It's not 'kind of like that' at all. What a ridiculous equivalency.

And we get the point - we don't think it is a good one.

Who is this "we" you speak of rpfc? Seems an odd use of that pronoun. Is there some thought governing cabal around here that posters should be aware of?

Who is this "we" you speak of rpfc? Seems an odd use of that pronoun. Is there some thought governing cabal around here that posters should be aware of?

Yeah, it's called the League of Sane Posters.

Hey does anyone remember drawing and losing by a point to the eventual premiers last year

Or getting very close to the dogs and Freo in WA

What about 3 wins in a row that included a 73 point victory

I swear some people have been asleep since 2008 when Bailey starting gutting a horrible list and filling it with high draft picks and good recruits

Yeah, it's called the League of Sane Posters.

Righto then, I'm signing up for the League of Insane Geniuses!

Hey does anyone remember drawing and losing by a point to the eventual premiers last year

Or getting very close to the dogs and Freo in WA

What about 3 wins in a row that included a 73 point victory

I swear some people have been asleep since 2008 when Bailey starting gutting a horrible list and filling it with high draft picks and good recruits

Yeah, but we recruited women like Watts so...

Yeah, but we recruited women like Watts so...

the player in question had almost zero to do with the above accomplishments, are you debating that? Morton is not looking all that hot either but apart from that we've done really well with our list management under Bailey, particularly trading for Gysberts/Grimes, Jurrah, McKenzie, Joel M etc etc

i'll just comment on what actually happens on the field and leave the mindless speculation and forecasting to you thanks. When he actually gets out there and plays like a #1 draft pick, the way Tom Scully does, i'll acknowledge it, but unlike yourself i'm not just going to pretend that I know for a fact it is going to happen in 5 years (or whatever infinite time period you seem to be permitting him) because I just got back from 2015 in my DeLorean and saw him win the coleman

I would remind posters that Geelong's approach throughout the second half of the decade was to focus on "getting the processes right". This has become an awful cliche in modern footy but does point to the fact that recently successful teams, including Geelong, St.Kilda and Collingwood are very deliberate and methodical in the way they build their foundation. "Winning quarters", "getting structures right", "getting KPIs trending upwards" and all that stuff, seem to be the emphasis. As much as it may be annoying to hear this stuff when the team has lost, it doesn't worry us when they win, in fact it reassures us that the FD are in control and heading in the right direction. Bailey is a very cool operator. he seems in control 100% of the time. This is a good thing. If the team performance and game day tactics don't come up to expectations this year then I'll review my opinion.

Edited March 15, 201114 yr by btdemon

I would remind posters that Geelong's approach throughout the second half of the decade was to focus on "getting the processes right". This has become an awful cliche in modern footy but does point to the fact that recently successful teams, including Geelong, St.Kilda and Collingwood are very deliberate and methodical in the way they build their foundation. "Winning quarters", "getting structures right", "getting KPAs trending upwards" and all that stuff, seem to be the emphasis. As much as it may be annoying to hear this stuff when the team has lost, it doesn't worry us when they win, in fact it reassures us that the FD are in control and heading in the right direction. Bailey is a very cool operator. he seems in control 100% of the time. This is a good thing. If the team performance and game day tactics don't come up to expectations this year then I'll review my opinion.

I have to put myself in the camp of people that don't like the "winning more quarters" analogy.

I agree it's important to set goals and reset, and quarters are an easy and logical way to do that. So I think it's OK to goal set, but as a KPI, I think it measures very little.

One of the biggest problem young sides have is stopping a run on. So we can be good for three quarters of a game, and in one quarter have 8 goals to zip kicked on us. Look at Q3 vs Hawks last week. So in theroy, we can win 3 quarters and lose games. Have we "won" because we won more quarters? Or there's a wind or 2 injuries, so losing a quarter by only a couple of points may in fact be a good result.

The biggest weakness with counting quarters won is that, even in our terrible years, we would win quite a few second halves (basically Robbo would kick his 5 in junk time!). Problem was, those second halves were uncompetitive because the opposition had won the game by quarter time. So I am far more interested in competing well in the heat of a game than in junk time.

I would remind posters that Geelong's approach throughout the second half of the decade was to focus on "getting the processes right". This has become an awful cliche in modern footy but does point to the fact that recently successful teams, including Geelong, St.Kilda and Collingwood are very deliberate and methodical in the way they build their foundation. "Winning quarters", "getting structures right", "getting KPAs trending upwards" and all that stuff, seem to be the emphasis. As much as it may be annoying to hear this stuff when the team has lost, it doesn't worry us when they win, in fact it reassures us that the FD are in control and heading in the right direction. Bailey is a very cool operator. he seems in control 100% of the time. This is a good thing. If the team performance and game day tactics don't come up to expectations this year then I'll review my opinion.

exactly, on the drive home from that smashing of Sydney, I didn't hear anyone on the commentary team or on talkback talking about how they don't like the things Baileys says. All I heard was talk of multiple premierships looming FCS

the player in question had almost zero to do with the above accomplishments, are you debating that? Morton is not looking all that hot either but apart from that we've done really well with our list management under Bailey, particularly trading for Gysberts/Grimes, Jurrah, McKenzie, Joel M etc etc

i'll just comment on what actually happens on the field and leave the mindless speculation and forecasting to you thanks. When he actually gets out there and plays like a #1 draft pick, the way Tom Scully does, i'll acknowledge it, but unlike yourself i'm not just going to pretend that I know for a fact it is going to happen in 5 years (or whatever infinite time period you seem to be permitting him) because I just got back from 2015 in my DeLorean and saw him win the coleman

Please do.

