Apologies for the personal stuff

UH.. We may be arguing at crossed purposes. You ask how the team should have performed.? I dont really expect them to have performed much better i.e Did I expect them to win ? Not in a fit. You actually touch upon a particular niggle point. How we could kick a score with so many forwards out of action ? There were times when Viney Jones and Col looked up for options and really had none. I wasnt expecting us to have many powerful inside 50's but when you take one of the few supposed almost in form types , yes our little Jackie and throw him down back where he seemed to enjoy a picnic rather than play footy I really have to question what the coach is thinking. Theres an old adage...fake it before you make it. I think coachs have to employ this tactic at times to convince their charges that there is a hope when playing. Yes you will still be very humbled on the scoreboard but you might just get a few passages to work , you know, like a footy team plays.

I dont particularly blame many of the players. Many are just not up to it.

Not saying we should bring in the Drill Sergeant from Full Metal Jacket, but the endorsement of this group of players hardly makes me want him in the job permanently.

Not saying we should bring in the Drill Sergeant from Full Metal Jacket, but the endorsement of this group of players hardly makes me want him in the job permanently.

This I think is an interesting sticking point. Many here would effectively write off anywhere form 1/3 to half of the list. The coaches would without doubt know the players better as people etc and we effectively only gauge via watching games and training but in the end the litmus must surely be how they play as a cohesive unit and we suck. So Do question the validity of a coach who thinks that teh list is essentially sound bar a few here and there. if this is Craigs viewpoint then I definitely dont share it and I would ( imho ) question his suitability for the coaching role.

Apologies for the personal stuff

UH.. We may be arguing at crossed purposes. You ask how the team should have performed.? I dont really expect them to have performed much better i.e Did I expect them to win ? Not in a fit. You actually touch upon a particular niggle point. How we could kick a score with so many forwards out of action ? There were times when Viney Jones and Col looked up for options and really had none. I wasnt expecting us to have many powerful inside 50's but when you take one of the few supposed almost in form types , yes our little Jackie and throw him down back where he seemed to enjoy a picnic rather than play footy I really have to question what the coach is thinking. Theres an old adage...fake it before you make it. I think coachs have to employ this tactic at times to convince their charges that there is a hope when playing. Yes you will still be very humbled on the scoreboard but you might just get a few passages to work , you know, like a footy team plays.

I dont particularly blame many of the players. Many are just not up to it.

No offense taken - it is hard to decipher exact points over the internet so I am not really fussed

A lot of the points you've brought up are player related - work rate, availability and experience - you don't really speak about Craig himself. Craig is a successful and well respected coach from the Crows - he doesn't need to fake anything

I simply say what you're saying is irrelevant in this thread because the teams fielded under Craig and even Neeld lack 2 key components IMO

Experience/Leadership & Consistency - For the last 2 -4 years the MFC list wouldn't have the foggiest what either of these two things are.

Craig deserves a crack IMO, he'd be no worse then Choco or Eade - the MFC won't be successful on field (I guarantee it) until the Off field is sorted and someone in the FD can implement my two/three points....... The MFC in 2013 are a shell of what an AFL team should look and act like

And that is not a reflection of NC

This I think is an interesting sticking point. Many here would effectively write off anywhere form 1/3 to half of the list. The coaches would without doubt know the players better as people etc and we effectively only gauge via watching games and training but in the end the litmus must surely be how they play as a cohesive unit and we suck. So Do question the validity of a coach who thinks that teh list is essentially sound bar a few here and there. if this is Craigs viewpoint then I definitely dont share it and I would ( imho ) question his suitability for the coaching role.

