Strategy The DRAW and Pyke --- crazy, like a fox ...?

[CrowBloke]

I think your theory is spot on

(misery loves company)

 

[jacz72]

I don't go in for the conspiracy as much as the OP, but one thing that I'm struggling with is the concept of "failing to turn up".

In a week where they had Thommo giving them an inspirational speech about the real work starting, surely they can't have been consciously complacent about Collingwood.

Is it just a combination of being slightly off, a couple of men down, and then Wells somehow turning into Superman that leads to it all going wrong?

It seems every team has had the "fail to turn up" game or two. I'm sure it must perplex coaches, and perhaps players.

 

[John Who]

Crowbloke, you need to stick with the paracetamol to chill down the fever. Smoking weed will not help!
Your hypothesis may have some merit if we were THAT good, to be toying with our opponents. I say the drawn game was due to the high probability of it being an unpredictable game, amidst a season of unpredictability. I mean, has there ever been a season we have the top 3 teams on the ladder, all having drawn games?

 

[CrowBloke]

you need to stick with the paracetamol

Been snarfing Codral like it's the best candy, ever ...
(snarf: verb, more like inhaling one's food, in the manner of a starving dog)

 

[CrowBloke]

surely they can't have been consciously complacent about Collingwood.

Is it just a combination of being slightly off, a couple of men down

I think you've hit on the core of what's a huge problem for all coaches. Complacency + attitude.
There seems to be a number of players who are always switched on, always motivated, always give their best and are rarely beaten --- they are natural, instinctive competitors. It's just a part of who they are. (Dangerfield, Hodge, you know the type) They are the diamonds of any team, a Coach's GOLD.
There's a much bigger group of players --- fit, skilfull, but not always 'ON' and need to be lifted by a coach, or inspired by a teammate, more prone to float in and out of a game and need to be told to lift.
But there's that elusive quality, the magic elixir, called team spirit and when a group has it or is inspired by it they achieve success greater than the sum of their collective and different parts eg Dogs last year. Hawthorn 2013-15 inclusive.
Complacency is never a 'conscious' process --- it's a mood, a handball over the back of the head, a stab pass that ends up being a hospital kick, one fend or weave too many, a bit of lairising, all of which the Crows do in abundance when they lose. Sometimes when they win too.
Complacency is that little confident voice in most players' heads that says "We should win this".
Team spirit is the driving rage that yells "We MUST win this!". If the Crows can harness the latter, they'll go top this year, and next.
They're good enough, got the cattle, but gotta get their heads right (<== says he who started this thread with a flu/fever lol@me! )

 

[Roovolution]

CB should be commended for being a good sport about his thread and taking his jabs in stride.

However mate, you need a refresher course on Occam's razor.

They fell behind because they stunk up the joint. They caught them because they woke the hell up.

This is the second reference to Occam's razor this week. Can someone explain what it means?

 

[Roovolution]

I think you've hit on the core of what's a huge problem for all coaches. Complacency + attitude.
There seems to be a number of players who are always switched on, always motivated, always give their best and are rarely beaten --- they are natural, instinctive competitors. It's just a part of who they are. (Dangerfield, Hodge, you know the type) They are the diamonds of any team, a Coach's GOLD.
There's a much bigger group of players --- fit, skilfull, but not always 'ON' and need to be lifted by a coach, or inspired by a teammate, more prone to float in and out of a game and need to be told to lift.
But there's that elusive quality, the magic elixir, called team spirit and when a group has it or is inspired by it they achieve success greater than the sum of their collective and different parts eg Dogs last year. Hawthorn 2013-15 inclusive.
Complacency is never a 'conscious' process --- it's a mood, a handball over the back of the head, a stab pass that ends up being a hospital kick, one fend or weave too many, a bit of lairising, all of which the Crows do in abundance when they lose. Sometimes when they win too.
Complacency is that little confident voice in most players' heads that says "We should win this".
Team spirit is the driving rage that yells "We MUST win this!". If the Crows can harness the latter, they'll go top this year, and next.
They're good enough, got the cattle, but gotta get their heads right (<== says he who started this thread with a flu/fever lol@me! )

Or maybe Collingwood outplayed is in that first half??? When one team performs below expectations people assume that means they weren't switched on and don't even consider giving credit to the opposition. Collingwood did the same to GWS earlier in the year as well.

