On 03/06/2015 at 23:44, poita said:

Sounds to me like Roos is (once again) deflecting blame away from himself for an abysmal performance by both the players and coaches.

I would have liked Roos to also come out and say that the coaches failed to react when the game turned ten minutes into the second quarter, even though we were sitting on a comfortable lead at the time. Instead they waited until we were two goals down before they changed anything.

If we'd made it to half time with a lead, I suspect the second half would have been far more competitive.

If Roos doesn't think that certain players are up to the task, then he needs to stop playing them and get games into other players. Howe is clearly one who has been terrible all season, but seems to be undroppable.

he's trying to aid the supporters to be patient, because 'apparent talent' doesn't necessarily equate into real talent, or output.

And impatience can hurt the development of our young kids... this is why so many players often develop better in the non-football states, & why the Melbourne Storm have an excellent rate of turning kids into great NRL players.

  On 03/06/2015 at 20:07, Tough Kent said:

Damaged goods??? Some of these GWS kids experienced 100 point loss after 100 point loss over a 3-4 year period. They certainly seem to have bounced back okay.

We can make all the excuses we like. At the end of the day, the overall list and some of the players on it are just not good enough at this stage.

its not about, 'just the last years', or the 100+ point beltings...

its also about the previous years of bruise-free footy, & of the 'we'll win when we feel like winning mentality, but don't make us chase opponents, OK'

we've had a really ordinary culture for a long time, & it was at its best between '86 - around '94, & imo, its started to soften slowly from '94ish on. til the 2000's, when our older harder players slowly retired, or were shunted.

I think it is more about players learning and there willingness to do what is required all the time not only when they choose to. This is the issue, it's habits rather than mental scars. Our players through the Bailey era ran the show, they then revolted against Mark Neeld when he took the long stick approach and it looks that some still want to play on their terms.

That would be examples like Dunn trying to hit a torp to no one, the dramatic drop in pressure acts from a number of players, nothing to do with the past everything to do with the players willingness to do what is required.

  On 04/06/2015 at 03:58, drdrake said:

I think it is more about players learning and there willingness to do what is required all the time not only when they choose to. This is the issue, it's habits rather than mental scars. Our players through the Bailey era ran the show, they then revolted against Mark Neeld when he took the long stick approach and it looks that some still want to play on their terms.

That would be examples like Dunn trying to hit a torp to no one, the dramatic drop in pressure acts from a number of players, nothing to do with the past everything to do with the players willingness to do what is required.

This is exactly right, Dr.

So what's Roos going to admit in public - that these players are still no good, thus reducing any trade value they may have, or imply that they may be better in a more successful environment, thus maintaining or slightly increasing their trade value.

People want him to be honest, to some degree I do too! But imagine the outcry if he came out and said Howe was a lazy, selfish, one-trick pony that would be lucky to make it on any list. He'd go from a (rumoured) potential first round trade, to a late 4th rounder.

  On 04/06/2015 at 04:03, billy2803 said:

This is exactly right, Dr.

So what's Roos going to admit in public - that these players are still no good, thus reducing any trade value they may have, or imply that they may be better in a more successful environment, thus maintaining or slightly increasing their trade value.

People want him to be honest, to some degree I do too! But imagine the outcry if he came out and said Howe was a lazy, selfish, one-trick pony that would be lucky to make it on any list. He'd go from a (rumoured) potential first round trade, to a late 4th rounder.

weell

It might reflect what a lot of demon supporters think and it may be a bit brutal.

I personally think its a bit harsh but would like to see Howes response to such comments.

If he wants to show, Roos, supporters, future teammates that this is incorrect he needs to show the team and individual effort that proves it wrong.

Damaged goods is a nice way of Roosy saying that no soft [censored] will be allowed at the MFC any longer.

Goodwin will be driving that hard behind the scenes.

  On 04/06/2015 at 04:03, billy2803 said:

This is exactly right, Dr.

So what's Roos going to admit in public - that these players are still no good, thus reducing any trade value they may have, or imply that they may be better in a more successful environment, thus maintaining or slightly increasing their trade value.

People want him to be honest, to some degree I do too! But imagine the outcry if he came out and said Howe was a lazy, selfish, one-trick pony that would be lucky to make it on any list. He'd go from a (rumoured) potential first round trade, to a late 4th rounder.

Clubs aren't dumb, they know where a player is at and what they are prepared to offer, some clubs pay overs to meet a need some pay unders because the other club wants that person out or that player wants out.

Drop the mental fragile line and say we have players that struggle for 120 minutes, if these players can't play our style for 120minutes or show signs that they are willing to it may be best that we part company at the end of the year.

