Take a look at the Crows no plan B.

Go to work. Come home. More threads.

  On 18/04/2018 at 05:50, stevethemanjordan said:

Both dumb and stubborn.

Either he needs to crack down on players during a game who continually bomb the ball inside without thought or immediately make a move to help stop the opposition pinging the ball back the other way at the speed of light.

It's one of two things.

Not hope that the players will magically start kicking inside forward 50 with care and thought after goal number 5 in a row conceded.

 

I noticed quite a bit that we had men on the wings while hawthorn sometimes had 3 extra men in their backline. The guys at the centre bounce didn't adjust and try to get the ball out sideways.

  On 18/04/2018 at 11:33, Wrecker45 said:

It's one thing to change your structures to counter what Melbourne are doing it's another thing to do it effectively like Hawthorn did. Another lesser drilled club could try the same thing and get blown away by us.

We will learn from it and come back stronger.

Please you're kidding yourself.... we haven't 'blown away' a club for a decade.....

I think we have only won all 4 quarters in a match about 3 times in 8 or 9 years.

  On 18/04/2018 at 12:37, monoccular said:

Can someone please tell me when he has made even one successful tactical move from the box in a match?

Well he did move Oliver to FF last week and he kicked 2 goals.....

  On 18/04/2018 at 20:16, stevethemanjordan said:

 

You finding it that hard to hold a conversation with someone Steve that you've resorted to just quoting yourself... ?

  On 18/04/2018 at 04:56, Wiseblood said:

I'd say it's stubborn, not dumb, coaching from Goodwin.  They would have trained with these structures all summer and it would be hard to just chuck it all in at the sign of a problem.  They tried to rectify it in the last term but by then it was too late.  

It's just as bad to constantly change a structure as it is to just stick with it.  Seeing what is occurring and make the correct changes is hard to learn.  Clarkson has been doing it for 15 years - when he saw what was wrong in the first term, he tweaked a few things and it made a huge difference.  Goodwin is clearly still learning to do the same thing in just his second season and, as the last paragraph states, would have learned plenty from the weekend.

His challenge now, and the hope for us supporters, is that he has learned from it now.  No doubt he was thoroughly out coached on the weekend and he needs to learn quickly how to respond when the momentum turns, but the positive is that he CAN learn from it and he CAN work with the players to make things better.

Right, so, the major plan is to have one approach and have no backup plans.

He has a plan A, which often goes AWOL, and no plan B. As Adam1.0 often says.

  On 18/04/2018 at 23:20, Wiseblood said:

You finding it that hard to hold a conversation with someone Steve that you've resorted to just quoting yourself... ?

Not my fault the editing posts is bugged.

Hope you read that post that I tagged you in btw and it’s all making sense now.

  On 18/04/2018 at 23:15, jnrmac said:

Please you're kidding yourself.... we haven't 'blown away' a club for a decade.....

I think we have only won all 4 quarters in a match about 3 times in 8 or 9 years.

We also haven't had the cattle to blow away a team in a decade. If we don't do it this year we have a  problem.

  On 18/04/2018 at 12:37, deanox said:

Dumb and stubborn are one way of looking at it. I think "unlikely to win all games in the short term wile trying to set the team up for the long term" is better.

This idea that one game plan is best in the long-run doesn't sit with me. There is no one perfect game plan.

The best game plans revolve around the strengths of the players you have, and while you can change the players it takes long time to turn over a list and there is no guarantee you will get the right ones in the end.

Structure is quite easy to change, it can simply be a case of telling player to start in a certain position at a centre bounce.  Bombing the ball long to the forward line is fine, but if you allow the opposition to have a loose player back it is dumb.

We didn't have the right structures to allow us to play to the conditions, plus Jones tagging Mitchell meant Petracca spent too long in the middle which robbed us of another target in the forward line. 

  On 18/04/2018 at 23:23, stevethemanjordan said:

Not my fault the editing posts is bugged.

Hope you read that post that I tagged you in btw and it’s all making sense now.

When was it not making sense before?  I've already put forward my feelings and understanding of the matter, which you seemed to accept previously.  I don't know what else to tell you.

  On 18/04/2018 at 23:22, timbo said:

Right, so, the major plan is to have one approach and have no backup plans.

He has a plan A, which often goes AWOL, and no plan B. As Adam1.0 often says.

Pretty much.  I think he has a Plan A.5, if that makes sense, where we makes small changes or moves a few players around but it hasn't had the desired effect as yet.

If our Plan A is excellent then you don't really need a Plan B as such, but at the moment our Plan A isn't good enough to stand on it's own against the better sides.  The good thing is that can be fixed - let's hope Goodwin can do that sooner rather than later.