 

[1970crow]

I've been thinking about that amazing draw all week.
The Jekyll-and-Hyde nature of the draw vs Collingwood didn't make sense on several levels. A team doesn't lose its ability to play well, then get it back after half-time.

Since Brisbane's dominance and the most recent era where Hawthorn flourished, I always felt uneasy playing one of those super-form teams (Geelong, Sydney too) even when we were 5 or 6 goals up because there was always the feeling that they had the belief and the ability to win a game from almost any position, which they often did eg Hawks in 2015.
That belief came from many comebacks, developed over 2 or 3 seasons after surging back from near-impossible situations, to win.

Has anyone been thinking that maybe just maybe, Pykey gave the boys "mixed messages" pre-match, enough to confuse them or get them out of position so that they'd be in a losing position at half-time?
I doubt that he would've wanted them to be 50 points down some minutes into the third quarter, but let's suppose he moved a few magnets, sent out better/different instructions and structures much closer to what he really wanted, then waited for a fightback which, if successful, would instill tremendous self-belief in the group.
There was in fact a double-fightback by the Crows, first after they were 50 points down, then later in the last when they were 22 points down after leading by 3.

I can't remember a time when a Crows team came back from 50 points down to snatch a tie (nearly a win) and the team now knows that if they are within 7 or 8 goals of the lead, they can still win the game.
A loss to Collingwood would've been the kick up the butt they needed to fire them up for the last 4 games, but a tie/win from a losing position would've been even better.
So, was it just an aberration, or a plan by Pyke to get the team behind then pull a few strings to see if they could fight their way out of it?

P.S. I reckon a few tennis champions have used a similar tactic against weaker opposition, playing "safe" tennis to be 3-0 or 4-0 (or similar) down, then lift a notch to surge back and claim the set ie it gives them "practice" at fighting back from losing positions.
Navratilova did it, often, Serena Williams and Sampras too.
After training drills my ex-Squash coach used to give me a 7-0 lead in match play to push himself to beat me, which he did.

I'm an habitual conspiracy theorist, but screw me, you're on a completely different planet here.

 

[Carmo]

My guesses on contributing factors to our poor game :

We sometimes have poor games wen the seniors and reserves play at similar times

We really dont have a heap of depth in the center square, losing crouch was a fair blow, even moreso against collingwoods pretty good midfield brigade.

Collingwood went relatively small and in better than expected conditions that paid off

I also wondered that if, with the nine day break, they did a bit of conditioning and were worn out a bit from that

Finally, the umpiring in that first quarter was pretty bad, surprising not many have complained about it

 

[Jarman3]

CB should be commended for being a good sport about his thread and taking his jabs in stride.

Oh, I think he took a couple of jabs before posting that. Yes, indeed.

 

[fabs33]

This is the second reference to Occam's razor this week. Can someone explain what it means?

People normally use it as a way of saying that more often than not the simplest explanation for something is the correct explanation.

In this context AmericanCrow was pointing out that it's highly unlikely that we fell behind because of some grand plan, and far more likely because we were playing poorly.

 

[Bicks]

 

[Rotayjay]

I do have a suspicion that Pykey said something like 'Look boys, we've been s**t this half. I know it's late in the season and you're allowed to have a hiccup in against a bottom-10 side and after last weeks effort. But for this half, just play with dare, do your best and don't necessarily worry about winning.'

 

[Southerntakeover]

We've reached peak bigfooty.

 

[GreyCrow]

I may as well post this here

Wayne Carey talks about the Buffet Theory (Buffay) in that teams that travel spend too much time at the Buffet table in the Hotel. Sure players are warned and told about nutrition but that 3rd bowl of ice-cream wont hurt , will it?

Rory Atkins is 5 disposals less away than home

Josh Jenkins 3 disposals difference

Charlie Cameron is slightly better away

Taylor Walker better away

Jake Kelly 3 disposals worse away

Just a thought. I checked Atkins 1st as he seems to me to be a class clown and would revel in this role on trips away. Thats my perception.

 

[Vhaluus]

Holy s**t, there needs to be some sort of IQ test before people are allowed to create new threads.