I think this was more or less Roos line this week but everyone looks at the past for the excuse, the mental weak story gets more traction

  On 04/06/2015 at 05:07, drdrake said:

Clubs aren't dumb, they know where a player is at and what they are prepared to offer, some clubs pay overs to meet a need some pay unders because the other club wants that person out or that player wants out.

Drop the mental fragile line and say we have players that struggle for 120 minutes, if these players can't play our style for 120minutes or show signs that they are willing to it may be best that we part company at the end of the year.

I think this was more or less Roos line this week but everyone looks at the past for the excuse, the mental weak story gets more traction

Fremantle/Sylvia?

Clubs can be dumb.

  On 04/06/2015 at 05:11, billy2803 said:

Fremantle/Sylvia?

Clubs can be dumb.

More the AFL for the compensation they gave us. All Sylvia cost Fremantle was money, they gave nothing up for him and he filled a need, they had some handy tall and small forwards but no mid size Forward that could pitch hit in the Mid Field, I remember when they got him it was to play forward then run through the middle when Fyfe went forward

  On 04/06/2015 at 05:11, billy2803 said:

Fremantle/Sylvia?

Clubs can be dumb.

A perfect case study is the MFC 2007-2013

  On 04/06/2015 at 03:58, drdrake said:

I think it is more about players learning and there willingness to do what is required all the time not only when they choose to. This is the issue, it's habits rather than mental scars. Our players through the Bailey era ran the show, they then revolted against Mark Neeld when he took the long stick approach and it looks that some still want to play on their terms.

That would be examples like Dunn trying to hit a torp to no one, the dramatic drop in pressure acts from a number of players, nothing to do with the past everything to do with the players willingness to do what is required.

  On 04/06/2015 at 04:03, billy2803 said:

This is exactly right, Dr.

So what's Roos going to admit in public - that these players are still no good, thus reducing any trade value they may have, or imply that they may be better in a more successful environment, thus maintaining or slightly increasing their trade value.

People want him to be honest, to some degree I do too! But imagine the outcry if he came out and said Howe was a lazy, selfish, one-trick pony that would be lucky to make it on any list. He'd go from a (rumoured) potential first round trade, to a late 4th rounder.

players can change once in a new environment (list), without there comforts of players, personnel, & or familiar surroundings to lean on, whilst they hope for the status-quo to remain. "its easier earning my money & accolades the old ways"..... but the new ways will get you wins & success..... "so what, i liked it the old way".

drdrake - players do learn, intellectually, but his does not make them into elite players, & certainly NOT champions. they have to learn that they can trust themselves totally using the ball & be prepared to take that responsibility to use it & well, with an intent to do so.

not learning this intuitiveness will probably cost them about 45% of their natural untapped ability.

is this why we haven't unearthed any champs for some time?

---------------------

billy2803 - players can learn again, once removed from the familiar zone, but they won't be as much like a sponge in their minds & in their mojo like a newbie 18 yr old. but if the newbies learn from a shytehole, that is what they will perform like. a copy of the old culture, mostly. there are exceptions to the rule; in our case, namely Jones.

the blind are very good at becoming intuitive...

.

  On 03/06/2015 at 10:09, The Song Formerly Known As said:

Picture worth a 10000 words, and a meme is worth even more.

A meme may be worth 1,000,000 likes but it's not worth much more than the space of single tweet.

  On 04/06/2015 at 03:58, drdrake said:

I think it is more about players learning and there willingness to do what is required all the time not only when they choose to. This is the issue, it's habits rather than mental scars. Our players through the Bailey era ran the show, they then revolted against Mark Neeld when he took the long stick approach and it looks that some still want to play on their terms.

That would be examples like Dunn trying to hit a torp to no one, the dramatic drop in pressure acts from a number of players, nothing to do with the past everything to do with the players willingness to do what is required.

There are 15 players left from 2011 when Mitch Robinson labelled us 'bruise free'.

Not that many senior players left

Jones, Watts McKenzie Trengove Dunn Garland Jamar Fitzpatrick Bail Gawn Howe Jetta Spencer McDonald Grimes

Hard to believe the younger players are ignoring the coaches and playing on their own terms.

Our leadership stinks and has since Neitz and Junior left.

  On 04/06/2015 at 05:18, drdrake said:

More the AFL for the compensation they gave us. All Sylvia cost Fremantle was money, they gave nothing up for him and he filled a need, they had some handy tall and small forwards but no mid size Forward that could pitch hit in the Mid Field, I remember when they got him it was to play forward then run through the middle when Fyfe went forward

He cost Freo a spot on their list & enough cash to pay a decent player for 3 years.

M Jones, Bail, Watts, Howe, Dunn, Grimes.

  On 04/06/2015 at 07:38, Machsy said:

M Jones, Bail, Watts, Howe, Dunn, Grimes.

What about Col Garland? Should he be on that list?

