Jump to content

phoenix

Members
  • Content Count

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Excellent

About phoenix

Recent Profile Visitors

1,520 profile views
  1. Have Rohan Bail's telephone number tattooed on my forehead.
  2. Casey by a point and against the wind in the last.
  3. Casey haven't scored this quarter and lions draw level.
  4. Casey 7.9.51 v Coburg 6.2.38. McKenzie, Tapscott, Evans, Michie, Nicho all good. Blease lots of the ball but few if any contested possessions. Most MFC players in the game and contributing.
  5. Casey 4.6.30 to Coberg 2.0.12. Evans and Kent best for Casey. Casey kicked with a strong breeze that quarter.
  6. I don't know why you'd think poor management is "music to my ears". In fact I've haven't been this depressed about our current situation since the late 70's. I hate it. and I'm worried hence I've posted. I don't blame Neeld at all for instituting his game plan. He would have presented it and we had the option of accepting or rejecting his proposition. We accepted it and our best course now is to support Neeld to the hilt. Whilst I know the Geelong game plan is built on contested ball it's also fair to say it requires run and carry, risk taking, use of the corridor and precision kicking to execute. These are skills based charactistics. The Collingwood game plan is much more indirect, stoppage and congestion based. We recruited skillful footballers who were perceived to have good kicking skills to execute Bailey's plan. Neeld's plan, at least what we've seen of it, is much more long kicking to an area of the ground and create a contest. I think the fact that we've recruited Tynan, Couch, Sellar and Magner highllight Neeld's belief that we need a different sort of player to suit his plan. I understand Taggart is also in this mold but I've not seen him play. I think Sanderson would have been a better fit for our list and previous game plan given his Geelong background. That Neeld's line now that we don't measure ourselves by wins and McLardy's that he's not sure what's gone wrong concern me. I'm glad the overwhelming sentiment is support for Neeld. I also support him but to be honest I've serious reservations about the club and it's ability to make sound decisions. I'm not sure I can ever remember a FD being so divided as ours was last year and I can't recall a situation where the CEO was involved in the type of speculation Schwab was last year. It's those background management issues that make me question the coaching selection process. That others are happy with it and support it is good. I just don't share that confidence that we got the best fit for our club.
  7. As I said in that post "I suppose we'll now debate the example rather than the issue". Ben H and Old, the point I'm trying to explore is managements change of philosophy, not a debate on which game plan is right, which players are right or which coach is right. I can only explain their change by accepting they judged the Collingwood style to be better than the Geelong style and I don't know how you could bet 4 years development on that. And Old, the Geelong game last year was not representative of our season. We were 7.5 wins last year when Bailey was sacked with three wins in prospect despite the obvious flaws in our game. I doubt we'll get that this year with a team that includes Clark and a significant increase in FD personnel. Like McLardy, I can't explain that.
  8. Game plans are refined, ours was rebuilt. Neeld said as much in his presser after the Dogs game. “It was a really good contested brand of footy. We’re going through a stage of building a base and building blocks. “When you’re starting to build something from scratch, people tend to analyse the tiny little things that got away, but it’s a lot bigger than that,”
  9. Despite going to great efforts to explain that this is no criticism of Neeld it seems to have been interpreted as such. It's not. HT it's also got nothing to do with politics. It's got to do with decision making and why the club changed it's stance mid term. In 2007 and 2010 we pursued one course and in 2011 we changed. I think that was a mistake. It's not Neelds fault, it's got nothing to do with Adelaide's list or even the names of the coaches. Our list was being selected and trained to play a game plan. In 2011 this administration changed that midstream. It means that 4 years of player selection was on the wrong premise. For example Blease, Strauss and Bennell could well have missed our club and we could have gone for contested ball winners Shuey, Redden and Sloane. They would have suited the new game plan where the other three were selected for other reasons. I suppose we'll now debate the example rather than the issue, but that seems to be the way of it here. Like This "Strategy without tactics is the slowest way to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat"
  10. Nice summary, nothing to do with the OP.
  11. Your problem is that you're comparing lists and outcomes, I'm looking at the selection process of the coach and it's appropriateness which has got nothing to do with your focus. I hope you can see this.
  12. I don't agree. We know what Neeld has done so unless you think he didn't tell the coaching selection panel what he was going to do or even worse, they didn't ask his part is "known". We've seen what Sanderson's done at Adelaide. He has introduced a more attacking Geelong game plan so unless he was going to do something different at Melbourne we know what he would have done. IMO it was folly to throw out 4 years work and a very poor management decision. That's my point.
  13. In 2007, the then Gardner Board undertook a search for a new coach. They chose Bailey. Presumably during the interview process they established Bailey's football philosophy, game plan, strategies and measured those against the then "best practice". Bailey would have outlined the type of players that were needed to implement the strategy and then undertook the rebuild of a terrible list in conjunction with Cameron (2007) and Prendergast (2008 - 2011). In February 2010 the Stynes Board extended Bailey's contract by 12 months until the end of 2011. They had had the benefit of seeing Bailey in action for two years, had a chance to determine if his philosophies were sound and had seen how he managed the players and the other members of the club. Clearly they thought he was doing a good job and hence was extended on the back of 2 years "exposed form". in July of 2011, some 18 months after reviewing his performance and endorsing his direction they sacked him and undertook a search for a new coach. Among others Sanderson and Neeld applied at a time where Collingwood were seen as clearly the best side in the AFL. Sanderson would have come to interview and said "I've been at Geelong since 2007 and experience 2 GF victories and one defeat. Melbourne play a "Geelong" style of footy and I can take your group and build on what has been done since Bailey's appointment. It needs development but it's the same genre." Neeld would have come to interview and said "I've been at Collingwood since 2008 and I was involved in the 2010 GF. Collingwood are now the benchmark of the competition and it's game plan has superseded all others. It's designed on defence, stoppages and strength. Unfortunately your recruiting and coaching for the last 4 years is contrary to this game plan and I'll have to go back to square 1, rebuild your list and completely deconstruct the game plan. It will most likely take 3 to 5 years to build a list capable of competing at the top level. The last 4 years have been a waste." History now shows us that Geelong beat Collingwood in the 2011 GF and there game plan is being copied by most teams with the centre corridor being used much more frequently. Why did the current administration abandon 4 years of work and pain and opt for a complete rebuild last year when there was an equally well credentialed coach who could have taken that previous work and developed it? The only reason I can think of is they didn't believe the Geelong game plan could stand up. To make that decision a sophisticated understanding of game plans and the future direction of the game would be critical. And guess what, there wasn't a coach on our selection panel just a couple of Board members, a footy commentator who hasn't coached and an administrator. IMO Sanderson was clearly the correct choice because he would have develop and used philosophies based on Geelong and endorsed by the very people who extended Bailey contract and run our club now. Neeld was a knee jerk reaction to copy the team of the moment but which ended up failing in September and are struggling now. Our management panicked and abandoned their 4 year strategy and we are now back to square one where we don't even measure our performance by wins (Neeld presser after Bulldogs) and a President who by his own admission has got no idea why things have gone so wrong. Encouraging isn't it! Clarification: This is in no way a criticism of Neeld, it is a critique of the management flip flop that has given us the laughing stock of the competition and consigned us to yet another rebuild.
×
×
  • Create New...