst of all (and this is not the same as 2 above) they were actually chosen because they wouldn't challenge the senior coach's thinking.

I don't profess to know which, if any, of these things are true - although I do believe 1. is true.

And that is what disturbs me.

- I think it's a good thing that NC has always said he loves the AFC and never wants to coach another club. I don't think that means we should adopt a general "club men first" approach to hiring.

Cheers.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Bickley and Hart can, by definition, offer nothing more than ideas that were already available to the club.

Spot on here.

 

[Crow-mo]

Haven't see a single sign of riff between player and coach.

really? everything looks great?

let me guess its not the players fault, its not the coaches fault, and its not the club's fault.

who's left? us?

 

[TDRP]

really? everything looks great?

let me guess its not the players fault, its not the coaches fault, and its not the club's fault.

who's left? us?

Certainly not a disinterested, infighting rabble like clubs who have experienced real heartache before us.

Is seeing Walker selected in the SANFL for the first time this year taking it's toll? You poor suffering soul you!

 

[TDRP]

Fair enough, I'll expand on what I meant.

Having 2 recent past players on the panel could mean any or all of:

1. In terms of general coaching talent, they were not the best available choices, and were chosen more for their links to the club than their talent.
- In fact, I think it is true that they were chosen for their club links. It cannot possibly be true that not one but two times the best man for the job was a recent past player with no prior experience.

2. As former players under NC (and, I suspect, not the most aggressive of characters, either of them) they may not be outspoken enough when they disagree with NC. Not good for the flow of ideas in the box.

3. Worst of all (and this is not the same as 2 above) they were actually chosen because they wouldn't challenge the senior coach's thinking.

4. Edited to add: One more: Whether or not it involves coaching "talent" and/or willingness to question the head coach, just the mix of ideas that an outsider can bring in. Bickley and Hart can, by definition, offer nothing more than ideas that were already available to the club.

I don't profess to know which, if any, of these things are true - although I do believe 1. and 4. are true and 2. is extremely likely. And these alone are enough to question the composition of the coaching panel. They can question NC all they like - they can come to blows over the witches' hats all they like - but if it's not based on new ideas and/or coaching ability, then it's all for naught.

And that is what disturbs me.

- I think it's a good thing that NC has always said he loves the AFC and never wants to coach another club. I don't think that means we should adopt a general "club men first" approach to hiring.

Very much agree with everything you have said here. Viney was a great appointment but Hart and Bickley I consider potentially agreeable types in the mix. History has shown that players can lose the message no matter how good the coach... one way to extend Craig's reign at the top would be to import some intellectual property from other clubs. All said without knowing what Hart/Bicks offer on the inside... but one thing is for certain with pressure piling on the game style these appointments only add to it.

 

[Crow-mo]

Certainly not a disinterested, infighting rabble like clubs who have experienced real heartache before us.

really, what does a 59% say to you? that we are not a rabble right now?

Carlton won the spoon in 2006 with a % 74
Richmond won the spoon in 2007 with a % of 77
Melbourne won the spoon in 2008 with a % of 62
Melbourne won the spoon in 2009 with a % of 74

if that gives you some idea.

the Washington Generals are more demanding than you

 

[TDRP]

really, what does a 59% say to you? that we are not a rabble right now?

Carlton won the spoon in 2006 with a % 74
Richmond won the spoon in 2007 with a % of 77
Melbourne won the spoon in 2008 with a % of 62
Melbourne won the spoon in 2009 with a % of 74

if that gives you some idea.

C'mon... are you missing sleep or something. That is about the logical equivalent of an abortion.

Let's extrapolate the whole season on 5 games full of injuries, underdone players, decent opposition and poor Taylor Walker. Geez, We only have 80% of the season left.

the Washington Generals are more demanding than you

put the white flag away.

 

[smoovy]

The assistants thing is interesting. From an outsider, it all seems very chummy. Certainly coudn't see Hart or Bickley really getting stuck into something, not sure about Viney. IMO we need a hard arse there, someone to tell it like it is.

Also I would like us to take on board a recent retiree from outside the club. Tom Harley maybe? or Matthew Richardson?

 

[SydCrow]

Coaching must be the only job in the world where a prerequisite for hiring an assistant is that they must disagree with you and be prepared to argue with you about it, including in the box during a game

I bet the only coaches that would hire on that basis are those who's nuts are on the line, ie Choco - do you reckon he is happy with the Junkyard Dog sitting behind him?

