Over-reaction?

[jayceebee31 761]

Ironic I think, that all those criticising this thread are the soft ones.

They can't bear to watch a tough defeat without freaking out and declaring the coach and half the players should be sacked.

Instead I take a pragmatic view.

Bad losses happen, to good teams.

I'm not sure what you expected from a bad team clearly still in a development phase.

Find some spine.

I have never ever heard the term a tough defeat when the looser was totally insipid.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Thanks guys, much appreciated.

There are times when I've wavered myself, questioning whether I'm being too patient and just ignoring warning signs as the house burns down around me.

I think that is natural, it will continue to happen, and the questioning, rather than unwavering belief is what makes me believe I am right.

This side has been built on sound principles, with clear and deep analysis of past winners.

Contrary to popular belief at the moment, we do have some of the greatest young minds in football at our club.

I saw the plan to turnover the list as it was put into action, and condoned it at the time, as many here would have.

I still do, and I understand we are seeing the after-effects of what we did.

It seems many wish ignore the "growing" phase and expect us to make the leap to "condensers" instantaneously.

I think all the evidence points to the opposite, but also that we will get there.

We'll get there with TIME and GAMES being put into our young players (to steal a line from Bailey).

Gysberts, for example, has looked fantastic in some of his small collection of games so far.

But he is still lightly built and a kid who will have off days as he learns to deal with the opposition learning his game and his weaknesses, falls for the tricks of experienced players, experiences fluctuations in form, motivation and confidence.

This is natural for a young kid. And we have quite a few of them.

Beginning to look more physically mature is only half of it.

Anyway, I look at the evidence, and I think supporters expectations are too high.

Dean does a fantastic job of remaining even and positive, which I think is important for the development of our kids.

A culture is BEING formed at the club, and tough losses are not detrimental to that - they happen to all young teams and are actually important for a teams development.

It's the response to adversity, the mental approach to the game, the learning how to fight through adversity - these will build a strong culture.

I'm rambling, but right now I see in Bailey what we need in a coach for the players development.

The gameplan is another issue, and one I am torn on.

[rpfc 28,430]

careful here deejammim, you're getting too logical

remember "Perception, whether correct or not, rules on this forum"

Well the 'perception' on Land is pretty much with DJ...

I really don't know where the 'apologists' are? Artie Bucco (who reads a lot like KS - without the acidic one-liners) would be close to the lazy and feckless term, but at least he attempts to back up his posts with some argument.

I think the median view on this forum - from those posting and not posting at the moment (don't blame you - it ain't fun the way we are travelling) - is that we are not showing signs of improvement, Bailey and the FD are under pressure, there is a lot of BS from the media that we are eating up like wild boars.

[daisycutter 29,616]

Artie I'm afraid you miss the point of this forum. This is not a forum to discuss ideas, search for reasoned argument, share an (internet) drink with fellow Demon supporters who, like you, are struggling with the realization of our position, it is for the disappointed and bitter to join together and form facebook pages calling for the coach to be sacked, the players to be vilified, our culture to be rubbished and our jumper criticized.

You've made the mistake of coming here with a different view, one that recognizes that in our quest for a flag, which is probably 80 games away, a pathetic quarter against WC is not grounds for ripping up the groundwork that has been laid over the last three years but an unpleasant reality of what some of those 80 games will provide.

Didn't you realize that by coming on here and presenting these ideas the torchbearers would reject your ideas and accuse accuse you of being an apologist? You've held it together really well not to descend into the inevitable pit of conflict that keeps the disillusioned happy and who have now started to accuse you of dishonesty when you say you saw the WC result coming.

To my way of thinking you talk a lot of sense and bring a different perspective but too few like minded reasonable thinkers have the energy or desire to march with you and I fear you will find you are throwing seed on barren ground.

The other thing that you'll find is that people here think their opinion makes a difference and because they feel so passionately about certain issues are threatened by alternative views and analysis. Of course the only impact of the "facebook" torchbearers is to make our club look like a rabble in the eye's of the footy world and give fodder to the journo's who's annual sport is "trash a club".

But that's the nature of internet forums and when you consider the nature of what makes them up it's not surprising. Keep punching if you have the energy but recognize that by repeating well reasoned arguments to people who don't want to consider or explore alternatives you threaten them and they fight. You've made you're points wonderfully this week and there are a great many who will have sat back and appreciated your thoughts, they just don't have the energy to get involved in a inevitability futile fight against those who don't want to consider other perspectives.

You'll probably now see the torchbearers come onto this thread and say that people like you and I have our head in the sand without realizing we also recognize we have issues to address and that we are just doing it in a different way.

that must be a heavy chip there snoop

I thinketh the poster dost protesteth too much

[Bonkers 994]

Why is it that when logical reasons are presented they are branded excuses?

Cause and effect.

