- May 14, 2017
- 11,489
- 12,948
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- West Adelaide
- Thread starter
- #26
I think your theory is spot on
(misery loves company)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think your theory is spot on
Been snarfing Codral like it's the best candy, ever ...you need to stick with the paracetamol
I think you've hit on the core of what's a huge problem for all coaches. Complacency + attitude.surely they can't have been consciously complacent about Collingwood.
Is it just a combination of being slightly off, a couple of men down
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.
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! )
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.
CB should be commended for being a good sport about his thread and taking his jabs in stride.
This is the second reference to Occam's razor this week. Can someone explain what it means?
Yep. Good point.Collingwood did the same to GWS earlier in the year as well.
LOL, fair enough.I'm an habitual conspiracy theorist
Yeah, a few wondered about that in the Game Day thread. Makes sense.I also wondered that if, with the nine day break, they did a bit of conditioning and were worn out a bit from that
No.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 ?
Thanks for your participation and constructive input.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!Holy s**t, there needs to be some sort of IQ test before people are allowed to create new threads.
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.