And can anyone confirm what other club experience Buckley and Voss have had? Did they come straight out of the Collingwood and Brisbane systems?

 

[Crow-mo]

C'mon... are you missing sleep or something. That is about the logical equivalent of an abortion.

er, yeah. that's not weird at all.

Let's extrapolate the whole season on 5 games full of injuries, underdone players, decent opposition and poor Taylor Walker. Geez, We only have 80% of the season left.

what does the future have to do with how much of a rabble we have already been?

put the white flag away.

um...

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Brisbane are pretty similar to us, mostly ex-Brisbane types. Added Jade Rawlings this year.

Collingwood have Scott Watters, Paul Hudson, Mark Neeld, Max Hudghton and Luke Beveridge come from outside the club.

 

[TDRP]

what does the future have to do with how much of a rabble we have already been?

Only making the obvious point that you compared our 5 games to date with 22 games of results of recent bottom performers. Very long thin bow you were drawing there mate. Seems you missed that.

 

[noddy]

Coaching must be the only job in the world where a prerequisite for hiring an assistant is that they must disagree with you and be prepared to argue with you about it, including in the box during a game

I bet the only coaches that would hire on that basis are those who's nuts are on the line, ie Choco - do you reckon he is happy with the Junkyard Dog sitting behind him?

And can anyone confirm what other club experience Buckley and Voss have had? Did they come straight out of the Collingwood and Brisbane systems?

Well i'm not saying that & i don't think anyone else is either.

 

[Macjoe]

On topic - Arrowman's solution: we play out the season as best we can, balancing youth development with exsisting strength and experience, AND put in place a searching review of all aspects of the club, ala Geelong, to guide future direction.

... Choco - do you reckon he is happy with the Junkyard Dog sitting behind him?
...

Off topic - Laidley sits beside Choco, and the body language on Saturday, including a very matey tap on the arm from Choco to Laidley didn't suggest any unhappiness.
Yes, you probably meant metaphorically "sitting behind", as in "ready to put the knife in!"
And yes, this happened while Port were in the process of rolling the current #1 - probably not the most threatening time for Choco.
But still, it does show that adding an alien coaching influence, particularly one strong in areas of club weakness can be very good for a club.

 

[SydCrow]

On topic - Arrowman's solution: we play out the season as best we can, balancing youth development with exsisting strength and experience, AND put in place a searching review of all aspects of the club, ala Geelong, to guide future direction.



Off topic - Laidley sits beside Choco, and the body language on Saturday, including a very matey tap on the arm from Choco to Laidley didn't suggest any unhappiness.
Yes, you probably meant metaphorically "sitting behind", as in "ready to put the knife in!"
And yes, this happened while Port were in the process of rolling the current #1 - probably not the most threatening time for Choco.
But still, it does show that adding an alien coaching influence, particularly one strong in areas of club weakness can be very good for a club.

yes I did mean metaphorically

I reckon the only reason Laidley is there is because Choco was forced to hire him - he seems to have been a positive influence but my point is that it would be a brave coach that hires his obvious replacement - the clock is ticking for Choco as much as it is for Mad Mick

anyway - NC may be forced into something similar at the end of the year

maybe we can hire Mick on the basis that he brings Jolly, Ball and Swan with him?

 

[frednerk33]

The assistants thing is interesting. From an outsider, it all seems very chummy. Certainly coudn't see Hart or Bickley really getting stuck into something, not sure about Viney. IMO we need a hard arse there, someone to tell it like it is.

So, basically, you admit that you have no clue and are just wanting to assume the worst of your club coaches.

Your post tells something about you.... it sounds like the media presence of that bitter chip-on-the-shoulder mcdermot.

edit: mind you, I DO (really) admire the bloke for what he does for others in real life.

 

[kulak]

It's all about culture. So much for rebuilding without bottoming out to preserve our competitive culture. Whenever things get a bit too hard, whether it's an opposition team making a run or just trying to respond to poor form, it's allowed to just give up a little bit.

We saw this over 5 years where at key times we would throw in the towel for 20-30 minutes. Now it seems to have become entrenched.

I had the rare pleasure of attending a Crows game on Friday night. It was the most lazy, unprofessional effort I can recall since Q4 of Round 2, 1997.

