i watched the Channel Nine footy show this morning and I think Crawford's comments made sense.

he basically said that the players are confused because they have too much their thinking about in terms of new structures/game plan and this is drowning out their instinctual play.

He said that when Clarkson took over at Hawthorn all the players wanted to make the new coach happy so would do what the coach said structure or position wise no matter what and then second guess the basics and their footy instincts, or get the ball and get confused about what they are supposed to do. Particularly young players.

It made sense to me when I watched the first quarter yesterday and the strange decision making and kind of panic second guessing you could see before handballs, etc.

He thinks that they should spoon feed players a new game plan and structure over time to avoid confusing the players. But he thinks it will click eventually and the structures will become instinct.

Edited April 15, 201213 yr by Norm Smith's Curse

This did make sense the player are much better than what we are seeing at the moment.

That's a very good point, didn't think of it that way.

Interesting that it seems to be coming easier to the bloke that has come into the system having been part of something similar - Mitch Clark.

Edited April 15, 201213 yr by Striker475

True. When you look at where we were in 2010 you have to wonder what the reason is. I mean the coach cant have lost the players unless he put Davey's hand on his shoulder

As bad as we've looked so far, there have been a few passages in the past few weeks where we've actually looked quite good. You can tell that some of the players are struggling with playing along the boundary rather than going straight through the corridor, though. I have seen it several times where a player has motioned to kick into the centre but then second guessed themselves, rushed the kick along the boundary, and ruined the play. If we can get the game plan to become second nature I think we will be alright. I just hope it doesn't take too long...

The saints (at that stage an experienced team) took a long time to understand Ross Lyon's style after getting rid of Thomas.

You can see the bulldogs are struggling as well.

Adelaide have gone the other way, they are playing better now that a constrictive Craig game plan has been replaced by what looks from the outside as a pretty flowing style under Sanderson.

So I certainly wasn't never expecting much from this year especially with the midfield and half forward line we currently have. If we were ever going to get off to a good start it would require our mids been up and about and our half forward line the same (a real weakness for us).

That said Brisbane and Richmond's third quarters were ridiculous and can not be excused by any game plan, injuries or lack of fitness.

How is this in any way a revelation??!?!??!??

And it obviously worked for Hawthorn eventually too.

No point spoon-feeding them and slowly working into it; we need full commitment from day dot.

And that's what Neeld is attempting to get.

Shane Crawford knows footy pretty well...i make a point of reading his newspaper articles, not so much of TV.

He said something very similar after the first game, I agree with him.

Im not saying its a total excuse my any means but it does make sense particular given what i saw in the first quarter - we were crazy intent, going hard but not even second guessing - more triple guessing - which aint good for a side that under Bailey was already pretty flighty/panicy.

I rate Crawfs views...I also dont rate the ability of many Melbourne players to think. An observation based on results.

After some research (thanks Wiki) I saw that in Clarkson's first year, 2005, Hawks came 14th. They won their last four games of 2006 to finish 11th. Made the Semi-Finals in 2007 after finishing 4th and then, of course, were Premiers against Geelong in 2008. Give Neeld an extension now. It's a long road, but we'll all be here every step of the way. GO DEES

Well duh.

We don't have to execute a game plan, however, when we don't have the ball. And whatever the game plan is, tackling, chasing and running into space will be a part of it.

Well duh.

We don't have to execute a game plan, however, when we don't have the ball. And whatever the game plan is, tackling, chasing and running into space will be a part of it.

Of course we do. Defensive zones and structures are every part as important in modern footy as offensive game-plan and strategy.

Edited April 15, 201213 yr by Dr. Gonzo

The players don't buy the gameplan,the same gameplan that the Pies threw out on Grand Final day and went more man on man with the Cats.The players aren't stupid,they know that the top 4 gameplans that use the entire ground is the future and our gameplan is obsolete.Anyone see Nic Nat waiting 5 metres in from the boundary line and we kicked it straight to him?

The players know that this gameplan will win maybe 2 games this year.

At quarter time,the Tiges had 104 disposals and we laid 9 tackles which screams "we couldn't be bothered playing footy this way"

We've already lost 3 games by a 70 point average and there will be at least another 10+ 60 point floggings to come with this attitude.

the players dont buy it ??? or incapbale of implementing? at present currently the same result. Its the why that will determine the how of going forward.

The players don't buy the gameplan,the same gameplan that the Pies threw out on Grand Final day and went more man on man with the Cats.The players aren't stupid,they know that the top 4 gameplans that use the entire ground is the future and our gameplan is obsolete.Anyone see Nic Nat waiting 5 metres in from the boundary line and we kicked it straight to him?

It isn't their place to decide on a gameplan. Their job is to play the way the coach tells them to play. They are paid very well to do this. The coaches job is to come up with a plan to allow the players he has to win games. The boards job is to pick the coach they think has the right plans to win games with the list.

If any of our players are second-guessing the coach to the extent that they are letting it affect their onfield performance, they can play for whatever dirt paddock little country side will have them, because no self-respecting team would put up with that crap.

The players don't buy the gameplan ...

Any verifiable evidence for that?

Any verifiable evidence for that?

Don't hold your breath...

It isn't their place to decide on a gameplan. Their job is to play the way the coach tells them to play. They are paid very well to do this. The coaches job is to come up with a plan to allow the players he has to win games. The boards job is to pick the coach they think has the right plans to win games with the list.

If any of our players are second-guessing the coach to the extent that they are letting it affect their onfield performance, they can play for whatever dirt paddock little country side will have them, because no self-respecting team would put up with that crap.

I agree totally which is why I am waiting to see the Coaches performance

I remember BAlme in the coaches box head in hands failing to make a move coz he didnt have the cattle. He had what he had and needed to have a game plan that exploited that rather than rely on a 5 year rebuild.

I am hoping that Neeld can be proactive against opposition rather than reactive but if required has got more than 1 plan and communicate this to the players.

Also, found Nathan Brown's analysis on the Sunday Footy Show interesting, where he highlighted - sadly yet again - the lack of Davey's use of his his best weapon, which is his speed. He had some role to play in the turnover, which ended up in Mitch Clark's hands, but Flash failed to run on to receive a handball which would have resulted in a certain goal, whereas Mitch just had a ping and it it went through for a point.

Gameplan, inability, lack of confidence, or the coach has lost the players? Whatever "conspiracy" theory one might subscribe to, I feel very sad for this footy club at the moment and I am of the view, as others appear to be on here, that there is still a piece of the "puzzle" missing off field, which is one of addressing an endemic culture at this footy club.

We need it fixed and we need it now.

I find it kinda funny that some seem to think Shane Crawford is some sort of great football mind.

He's about as close to being that as Dipper.

I find it kinda funny that some seem to think Shane Crawford is some sort of great football mind.

He's about as close to being that as Dipper.

Don't confuse Shane's playing up to the camera as the way he is, you don't have to be a straight A student to know football. From his articles I have read and the way he speaks when analysing games and when he is being serious he makes a lot of valid points

I find it kinda funny that some seem to think Shane Crawford is some sort of great football mind.

He's about as close to being that as Dipper.

Dipper maybe a clown. But he knows football. Do not kid yourself.

Watch any Hawthorn final in the 80's. Dipper was always lurking.

Crawford knows the game. His TFS persona just pays the bills.