That was the relevance of me saying I predicted the result.

Because it wasn't just retrospective searching for excuses; they were reasons why a poor result could have been reasonably expected.

I think the onus might even be on you to explain why you think we shouldn't have failed in any of those areas?

What makes you think we are so good that we should have succeeded?

We are a young, inexperienced, inconsistent, physically under-developed team with poor senior leadership.

But I'll try to answer you.

- many teams struggle against a defensive zone, this is why the majority of teams employ them. Why should we be any different, especially considering the qualities of our list that I just mentioned?

- Some have been calling for Paul Roos to be installed as coach. Read his HeraldSun article about beating the press when kicking in. His solution is to do exactly what Bailey had us do against the Eagles. He even went on to explain that is what Essendon has done so well in combatting it, and that this is helped by their many tall targets at kick-ins (Hille, Ryder, Bellchambers etc.). We had just Jamar.

- I'm going to address the last few with something that I've already said and that still applies to the above points -- we are not a good team.

We are a team full of talented kids that need to develop and average senior players that have shown poor leadership.

As a result, some of the things we've tried to do aren't working.

They will work sometimes, but not consistently, likely until most of the kids become middle-age players.

A magic wand hasn't been waved and turned us into a contender in 12 months.

The kids won't be playing like 100 gamers until SHOCK! they are 100 gamers.

You have supplied your reasons why you believe the loss happened the way it did against WCE. Your first reason being WCE are bigger bodied is valid in terms of contested possession. Your next point was that due to us being a young team we don't travel well. Well to you that may be a valid reason, but to me that is just an excuse & poor mental application. After talk of taking it up to the WCE in the lead up to the game it ended up being exactly that, talk & total embarrassment.

You listed your most glaring factors.

-We were bound to be flat after the bye: I don't know how we were bound to be flat. We had a week and a half to prepare mentally & physically. If they weren't ready to turn up & play the only excuse can be poor preparation, poor mental application or poor team structure.

-We previously played the easy beats of the comp: Sorry but no matter who you played the previous week as a professional unit you are expected to turn up and perform the following week. You stated it yourself that there was a mental effect detrimental to the teams performance the following week. I don't know about you but I would have thought being professionals they would be able to get themselves in the right frame of mind physically & mentally to perform each & every week. If they aren't capable of doing this then questions have to be asked of the players & coaches who are in charge of motivating them. Going by your logic because we played a really really tough team in the Hawks the week before playing Brisbane, we should have been switched on to play well in the first quarter against Brisbane. Well that didn't happen either.

You then went on to state that we will be judged by how we perform this Sunday against the Crows. I'll be judging the teams performance based on collectively what I see throughout the year. So far I haven't seen too much encouragement.

You asked me to explain why we shouldn't have failed in the list that I supplied to you. Fair call & I will.

My first point was regarding moving the ball through a defensive zone & this goes hand in hand with the third point I made about being able to implement a zone. You stated that it is an effective way of implementing pressure. That most teams are employing the forward press/zone & most teams struggle against them. You have just proved my point. If is is an effective way of creating pressure why isn't the playing group able to put it in place when almost every other club in the league is capable of it & Essendon has mastered it in the space of 4-5 months. The fact that we are a young, inexperienced, inconsistent & a physically under-developed team has nothing to do with the fact that the coaching staff have failed to teach the players how to implement this tactic. Unless you are stating that our playing group is mentally impaired all players on the list should be capable of setting up this zone, knowing where to stand & understanding what their role is. That is part of being a disciplined unit. If you are able to practice implementing a zone as a team then you are also able to practice moving the ball through a zone. It is pretty obvious we are deficient at doing this, which leads me to believe the players aren't being taught it. This has nothing to do with being young & inexperienced.

My second point was regarding kick ins. You talked about how Paul Roos has stated that the right way to go about kick ins is effectively what we are doing but we only have Jamar. It's up to the coaching staff to provide another option. For example that option may be that Jamar, Martin & Watts all run to the same side of the ground & contest for the same ball if we are outnumbered. This will at least create a contest in a group/pack rather than being outnumbered each time. Having numbers at Jamar's feet to lock it in would also be a help if we are going to employ this method.

So onto my fourth point regarding pushing players up the ground & leaving no forward options to kick to. You stated that we are not a good team. Do you mean we aren't a good team in the sense that we are poorly skilled? How does this have anything to do with knowing where to stand, run or make position? That is all to do with what they are being taught. Their instinct is to flood the back line rather than work hard & create options forward of the ball.

The last point that I made was regarding contested possession. You are accurate in stating that age, size, experience can effect this part of our game. What you haven't mentioned is that the way the team is set up to play also influences this. For example if the team is setup to employ a forward press (which we aren't) the team is automatically going to increase its tackle count & inside 50 count. The increase in tackles is going to increase your contested possessions. Tell me what part of being young & inexperienced is stopping the team from creating pressure in the forward half of the ground? That is purely coaching & the way they have been taught to setup.

