Review When does the Penny drop for Sando

[Wood_Duck]

This is 100% on the coaches box. What a balls-up. You don't send a generic message to a "group" of players, unless it's something like, there's two minutes to go, or, change the tempo of the game.

Its hard to believe the forward coach didn't say " erm excuse me Brenton, but we have Deledio loose in our forward line, I think this is going to be a fluck up and I sincerely request you do something about it or I am going to look like an idiot."

 

[Wood_Duck]

Yep. It's fairly simple to send a runner out to Matty Wright with the message: "Get on Deledio, shut him down and kick a couple yourself." They could have even thrown Patty onto him to make Deledio crap himself at suddenly having responsibility for our gun player.

But no. Instead we got "how about you guys sort it out amongst yourselves and let us know in the Monday morning review meeting how you get on."

They were waiting til half time so they could draw straws.

 

[jenny61_99]

Good point I reckon. It's only natural that Craig would have had a significant impact on Bickley, Clarke, Campo. Clarke churned out a few Neil Craig specials on the radio this morning (fierce determination was in there). When under pressure, you go back to what you know.

Wood Duck is spot on. Need more fresh blood in the coaching box.

I was worried when I heard Sando saying stuff like "the effort is there, but not the intensity" - which is Craig-speak nothingness.

To be fair to Sando, (and Craig!) ALL coaches have platitudes, particularly when things aren't going well. There must be a coaching manual where they can find phrases to use when you lose games.

 

[Mattrox]

I like a coach that can hold his nerve in the box.

Vader can this be merged with the penny drop thread?

The issue with me is that he backs in his players slightly too long. I think it might be a Geelong thing, because they had players you could do that with.

The tough part is discerning how long is too long. I know he wants to have faith in his playing group, but there are too many inexperienced blokes and senior players down on form. That combination is dangerous.

I also had the evil thought that he is exposing player's weaknesses. This way he can tell it straight to the selection panel that certain players are not up to it. And to get the list of tradable players ready.

 

[cmndstab]

Our coaches box got excited because we won those matches, rather than the other way around.

Our problems would need to run 100 deep before this was an issue.

 

[SugarShane]

I think the fact he doesn't have any tattoos is more likely to be the problem.

 

[Mattrox]

I think the fact he doesn't have any tattoos is more likely to be the problem.

LOL at the 5AA caller saying we are not hard enough at the ball because we don't have tatts.

Rooch asked "How do you explain Dangerfield and Sloane"

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

To be fair to Sando, (and Craig!) ALL coaches have platitudes, particularly when things aren't going well. There must be a coaching manual where they can find phrases to use when you lose games.

That's true. I'm sure there are times (many of them) where the coach doesn't want to answer a question so gives a 'stock' answer. But it's hard to tell the difference between those times and when they give a stock answer as a defence mechanism because they don't know.

Robert Shaw was honest ("I'm mystified" was his stock answer) and was gone soon after.

 

[cmndstab]

Stagnant. Too stagnant.

I'm starting to think you might be bias against poor English speakers!

 

[Frank Deville]

Out of Left Field​

As the Chinese saying goes, ‘Every crisis presents an opportunity’ so forget what Neil Craig says about changing the way a team plays mid-season being “very difficult”. If this isn’t a crisis I don’t know what is (even Sloane looks tired and jaded) but the bye gives us 1-2 weeks to “re-invent” ourselves as a team, so let’s start with a clean sheet of paper. Or go ask Blighty...

Part A. A few observations and suggestions for consideration​

1. The AFL itself has a problem in that the game itself is too demanding (ref. recent comments from senior Hawthorn players and David Parkin). Heavy rotations are supposed to ameliorate this (partly by reducing soft-tissue injuries thereby lengthening playing careers) which is fine, but everything comes at a cost:

a) It’s an unbalanced solution because it unfair on players who aren’t rotated as much,

b) It exacerbates the ‘fierceness at the contest’ obsession which (no-brainer) increases injuries, which is not what anyone wants to see and not a ‘good look’ for the game either.
c) It over-emphasizes, i) adherence to the ‘game plan’ (to the detriment of playing flair i.e. the expression of natural talent) and ii) ‘aerobic capacity’ (as if footy was a horse-race. Platten’s ’run-all-day’ style was incredible, but now too many players are expected to do this, whereas coaches came to expect this of Platts - not the other way round. Ditto Graham Cornes and playing on ALL the time (well almost).
2. The ‘winning ugly’ philosophy of Ross Lyons is (no-brainer) a blight on the game. For various reasons, our game is inherently more attractive than ‘the beautiful game’ (i.e. soccer). Allowing only one or two interchange players (yellow vest) and two subs (red vests) would help to redress this problem.
3. Similarly, while the ‘full forward press’ and ‘full back press’ are manifestations of intelligent and innovative coaching, they take advantage of this unbalance to the detriment of both the game and the players.
4. Devolution of the game due to political correctness e.g. ‘ducking the head’ is rewarded more than penalized. Ditto ‘diving’ forward with the ball is also drawing more frees as is a player ‘holding his ground’ as opposed to pushing away an opponent. Some umpiring has improved (e.g. the spoil to the head is almost gone), but common sense dictates that the AFL needs to fix what it already has before introducing more rules - with the possible exception of reducing the number of players from 18 to 16 as many have suggested.
5. Politics is about who decides - you can’t take politics out of football anymore than you can hope to eliminate the ‘political football’ from politics itself. The AFC should be pro-actively involved in these policy discussions in order to help determine the best ‘stage’ on which our players ‘perform’.

Part B. The tail that wagged the dog.​

Irreverence and laconic wit are hallmarks of the Australian character e.g. the classic graffiti response to the question, “What would you do if God came to Hawthorn today?” Answer: “Move Peter Hudson to Centre Half-forward”.
It is in this spirit that I offer the following serious suggestion to the AFC:

Shift Daniel Talia to Centre Half-forward next week.​

( As Sam Kekovitch would say, “You know it makes sense!” )​

​

* * *​

 

[JP Sauce]

LOL at the 5AA caller saying we are not hard enough at the ball because we don't have tatts.

Rooch asked "How do you explain Dangerfield and Sloane"

Haha, tatts stopped meaning "tough guy" ages ago.

 

[Jack is Back]

Then Richmond changed it up by having Deledio across half back.

Rooch queried why did it take a quarter and a half to do something about it and Clarke said that the very first message of the game that went out was to the forwards, telling them that Deledio was now their No 1 defensive target and that they needed to round him up.

He said the responsibility wasn't directed to a single player, but to the forward line as a group. Eg whoever Deledio lined up on was responsible for making him accountable. Obviously didn't happen.

This explanation doesn't make sense. I only saw the game on tv so it is tricky speaking with authority about how each team lined up (were you at the MCG, Spackler). At the start of the game the fox commentators said that Richmond had lined up with 7 players in defence. We could either add an extra man to our forwards or decide who we didn't want as the loose man.

If you don't want Deledio to be running around like an unregistered dog then you play a defensive forward on him.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

This explanation doesn't make sense. I only saw the game on tv so it is tricky speaking with authority about how each team lined up (were you at the MCG, Spackler). At the start of the game the fox commentators said that Richmond had lined up with 7 players in defence. We could either add an extra man to our forwards or decide who we didn't want as the loose man.

If you don't want Deledio to be running around like an unregistered dog then you play a defensive forward on him.

No they didn't, and the commentators didn't say that either.

Have a gander at the first 5 seconds of the game. You'll see Deledio's "missing" opponent charging into the centre square from the wing.

That said, our decision not to man up Deledio after it was obvious in the first minute that he would dominate was diabolical.