  On 04/06/2015 at 07:34, jnrmac said:

There are 15 players left from 2011 when Mitch Robinson labelled us 'bruise free'.

Not that many senior players left

Jones, Watts McKenzie Trengove Dunn Garland Jamar Fitzpatrick Bail Gawn Howe Jetta Spencer McDonald Grimes

Our leadership stinks and has since Neitz and Junior left.

Perhaps less than ten left after this year. Lack of leadership was identified early by Neeld. Fortunately the younger brigade of McDonald, Brayshaw, Hogan, Salem etc have it in spades... helps that they can play a bit as well.

  On 03/06/2015 at 13:49, dee-luded said:

i think intuitiveness or instinctiveness develops from a trust in self, & a quiet inner confidence in ones abilities to learn skills, & to produce those skills you've learn't.

When you believe in (have faith in your skills), its easier to develop into an intuitive player. one who doesn't have too waste precious milliseconds, thinking consciously about what to do. Instead of reacting intuitively, (using your first thought);... practicing this method can help to become intuitive.

just don't think too much whilst trying, don't try too hard. or the opposite can happen... paralysis by analysis.

this is where some are, overcautious, bereft of natural confidence. slow to decide, & lost flow in their games.... or some have it to a degree.

I've spent a lot of time developing training for the management of critical incidents particularly around decision making and its a very difficult area.

Firstly intuition and instinct are two separate things, but you are right in that both apply equally in terms of football. Instinct can't be taught, you are born with it and in a football sense its about the relationship of the player's physical abilities in relation to their environment, so high degree of knowledge and confidence in their physical abilities, peripheral vision, spatial awareness etc are all part of that package. Having an extremely high degree of this (like a Gary Ablett Snr and Jnr) mean that regardless of the team structures you can work your way through most situations and look good. Its also handy because it happens automatically - cognition happens so quickly we can't stop it. Conversely intuition must be learnt, because intuition is recognition. This can also happen automatically, but the results are dependent on perception and like poor instinctive qualities (i.e. having no spatial awareness) can lead to 'suboptimal' results. Klein talks about this as Recognition Primed Decision-making (RPD). But it can have both good and bad results depending on your experience and 'programming'.

Coaches develop training drills, based on the game plan and structures they want their players to adhere to. In this way they try to instil a certain level of automaticity into their responses. In effect they are trying to mimic instinct to a certain extent -at least in terms of successful outcomes by developing greater situational awareness than your opponent through predictability and control (execution of skill is something else altogether).

Roos made a very poignant observation in his post match conference he mentioned that players weren't adhering to the structures... when we did we were 6 goals up and when one player broke from the regime to go and help a teammate in trouble and so the next player does it and so on and then you have no structure at all and you end up getting belted. He followed this up on Monday night by saying that the coaching department knew what was going wrong and why, but he wouldn't elaborate on it other than the stuff he's said before about mental scarring and list changes etc. What tends to happen in periods of stress like in the Port Adelaide & GWS games when the opposition stop playing one way and start playing another, is that the dominant heuristics (the cognitive shortcuts we develop over time) and automaticity comes to the fore (particularly if they are the easier ones to perform). I refer to this in the training environment as a form of regression - rather than people attending to the priority task that they need to (and is often complicated and hard) they will do the task that is familiar and comfortable because that offers them the greatest individual chance of success irregardless of its benefit to the team. I don't think Roos is making excuses, I think we have so many ingrained bad habits in players that they simply regress to previous form -RPD - something that was either endorsed or tolerated/ignored by previous coaching regimes. Which leads onto a debate about changing coaches...Too often its the cart before the horse in the way clubs go about this. The club should decide on a playing style, philosophy that entire club buys into, and then you find a senior coach that supports that, rather than simply changing direction every two or three years... like Richmond used to do and we have done.

  On 05/06/2015 at 00:00, grazman said:

Perhaps less than ten left after this year. Lack of leadership was identified early by Neeld. Fortunately the younger brigade of McDonald, Brayshaw, Hogan, Salem etc have it in spades... helps that they can play a bit as well.

I've spent a lot of time developing training for the management of critical incidents particularly around decision making and its a very difficult area.

Firstly intuition and instinct are two separate things, but you are right in that both apply equally in terms of football. Instinct can't be taught, you are born with it and in a football sense its about the relationship of the player's physical abilities in relation to their environment, so high degree of knowledge and confidence in their physical abilities, peripheral vision, spatial awareness etc are all part of that package. Having an extremely high degree of this (like a Gary Ablett Snr and Jnr) mean that regardless of the team structures you can work your way through most situations and look good. Its also handy because it happens automatically - cognition happens so quickly we can't stop it. Conversely intuition must be learnt, because intuition is recognition. This can also happen automatically, but the results are dependent on perception and like poor instinctive qualities (i.e. having no spatial awareness) can lead to 'suboptimal' results. Klein talks about this as Recognition Primed Decision-making (RPD). But it can have both good and bad results depending on your experience and 'programming'.

