Thoughts on the Bulldogs game

[bigman]

lol. In many ways the issue isn't whether Craig is or isn't a great match day coach (and our views are well known) but whether it is reasonable to expect any coach to be outstanding in every area. that just seems unrealistic to me. Craigy, like every coach is better in some areas than others, why this was so controversial I never understood.

The key Cro Mo is for Craigy to learn from these mistakes.

He is a bright, intelligent man so lets hope this will occur. If Craigy is getting the good oil from the club this is one area he will need to continue to work on.

At least he beleifves in what he is doing and he is building a team with good core values. In time this will leave the side in good shape. The recruiting of good quality young men in Knights, Douglas, Vince, Porps etc is yet to be fully realised. There will be no more Angwins in this side. The AFC may not yet see the real benefit of Craigy's vsion until 4-5 years down the track. That is why I have been disappointed in Craigy not selcting a few of the boys this year.

I think you will find that the Crows are aware of their limitiations with repsect to speed - so next year if players are avialable and they have speed they will have an advantage.

 

[scooter600x]

Pardon my intrusion.

I read in yesterdays paper that Bock had 16 kicks and no handballs and kicked 1.1. He had 15 marks and 1 free for so all of his posessions were in a stop play situation yet he didn't have a single handball. He only had two shots at goal.

Should he be looking to play on more quickly?

 

[Stiffy_18]

Pardon my intrusion.

I read in yesterdays paper that Bock had 16 kicks and no handballs and kicked 1.1. He had 15 marks and 1 free for so all of his posessions were in a stop play situation yet he didn't have a single handball. He only had two shots at goal.

Should he be looking to play on more quickly?

I think the critisism of Bock from that game is that he did play on at all costs. Sometimes to the detriment of the side. He sort of rushed everything a little bit even when the best option was somewhere else.

 

[relapse]

Thats the beauty of SANFL footy at the moment. Glenelgs score is one of the highest ever losing scores (could be #1 for a game at the bay i cant remember). West cracked the ton against us the other week as well even though we won comfortably.

The Crows need to start playing attacking footy at all costs if they want to win the flag.

Robert Walls brought this point up on talking footy.

Hinted about Freo's run and gun style and how teams that are doing this are now winning against the teams that persist with the flooding defensive tactics (Sydney/Adelaide) who both lost on the weekend.

He believes that football could be at the verge of turning another corner and that quick play into the forward lines is the way forward.

He believes that if Freo can continue to play like that they could possibly make the grand final.

 

[- PC -]

He believes that football could be at the verge of turning another corner and that quick play into the forward lines is the way forward.
.

I think many of us believe that. The problem is playing that style lends itself to quick turnovers.

I think the Malcolm Blight ( Geelong ) philosophy of '' we only need to kick one more goal than the opposition'' has been taken in a negative light by some coaches. It can also mean ''we dont care how many they score because we believe we will kick one more than them''

Now uncontested possession is king and anything else is seen as bad. FFS the quickest way to beat a flood is to beat the runners, and the only way to do that is to get the ball in the area quicker than the runners.

How many times have I said ''tap to Edwards hands to Goodwin long kick into the forward line toa ''contested'' mark''

FFS trust the guys you have forward to either take the mark or to at least bring it to ground and have your crumbers work hard.

 

[marvin]

I'm surprised that Craig's match day coaching is a real issue here, because where we clearly stuffed up was in the pre-game planning:

• Not tagging West
• Our forward line at the start of the game was way too top heavy - Rutten + Bock + Welsh + Hentschel
• Starting Roo and Mattner on the bench

I know we went defensive in the 3rd term, but that seemed to be a decision made on the field as much as off it.

Apart from that, Craig has to get match day coaching points for turning a very ordinary first term into a lead by jiggling the structure.

 

[Crow-mo]

Apart from that, Craig has to get match day coaching points for turning a very ordinary first term into a lead by jiggling the structure.

agreed.

but does he then lose them as well?

 

[marvin]

agreed.

but does he then lose them as well?

Whoever made the call to go to tempo football, whether it was Craig or the players, deserves criticism. It was a bad call. And if the players made the call, and Craig didn't override it from the box, that is a bad call. So yes, he loses points.

