Of all out weaknesses that have been made very apparent in the last 4 weeks, I think our passive, reactionary attitude towards such a physical game is the most concerning.

Now I know there are players out there who aren't well suited to a physical game, whether it be based on their build, weight or courage. And by a few I mean Morton, Davey and Scully to a certain extent. However, I don't have an issue with that, that's the way they are and at this point in there lives/careers it won't change.

What does concern me is our lack of 'animal'. Who is there in our team that really goes after anyone, within the rules, but enough to have the opposition wary of who is around? Like those guys you see that give a nice bump after someone slowly follows the ball over the boundary line. Or that guy that pushes people out of the way to pick his team mate up at the bottom of the pack. Or the guy that is willing to maybe, possibly hit a little high or a little late when the game gets a little dreary and unemotional in an attempt to fire things up. We play well on emotion which is partly why we cannot string together 4 quarters (or even 1 or 2 sometimes). Emotion will never push you through a whole game, but how many times do we see teams respond to a little scuffle or something that spikes their motivation?

I'm not talking about having a little brew-ha-ha on the way off at the end of the 2nd quarter because everyone simmers down over the break. I'm talking about someone that just LOVES the physicality of the game. Tapscott shows it but we need more. It's not in everyone, but it can be laying dormant in many players who just need an inspirational leader, whether it be player or coach, to bring it out of them. And it can be infectious too. When a team rolls through people as a group it can be very powerful but only if it isn't forced. It needs to be a team approach, because if it looks like someone is trying too hard to be physical it always turns out bad. I would love to be the team that everyone respects for their intimidation.

From a performance perspective, the moment a player transfers their focus from their role in the team to looking for the perfect opportunity to 'payback' an opponent, or take their eye off the ball a little early to see who's closing in, then errors are generated and teams can capitalise on that.

At this point, I think it needs to be instilled by our next coach. I think todays effort and attack on the footy (and the man) was good, but there was plenty of opportunities to really get under their skin that was never taken advantage of. We need to unsettle teams because we use the ball quite well on the rebound but we never cause enough turnovers for it to make a difference in our results.

For next year, give us a coach that can unleash the animal in our players, that controlled aggression, that intimidating physicality that makes a team revered.

We need it.

Edited August 14, 201114 yr by mrtwister

Of all out weaknesses that have been made very apparent in the last 4 weeks, I think our passive, reactionary attitude towards such a physical game is the most concerning.

Now I know there are players out there who aren't well suited to a physical game, whether it be based on their build, weight or courage. And by a few I mean Morton, Davey and Scully to a certain extent. However, I don't have an issue with that, that's the way they are and at this point in there lives/careers it won't change.

What does concern me is our lack of 'animal'. Who is there in our team that really goes after anyone, within the rules, but enough to have the opposition wary of who is around? Like those guys you see that give a nice bump after someone slowly follows the ball over the boundary line. Or that guy that pushes people out of the way to pick his team mate up at the bottom of the pack. Or the guy that is willing to maybe, possibly hit a little high or a little late when the game gets a little dreary and unemotional in an attempt to fire things up. We play well on emotion which is partly why we cannot string together 4 quarters (or even 1 or 2 sometimes). Emotion will never push you through a whole game, but how many times do we see teams respond to a little scuffle or something that spikes their motivation?

I'm not talking about having a little brew-ha-ha on the way off at the end of the 2nd quarter because everyone simmers down over the break. I'm talking about someone that just LOVES the physicality of the game. Tapscott shows it but we need more. It's not in everyone, but it can be laying dormant in many players who just need an inspirational leader, whether it be player or coach, to bring it out of them. And it can be infectious too. When a team rolls through people as a group it can be very powerful but only if it isn't forced. It needs to be a team approach, because if it looks like someone is trying too hard to be physical it always turns out bad. I would love to be the team that everyone respects for their intimidation.

From a performance perspective, the moment a player transfers their focus from their role in the team to looking for the perfect opportunity to 'payback' an opponent, or take their eye off the ball a little early to see who's closing in, then errors are generated and teams can capitalise on that.

At this point, I think it needs to be instilled by our next coach. I think todays effort and attack on the footy (and the man) was good, but there was plenty of opportunities to really get under their skin that was never taken advantage of. We need to unsettle teams because we use the ball quite well on the rebound but we never cause enough turnovers for it to make a difference in our results.

For next year, give us a coach that can unleash the animal in our players, that controlled aggression, that intimidating physicality that makes a team revered.

We need it.

I agree, but thats why we have to play the strong players instead of all the weeds we keep putting out on the Park.

I think that some of them would do as you say if they thought that they're team mates could handle this stuff. Not with Davey etc, out there.