Coaches develop training drills, based on the game plan and structures they want their players to adhere to. In this way they try to instil a certain level of automaticity into their responses. In effect they are trying to mimic instinct to a certain extent -at least in terms of successful outcomes by developing greater situational awareness than your opponent through predictability and control (execution of skill is something else altogether).

Roos made a very poignant observation in his post match conference he mentioned that players weren't adhering to the structures... when we did we were 6 goals up and when one player broke from the regime to go and help a teammate in trouble and so the next player does it and so on and then you have no structure at all and you end up getting belted. He followed this up on Monday night by saying that the coaching department knew what was going wrong and why, but he wouldn't elaborate on it other than the stuff he's said before about mental scarring and list changes etc. What tends to happen in periods of stress like in the Port Adelaide & GWS games when the opposition stop playing one way and start playing another, is that the dominant heuristics (the cognitive shortcuts we develop over time) and automaticity comes to the fore (particularly if they are the easier ones to perform). I refer to this in the training environment as a form of regression - rather than people attending to the priority task that they need to (and is often complicated and hard) they will do the task that is familiar and comfortable because that offers them the greatest individual chance of success irregardless of its benefit to the team.

I don't think Roos is making excuses, I think we have so many ingrained bad habits in players that they simply regress to previous form -RPD - something that was either endorsed or tolerated/ignored by previous coaching regimes.

Which leads onto a debate about changing coaches...Too often its the cart before the horse in the way clubs go about this. The club should decide on a playing style, philosophy that entire club buys into, and then you find a senior coach that supports that, rather than simply changing direction every two or three years... like Richmond used to do and we have done.

yes, I agree, & when under the pump & high anxiety players can get confused & unsettled & revert back to poor decisions of short cut ideas. regressing back to the old fail of the past.

when the leaders are from this same era & method of learning & skills, th newbies are really up against it.

I believe this is why our kids haven't developed well since around the 2000. a poor culture was already growing from mid '90's, & those who entered were effected, & that culture then grows in the direction its already rolling towards.

this is why sometimes a lot of training alone on skills, can help improve, if your highly motivated & determined to grow & improve. develop the trust in skills & abilities, & to perform them constantly, then train yourself under pressure to perform the skills, make your tests tougher for yourself, not easier. and perform them under the most stress. increasing your tolerances.

.......... try to do the skills 'blind',,, eyes closed, sight the target, take your balance & stance, shut your eyes & perform, (feel) the action/delivery. open eyes a moment after release of the ball & watch the result unfold, surprised at how well it went.

then try to improve the result further with same method. = trust grows in your ability to relax & let go of stress, & just feel the ball to its target.

than take this new skill base into the team structures, & grow it in games.

I think some players are getting a game now just to boost their trade value.

  On 03/06/2015 at 23:52, billy2803 said:

Thanks Christ Roos is in charge and not you. He knows what he is doing, you don't.

It's pretty clear that he is preparing supporters for some bigger names to be moved on at the end of the year, so that when the time comes, he's got this "baggage" as an excuse. It's not baggage at all, it's just not good enough, but there will be some names that will cause mild outrage within certain circles.

Then, there is also some players he is going to move on, but knows that they will have trade value, especially if they can regain form. I think Howe fits perfectly in to this category, and Watts too. Listen to what he (Roos) says about these players in the public forum - Watts has the highest footy IQ on our team, that we need him in the team and getting the ball to be a better team. He's played Howe forward and back to show versatility, and is persisting with him in the main team, all to get him back in form so that his trade value is higher.

He (Roos) did the same with Frawley, Clark and Sylvia. Talked about how significant losses these players would be, got absolute maximum compensation, all while he was happy for them to go. I know for a fact the Sylvia case was, which netted us Vince, was orchestrated by Roos' media ability.

an interesting fact given freo approached Sylvia's management with their offer within weeks of Roos being announced as coach.

  On 05/06/2015 at 07:17, Norm Smith said:

I think some players are getting a game now just to boost their trade value.

Shame most of them lower their trade value further in the process, hey?

Unfortunately. Howe has an amazing ability to have no impact of any kind on a game.

And Dunn seems to find his best form in a contract year

I think the worst damaged goods at the MFC are the members and supporters.

I for one will never recover from the last eight years.

I am confident I am not alone probably another 30 000 like me.

The players get paid hundreds of thousand of dollars each year and then get to walk away.

I pay to the watch there efforts and cannot leave.

Boo hoo for the poor players.

  On 05/06/2015 at 07:23, Norm Smith said:

And Dunn seems to find his best form in a contract year

So did a lot of others over the years. Davey and Moloney immediately spring to mind.