Firstly we, you don't know if thats Craig's view - it's all guess work

Secondly, this team lacks real leadership and development from years of neglect - We need someone to bring that to the club - and it won't happen overnight

There is a thin line between development and list management - I personally believe Craig has coached us in development mode - which sacrifices his W/L record

Firstly we, you don't know if thats Craig's view - it's all guess work

Secondly, this team lacks real leadership and development from years of neglect - We need someone to bring that to the club - and it won't happen overnight

There is a thin line between development and list management - I personally believe Craig has coached us in development mode - which sacrifices his W/L record

Much of what you refer regarding players is probably pretty fair comment but a coach , any coach works with what he has in the same ethos as you can only play the team that turns up,

Im not fussed if we lose, I dont expcect to win. I am not convinced Craig is whole heartedly going the developmental route . He seems to switch back to 'circle the wagons' mode

Much of what you refer regarding players is probably pretty fair comment but a coach , any coach works with what he has in the same ethos as you can only play the team that turns up,

Im not fussed if we lose, I dont expcect to win. I am not convinced Craig is whole heartedly going the developmental route . He seems to switch back to 'circle the wagons' mode

Thats your opinion and thats fine

But you can only work with what you have not perform miricales each week........ Not sure if you've looked at an MFC side lately (clearly a pun) but there isn't a lot of experience I don't know how you can call anything the MFC puts on the park anything but development

I guess thats why some people can't accept where we are at - there is 8 - 10 quality AFL players - the rest are either not up to AFL standard - Fill ins or development projects

Sounds like your judging Craig on not perfoming miricales - but your entitled to that opinion - I think he's worth a shot at the top job

There were two coaching decisions which baffled me in the Freo game. Why did Craig persist with a free man in defence? So often when we got the ball the players had no-one forward to kick to and Freo's equivalent free man in defence was able to do too much damage. Secondly, why, when we were down to one rotation for most of the second half were players like Spencer, Fitzpatrick and Tom McDonald getting a rest. Surely the ruckman could have rested in the forward line to allow our onballers such as Viney, Sylvia, Trengove and Jones (x2) more rest time.

I don't believe that Craig's coaching style would ever win a premiership with any team because of his defence mantra (remember Melb v Adelaide at the MCG when Bailey was coach when we kicked our first goal in the third quarter...and still had a chance to win?). However, given we won't have a team challenging for a premiership for the next 2 years I wouldn't be averse to him coaching for one or two more years on the understanding that he would hand over to someone he would be training (such as, but not necessarily, Adam Simpson). A decision like that needs his proper buy-in. We wouldn't want a Mick Malthouse at Collingwood situation.

There were two coaching decisions which baffled me in the Freo game. Why did Craig persist with a free man in defence? So often when we got the ball the players had no-one forward to kick to and Freo's equivalent free man in defence was able to do too much damage. Secondly, why, when we were down to one rotation for most of the second half were players like Spencer, Fitzpatrick and Tom McDonald getting a rest. Surely the ruckman could have rested in the forward line to allow our onballers such as Viney, Sylvia, Trengove and Jones (x2) more rest time.

........

I concur 100%...baffling... I was hoping to see a bit of lateral thinking exactly as you suggest utilise the talls up front resting and keeping the bench clear other than for players who're stuffed. This was a chance to get a bit proactive, creative and get behind the players with some belief. Were we going to win. No. But then Craig didnt really provide for any options to even fake the ideal.

I agree wholeheartedly here with you LDVC

I was under the impression most coaches rest ruckmans to preserve their run and rest the on ballers in the pocket. Inside mids generally rotate off the bench, allowing a 3 way contingent between hard on ball running, outside mid support and 1-2 minute spells on the bench. But I am certainly not a coach, so I am probably way off.

Fair to say in modern football, the more versatile ruckmans rest up forward and become that extra tall up front. But it really all depends on what players you have at your expense. Melbourne are certainly no Hawthorn or Sydney who each have multiple utilities.

2 extra men in defence was obviously a defensive scoring tactic Craigy decided on, but by that stage it was more to save the game blowing out further than anything else. The initial extra man in defence I thought was to gain more inside 50's and if we had managed to switch momentum, I am sure the next move was to put Watts back up front and get some points on the board. But the momentum never shifted, Watts practically spat the dummy with his role so what can Craig really do?

