Badly outcoached

[Guest Artie Bucco]

I don't have one...i am just a paid up MFC/MCC member

But you have an agenda Artie so tell us all what it is...I am not the only one who has asked.

I don't have one...i am just a paid up MFC/MCC member

[Choko 493]

Agreed.

If a more experienced, advanced, developed and well drilled side comes under "out-coached" - well then yes, I agree.

I did say every facet.

Yeh, the well-drilled bit is coaching.

So is the fact they got exactly what they wanted with 1-on-1's and in isolating Rivers. Also, kick-ins is to a coaching plan. Also, the fact that we had a side in that managed to lay only 1 tackle in our forward 50 the whole game. I find that extraordinary.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

I don't have one...i am just a paid up MFC/MCC member

Don't just copy my words use your own Artie...You are the first to critisize everybody's opinions on here.

Now if you don't give some sources i advise you to keep it shut.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

So yes, we were out-coached.

We were also out-played.

The only out we weren't was outstanding.

Haha! Spot on.

I'll just repeat the statistic. On 20th May 2006, Geelong got belted by 102 points by Collingwood at the MCG. They also lost by 92 points to Adelaide later in 2006. No need to remind anyone about Geelong in 2007.

The important thing for MFC is they are working to address ALL those factors you mention. I admit to concern in some of the areas we need obvious improvement. You'd be a fool not to be concerned. Only time will tell if they (coaches, playing group & FD) are on the right track. Silly to be over-optimistic, but equally it's not a hopeless situation (a la Geelong 2006).

[H_T 3,047]

Yeh, the well-drilled bit is coaching.

So is the fact they got exactly what they wanted with 1-on-1's and in isolating Rivers. Also, kick-ins is to a coaching plan. Also, the fact that we had a side in that managed to lay only 1 tackle in our forward 50 the whole game. I find that extraordinary.

The 1-on-1's with Rivers was good instructions from the coaching group. The kick-ins are set plans and have to adjust according to the setups in place.

The change could have come quicker admittedly down back, however the issue was the supply being generated from the middle.

Overall though the dominance of their midfield all over the ground at stoppages is damning. So too the turnovers due to fundamental skill errors, not honouring the first option, poor execution whether it be through the middle or during transition. Particularly in the first half of the game.

That tackle stat in the forward 50 is indeed extraordinary. Disappointing.

[Cheesy D. Pun 1,765]

Collingwoods main asset is there prolonged intensity & ability to play the contest for long periods.

Yep, I felt this too. Collingwood just wore us down with their continued intensity. We'll be ok though. As the players progress, the wheel will start to turn.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Don't just copy my words use your own Artie...You are the first to critisize everybody's opinions on here.

Now if you don't give some sources i advise you to keep it shut.

Sorry WYL, are you telling me that because I don't agree with your opinion (or the opinions of many), that unless I have some sources of some kind, that I should "keep it shut"..?

Because that's what it looks like.

I don't think you thought that one through.

I do have a handful of sources, but I often as not disagree with their point of view anyway.

But what relevance does that have?

I'm as entitled to an opinion as you are.

Often it disagrees with the common opinion of the great unwashed.

A saying comes to mind here: a person is smart, but people are stupid.

(MIB taught me that).

[Roost It 1,434]

A side that gets obliterated in the middle, makes significant execution errors and stupid decisions really breaks down structure.

There were errors at kick ins, because there were so many kick ins. And there were that many kick ins because 'they' had many i50's due to what ??

The answer is more contested possessions, more clearances at stoppages and centre bounces. They made us pay for poor execution, skill errors and dumb decisions, especially through the midfield when in possession.

Stoppages: Collingwood kicked 9.5.59

Turnovers: Collingwood kicked 10.9.69

You say outcoached. I say far outplayed in every facet. Wellingham, Ball, Davis and Pendlebury killed us and pulled our pants down.

Now are you going to reply that I'm representing the club too ?

Maybe.

Our kick ins are laughable. That's poor coaching. We haven't had a clue against a well executed forward press or how to execute one ourselves all year. That's poor coaching. Allowing Rivers to be so exposed. Poor coaching. Getting belted by collingwood. Can happen. Allowing Davis to [censored] us. Embarrassing. You can make excuses for them but the coaching is fairly ordinary at the moment and I'd be predicting a clean out at years end. I only reply that people represent the club because I'm suspicious of people who defend everything the club does. They either have an agenda or can't think for themselves or both. You can see it how you like HT.

[bing181 9,242]

Don't just copy my words use your own Artie...You are the first to critisize everybody's opinions on here.

Now if you don't give some sources i advise you to keep it shut.

FFS .... he's entitled to his opinions, same as everyone. FWIW, I for one agree with most of what he says, as well as a few others above as well, and it's a refreshing change from much of the impatient, knee-jerk, simplistic posting we inevitably see here after every loss.

To start rabbiting on about "agendas" ... it's a forum, nothing more.

By the way, where were all you people bitching about Bailey and game plans and whatever after the Essendon game?? From what I recall, there wasn't a single posting criticizing Bailey last week. Short memories.

