Strategy The Phil Walsh gameplan

[FR0GGY]

Chris.

I remember C for cats.

c for child and b for baby

 

[fabs33]

Im not a fan of your coach brad, or is it Chris? Acts like a petulant child in the box.

I wonder if either brother has ever sneaked into the others club all secret agent like to pinch some intel.

 

[King Elvis]

I'm not a fan of Phil Walsh.

He sits in pressers, espousing his opinion on the state of the game, how they should get rid of the sub etc.

He acts like an elder statesman of the game.

The only problem is, he has only coached nine games.

Phil Walsh hasn't had the job for long. Yet he acts like he can speak about the state of the game like Mick Malthouse, Alastair Clarkson or Ross Lyon, people who have earned their stripes and have coached over ten times the games Phil Walsh had.

He should just stick to talking about Adelaide, and leave the "state of the game" addresses to people who have experience and have a clue.

He's perfectly entitled to offer his opinions on the game; and he's normally spot on...

If his opinions were s**t, like yours, then I'd agree.

 

[beartoo]

He's perfectly entitled to offer his opinions on the game; and he's normally spot on...

If his opinions were s**t, like yours, then I'd agree.

+1. The bloke's been in the game for most if not all of his working life in one capacity or another and he can't have opinions on the game? GTFO GTOA

 

[AFC979810]

Funny way of disagreeing, I would swear the bolded stuff was exactly what I said!

Apologies - I was disagreeing with the fact that Talia had more kicks and was playing a more attacking role. I haven't seen this. He is playing exactly the same role as the 2013/2014 and if anything has slightly gone backwards.

As regards Talia's (and the other defenders) possessions, I would say its not so much about the absolute number, though that will be a bit of an increase but more about where they will go to when they kick it, what they'll pull the trigger on, now they're expected to not be afraid to cross back into traffic or more risky situations.

On Talia's amount of kicks I would say this - we have shifted to a lower possession style overall, so I would expect all things being equal, his kicks to have dropped because of that. If I could import one thing from last season, Ben Rutten, I would expect him to have had even less kicks again as he had another senior player, arguably more competent at kicking to do some of the distribution. So that the stats paint no change is a support I believe that he has increased his kicking amount.

Not sure what you are on about. As a team in 2015 - we have a 4 year high for both average possessions per game and for kicks per game. So as a team we are getting the ball more AND kicking it more - there is absolutely no reason why Talias kicks per game has stayed so stagnant this year?!?!

Our gameplan has changed slightly to switch the play a bit quicker.

2012 Average kicks 217.2 per game, Average handballs per game 133 per game, 350 total disposals per game
2013 Average Kicks 217.4 per game , Average Handballs 150.4 per game, 367.8 Total Disposals per game
2014: Average Kicks 207.4 per game , Average Handballs 159.4 per game, 366.8 Total Disposals per game

2015: Average Kicks 224.7 per game, Average Handballs 145 per game, 369.7 Total Disposals per game

You are also suggesting that Ben Rutten has an impact on Talia's offensive stats? Truck played 14 games last year and averaged 5 kicks a game.

With the expectations part - are you talking about of the supporters or the club? If the club, which I assume it is, well, if the expectations have changed, what has been probably the biggest change in the club? Phil Walsh. So how do you say that you dont like him, or that he's not worth rating, if he's addressing something you also consider a weakness? You've lost me on this one.

I think the expectations of the coaching group has changed with regards to both Talia and Brown. Walsh is building a more versatile back 6 and really trying to make us less predictable. Everything he has spoken about is team defense. I think unfortunately, that Talia will really struggle to improve his attacking game and at this stage he is what he is (More Ben Rutten than Nathan Bock) and Talia is still also struggling a bit with Walsh's defensive PHILosophy. He is a great 1 on 1 defender, but struggles to leave his man to assist his teammates.

Not sure where I have said that I don't like or rate Phil Walsh. I just don't think there have been the massive sweeping changes everyone is talking about - apart from selection. I think on this forum - many people are wishing that there have been these awesome changes to the way we are playing, but we still lack the personnel.

One of the things i have loved about Walsh is the way we are rebounding the ball in 2015. In 2013/2014 we were way way way too slow back there with Truck, Otten, Talia and Brown and far too reliant on Smith to rebound.

Overall we have slightly improved our Marks inside 50 per game which is great, but when we are bad we are horrible.

Two things we haven't addressed that are identical to 2014/2013 are our poor starts and opposition scores from turnovers. Its a work in progress and we are heading in the right direction.

 

[GTOA]

What has he said that you disagree with and leads you to think that he hasn't got a clue?

I don't agree about him not liking the sub rule.