I'd like to win the i50 count.

....

Neat article attached says we defend from too far back. I actually agree with that. We are so slow from kick ins and rebounds that other teams can zone up before we clear the area. Big focus needs to be on first give BUT going forward. None of this backwards crud.

Fwd starvation

The "i50 count" is the one single stat that will tell us more than any other how we're going in 2011. Our success depends entirely on how much ball we get inside 50.

Even better would be the "percentage-for-and-against i50 count", which could be compared to our percentage (score). If our "%-i50" is a lot less than our percentage on the ladder, it means the forwards are doing well from limited supply and the mids need to win more ball. That's probably what happened in 2010.

That's what the article means - not that we're slow from kick-ins so much that our midfield defensive pressure is lousy, and we depend on winning contests inside our defensive 50 rather than in the midfield. We need to win more turnovers - and more contested ball - in the midfield.

And that's also why opposition coaches will put a hard tag on Scully, but won't bother to tag Moloney.

I have to put myself in the camp of people that don't like the "winning more quarters" analogy.

I agree it's important to set goals and reset, and quarters are an easy and logical way to do that. So I think it's OK to goal set, but as a KPI, I think it measures very little.

One of the biggest problem young sides have is stopping a run on. So we can be good for three quarters of a game, and in one quarter have 8 goals to zip kicked on us. Look at Q3 vs Hawks last week. So in theroy, we can win 3 quarters and lose games. Have we "won" because we won more quarters? Or there's a wind or 2 injuries, so losing a quarter by only a couple of points may in fact be a good result.

The biggest weakness with counting quarters won is that, even in our terrible years, we would win quite a few second halves (basically Robbo would kick his 5 in junk time!). Problem was, those second halves were uncompetitive because the opposition had won the game by quarter time. So I am far more interested in competing well in the heat of a game than in junk time.

That is another one of the 'mindless, repititions of Bailey' - to stop the the times when we are getting flogged.

Minimise consecutive goals against.

There are a myriad of KPIs that the FD has, and people are picking this one out because they unthinkingly equate trying to win 'quarters' as tacitly allowing losses if you 'square' the quarters won column.

And I think that is not a very well thought through notion, to say the least.

Edited March 15, 201114 yr by rpfc

The "i50 count" is the one single stat that will tell us more than any other how we're going in 2011. Our success depends entirely on how much ball we get inside 50.

Even better would be the "percentage-for-and-against i50 count", which could be compared to our percentage (score). If our "%-i50" is a lot less than our percentage on the ladder, it means the forwards are doing well from limited supply and the mids need to win more ball. That's probably what happened in 2010.That's what the article means - not that we're slow from kick-ins so much that our midfield defensive pressure is lousy, and we depend on winning contests inside our defensive 50 rather than in the midfield. We need to win more turnovers - and more contested ball - in the midfield.

And that's also why opposition coaches will put a hard tag on Scully, but won't bother to tag Moloney.

And another Bailey KPI that he has harped on about.

What a [censored] he is, having the crazy notion that concentrating on a few simple stats as indicators of improved performance would actually help improve performance.

That is another one of the 'mindless, repititions of Bailey' - to stop the the times when we are getting flogged.

Minimise consecutive goals against.

There are a myriad of KPIs that the FD has, and people are picking this one out because they unthinkingly equate trying to win 'quarters' as tacitly allowing losses if you 'square' the quarters won column.

And I think that is not a very well thought through notion, to say the least.

Yeh, obviously they have many many KPIs. I have no issue with that. The only issue I really have is the repetition of the mantra about winning more quarters. I actually think the mantra of repeating any single stat is meaningless and over-simplified.

Another good example is the I50 count: Posters here are just so wrong about that metric. I would rather be efficient than get it inside 50 more often. Remember, winning sides only kick 14 - 16 goals a game on average. So if we are going inside 50 40 times efficiently, and keeping the ball in there, it is more important than pumping it in there 60 times and having it turn over. Most goals in modern footy actually come from turnovers. So "getting the ball into 50" is not that meaningful. Not to mention, the 50 is just paint. Why is that important and not 60? or 40? Because there's paint there?

Yeh, obviously they have many many KPIs. I have no issue with that. The only issue I really have is the repetition of the mantra about winning more quarters. I actually think the mantra of repeating any single stat is meaningless and over-simplified.

Another good example is the I50 count: Posters here are just so wrong about that metric. I would rather be efficient than get it inside 50 more often. Remember, winning sides only kick 14 - 16 goals a game on average. So if we are going inside 50 40 times efficiently, and keeping the ball in there, it is more important than pumping it in there 60 times and having it turn over. Most goals in modern footy actually come from turnovers. So "getting the ball into 50" is not that meaningful. Not to mention, the 50 is just paint. Why is that important and not 60? or 40? Because there's paint there?