I'm not expecting a magic wand & I don't expect this team to be a contender. What I do expect is the team to be structured enough to get the best out of themselves. That comes from the coaching & individual player preparation. It's clear from the performances this year that the best possible performance from this playing group is not being met.

[Jaded No More 68,915]

There will always be those who over and under react to things.

From my point of view though, I have never been less passionate about this club. Even in our dark years of 2007-2010 I felt more excitement than I do right now.

I will of course continue to support this club and go to games every week but right now, it's only because I feel obligated to do so. I'm not someone who runs away or gives up when things get hard, but right now I'm somewhere between don't care and meh about 2011 and beyond. Hopefully this club can do something in the near future that will raise the excitement level of all jaded (pardon the pun) supporters.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Not sure if anybody saw the Kangaroos torn about by Geelong this afternoon, but they were no less insipid than us against the Eagles...

What does that say for Brad Scott's coaching ability?

[45HG 1,539]

Not sure if anybody saw the Kangaroos torn about by Geelong this afternoon, but they were no less insipid than us against the Eagles...

What does that say for Brad Scott's coaching ability?

They were better than we were - easily - against a better team.

Speak to me in a week.

[Sir Why You Little 37,036]

Not sure if anybody saw the Kangaroos torn about by Geelong this afternoon, but they were no less insipid than us against the Eagles...

What does that say for Brad Scott's coaching ability?

Sorry Artie, i don't buy that...10 mins before half time it was a goal the difference. 29-35 i remember because that's when i switched on the TV.

So you are only kidding yourself if you think we were at that level in Perth.

[daisycutter 29,616]

Not sure if anybody saw the Kangaroos torn about by Geelong this afternoon, but they were no less insipid than us against the Eagles...

What does that say for Brad Scott's coaching ability?

Dunno, but Hardwick's coaching is sure looking good tonight

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Sorry Artie, i don't buy that...10 mins before half time it was a goal the difference. 29-35 i remember because that's when i switched on the TV.

So you are only kidding yourself if you think we were at that level in Perth.

If you watched the rest of the game then it was all one way traffic and North performance was exactly in the MFC ballpark. Both were shamefully woeful.

[Ned 156]

Dunno, but Hardwick's coaching is sure looking good tonight

Yep, outstanding. Seems to get something from everyone, even spuds like Jake King.

[Ned 156]

Not sure if anybody saw the Kangaroos torn about by Geelong this afternoon, but they were no less insipid than us against the Eagles...

What does that say for Brad Scott's coaching ability?

Not sure when West Coast and Geelong were at a similar level. Maybe this time four years ago? You're comparing last year's wooden spooners (admittedly improved) and a dual-premiership team. Not sure that makes much sense.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

- We played them in Perth, and like all young teams, we don't travel well.

In Round 8, 2010 the Weagles beat us at the G....they also won the wooden spoon. Worst team for the year, yet they still managed to beat us at our home ground travelling.

FYI

West Coast..........Average Age 23.7.........Average Games 69

Melbourne...........Average Age 23.5.........Average Games 63

They had (within a decimal point for average age and approx a 6 game per player average advantage) almost the same Age on average and the same number of games played on average at the time. Yet they still managed to beat us by almost 5 goals....on the road.

You might wanna rethink this part of your argument mate

Edited May 7, 2011 by Rusty Nails

[Sir Why You Little 37,036]

If you watched the rest of the game then it was all one way traffic and North performance was exactly in the MFC ballpark. Both were shamefully woeful.

Yes i did watch the rest of the game, well until i got bored in the last Quarter, North had a fair crack in the first half, unlike the MFC who were a beaten side after the first bounce, so i stand by what i said.

I sure hope the MFC Boys watched the Suns game tonight, that was a great example of commitment from a bunch of kids, who did get challenged in that second half.

Attitude got the suns over the line, they refused to lie down. If Melbourne play like that tomorrow we will win.

[Kento80 83]

In Round 8, 2010 the Weagles beat us at the G....they also won the wooden spoon. Worst team for the year, yet they still managed to beat us at our home ground travelling.FYIWest Coast..........Average Age 23.7.........Average Games 69Melbourne...........Average Age 23.5.........Average Games 63They had (within a decimal point for average age and approx a 6 game per player average advantage) almost the same Age on average and the same number of games played on average at the time. Yet they still managed to beat us by almost 5 goals....on the road.You might wanna rethink this part of your argument mate

Nice one Rusty, like your style

Yes i did watch the rest of the game, well until i got bored in the last Quarter, North had a fair crack in the first half, unlike the MFC who were a beaten side after the first bounce, so i stand by what i said.I sure hope the MFC Boys watched the Suns game tonight, that was a great example of commitment from a bunch of kids, who did get challenged in that second half.Attitude got the suns over the line, they refused to lie down. If Melbourne play like that tomorrow we will win.