 

[Coopers]

I reckon Pyke will have tried a few things in what should have been a "non danger" game (especially the centre where there was no Brouch). The idea being they can switch things up and recover.
He'd have been surprised at a 50 point deficit though. He'd also have been surprised that the switch ups he did were so effective and we could catch that much up. The good thing to come out of it is the confidence to come back from far down.

 

[CrowBloke]

Collingwood did the same to GWS earlier in the year as well.

Yep. Good point.

 

[CrowBloke]

I'm an habitual conspiracy theorist

LOL, fair enough.
Not so much a conspiracy theory as "Jeez, I wonder if Pyke was sneaky/cunning/devious enough to engineer the fightback?" (but not the result.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if coaches made plans for their team to ease off at certain stages against weaker opposition, then put their foot down again, like releasing then making the tempo.
But, Collingwood were red-hot in the first half!

 

[CrowBloke]

I also wondered that if, with the nine day break, they did a bit of conditioning and were worn out a bit from that

Yeah, a few wondered about that in the Game Day thread. Makes sense.
I expected us to finish harder/stronger than Collingwood who had a shorter rest than us, and I thought we were a chance to pinch it at 3/4 time, but not when it blew out again to -22 after leading by 3.
Incredible comebacks, even for the draw.

 

[mistylake]

I've been thinking about that amazing draw all week.
The Jekyll-and-Hyde nature of the draw vs Collingwood didn't make sense on several levels. A team doesn't lose its ability to play well, then get it back after half-time.

Since Brisbane's dominance and the most recent era where Hawthorn flourished, I always felt uneasy playing one of those super-form teams (Geelong, Sydney too) even when we were 5 or 6 goals up because there was always the feeling that they had the belief and the ability to win a game from almost any position, which they often did eg Hawks in 2015.
That belief came from many comebacks, developed over 2 or 3 seasons after surging back from near-impossible situations, to win.

Has anyone been thinking that maybe just maybe, Pykey gave the boys "mixed messages" pre-match, enough to confuse them or get them out of position so that they'd be in a losing position at half-time?
I doubt that he would've wanted them to be 50 points down some minutes into the third quarter, but let's suppose he moved a few magnets, sent out better/different instructions and structures much closer to what he really wanted, then waited for a fightback which, if successful, would instill tremendous self-belief in the group.
There was in fact a double-fightback by the Crows, first after they were 50 points down, then later in the last when they were 22 points down after leading by 3.

I can't remember a time when a Crows team came back from 50 points down to snatch a tie (nearly a win) and the team now knows that if they are within 7 or 8 goals of the lead, they can still win the game.
A loss to Collingwood would've been the kick up the butt they needed to fire them up for the last 4 games, but a tie/win from a losing position would've been even better.
So, was it just an aberration, or a plan by Pyke to get the team behind then pull a few strings to see if they could fight their way out of it?

P.S. I reckon a few tennis champions have used a similar tactic against weaker opposition, playing "safe" tennis to be 3-0 or 4-0 (or similar) down, then lift a notch to surge back and claim the set ie it gives them "practice" at fighting back from losing positions.
Navratilova did it, often, Serena Williams and Sampras too.
After training drills my ex-Squash coach used to give me a 7-0 lead in match play to push himself to beat me, which he did ?

No.

 

[CrowBloke]

Holy s**t, there needs to be some sort of IQ test before people are allowed to create new threads.

Thanks for your participation and constructive input.
I'll forward your suggestion to the Mods.

 

[John Who]

Holy s**t, there needs to be some sort of IQ test before people are allowed to create new threads.

I think you're being confused between low IQ and lateral thinking. But you also need to excuse Mr Essay, as he's got a case of fever delirium. That's kind of like a concussion, without the sling-tackle!

 

[jackster83]

Watching the game I wondered if the thrilling finish in the Port game had them all thinking ahead to the showdown this week.

 

[Roovolution]

People normally use it as a way of saying that more often than not the simplest explanation for something is the correct explanation.

In this context AmericanCrow was pointing out that it's highly unlikely that we fell behind because of some grand plan, and far more likely because we were playing poorly.

Teams play poorly when the opposition is playing so well.