[satyricon 267]

Maybe.

Our kick ins are laughable. That's poor coaching. We haven't had a clue against a well executed forward press or how to execute one ourselves all year. That's poor coaching. Allowing Rivers to be so exposed. Poor coaching. Getting belted by collingwood. Can happen. Allowing Davis to [censored] us. Embarrassing. You can make excuses for them but the coaching is fairly ordinary at the moment and I'd be predicting a clean out at years end. I only reply that people represent the club because I'm suspicious of people who defend everything the club does. They either have an agenda or can't think for themselves or both. You can see it how you like HT.

It could also be said that you have an agenda with your constant negativity, do you want to undermine the club and raise the level of discontent amongst the supporters to a high level?

Are you really Jason Akermanis, and you just like the sound of your own keyboard, if you don't like what you read, simple don't read it

Bailey probably sent a message out saying "FFS give Rivers some help", or words to that affect, the players didn't, fact not an excuse

What is forward press, it is opposition players standing next to or near our players, making it difficult to execute a kick to them, and opposition players hurrying to another spot should a kick be successful, this has been happening for years, it just has a name now

Davis is a bloody good player and has been given a new lease of life by moving to defence, he is in form, we just didn't cover him well enough, we all saw it, but we are not excusing it.

I personally am not defending the club, but analysing, in my opinion, what went wrong yesterday, and posting my opinions in certain topics on the board today.

As I have said if you don't like the opinions, don't read them and don't reply, that way any posters who want to have a discussion and listen to others opinions can get on with it without being denigrated accused or flamed by your good self....what is your opunion of that?

Thanks

Edited June 14, 2011 by satyricon

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

Sorry WYL, are you telling me that because I don't agree with your opinion (or the opinions of many), that unless I have some sources of some kind, that I should "keep it shut"..?

Because that's what it looks like.

I don't think you thought that one through.

I do have a handful of sources, but I often as not disagree with their point of view anyway.

But what relevance does that have?

I'm as entitled to an opinion as you are.

Often it disagrees with the common opinion of the great unwashed.

A saying comes to mind here: a person is smart, but people are stupid.

(MIB taught me that).

Oh i though it through alright, There you go again Artie.....You just can't help it can you...Hmmm

You are more than able to have your own opinion, they are welcomed on here.

But i am sick of reading here you Ripping into people who do not agree with you all the time.

If you continue along those lines....Shut it.

[pitmaster 3,561]

Answer the question...i am tired of your flowery words Artie...What is your Agenda on this website?

It's not hard.

I think he's Addam Maric's uncle or some other form of blood relative (if that helps).

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Oh i though it through alright, There you go again Artie.....You just can't help it can you...Hmmm

You are more than able to have your own opinion, they are welcomed on here.

But i am sick of reading here you Ripping into people who do not agree with you all the time.

If you continue along those lines....Shut it.

So you just don't like it because I disagree with the opinions of others?

Ironical much?

I think we should leave it there.

Back to the topic...

Is it bad coaching to persevere with a gameplan and systems that aren't working now, but should in the future?

Was it bad coaching for Al Clarkson to persevere with his zone defence when it was a shambles in the first years of its use?

Discuss.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

I think he's Addam Maric's uncle or some other form of blood relative (if that helps).

Honestly, if I were to say I was related to Norm Smith, would it make a difference?

Would it somehow lend me, or anyone else, more credibility?

[Choko 493]

So you just don't like it because I disagree with the opinions of others?

Ironical much?

I think we should leave it there.

Back to the topic...

Is it bad coaching to persevere with a gameplan and systems that aren't working now, but should in the future?

Was it bad coaching for Al Clarkson to persevere with his zone defence when it was a shambles in the first years of its use?

Discuss.

You're actually boring, because you clearly are playing to agenda every bloody time you post.

How do you know the game plan should work in the future? For starters, it has to evolve. So today's game plan is utterly irrelevant to the future. There's a chance our game plan, to the extent we have one, will be seen as revolutionary. There's also a chance it's crap.

Rodney Eade has shown a lack of ability to modernise his game plan, and he will pay with his job IMO. Maybe he's just smarter than the rest. Discuss.

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

You're actually boring, because you clearly are playing to agenda every bloody time you post.

How do you know the game plan should work in the future? For starters, it has to evolve. So today's game plan is utterly irrelevant to the future. There's a chance our game plan, to the extent we have one, will be seen as revolutionary. There's also a chance it's crap.

Rodney Eade has shown a lack of ability to modernise his game plan, and he will pay with his job IMO. Maybe he's just smarter than the rest. Discuss.

Thankyou Choko....a little sanity prevails.

Read the above carefully Artie.

[Guest Artie Bucco]

You're actually boring, because you clearly are playing to agenda every bloody time you post.

How do you know the game plan should work in the future? For starters, it has to evolve. So today's game plan is utterly irrelevant to the future. There's a chance our game plan, to the extent we have one, will be seen as revolutionary. There's also a chance it's crap.