It's a pet peeve of mine though that just about every loss we have, Craig gets criticised for being a poor match day coach on this board, but when we start like slugs and turn it around (Brisbane Sydney, Kangaroos home, Hawthorn) or when the other side adapts and we re-adapt (Kangaroos away) he doesn't get equivalent credit for making the necessary changes.

 

[Crow-mo]

Whoever made the call to go to tempo football, whether it was Craig or the players, deserves criticism. It was a bad call. And if the players made the call, and Craig didn't override it from the box, that is a bad call. So yes, he loses points.

It's a pet peeve of mine though that just about every loss we have, Craig gets criticised for being a poor match day coach on this board, but when we start like slugs and turn it around (Brisbane Sydney, Kangaroos home, Hawthorn) or when the other side adapts and we re-adapt (Kangaroos away) he doesn't get equivalent credit for making the necessary changes.

Sorry Marvin,

that seems to me you're dodging the issue. If you feel he is responsible for a turnaround, by all means bring it up and advance that point. Sometimes teams start slowly, it doesn't have to mean a great response in the box cause the fightback. it might have, and it might not.

however, in the gun, late in the game, the tide flowing against you, you must respond. when it is obviously not going your way, you must do something. when a mismatch is killing you, crossing your fingers is not enough. the argument, whether it is right or wrong - and I have my own view, is not about did he make the right moves, it is often about doing nothing at all.

just saying sometimes we start slowly, but then get going, as evidence of the contrary position is insufficient. sometimes doing nothing is enough, but it does not address the issue at hand. Unless you feel there is no issue to be addressed.

 

[The Crows Truth]

Whoever made the call to go to tempo football, whether it was Craig or the players, deserves criticism. It was a bad call. And if the players made the call, and Craig didn't override it from the box, that is a bad call. So yes, he loses points.

It's a pet peeve of mine though that just about every loss we have, Craig gets criticised for being a poor match day coach on this board, but when we start like slugs and turn it around (Brisbane Sydney, Kangaroos home, Hawthorn) or when the other side adapts and we re-adapt (Kangaroos away) he doesn't get equivalent credit for making the necessary changes.

well said couldnt agree more

 

[marvin]

that seems to me you're dodging the issue. If you feel he is responsible for a turnaround, by all means bring it up and advance that point. Sometimes teams start slowly, it doesn't have to mean a great response in the box cause the fightback. it might have, and it might not.

Yet the corollary appears to be true on this board - if somehow we don't fight back. that's because Craig is "not a great match day coach". Maybe there was a great response in the box, but the move didn't work because player X was just having a bad day.

however, in the gun, late in the game, the tide flowing against you, you must respond. when it is obviously not going your way, you must do something. when a mismatch is killing you, crossing your fingers is not enough. the argument, whether it is right or wrong - and I have my own view, is not about did he make the right moves, it is often about doing nothing at all.

So when the Bulldogs banged on 7 in a row, and looked to be running away with it, and the team abandoned the Tempo Football style, and the coach put Roo in the guts and we clawed back the lead temporarily - no credit ponts there?

just saying sometimes we start slowly, but then get going, as evidence of the contrary position is insufficient. sometimes doing nothing is enough, but it does not address the issue at hand. Unless you feel there is no issue to be addressed.

I certainly don't think there's as much of an issue as some would like to believe. To turn around your point from the Shirley debate on the other thread - are you in the box? Are you sure the coaches are doing nothing? It's not consistent to say that I as a spectator can't judge Shirley's performance because I don't know the instructions he's playing to, but that you as a spectator can judge Craig to be a poor match day coach without hearing what messages he's sent to the platers.

As I have said elsewhere, Scott Welsh nails that snap with 2 minutes to go, and we win the game. Goodwin gets acclaimed for getting us back into the game with an enormous last quarter and Neil Craig gets plaudits for the Crows stemming the tide and overcoming a 14 point deficit in the last 10 minutes. Scott Welsh misses, Goodwin is a disgrace for giving West so much latitude, and Craig is a poor match day coach.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Pivotal moment: Doughty's 3rd quarter mark on the back edge of the centre square. Instead of going back and taking his kick, he handballs to a teammate (Thompson?) surrounded by Bulldog opponents. The result of this stupidity is entirely obvious. The ball spilt free in the Dogs' favour and Cooney kicked the first of five consecutive Footscray goals.