  On 18/04/2018 at 23:35, Clint Bizkit said:

This idea that one game plan is best in the long-run doesn't sit with me. There is no one perfect game plan.

The best game plans revolve around the strengths of the players you have, and while you can change the players it takes long time to turn over a list and there is no guarantee you will get the right ones in the end.

Structure is quite easy to change, it can simply be a case of telling player to start in a certain position at a centre bounce.  Bombing the ball long to the forward line is fine, but if you allow the opposition to have a loose player back it is dumb.

We didn't have the right structures to allow us to play to the conditions, plus Jones tagging Mitchell meant Petracca spent too long in the middle which robbed us of another target in the forward line. 

I agree with everything you've said but want to add that the best game plans revolved around the strengths of the players you have AND the personnel and gameplan of the opposition. To use a cliche, horses for courses.

  On 18/04/2018 at 23:24, Wrecker45 said:

We also haven't had the cattle to blow away a team in a decade. If we don't do it this year we have a  problem.

 Reckon weare getting there with the cattle.

Last 6 spots , no Viney, T Mac and Father Time problems atm.

Have youngsters on the rise in the seconds Weideman, Spargo, Petty

We bombed away 2nd quarter against Geelong and got hammered on the rebound. Same last week. Can’t believe the players don’t know what is expected in this regard, or if it has anything to do with game day coaching.

IMO not the coach, when we get close to best 22 and digits are out we can get it done. 

Focus really on a few this week as 1/2 dozen have been carrying us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  On 18/04/2018 at 23:55, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I agree with everything you've said but want to add that the best game plans revolved around the strengths of the players you have AND the personnel and gameplan of the opposition. To use a cliche, horses for courses.

And the conditions too.

Seriously every team knows how every team plays and all go in to counter it. This can change your own game plan dramatically meaning your players may struggle to adjust.

It's one thing to know how to try and counter an opposition it's another to execute it.

That thought process would be beyond many on here

  On 18/04/2018 at 12:37, monoccular said:

Can someone please tell me when he has made even one successful tactical move from the box in a match?

To mee it seems like stubbornness - ND showed the same traits much of the time.  Or maybe arrogance - "I cant be wrong, surely"

* certainly should but would remains to be seen

 

# CAN - yet to be proven IMO

Tom McDonald to FF was quite good however probably desperate, I still think Tom is needed at CHB, both for his consistency and leadership. Backline looks much better with him there and play Pedo or Weid at FF.

 

B: Jetta, O McDonald, Lever

HB: Hunt, T McDonald, Hibberd

C:

HF:............, Hogan,..............

FF:............, Pedersen/Weideman,...........

  On 18/04/2018 at 04:46, SFebey said:

"

Melbourne constantly bombed the ball to Hawthorn's defence which outnumbered the Demons' forward line, allowing the Hawks' disciplined backline to repel with conviction.

Puzzlingly, Melbourne did not attempt to even up the disparity in its forward half and largely kept the same structure until the Demons moved Sam Frost into attack in the final term. That left Jesse Hogan to battle against two or three Hawks defenders.

Coaching in his 27th match (his 26th at Melbourne, after a single game at Essendon in 2013), Goodwin would have learned plenty from Hawthorn and master coach Clarkson about picking the right time to make a tactical move from the box."

 

- Dumb coaching from Goodwin

I must agree that Hogan - one of our noted key forwards - utility roving into the midfield earns him some considerable possession of the ball and provides interesting challenges to opponents upfield, including many opportunities for clearances.

However, it must be remembered that Hogan cannot kick for distance, certainly not the distances into the Demons forward line that are required to take the opposition by surprise (ie: he is no Greg Wells in that department), and his passing is best achieved over short distances. His short, lateral off-the-foot 'flicks' have been exemplars of this. Occasionally, his short, drop-punt passes have been great.

I am not suggesting 'long bombing' in this observation as the option for 'midfield'Hoges, either. I am talking about effective passing for distance into space created or exploited by other forwards (ie: there is the old CHF position and proximity to choose from, and there are two flanks, stretching from the wing itself to the forward pocket from which a choice to pass can also be made).

His immediate absence from the proximity of the goalmouth weakens our attack considerably and without one or two other tall/s retained or shifted into that goalsquare proximity when Goodwin sends Hoges on his merry excursions outside the some-35 metres or more from the goal mouth, we are doomed to see the ball rebounded by the opposition into a potential forward thrust of their own. Our ultra-crumbers up there cannot be expected to outmark seasoned defenders either, although the spring and marking skills of Hannan and Fritsch are handy commendables. 

I'd possibly like to see Hogan kept inside the 35-metres inclusion zone of the goalmouth. Do not send him midfield - if it must be done at all - until TMac and even Viney return for active duty once their war wounds are repatriated. His sustained presence there has several advantages that have already been noted as 'arsenal' characteristics of his game: marking, one-on-one combativeness, bringing the ball to ground for crumbers and physical aggression, par excellence. 