The sub rule is one of the better rules. It evens up matches when a team gets an injury, since it is no longer 21 v 22 but 21 v 21 (since the other team must sub out a player as well, fit or not).

Secondly, the sub rule can be used as a tactic, and can be handy for injecting a speedy player when your team has run out of legs, and the player can run over the opposition.

It also allows a debutant the chance to get a senior game, and can be injected late into the game so that the coach can "have a look at him" rather than play him the entire game, where he might get smashed, and dropped the next week. It gives a new player time to "find his feet".

Yet Phillip Walsh lead the charge on wanting to scrap it. Why doesn't he put his words into actions. You don't have to bring a sub player on. It's optional. If Walsh really hates the sub rule, then he should keep the sub on the bench for an entire game, to make a stand. Then he will see if a sub is important or not.

Also, I don't think the club should have sacked Brenton Sanderson. He got the Crows to finals in 2012. In 2013, Tippett jumped ship, and Walker went down with a knee, so the season was stuffed. In 2014, Taylor came back, but hadn't had a pre-season, because of the knee, so it hindered a finals berth. So, really Sanderson took the Crows to finals, and circumstances out of his control cost him two other seasons of finals, so I thought it was a bit rough that he wasn't given much of a chance, and felt that he was sacked because Crows fans wanted him gone, rather than his coaching record being poor (which it wasn't).

 

[earlsta]

I don't agree about him not liking the sub rule.

The sub rule is one of the better rules. It evens up matches when a team gets an injury, since it is no longer 21 v 22 but 21 v 21 (since the other team must sub out a player as well, fit or not).

Secondly, the sub rule can be used as a tactic, and can be handy for injecting a speedy player when your team has run out of legs, and the player can run over the opposition.

It also allows a debutant the chance to get a senior game, and can be injected late into the game so that the coach can "have a look at him" rather than play him the entire game, where he might get smashed, and dropped the next week. It gives a new player time to "find his feet".

Yet Phillip Walsh lead the charge on wanting to scrap it. Why doesn't he put his words into actions. You don't have to bring a sub player on. It's optional. If Walsh really hates the sub rule, then he should keep the sub on the bench for an entire game, to make a stand. Then he will see if a sub is important or not.

Also, I don't think the club should have sacked Brenton Sanderson. He got the Crows to finals in 2012. In 2013, Tippett jumped ship, and Walker went down with a knee, so the season was stuffed. In 2014, Taylor came back, but hadn't had a pre-season, because of the knee, so it hindered a finals berth. So, really Sanderson took the Crows to finals, and circumstances out of his control cost him two other seasons of finals, so I thought it was a bit rough that he wasn't given much of a chance, and felt that he was sacked because Crows fans wanted him gone, rather than his coaching record being poor (which it wasn't).

Sanderson had no idea how to coach lol, for example barely playing Laird last year and opting for duds like Martin instead, he's got no idea on game day either. Stop trolling our forum Brenton Sanderson.

 

[beartoo]

I don't agree about him not liking the sub rule.

The sub rule is one of the better rules. It evens up matches when a team gets an injury, since it is no longer 21 v 22 but 21 v 21 (since the other team must sub out a player as well, fit or not).

Secondly, the sub rule can be used as a tactic, and can be handy for injecting a speedy player when your team has run out of legs, and the player can run over the opposition.

It also allows a debutant the chance to get a senior game, and can be injected late into the game so that the coach can "have a look at him" rather than play him the entire game, where he might get smashed, and dropped the next week. It gives a new player time to "find his feet".

Yet Phillip Walsh lead the charge on wanting to scrap it. Why doesn't he put his words into actions. You don't have to bring a sub player on. It's optional. If Walsh really hates the sub rule, then he should keep the sub on the bench for an entire game, to make a stand. Then he will see if a sub is important or not.

Also, I don't think the club should have sacked Brenton Sanderson. He got the Crows to finals in 2012. In 2013, Tippett jumped ship, and Walker went down with a knee, so the season was stuffed. In 2014, Taylor came back, but hadn't had a pre-season, because of the knee, so it hindered a finals berth. So, really Sanderson took the Crows to finals, and circumstances out of his control cost him two other seasons of finals, so I thought it was a bit rough that he wasn't given much of a chance, and felt that he was sacked because Crows fans wanted him gone, rather than his coaching record being poor (which it wasn't).

There are a lot of suppositions in this post.
As for the sub rule, yeah, why doesn't Walsh lose whatever tactical advantages the sub has and make a stand and not use him? Brainless ideas rule!
You are trolling and should stop.