We had them on the ropes with a margin of 30 points. Oh what could have been...

If one incident determines the result of the game, or is the turning point, then we must have had a fairly fragile grip on the game. Something was going to go wrong at some stage.

The example you used though has come up quite often over the last 2-3 weeks. It looks to me like we are trying desperately to generate some of our trademark run from half back. We were playing on and handballing at every opportunity, regardless of the pressure that was around us. It seemed like we were trying to recapture a bit of our dash but weren't picking and choosing the right time to do so. We looked like a team playing to instruction rather than playing instinctively.

Typically this happens when you are under pressure. Something that once seemed easy and happened naturally suddenly becomes the hardest thing in the world. Look at a golfer. When he is under the pump in a close finish he will worry about his grip, his stance, his swing etc. Hence the Greg Norman choke. When things are going well, when he is in the 'zone,' these things happen automatically, without conscious thought.

The trouble is, the worse you are performing the more you think about what you should be doing, rather than just playing on instinct.

 

[conVINCEd]

Come Qualifying Final #1, Simon Goodwin cannot be left responsible for restricting or even out-gunning a key opposition midfielder. He is simply incapable of it.

We have Shirly and Van Berlo in our team to play restricting roles. Other playes such as Doughty and even Edwards can also run-with opposition midfielders - this responsibility cannot be handed to Goodwin. I hope Craig realises this now.

We should have won the game v. the Dogs considering the lead we held. A number of times Grant was left with a smaller opponent in their forward line; why Bock and Rutten were both up forward at some stages was baffling. If Rutten is going to play up forward he needs to start in the goalsquare, not 25 metres out.

I was at the game and it was a great atmosphere and there were a heap of Crows fans. Brilliant turnout considering the Dogs low membership base.

We will still win the flag, I am putting some hard-earned down on it.

 

[James23]

Come Qualifying Final #1, Simon Goodwin cannot be left responsible for restricting or even out-gunning a key opposition midfielder. He is simply incapable of it.

We have Shirly and Van Berlo in our team to play restricting roles. Other playes such as Doughty and even Edwards can also run-with opposition midfielders - this responsibility cannot be handed to Goodwin. I hope Craig realises this now.

We should have won the game v. the Dogs considering the lead we held. A number of times Grant was left with a smaller opponent in their forward line; why Bock and Rutten were both up forward at some stages was baffling. If Rutten is going to play up forward he needs to start in the goalsquare, not 25 metres out.

I was at the game and it was a great atmosphere and there were a heap of Crows fans. Brilliant turnout considering the Dogs low membership base.

We will still win the flag, I am putting some hard-earned down on it.

i dont think u understand goodwins tagging roles.

goodwin is the one being tagged by opposition players, so therefore craig gets goodwin to counter this by getting goodwin to tag one of their guns, so therefore they have a tagger tagging our tagger who not only tags but gets the ball himself so effectively goodwin would have 2 oppononents freeing a teammate up elsewhere

 

[bigman]

If one incident determines the result of the game, or is the turning point, then we must have had a fairly fragile grip on the game. Something was going to go wrong at some stage.

The example you used though has come up quite often over the last 2-3 weeks. It looks to me like we are trying desperately to generate some of our trademark run from half back. We were playing on and handballing at every opportunity, regardless of the pressure that was around us. It seemed like we were trying to recapture a bit of our dash but weren't picking and choosing the right time to do so. We looked like a team playing to instruction rather than playing instinctively.

Typically this happens when you are under pressure. Something that once seemed easy and happened naturally suddenly becomes the hardest thing in the world. Look at a golfer. When he is under the pump in a close finish he will worry about his grip, his stance, his swing etc. Hence the Greg Norman choke. When things are going well, when he is in the 'zone,' these things happen automatically, without conscious thought.

The trouble is, the worse you are performing the more you think about what you should be doing, rather than just playing on instinct.

You have put down one of the issues facing the Crows magnifecently Carl. Well done!

I would also add like Triggy that we have lost that intensity for the moment that signalled our greatest triumphs this year and last. It is these days when you continually outnumber the opposition all over the ground and it looks as though we are playing with 23 and they are playing with 16 men.

This occurs because on these days the players are prepared to run so hard to outnumber the opposition. On these days the players are prepared to take risks and to leave their men. On these days we give the opposiiton no time and space in which to move and the opposition continually feels under pressure.