Rodney Eade has shown a lack of ability to modernise his game plan, and he will pay with his job IMO. Maybe he's just smarter than the rest. Discuss.

There's no agenda though.

I just try to reconcile all the contributing factors before coming to a conclusion.

This is the thing - I don't know that.

But neither do you.

Surely it's a possibility..?

Maybe Eade is? But he has had a mature team to implement his gameplan.

I don't think that Bailey has the tools to implement what he'd like to.

He is developing them.

This isn't about a loyalty to him.

I'd give any other coach that was in charge the benefit of the doubt until I saw what I deemed as conclusive evidence that he needs to be moved on.

Until then, it's all judgment calls.

And my judgment is that Bailey is doing an ok job considering.

If you find that boring, so be it.

Edited June 14, 2011 by Artie Bucco

[Guest Artie Bucco]

Thankyou Choko....a little sanity prevails.

Read the above carefully Artie.

Haha I like how someone else makes a considered post and you present it as your own opinion.

You're not fooling anyone.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

Is it bad coaching to persevere with a gameplan and systems that aren't working now, but should in the future?

Was it bad coaching for Al Clarkson to persevere with his zone defence when it was a shambles in the first years of its use?

Discuss.

It's the opinion "but should in the future" that bears discussion. There will be a whole spectrum of points of view on that. None right or wrong, at this stage. Who knows? Looking back in 5 years time, the answer will be as plain as the nose on your face. It either worked, or didn't. No amount of crystal ball gazing can answer it now.

But it's good to form our views, and express our fears (and hopes).

Clearly it was good for Clarkson to persevere with his zone defence. Clearly too it was brilliant strategy for Mark Thompson to persevere with his running handball game in 2006 when he had so many critics calling for his scalp. If he'd lost nerve at that point, it's possible Geelong would still be premiership-less like us since the 1960's.

But the other side of the coin is, how many coaching strategies and experiments have been tried and never made the grade? we tend to remember the (probably relatively small percentage) of breathtaking successes.

Incidentally, what will we call Bailey's gameplan and systems, if he turns out to be the amazing genius we all would hope?

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

Haha I like how someone else makes a considered post and you present it as your own opinion.

You're not fooling anyone.

I don't want to fool anyone Artie, that's the point.

You Do.

Why work on a gameplan that takes 7 years to perfect, when other teams will work it out before we do??

A good coach should have at least 3 strategies.

Granted that in todays modern football it is far more difficult for certain players to "play" on a specific oponent.

But we were beaten yesterday starting in the first Quarter-and the game just continued on.

Either the Game plan does not work or the players are having trouble implementing it...Thus it does not work.

Our list is what we have.

Don't talk down to me Artie....it's not cool.

[H_T 3,047]

Maybe.

Our kick ins are laughable. That's poor coaching. We haven't had a clue against a well executed forward press or how to execute one ourselves all year. That's poor coaching. Allowing Rivers to be so exposed. Poor coaching. Getting belted by collingwood. Can happen. Allowing Davis to [censored] us. Embarrassing. You can make excuses for them but the coaching is fairly ordinary at the moment and I'd be predicting a clean out at years end. I only reply that people represent the club because I'm suspicious of people who defend everything the club does. They either have an agenda or can't think for themselves or both. You can see it how you like HT.

Maybe ?! Don't sit on the fence now. I'll take it as a yes.

So if I state that we got totally outclassed by a superior midfield which led to some heavy bleeding down back through sheer dominance, yet I still recognise our kick-ins need work, our young players need more games and conditioning and perhaps our FD needs to be tweaked at year's end. But all-in-all I'm therefore still recognised in your eyes as someone who represents and defends the club with an agenda, am I right ?

FMD.

[Choko 493]

Maybe ?! Don't sit on the fence now. I'll take it as a yes.

So if I state that we got totally outclassed by a superior midfield which led to some bleeding down back through sheer dominance, yet I still recognise our kick-ins need work, our young players need more games and conditioning and perhaps our FD needs to be tweaked at year's end. But all-in-all I'm therefore still recognised in your eyes as someone who represents and defends the club with an agenda, am I right ?

FMD.

NT

[H_T 3,047]

NT

G.

[Choko 493]

G.

LOL

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,799]

Maybe.

Our kick ins are laughable. That's poor coaching. We haven't had a clue against a well executed forward press or how to execute one ourselves all year. That's poor coaching. Allowing Rivers to be so exposed. Poor coaching. Getting belted by collingwood. Can happen. Allowing Davis to [censored] us. Embarrassing. You can make excuses for them but the coaching is fairly ordinary at the moment and I'd be predicting a clean out at years end. I only reply that people represent the club because I'm suspicious of people who defend everything the club does. They either have an agenda or can't think for themselves or both. You can see it how you like HT.

Don't mention the kick-ins!!!

It's considered to be a trivial point on this forum, and not worthy of consideration, suggestion , or debate.

The footy dept. has used the same lack of tactics since Steve Febey retired, and By God, we're NOT going to alter it!!!