 

[TheMetricSystem]

Interesting stat on AFL360, they were looking at the number of 5 goal runs conceded this year. Overall numbers are up and we rate one of the worst. Carlton have conceded 10 x 5 goal runs. We are on the third line with about 4 other teams who have conceded 5 goal runs 7 times. Considering the supposed improved defensive efforts that's very poor.

Could be a byproduct of the high intensity required to maintain the new defensive structure.

 

[TheMetricSystem]

I don't agree about him not liking the sub rule.

The sub rule is one of the better rules. It evens up matches when a team gets an injury, since it is no longer 21 v 22 but 21 v 21 (since the other team must sub out a player as well, fit or not).

Secondly, the sub rule can be used as a tactic, and can be handy for injecting a speedy player when your team has run out of legs, and the player can run over the opposition.

It also allows a debutant the chance to get a senior game, and can be injected late into the game so that the coach can "have a look at him" rather than play him the entire game, where he might get smashed, and dropped the next week. It gives a new player time to "find his feet".

Yet Phillip Walsh lead the charge on wanting to scrap it. Why doesn't he put his words into actions. You don't have to bring a sub player on. It's optional. If Walsh really hates the sub rule, then he should keep the sub on the bench for an entire game, to make a stand. Then he will see if a sub is important or not.

Also, I don't think the club should have sacked Brenton Sanderson. He got the Crows to finals in 2012. In 2013, Tippett jumped ship, and Walker went down with a knee, so the season was stuffed. In 2014, Taylor came back, but hadn't had a pre-season, because of the knee, so it hindered a finals berth. So, really Sanderson took the Crows to finals, and circumstances out of his control cost him two other seasons of finals, so I thought it was a bit rough that he wasn't given much of a chance, and felt that he was sacked because Crows fans wanted him gone, rather than his coaching record being poor (which it wasn't).

So you're the person that likes the sub rule?

 

[Red mist]

So you're the person that likes the sub rule?

How many interchanges should we have. 120 like present and sub gone or they are thinking 80 and sub gone?

 

[Jeffcrowe]

I don't agree about him not liking the sub rule.

The sub rule is one of the better rules. It evens up matches when a team gets an injury, since it is no longer 21 v 22 but 21 v 21 (since the other team must sub out a player as well, fit or not).

Secondly, the sub rule can be used as a tactic, and can be handy for injecting a speedy player when your team has run out of legs, and the player can run over the opposition.

It also allows a debutant the chance to get a senior game, and can be injected late into the game so that the coach can "have a look at him" rather than play him the entire game, where he might get smashed, and dropped the next week. It gives a new player time to "find his feet".

Yet Phillip Walsh lead the charge on wanting to scrap it. Why doesn't he put his words into actions. You don't have to bring a sub player on. It's optional. If Walsh really hates the sub rule, then he should keep the sub on the bench for an entire game, to make a stand. Then he will see if a sub is important or not.

Also, I don't think the club should have sacked Brenton Sanderson. He got the Crows to finals in 2012. In 2013, Tippett jumped ship, and Walker went down with a knee, so the season was stuffed. In 2014, Taylor came back, but hadn't had a pre-season, because of the knee, so it hindered a finals berth. So, really Sanderson took the Crows to finals, and circumstances out of his control cost him two other seasons of finals, so I thought it was a bit rough that he wasn't given much of a chance, and felt that he was sacked because Crows fans wanted him gone, rather than his coaching record being poor (which it wasn't).

Zero credibility now that you have backed sando.... The difference between Walsh and sando is chalk and cheese on all levels

Added to this it appears the sub rule will get scrapped so you are on your own there

Reporters ask Walsh his opinion on certain matters and he qualifies it with ' I've only been in the game as a head coach 5 minutes and I'm not on a crusade ' ... Would you prefer if he never gave an opinion? That would be fun in a presser

Maybe take your own advice and stick to giving opinions on things you know something about like geelongs rebuild over the next few years

 

[Jeffcrowe]

Could be a byproduct of the high intensity required to maintain the new defensive structure.

We would be high up in 5 behind runs

 

[TheMetricSystem]

How many interchanges should we have. 120 like present and sub gone or they are thinking 80 and sub gone?

I think no sub and 80 is how it will go from next year, seems to be the consensus.

 

[mattymac]

I don't agree about him not liking the sub rule.

The sub rule is one of the better rules. It evens up matches when a team gets an injury, since it is no longer 21 v 22 but 21 v 21 (since the other team must sub out a player as well, fit or not).

Secondly, the sub rule can be used as a tactic, and can be handy for injecting a speedy player when your team has run out of legs, and the player can run over the opposition.

It also allows a debutant the chance to get a senior game, and can be injected late into the game so that the coach can "have a look at him" rather than play him the entire game, where he might get smashed, and dropped the next week. It gives a new player time to "find his feet".

