My reference to that post was just over the requirement to get uncontested possessions and to tacitly say that 'cheap' footy is anything but.

Moving back to the argument - the crux of what I am saying is that this win was a testament to the embrace by the players of how the coach wants them to play. That embrace has given some exrtra confidence to push and spread and find some 'cheap' (the reason I usually put this word in quotation marks is because it is anything but cheap) footy that fuel attacks in the modern game. The fact that we have averaged 39 Inside 50s up until the Carlton game and 50 in the last two outings tells me the players have become more comfortable with Neeld's gameplan.

I'm glad you clarified the 'cheap' footy phrase. I agree with you and I wish others would take note in future references.

I'm not so sure on the game plan, but that is complicated by how people perceive evolving changes to it as previously discussed.

Have a nice day.

I'm glad you clarified the 'cheap' footy phrase. I agree with you and I wish others would take note in future references.

I'm not so sure on the game plan, but that is complicated by how people perceive evolving changes to it as previously discussed.

Have a nice day.

Hardnut wrote:

"Brad Scott knows what he is doing with what he has got - that's why he's there for a while. 'Some days are diamonds, some days are stones' ring a bell?

Watching Adelaide, thankfully we didn't get Ross Lyon, sadly we got Neeld, and how I wish we'd got Sanderson - but we didn't look did we!"

Have a nice day indeed.

Hardnut wrote:

"Brad Scott knows what he is doing with what he has got - that's why he's there for a while. 'Some days are diamonds, some days are stones' ring a bell?

Watching Adelaide, thankfully we didn't get Ross Lyon, sadly we got Neeld, and how I wish we'd got Sanderson - but we didn't look did we!"

Good coaching continually adapts – most of us can see that happening now.

The gameplan has evolved and there's two possible explanations:

Range Rover: Neeld has a plan. Expansion of the gameplan has always been part of his plan but he wants to see certain basics done right first and then build on those.

Hardnut: Neeld is a dud. Well maybe he's not a complete dud, because he read my critique and saw the light.

Found it interesting that Grant Thomas on 'Footy Classified' twice mentioned that Neeld has changed our game plan or at least adjusted it . Now I know we can all take Thommo's' comments with a grain of salt but .........what was more interesting was Garry Lyon's silence .Garry could have easily taken Grant's comments to task but chose not to .

And if anybody would know if there's been a change in direction it would be Garry . More so than anybody on 'Land . I could think of more than a couple on 'Land who might have questioned Thomas if they'd had the chance .

If we never play footy like we did in the 1st 8 rounds again we'll all be happy . We may never know the answer on why we've started getting decent possession numbers and in a lot of ways it's irrelevent now - it looks like we're on the right track .

Questioning a coaches game plan is not the crime of the century and never will be . There might be a few Saint fans questioning Watters over letting Jack Reiwoldt run amuck last Friday night . And so they should too - baffling decision . Some on this site are questioning Freo's game plan under Ross Lyon but he's got a proven track record - it's ugly but at St Kilda at least , it worked to a degree .

Edited June 7, 201213 yr by Macca

And if anybody would know if there's been a change in direction it would be Garry .

Really? Why is that?

Really? Why is that?

I meant it as opposed to anyone on 'Land .

Garry had a big say in his appointment so it's fair to say he might get a bit of info thrown his way .

Macca's got it spot on, but what does RR's post 227 mean!

There's nothing to say Gaza's silence isn't based entirely on his own opinion. Just because he had a hand in Neeld's appointment, doesn't mean he'd know all the ins and outs.

Edited June 7, 201213 yr by AdamFarr

There's nothing to say Gaza's silence isn't based entirely on his own opinion. Just because he had a hand in Neeld's appointment, doesn't mean he'd know all the ins and outs.

The important bit to remember is that if Mark decided to have a change in direction , then kudos to him . I see it as a sign of strength , not a sign of weakness like some might think .

As I said in an earlier post , it becomes an irrelevency if we don't play footy like we did in the 1st 8 rounds - an abberation is ok though . We can't hope to play with the intensity we showed on Saturday night , every week . Not yet anyway .

Pretty sure hindsight shows us that for the first 8 weeks of the season our objective was to put ourselves under constant pressure, bombing it long and kicking to contests, seemed inexplicable to all of us at the time. I wonder if the Swans game hadn't been such a shocker would we have continued practicing? The pressure being applied to the Club from every direction may have forced the FD to allow more freedom to the players and hence the last 2 weeks have been closer to where we assumed we were at.

I meant it as opposed to anyone on 'Land .

Garry had a big say in his appointment so it's fair to say he might get a bit of info thrown his way .

Old is saying that Garry should't be involved anymore than us.

There's nothing to say Gaza's silence isn't based entirely on his own opinion. Just because he had a hand in Neeld's appointment, doesn't mean he'd know all the ins and outs.

I hope so.

He shouldn't be involved from when he left the club before the season.

I was happy for his consultancy but we need some stability, and we should leave decisions/involvement to people involved with the club and charged with making decisions.

Pretty sure hindsight shows us that for the first 8 weeks of the season our objective was to put ourselves under constant pressure, bombing it long and kicking to contests, seemed inexplicable to all of us at the time. I wonder if the Swans game hadn't been such a shocker would we have continued practicing? The pressure being applied to the Club from every direction may have forced the FD to allow more freedom to the players and hence the last 2 weeks have been closer to where we assumed we were at.

Wasn't inexplicable to all of us at all.

Our players had little confidence in themselves, their teammates or the gameplan.

Thankfully, they have become more comfortable and the results have improved into 7 quarters of good, tough, defensive minded footy in the last two weeks.

Old is saying that Garry should't be involved anymore than us

Yeah , I knew what Old55 was saying . I was intimating that Garry might know how things are going at the club more than anyone on 'Land .

He doesn't have to be involved to receive certain information . I'm sure Garry can be trusted . Just thought he might have taken Thomas to task . I know you would have Rp !

On AFL360 last night Robinson asked Neeld directly if he had changed his game plan over the last couple of weeks. Neeld said something like, "not a great deal, no."

Now this could be taken as, "yes I have changed it somewhat" or "no it is basically the same plan I have been trying to get them to play all year".

The answer seems to lie somewhere in between RR & Hardnut.

On AFL360 last night Robinson asked Neeld directly if he had changed his game plan over the last couple of weeks. Neeld said something like, "not a great deal, no."

Now this could be taken as, "yes I have changed it somewhat" or "no it is basically the same plan I have been trying to get them to play all year".

The answer seems to lie somewhere in between RR & Hardnut.

"Not a great deal, no".

If the truth lies somewhere between Hardnut and myself I'd say it'd look something like this:

RR ___Truth ___________________________________________________ Hardnut.

The question isn't whether the gameplan has evolved, it's whether Neeld intended to evolve it when he saw certain basics performed to a satisfactory level or whether it's evolved because of pressure from supporters and the media.

Or whether the players are more comfortable with it, and are playing accordingly.

....and another loss tonight. Eat it Bombers!

On AFL360 last night Robinson asked Neeld directly if he had changed his game plan over the last couple of weeks. Neeld said something like, "not a great deal, no."

Now this could be taken as, "yes I have changed it somewhat" or "no it is basically the same plan I have been trying to get them to play all year".

The answer seems to lie somewhere in between RR & Hardnut.

Oh good. I was hoping he would ask him that.

It means what I thought. He hasn't changed his game plan "completely" as some seem to have their mind set on. He may have peeled back a layer of the next phase or our players have become more instinctive of their tasks as a collective.

A bit more time and confidence can make a big difference with regards to such. And efforts and output increased as a direct result.