We were outclassed, out skilled and outrun. What more could any coach do?

I know it probably sounds like I am defending Neil Craig, but I do agree with UH in the fact that if you give Neil Craig at least a team of players with heart and fight. He can certainly fix the rest.

I don't think any AFL coach can do much with a club full of ballerinas. They only know football, not ballet.

Craig wont be coach in 2014.

I doubt he even wants to be.

Rocket Eade for mine, thats my wish anyway/

alias . I think the ideas mooted by LDVC and which I concur were that a different paradigm of thinking was needed given the extenuating circumstances put upon us.

Can I just ask what you would have done under those circumstances though?

I certainly don't mean this as a rhetorical smart aleck remark. I am actually quite interested on what coaching moves you think he should have done during those points of the game.

Or in your opinion what would have been a typical Chocco move? I myself am still working out who is really in the best position to coach this mess we are in.

I would be most unhappy if Craig were given the job next year. He's popular with the players, but he's show terrible tactical awareness and he certainly isn't getting winning efforts out of the team. He really seems to be coaching to minimise the losses rather than to win. That isn't acceptable no matter who we play against. We need a coach who doesn't accept losses and will make the moves necessary to give us a shot at winning.

Can I just ask what you would have done under those circumstances though?

I certainly don't mean this as a rhetorical smart aleck remark. I am actually quite interested on what coaching moves you think he should have done during those points of the game.

Or in your opinion what would have been a typical Chocco move? I myself am still working out who is really in the best position to coach this mess we are in.

On the basis that we were never going to win this game - and any person who thought otherwise at the start of the game surely didn't think so 15 minutes in - I would have kept Jack Watts in the forward line and if a spare man was to be deployed, used Troy Davis (or Lynden Dunn with Davis minding whoever Dunn was responsible for). I would only have used the one behind the ball for a few minutes when Freo was firing (to be honest...I wouldn't have used it at all. I just can't see the point. If we get the ball with a spare man back it means we can't score because of their reciprocal spare man in defence. And they then have more time and space to spot up a better option when they return fire.).

And I would not have given Spencer, McDonald or Fitzpatrick a spell on the bench in the last quarter. I can't believe McDonald at 20 can't stay with Pavlich who's 32-ish.

On the basis that we were never going to win this game - and any person who thought otherwise at the start of the game surely didn't think so 15 minutes in - I would have kept Jack Watts in the forward line and if a spare man was to be deployed, used Troy Davis (or Lynden Dunn with Davis minding whoever Dunn was responsible for). I would only have used the one behind the ball for a few minutes when Freo was firing (to be honest...I wouldn't have used it at all. I just can't see the point. If we get the ball with a spare man back it means we can't score because of their reciprocal spare man in defence. And they then have more time and space to spot up a better option when they return fire.).

And I would not have given Spencer, McDonald or Fitzpatrick a spell on the bench in the last quarter. I can't believe McDonald at 20 can't stay with Pavlich who's 32-ish.

I guess this is where each and every one of us has a different opinion on the game tactics. Say we didn't have any extra man in defence, do you honestly think Fremantle wouldn't have hit the scoreboard even harder?

They were getting the ball out of the middle almost every bounce, I couldn't honestly see the ball even entering our 50 unless we had the extra man back (but again my opinion only). Using Troy Davis instead of Watts is a very valid point. Craig obviously went for experience over eagerness and as a result Troy would have probably done a better job as we all saw how involved Jack Watts got.

I just don't want to see Craigy completely written off. I mentioned it earlier in this thread, he does seem to have a very good idea in general of what we need. I will definitely admit he is certainly not the best coach for game day tactics, but we can always seek assistance on that with the rest of our coaching panel. I just do not want to see the MFC go for the 'fresh face' approach and clutch on to everything in hope. Though I do agree on the fact we can't have another push over coach. Craig will certainly change his way he addresses the player if he is appointed head coach. That I guarantee.