These are the days when you wax lryical about the quality of your side.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I would also add like Triggy that we have lost that intensity for the moment that signalled our greatest triumphs this year and last. It is these days when you continually outnumber the opposition all over the ground and it looks as though we are playing with 23 and they are playing with 16 men.

This occurs because on these days the players are prepared to run so hard to outnumber the opposition. On these days the players are prepared to take risks and to leave their men. On these days we give the opposiiton no time and space in which to move and the opposition continually feels under pressure.

These are the days when you wax lryical about the quality of your side.

Hard to put a finger on exactly why there are fluctuations in these areas - why players are prepared to run on some days and not on others. Bio-rhythms? I guess if you could figure that out you'd be a genius and would never lose.

I know that clubs track how far their players run as well as heart rates. I'd be interested to see which Crows players (if any) have dropped off in the ground they cover over the course of a game in the last few weeks. It would almost be worse if the players haven't dropped off in this area as it would mean that we are still running and working at 100% capacity but are running to the wrong spots. Much harder to fix.

 

[Crow-mo]

Yet the corollary appears to be true on this board - if somehow we don't fight back. that's because Craig is "not a great match day coach". Maybe there was a great response in the box, but the move didn't work because player X was just having a bad day.

just one minor move that no one noticed? that's not exactly a great response.

So when the Bulldogs banged on 7 in a row, and looked to be running away with it, and the team abandoned the Tempo Football style, and the coach put Roo in the guts and we clawed back the lead temporarily - no credit ponts there?

well if you're going to go down the 'temporary' route, where exactly would you draw the line. they've kicked the last 27 goals, but we've had the last 4 possessions off half back, that's a temporary comeback?

there are natural ebbs and flows in a game, when you start to look at 'temporary' revivals, it gets very difficult to start ascribing a cause and effect relationship. or simply, clutching at straws.

I certainly don't think there's as much of an issue as some would like to believe. To turn around your point from the Shirley debate on the other thread - are you in the box? Are you sure the coaches are doing nothing? It's not consistent to say that I as a spectator can't judge Shirley's performance because I don't know the instructions he's playing to, but that you as a spectator can judge Craig to be a poor match day coach without hearing what messages he's sent to the platers.

err? this is inconsistent and nonsensical. you're very confused on the causal relationships here. I cannot know whether those in coaching box, are considering moves, debating what to do (in fact they almost certainly do this) or what they are considering. But every supporter can see if they do something, just as they can see the need for response. what they cannot see in this situation is the discussion/process. very different things, to what you're suggesting.

As I have said elsewhere, Scott Welsh nails that snap with 2 minutes to go, and we win the game. Goodwin gets acclaimed for getting us back into the game with an enormous last quarter and Neil Craig gets plaudits for the Crows stemming the tide and overcoming a 14 point deficit in the last 10 minutes.

there's a lot of truth in what you say here, I personally agree with you. the focus of attention would be different, but the underlying would remain constant. the issues remain true.

Scott Welsh misses, Goodwin is a disgrace for giving West so much latitude, and Craig is a poor match day coach.

as they say, if a tree falls in the forest... (it still fell )

the accuracy of scott welsh's snap has no bearing on the underlying situation. none. it does have an affect on the causal relationship of scrutiny.

 

[Crow-mo]

If one incident determines the result of the game, or is the turning point, then we must have had a fairly fragile grip on the game. Something was going to go wrong at some stage.

exactly right.

 

[conVINCEd]

i dont think u understand goodwins tagging roles.

goodwin is the one being tagged by opposition players, so therefore craig gets goodwin to counter this by getting goodwin to tag one of their guns, so therefore they have a tagger tagging our tagger who not only tags but gets the ball himself so effectively goodwin would have 2 oppononents freeing a teammate up elsewhere

Sounds good in theory but it doesn't happen in reality.

Opposition coaches leave Goodwin accountable for their key midfielder, and that midfielder is as free as a bird.

 

[Vader]

Sounds good in theory but it doesn't happen in reality.

Opposition coaches leave Goodwin accountable for their key midfielder, and that midfielder is as free as a bird.

It happened for quite a while in the game against St Kilda. Goody effectively had two opponents, for at least the first quarter, allowing Reilly to run rampant (in what was probably his best game).