Time after time, senior players don't bother to lay shepherds after giving the handball, don't chase their opponent as they run behind a teammate to get the handball receive, don't chase an opponent who is on their way to receive a handball running into open goal. Junior players follow their example.

Our style of defence only works when every player is entirely fanatically focused. Switch off for 5 seconds, and there is no-one to bail you out.

And our best offence comes from our defence when we force turnovers from our pressure. No pressure = no defence = no offence.

We start playing with furious desperation, and the zone will once again begin to look impenetrable. I hope this happens this week, surely a Showdown would fire the team up.

(Not sure who out of the captain and the coach should get the majority blame for this one.)

There are other issues...

Offensively, it looks like we are trying the handball-possession game plan which works so well for Geelong. However they have lots of players in their physical prime to brush off tacklers; we have lots of players who are not yet in their physical prime, or well past it. This means instead of pushing forward through tackles we handball backwards away from them.

We could incorporate more short kicking possession into our repertoire (see Bulldogs...)

Defensively, I like the zone. Perhaps, as others have suggested, could drop it a bit deeper to protect our defence.

Thoughts on a few of the players:
Rutten - only 26 but looks cooked, borderline disinterested. Out-paced and out-muscled by BBBBH. Replace with Will Young.

Davis - really positionally aware, both defensively and offensively. Looking forward to him playing some more.

Edwards, McLeod, Burton - the club says our young players will learn more by playing alongside experienced hands like these guys. I think that's arguable for the young guys in the team, but of no benefit for the young guys in the SANFL.

If finals are gone I would suggest a few mid-season retirements, but the club may differ.

Doughty - unlike most, I think he has been okay this year, mostly because he has excelled in the area many others (especially the senior players) have failed which is in desperation, 1 percent-ers, etc.

With regard to the coach, I really like Neil Craig in terms of the way he coaches this club. The next 1.5 seasons will test whether he has the ability to reinvent himself.

He made significant changes to the group when he became coach, both in personnel and strategy. Can he now make equally significant changes to this group?

I hope and believe he can. But first and foremost we need to return to the ethos instilled by Blighty - that there are no excuses. Whether Craig can inspire the players to this approach once again will be the key test.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Time after time, senior players don't bother to lay shepherds after giving the handball, don't chase their opponent as they run behind a teammate to get the handball receive, don't chase an opponent who is on their way to receive a handball running into open goal. Junior players follow their example.

This is absolutely infuriating and has been happening for a long time. It has seemed as though with the new bumping rules we have made a conscious choice not to deliver hip n shoulders, blocks or shephereds.

If we have a 2 on 1 the second player always tries to receive a handball over the top, rather than lay a shepherd. The handball over the top always equals 'hang time' and that time is often enough for the other team to shut us down and lay a tackle. Now that you've mentioned it, this would be my absolute No. 1 hate about our play this season.

I would love to see us simplify our ball movement. The fewer hands the ball has to transfer through, the lower the chance of an error.

 

[sydney_crow]

Forgive the generalisations but this is my layman's view of what has happened to the Crows from a game-plan point of view.

Firstly Craigy is widely credited with pioneering the introduction of the zone to AFL and it helped contribute to making us a good (but not outstanding) team over the past five years.

Then others followed suit, most notably Hawthorn who took it a step further with the rolling zone.

Now the latest version over the past 18 months is the Saints (and now Freo) with the rolling zone plus full-on frontal pressure which is suffocating the opposition but requires supreme fitness, commitment, and understanding to execute.

With respect to the Crows we have failed to respond - either offensively or defensively - to these changes (particularly the latest model) and have therefore been left behind.

With the ball in hand we lack the skills, pace and confidence to take on the high pressure zone and hence look slow, go backwards, and/or turn the ball over far too much. The result is a scoring average below ten goals a game.

When defending we appear to lack the pace, commitment, technique (tackling) or knowledge (new players?) to execute this tactic at anywhere near the league benchmarks. Again the result is that too often we are sliced up in defence with teams breaking down our zone and generating easy scoring opportunities (Exhibit A: Ben McGlynn).

Unfortunately I think we're in a vicious cycle in that our twin deficiencies then contribute to the other and we've not yet found a circuit breaker.

The 'fix' to this situation won't come easily from what I can see and needs a combination of greater speed (both of ball movement and in personnel), improved skills (hard to change except with improved confidence), and general intent (on the defensive side which is possible).