McDonald on Pavlich I can't agree more. Again this is entirely MacDonald's fault. He is a man on man defender with only one job to do. Stop Pavlich. McDonald may just be one of our very few (if not only) player that has been falling at a great rate since the departure of MN. Wasn't TommyMac pretty much MN's fav?

I would be most unhappy if Craig were given the job next year. He's popular with the players, but he's show terrible tactical awareness and he certainly isn't getting winning efforts out of the team. He really seems to be coaching to minimise the losses rather than to win. That isn't acceptable no matter who we play against. We need a coach who doesn't accept losses and will make the moves necessary to give us a shot at winning.

Well we had zero chance of winning before the first siren sounded. Anyone in AFL could have told you that. It's not negative thinking, just pure facts. If we played "a shot at winning", lost by 160 points, I think everyone would have had an even bigger blame on Craig for not stopping the onslaught. He could only make moves in attempt to slow them down.

Alias.. i think LDVC covered it pretty well. My concern is if you havent paved a way to goal you most definitely wont get there when and if any opportunity presents. Ive only just got back so Ill have a deeper look a little later.

I'm keen on Eade, but Craig can clearly coach a football team.

alias I think i too would have used Davis down back.. Hes played a bit down there over the journey and might have made a bit more of a contest than watts. Watts would have had a reasonable chance even 50 out.

Would have played watts at the high HFF area . Kept a tall rotated as resting down the pointy end along with appointed forward, say Fitzy

By all means keep one more sweeping through the half back but their role is to niggle and deny the ball.. a la ( dare I say it ) Rivers style. McDonald does this ok but had hands full. If anything this is all Grimes and Trenners ought to have been doing.

All you can do on days like this is kill the flight of the ball, contest the possession , find any road to your 50 line and get it down there to a contest. Then hope. Its ugly grass roots footy but when youre undermanned you have to get basic

Am not for a moment suggesting theres was a true fix for the day but leaving Watts to just lolly around was wasting him.

The rotations needed to be more on the field than the pine...as if there was really a choice come the end

There were two coaching decisions which baffled me in the Freo game. Why did Craig persist with a free man in defence? So often when we got the ball the players had no-one forward to kick to and Freo's equivalent free man in defence was able to do too much damage. Secondly, why, when we were down to one rotation for most of the second half were players like Spencer, Fitzpatrick and Tom McDonald getting a rest. Surely the ruckman could have rested in the forward line to allow our onballers such as Viney, Sylvia, Trengove and Jones (x2) more rest time.

I don't believe that Craig's coaching style would ever win a premiership with any team because of his defence mantra (remember Melb v Adelaide at the MCG when Bailey was coach when we kicked our first goal in the third quarter...and still had a chance to win?). However, given we won't have a team challenging for a premiership for the next 2 years I wouldn't be averse to him coaching for one or two more years on the understanding that he would hand over to someone he would be training (such as, but not necessarily, Adam Simpson). A decision like that needs his proper buy-in. We wouldn't want a Mick Malthouse at Collingwood situation.

You make decent points but what you fail to bring up as it doesn't suit your argument - is that one behind play is a common tactic used by many teams. I am not a coach so I can't comment on how directly it affects the style of play

I do believe it is used to stem the flow of opposition scoring - And it was noted on the coverage that Freo were bombing in to the F50 in the first half - so a loose player makes sense

I don't remember reading that in your anaylsis

Lastly the ball movement in the 2nd qtr was quite good even with Watts in defence - you fail to bring up we had 10 or 11 scoring shots. I don't know who was exactly off in the second half but Strauss was subbed in the 2nd qtr and others were lost....... I am not neve to discuss what could been done as only the coaches would know........

I'd say work rate and leadership had more to do with the MFC getting flogged in the second half rather then NC - but if we are only going to discuss one side of the coin please feel free to continue........