If the Suns can eke out a win they probably shouldn't get and Richmond too might I add, why can't we even eke out a gallant defeat. That is all I ask. Just be gallant in defeat, and the baying for blood will dissipate. Had we been gallant in defeat, this last week and a bit wouldn't have happened. It really is that simple.

[John Crow Batty 8,863]

If we play like last week tomorrow and Bailey gets the sack on Monday it wont be an over-reaction. It better not happen.

Edited May 7, 2011 by america de cali

[45HG 1,539]

To see how up and down a young team can be, you need to look no further than the Gold Coast.

119 point loss. Fighting(ish) 71 point loss. Gutsy display to be 37 down at the start of the last quarter before falling by 90. Win on the road at a tough venue after being 40 down at 3/4 time. 139 point shellacking including the worst first quarter in the history of football. Beating an established team that has troubled a few sides this year at their home ground after leading from start to finish.

Now, that shouldn't excuse the complete lack of effort shown and I certainly wouldn't let the players off because of it, but personally I understand how young teams can have a bit of a rollercoaster of a time. Richmond, at the start of the year, couldn't buy a win - no one on here was lamenting our progress in comparison to them. At the moment, they're riding a high - we'll see how long it lasts.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

Rusty nobody is saying that these are absolute measures but that they are indicative. Other factors obviously count otherwise every result would be known before the game.

But with only about one exception you'll find that Premiership teams have about 120 games experience per player. They don't have 63. Is it so hard to grasp that as players get older their skills improve, they get stronger and they have a better understanding of the game?

I don't think I've seen anyone try and defend the terrible performance in the first quarter against WC or indeed can I remember a defense of our game against WC last year.

But age and experience are two prime indicators of where a team sits.

What the....

I'm just making a point on one of Arties' points re young teams travelling. Certainly not expecting to go anywhere near a premiership or threatening for one on these numbers. Nor did i mention a premiership at any point.

Not sure where you're coming from on this cobber. Might have picked the wrong thread out when u hit the reply button

Oh, and yeh. Agreed. Age and experience are two indicators of where a team sits comparatively. Good point. That's why i used them.

Cheers

B)

Edited May 8, 2011 by Rusty Nails

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Yes, those lauding Hardwick as a brilliant coach - wouldn't you have said the same of Bailey after last year's Sydney match?

It's very simple, young teams are consistently inconsistent.

[John Crow Batty 8,863]

If we kept Miller, McDonald, Bruce and perhaps Robbo our game averages and age would have made us a slam dunk to be a powerhouse according to all the silly statistics in this thread.

GCS sure are inconsistent but they have managed to pinch a couple of games against all odds already this season. Not something we look like doing this season.

Edited May 8, 2011 by america de cali

[Guest Artie Bucco]

In Round 8, 2010 the Weagles beat us at the G....they also won the wooden spoon. Worst team for the year, yet they still managed to beat us at our home ground travelling.

FYI

West Coast..........Average Age 23.7.........Average Games 69

Melbourne...........Average Age 23.5.........Average Games 63

They had (within a decimal point for average age and approx a 6 game per player average advantage) almost the same Age on average and the same number of games played on average at the time. Yet they still managed to beat us by almost 5 goals....on the road.

You might wanna rethink this part of your argument mate

Not at all, Rusty, in fact you have missed the point.

It was a contributing factor, not the be all and end all.

You seem unable to see the forest for the trees.

Delve even further into those stats and it tells a story.

Take a macro or micro view and they both support my stance, but you've chosen an in-between nowhere in an attempt to prove me wrong on one point.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

Not at all, Rusty, in fact you have missed the point.

It was a contributing factor, not the be all and end all.

You seem unable to see the forest for the trees.

Delve even further into those stats and it tells a story.

Take a macro or micro view and they both support my stance, but you've chosen an in-between nowhere in an attempt to prove me wrong on one point.

Ummm....so your saying others on here are allowed to make a point about a "part" of someone else's post, but i aint?

Please, feel free to delve further Artie. Happy to hear your drill down analytics on those stats mate.

Cheers

B)

[Guest Artie Bucco]

You're most welcome to, but it doesn't make you right.

You're also welcome to delve further if you like, but I already know what you'll find.

It's up to you if you want to gain a better understanding.

I'm not going to do the work for you.

[Adam The God 30,259]

I'll eat some humble pie this week and the turn around was exactly what I wanted. However, it means bugger all if we don't turn up next week. I don't expect us too. As soon as we play away from the 'G, we're very ordinary. I hope some of the players read this and prove me wrong.

Edited May 8, 2011 by AdamFarr