Our midfield is becoming choked, as it is. We have the personnel to do damage - not raffle decision-making between themselves and thus missing split-second opportunities for which Tyson, Petracca, Clarrie, Jones and others in the central mix ordinarily make. Dropping the wings and the extra centre-bounce defender are also totally unnecessary by actually reducing the spaces for momentum.

What I found interesting about that footage was just how important Jake Lever will be to us.

When you see vision like this, it just confirms why I hate reading/contributing to the changes threads each week.  We don't have any idea what the instructions are, or what the role is for a certain player, we don't have the behind-the-scences vision, we don't have the GPS data. You can clearly see how Lever's performance (and the rest of the backline's for that matter), will hinge on the rest of the team adhering to structures.

  On 18/04/2018 at 23:22, timbo said:

Right, so, the major plan is to have one approach and have no backup plans.

He has a plan A, which often goes AWOL, and no plan B. As Adam1.0 often says.

Plan A is probably ok for us with a few provisos:

1. Always have a Demon between the opposition and their goal.

2. Don't play unskilled players, they kill you in today's footy ( goodbye Bugg and maybe ANB/Harmes).

3. Add some pace to the side, to give spread. (maybe goodbye Vince, Jetta if he can't find form and Lewis,  hello Hunt and Stretch and maybe Baker or Spargo in the future if they come up )

4. In addition to the above, only pick players who give their best efforts ALL game.

5. Use Gawn to best advantage, meaning he needs players around him who can get his taps and then players who can spread from there. That is hard to do with no wingers and B grade players in the guts.

Game plan A will look much better now.

This rubbish about str

  On 18/04/2018 at 04:56, Wiseblood said:

I'd say it's stubborn, not dumb, coaching from Goodwin.  They would have trained with these structures all summer and it would be hard to just chuck it all in at the sign of a problem.  They tried to rectify it in the last term but by then it was too late.  

It's just as bad to constantly change a structure as it is to just stick with it.  Seeing what is occurring and make the correct changes is hard to learn.  Clarkson has been doing it for 15 years - when he saw what was wrong in the first term, he tweaked a few things and it made a huge difference.  Goodwin is clearly still learning to do the same thing in just his second season and, as the last paragraph states, would have learned plenty from the weekend.

His challenge now, and the hope for us supporters, is that he has learned from it now.  No doubt he was thoroughly out coached on the weekend and he needs to learn quickly how to respond when the momentum turns, but the positive is that he CAN learn from it and he CAN work with the players to make things better.

Rubbish. The structure that was planned for all summer was that Hogan and McDonald would be the talls. When McDonald went down, the structure required that the next in line (presumably Pedersen or Weideman) would fill the void.

What Goodwin has done by dropping Pedersen and replacing him with a small is exactly what you are arguing against. It just shows that the guy is making things up as he goes along.

  On 19/04/2018 at 01:43, Redleg said:

Plan A is probably ok for us with a few provisos:

1. Always have a Demon between the opposition and their goal.

2. Don't play unskilled players, they kill you in today's footy ( goodbye Bugg and maybe ANB/Harmes).

3. Add some pace to the side, to give spread. (maybe goodbye Vince, Jetta if he can't find form and Lewis,  hello Hunt and Stretch and maybe Baker or Spargo in the future if they come up )

4. In addition to the above, only pick players who give their best efforts ALL game.

5. Use Gawn to best advantage, meaning he needs players around him who can get his taps and then players who can spread from there. That is hard to do with no wingers and B grade players in the guts.

Game plan A will look much better now.

Of those points above, I think perhaps #4 is the most critical.

At least to my untrained eye, it's not been there (reliably and well-spread) for a long, long time.

 

people saying we have trained this way all summer.  so our game plan is to only have one tall fwd and for him to play half the game on the ball/wing?  and then bomb it long to no-one?

surely ANY game plan since 1850 requires having at least one tall fwd that stays fwd. and if you only play one fwd to kick short and handball more (unless on a counter attack).

we have (or had?) the most inside 50s of any team. these are obvious things to fix.

  On 19/04/2018 at 01:54, poita said:

This rubbish about str

Rubbish. The structure that was planned for all summer was that Hogan and McDonald would be the talls. When McDonald went down, the structure required that the next in line (presumably Pedersen or Weideman) would fill the void.

What Goodwin has done by dropping Pedersen and replacing him with a small is exactly what you are arguing against. It just shows that the guy is making things up as he goes along.

I'm just stoked you've responded to something of mine, poita.  Shame you couldn't do it in March with the Ultimate Footy League.  Cheers.