Our last two coaches have been guilty of the same thing. Bailey tried to get us playing a free-flowing, uncontested game a la Geelong of 2007-2009, but the Colingwood press of 2010 and then Sydney's higher pressure game meant Bailey's plan was made to look pathetic.

Then Neeld came in and tried to get us to play Collingwood's pressing, pressure game, with contested marking and boundary-based movement, and was left to watch the competition speed up and pass us by.

Truth be told, trends in football come and go every year. The good clubs and good coaches are able to adapt and mould their playing group to fit the bill. Neither Bailey nor Neeld were able to do that, not even close.

I think you are right that we have been caught out in following trends in football and this also shows in the way we recruited in the past. As you say the good clubs and coaches adapt quickly I think because they don't just try to pick winners. They look at what they have and what is happening and go about winning games of football while we have been chasing the pack, trying to be too smart. I would also add that the really good coaches don't only adapt but set the trends in football. Let's hope that's us in the years to come.

I think you are right that we have been caught out in following trends in football and this also shows in the way we recruited in the past. As you say the good clubs and coaches adapt quickly I think because they don't just try to pick winners. They look at what they have and what is happening and go about winning games of football while we have been chasing the pack, trying to be too smart. I would also add that the really good coaches don't only adapt but set the trends in football. Let's hope that's us in the years to come.

I think this is correct. I felt that we recruited too many of a particular 'type' at times. At the end of Daniher's reign we took on Jones, Bartram, Dunn, Bate, Moloney - slower, stockier, stronger players, but not necessarily the most skilful (Jones the exception). Then under Bailey we took players like Morton, Blease, Strauss, Gysberts - I felt like it was almost over-compensation for the previous era's quest to bring in the tough nuts.

I think this is correct. I felt that we recruited too many of a particular 'type' at times. At the end of Daniher's reign we took on Jones, Bartram, Dunn, Bate, Moloney - slower, stockier, stronger players, but not necessarily the most skilful (Jones the exception). Then under Bailey we took players like Morton, Blease, Strauss, Gysberts - I felt like it was almost over-compensation for the previous era's quest to bring in the tough nuts.

The fact that we couldn't draft a player that had a bit of both sides still annoys the hell out of me.

The fact that we couldn't draft a player that had a bit of both sides still annoys the hell out of me.

I think Nathan Jones probably qualifies...but perhaps he's the only one.

pls dont take offense

but when anything tries to show footy as charts they lose me

Footy is really a lot simpler than that. The game isnt that complicated and it eventually comes down to that stat called the scoreboard

Theres good coaching,,,,and then theres us.

I really don't know where to start...

Footy is a numbers game, if you walk into any midfield session during the week at any club they will rattle off 10 different categories that they are tracking.

A graph is just an illustration of stats.

And, lastly, in no way is the above particularly complex:

Winners usually win the uncontested footy count by a comparable margin. Craig has got the team to do much better than Neeld.

I really don't know where to start...

Footy is a numbers game, if you walk into any midfield session during the week at any club they will rattle off 10 different categories that they are tracking.

A graph is just an illustration of stats.

And, lastly, in no way is the above particularly complex:

Winners usually win the uncontested footy count by a comparable margin. Craig has got the team to do much better than Neeld.

BB can't have been serious. The only issue is: is the correlation is a casual one and in which direction does it go, ie. lot of unconesteds means you win, or if you win (for some other reason) then you just get more uncontesteds. I suspect the former. Though there may be a bit of a runaway effect exaggerating the trend.

Of course the correlation may also be totally meaningless.

BB can't have been serious. The only issue is: is the correlation is a casual one and in which direction does it go, ie. lot of unconesteds means you win, or if you win (for some other reason) then you just get more uncontesteds. I suspect the former. Though there may be a bit of a runaway effect exaggerating the trend.

Of course the correlation may also be totally meaningless.

UPs are attacks.

They involve a man in space who was willing to run and risk that his opposite number will get it instead.

When a team gets 60 or more UPs than us, it means they have attacked the game more than we have, and that we have not dared to the same extent to win enough footy to win the game.

The old axiom is true...

Who Dares Wins.

It's a fair point to consider though that once an outcome seems a certainty, the opposing team will drop off its pressure thus allowing the inevitable victor to chalk up the UPs. Chicken and egg.

It's a fair point to consider though that once an outcome seems a certainty, the opposing team will drop off its pressure thus allowing the inevitable victor to chalk up the UPs. Chicken and egg.

yes, that's what I meant by a 'runaway effect'. But rpfc is probably right.

Yeah, not disputing what rpfc is saying, just giving credence to what you were saying also.

If they can give us possessions, we'll shut up...or something similar.

UPs are attacks.

They involve a man in space who was willing to run and risk that his opposite number will get it instead.

When a team gets 60 or more UPs than us, it means they have attacked the game more than we have, and that we have not dared to the same extent to win enough footy to win the game.

The old axiom is true...

Who Dares Wins.

except if they don't kick straight. Hence our loss to Gold Coast.

except if they don't kick straight. Hence our loss to Gold Coast.

Who Dares Puts Themselves In A Position To Win.

It's less catchy...

Mike Whitney nixed it at the first meeting.