Because you would prefer it there than at the other end...

Now we are to the I50 one?!

That's a good one. We let Essendon have 60 a couple weeks ago, and had only 35 ourselves.

!!

Efficiency can be the problem of Mahoney, although we are reasonably efficient.

Quantity is the problem of the midfield - they are lazy, and easily bullied into submission, and they are also young and inexperienced.

But the amount of footy our backline sees is a problem, and getting and keeping the ball in our forward half is the next big challenge for this side.

It's a huge hurdle.

Edited March 15, 201114 yr by rpfc

Please do.

let me know who wins the 2015 Melbourne Cup so I can back it in yeah cheers

Righto then, I'm signing up for the League of Insane Geniuses!

Sorry, we're not accepting new members at this point in time.

let me know who wins the 2015 Melbourne Cup so I can back it in yeah cheers

Shut-the-frack-up.

By a nose...

(Taking the [censored])

True. And I've got to say I agree with you Range Rover, and also think that a lot of the posters who have had a go at you have missed your point.

No one is saying that winning more quarters is a bad thing, or that winning more quarters doesn't make it statistically more likely you'll win more games. What Range Rover (I believe) is saying is simply that won quarters are a fairly obscure and potentially deceptive statistic, so are not something a coach should be priding their self on or focusing on for an upcoming season. Kind of like if Bailey came out and said his aim for the year was to kick more goals from outside 50 towards the punt rd end of the MCG - sure, that will help, but it's surely not what we're about as a club.

I'll also note that the other AFL coach who seems most keen on discussing won quarters is Damien Hardwick. Draw whatever conclusions you want from that.

Well said the both of you - this quarters crap is Bailey-speak for we lost the game but .. Let's hope there's more talk about good starts and games won !

I'm shocked more people don't recognise the genius of Bailey's method.

Dividing the game up into easily manageable packages of work, to maintain the players focus.

Young players who are inexperienced and need to maintain their focus with a simple methodical system of achieving goals.

Nowhere did Bailey ever say "just focus on winning 3 of the 4 quarters," he has said (paraphrasing) "focus on winning each and every quarter in isolation as an achievable goal."

This makes the players maintain an even focus, rather than riding the rollercoaster of emotions in an entire match.

Focusing on the quarter at hand and winning that means that they are not focusing on (as an example) having lost the last quarter by 8 goals & they are not distracted by the enormity of the task ahead, of getting back into the game.

If they then knuckle down & win the next 3 quarters by 3 goals each, the game is won.

I'm not sure how it has slipped through the net, but Paul Roos has always had a similar philosophy in terms of playing the game.

He doesn't word it the same way, but it is almost identical.

And the hallmark of his teams has been a tough consistent unflinching effort across an entire match.

I think the only reason anyone doesn't understand this is due to their own inability to comprehend.

Well said the both of you - this quarters crap is Bailey-speak for we lost the game but .. Let's hope there's more talk about good starts and games won !

Starts?!!

There you go again with the excuses for Bailey...

What does it matter how we start if the middle and end isn't good?!!

I'm sick of hearing about starts!!

And wins!!

All I want is Bailey to say 'we are going to win the flag!' and go out and do it!!

Well said the both of you - this quarters crap is Bailey-speak for we lost the game but .. Let's hope there's more talk about good starts and games won !

Maybe this is the crux of the issue..?

Some posters understand the reasoning for Bailey's approach and applaud it.

Others want to have a whinge because after a loss they don't hear the soundbites they are gagging for.

Completely different topics, yet perplexingly the same.

Edited March 15, 201114 yr by Keyser Söze

Starts?!!

There you go again with the excuses for Bailey...

What does it matter how we start if the middle and end isn't good?!!

I'm sick of hearing about starts!!

And wins!!

All I want is Bailey to say 'we are going to win the flag!' and go out and do it!!

Personally, I think to stop at winning games as the aim is micromanagement of our goals.

Even premierships is too close-minded.

He should go into the huddle and the sole priority should be a decade of abject domination.

Anything less and he has to go.

I can imagine Bailey now talking to the boys:

"Grimes, you need to stop being so undisciplined or this run will end at only 3 premierships. Stay tight on Dangerfield in this quarter, and on LeCras next week, Monfries the week after, but then I want you to play as a loose man against the Lions and really drive the ball forward. Stop focusing so much on the task at hand and look further ahead.

Boys - kick more goals and let less in. Simple. Run it every chance you get, although, bear in mind against the Swans in 6 weeks they'll slow it down and try to create stoppages.

Be prepared for that. And in 3 years we expect Collingwood will change their gameplan, so be ready for it.

... Kick it long."

Instead of all the stats KISS, why dont we apply pressure all over the ground/opposition and be HARD at it. Rewards will come and I think we would win a few games then!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go HARD Dees. (for 4 quarters)

Winning flags is all that really matters. Why not take it up another whole level? Bailey shouldn't talk about winning contests, winning quarters or winning games. Just talk about winning flags. "We're aiming to win 0 flags this year"