Yet Phillip Walsh lead the charge on wanting to scrap it. Why doesn't he put his words into actions. You don't have to bring a sub player on. It's optional. If Walsh really hates the sub rule, then he should keep the sub on the bench for an entire game, to make a stand. Then he will see if a sub is important or not.

Also, I don't think the club should have sacked Brenton Sanderson. He got the Crows to finals in 2012. In 2013, Tippett jumped ship, and Walker went down with a knee, so the season was stuffed. In 2014, Taylor came back, but hadn't had a pre-season, because of the knee, so it hindered a finals berth. So, really Sanderson took the Crows to finals, and circumstances out of his control cost him two other seasons of finals, so I thought it was a bit rough that he wasn't given much of a chance, and felt that he was sacked because Crows fans wanted him gone, rather than his coaching record being poor (which it wasn't).

The sub rule is a nonsense and Sando lost the players.

 

[Red mist]

I think no sub and 80 is how it will go from next year, seems to be the consensus.

It's not going to slow the game down, as they were trying to speed it up in the first place. Getting rid of the sub is great. rotations frenzy stolen from Gaelic

 

[Big Gazoongas]

I don't agree about him not liking the sub rule.

The sub rule is one of the better rules. It evens up matches when a team gets an injury, since it is no longer 21 v 22 but 21 v 21 (since the other team must sub out a player as well, fit or not).

Secondly, the sub rule can be used as a tactic, and can be handy for injecting a speedy player when your team has run out of legs, and the player can run over the opposition.

It also allows a debutant the chance to get a senior game, and can be injected late into the game so that the coach can "have a look at him" rather than play him the entire game, where he might get smashed, and dropped the next week. It gives a new player time to "find his feet".

Yet Phillip Walsh lead the charge on wanting to scrap it. Why doesn't he put his words into actions. You don't have to bring a sub player on. It's optional. If Walsh really hates the sub rule, then he should keep the sub on the bench for an entire game, to make a stand. Then he will see if a sub is important or not.

Also, I don't think the club should have sacked Brenton Sanderson. He got the Crows to finals in 2012. In 2013, Tippett jumped ship, and Walker went down with a knee, so the season was stuffed. In 2014, Taylor came back, but hadn't had a pre-season, because of the knee, so it hindered a finals berth. So, really Sanderson took the Crows to finals, and circumstances out of his control cost him two other seasons of finals, so I thought it was a bit rough that he wasn't given much of a chance, and felt that he was sacked because Crows fans wanted him gone, rather than his coaching record being poor (which it wasn't).

The irony in what your posting.

You're here telling us that Phil should basically shut up until he earns his stripes and then you bag a bloke that has probably been in footy longer than you've been alive.....because your opinion is different.

You should take some of your own advice.

You'd be at the bottom of the chain in footy terms, you're nobody to be offering advice about what Phil says or does.

BTW Sanderson was a dud...time for you Geelong folk to move on.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I like how many Geelong supporters on these boards had a hissy fit when Sando got the sack. Strangely enough the Cats don't seem to be in any rush to rehire him. Also all those other clubs who sacked their coaches overlooked him.

Interesting stat on AFL360, they were looking at the number of 5 goal runs conceded this year. Overall numbers are up and we rate one of the worst. Carlton have conceded 10 x 5 goal runs. We are on the third line with about 4 other teams who have conceded 5 goal runs 7 times. Considering the supposed improved defensive efforts that's very poor.

We've conceded 748 points which has us ranked 8th for least points conceded. Last year we ranked 11th overall. If we keep going like this, it will be an improvement, just not an earth shattering one.

Source: http://www.afl.com.au/ladder

 

[FR0GGY]

So you're the person that likes the sub rule?

Vader mk2

 

[Red mist]

^nothing to add other than opinion on a poster

 

[Wright Away]

I'm not a fan of Phil Walsh.

He sits in pressers, espousing his opinion on the state of the game, how they should get rid of the sub etc.

He acts like an elder statesman of the game.

The only problem is, he has only coached nine games.

Phil Walsh hasn't had the job for long. Yet he acts like he can speak about the state of the game like Mick Malthouse, Alastair Clarkson or Ross Lyon, people who have earned their stripes and have coached over ten times the games Phil Walsh had.

He should just stick to talking about Adelaide, and leave the "state of the game" addresses to people who have experience and have a clue.

 

[FR0GGY]

^nothing to add other than opinion on a poster

Seriously?

 

[Red mist]

Seriously?

Lel

 

[Wright Away]

Seriously?

 

[Wright Away]

Lel