Alias.. i think LDVC covered it pretty well. My concern is if you havent paved a way to goal you most definitely wont get there when and if any opportunity presents. Ive only just got back so Ill have a deeper look a little later.

Yeah that would be great BB59. I wouldn't mind reading your opinion on those tactics.

The extra man in defence can help create the overlap (if your opposing team mate takes off quick enough though). I just don't think we have the run to pull off the more experienced plays that the better clubs can do. The better sides can pretty much have all 18 men in their defensive half, cause the turn over, sprint to the wing, play keepings off whilst the forwards sprint straight up the middle. Kick it to a target, line up, goal.

I definitely know our boys are just not capable of doing anything like that. Or am I wrong in saying that?

Heading home for the day, but will definitely be reading your responses.

alias I think i too would have used Davis down back.. Hes played a bit down there over the journey and might have made a bit more of a contest than watts. Watts would have had a reasonable chance even 50 out.

Would have played watts at the high HFF area . Kept a tall rotated as resting down the pointy end along with appointed forward, say Fitzy

By all means keep one more sweeping through the half back but their role is to niggle and deny the ball.. a la ( dare I say it ) Rivers style. McDonald does this ok but had hands full. If anything this is all Grimes and Trenners ought to have been doing.

All you can do on days like this is kill the flight of the ball, contest the possession , find any road to your 50 line and get it down there to a contest. Then hope. Its ugly grass roots footy but when youre undermanned you have to get basic

Am not for a moment suggesting theres was a true fix for the day but leaving Watts to just lolly around was wasting him.

The rotations needed to be more on the field than the pine...as if there was really a choice come the end

No offence but If I had to choose between you and NC - I know who i'd choose - how can you people really justify bagging his coaching with Zero experience? Love to hear your creditations

I can't reply to every negative post in this thread ( am not targeting you this time BB but this analysis is pretty one sided and poor....

We suffered much more from having one (or more) less forward than from having an extra (or more) defender. Freo could take risks with their ball movement because Lyon knew we couldn't hurt them the other way. There were a number of times when our only man forward was Fitzy, and the 4 players nearest to him were all Dockers.

It also left Michael Johnson unopposed as a sweeper (in a 6-on-5 situation - ours was 7-on-6, so he had much more space), which was ridiculous.

A sweeper is no use whatsoever if the mids delivering into the forward line are under no pressure and can pinpoint their delivery (and have the skill to do it, as Mundy & Hill et al certainly do). Freo's ball use made a sweeper useless, no matter who they were.

It bothers me that the only tool in Craig's kitbag seems to be putting Watts back as a sweeper early in the game, and leaving him there the rest of the game, no matter what. A sweeper used intelligently can be a good move, but I haven't seen us use it intelligently for a long time.

No offence but If I had to choose between you and NC - I know who i'd choose - how can you people really justify bagging his coaching with Zero experience? Love to hear your creditations

I can't reply to every negative post in this thread ( am not targeting you this time BB but this analysis is pretty one sided and poor....

so you think Craig did it well..?? youre kidding. He had opportunities and he let them slide.. Would you have left Watts where he was.. ?? Would you have brought all the mids back to the pine ( every time ) or given them a spell in pockets etc .

How about instead of poo pooing everyone else mate you offer up your wisdom..

so you think Craig did it well..?? youre kidding. He had opportunities and he let them slide.. Would you have left Watts where he was.. ?? Would you have brought all the mids back to the pine ( every time ) or given them a spell in pockets etc .

How about instead of poo pooing everyone else mate you offer up your wisdom..

Mate no offense again but what are your qualifiactions as a coach to say those moves definitely would have worked? You keep implying that the MFC could compete with Freo on the day - which ask anyone in the AFL it's not true - take off your rose coloured glasses

What is your personal knowledge of players fitness levels and rotations? I mean it's a joke - you can't argue that you have no idea - I have no idea thats my point I am not a coach

I am not going to continue this pointless analysis - Just have a balanced view......