Just watched Gawn on 360 and picked up a little something that only people who are involved at the coal face and are clear about what is being coached/ instructed can talk about.

Some of the more astute on here (about 3%) have noticed the change in the direction to "play on at all cost/ chaos football".

This has been evident at times and is most likely the result of what many believe is the waste of our inside 50 entries by bombing it in long - The CAUSE.

To address this the players have been told to slow down a little and be more measured (not exactly Max's words but near enough) - The TREATMENT

In Max's comments on 360 he has alluded to the players thinking too much about the above instruction and when they were challenged by Carlton instead of adapting to the new rhythm/pace of the game they simply stuck to their instructions. - The CONSEQUENCE

I think this shows we are trying to rectify our shortcoming but much like the AFL we don't always see the potential ramifications of changes. I would hope that Richardson in his role is always the one to question changes and look at what might be the potential effects of introducing those changes.

In writing this I've realised we're trying to get a cohesive 22 play together and many of them have played together very little. If you look at how Richmond, Collingwood and WC play "together" I think it's more an effect of time spent out on the field. In some respect how many players we have available (many of which are new to the Club) may be compounding the problem. There is already a big question over Goody however if he is given as much time as Buckley and Hardwick some of the issues should resolve themselves.

The challenge will be how quickly Goody can get everyone on the same page.

 

 

So, Goodwin's failed game plan has been replaced by Goodwin making the players doubt themselves and it's compounded by Goodwin not picking a consistent lineup, but we're relying on these issues to "resolve themselves"?

Also, are we saying that in the 2 chances Goodwin and the leaders had to address the players while Carlton had the momentum that they didn't recognize this need to adapt? That's not very convincing of the ability to 'rectify' going forward.

I'm not in the sack Goody camp, yet, but this sounds like a bit of a let off for him. He makes the decisions, he deserves the heat at the moment.

 

1 hour ago, dworship said:

Just watched Gawn on 360 and picked up a little something that only people who are involved at the coal face and are clear about what is being coached/ instructed can talk about.

Some of the more astute on here (about 3%) have noticed the change in the direction to "play on at all cost/ chaos football".

This has been evident at times and is most likely the result of what many believe is the waste of our inside 50 entries by bombing it in long - The CAUSE.

To address this the players have been told to slow down a little and be more measured (not exactly Max's words but near enough) - The TREATMENT

In Max's comments on 360 he has alluded to the players thinking too much about the above instruction and when they were challenged by Carlton instead of adapting to the new rhythm/pace of the game they simply stuck to their instructions. - The CONSEQUENCE

I think this shows we are trying to rectify our shortcoming but much like the AFL we don't always see the potential ramifications of changes. I would hope that Richardson in his role is always the one to question changes and look at what might be the potential effects of introducing those changes.

In writing this I've realised we're trying to get a cohesive 22 play together and many of them have played together very little. If you look at how Richmond, Collingwood and WC play "together" I think it's more an effect of time spent out on the field. In some respect how many players we have available (many of which are new to the Club) may be compounding the problem. There is already a big question over Goody however if he is given as much time as Buckley and Hardwick some of the issues should resolve themselves.

The challenge will be how quickly Goody can get everyone on the same page.

 

 

3%? It's common knowledge that our chaos ball and poor i50 conversions required a need to slow down and assess for the best option. And it's what we were working on towards the end of last year and in preseason to rectify. And it will all improve the more we gel. It's all everyone on here talks about. Give the forum more credit!

Edited June 16, 20204 yr by John Demonic

20 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

So, Goodwin's failed game plan has been replaced by Goodwin making the players doubt themselves and it's compounded by Goodwin not picking a consistent lineup, but we're relying on these issues to "resolve themselves"?

Also, are we saying that in the 2 chances Goodwin and the leaders had to address the players while Carlton had the momentum that they didn't recognize this need to adapt? That's not very convincing of the ability to 'rectify' going forward.

I'm not in the sack Goody camp, yet, but this sounds like a bit of a let off for him. He makes the decisions, he deserves the heat at the moment.

 

Goodwins failed game plan got us to a preliminary final and the following year we were crueld by injuries. This year we have had a mini rebuild but been struck down by corona. Some posters are so pessimistic.

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

Goodwins failed game plan got us to a preliminary final and the following year we were crueld by injuries. This year we have had a mini rebuild but been struck down by corona. Some posters are so pessimistic.

That will be the 97% I spoke of that John Demonic disagrees about (I think he believes he is in the 3% so he was offended). Mind you I wasn't thinking of him when I wrote the comment. He may paint himself into that position if he keeps up those kind of comments.

It reminds me of a conversation I had a long time ago with a mate (admittedly he is a Carlton supporter so factor that in). We were talking about politics and the great unwashed. I was saying the average Australian is a sheep (or just not as smart as they think they are). This was something he vigorously disputed. In marketing, the population is catagorised as 10% innovators, 10% early adapters and 80% sheep. That's why marketing of new products is done towards that top 20% and then after that the rest just follows along. There is a little get out clause in that many can move from category to category at times depending on the subject matter and the level of understanding/ expertise. I've been in the sheep/ ignorant category many times but I try hard to be open minded and get myself out of the majority group think. That's often why I'm not very popular (yes, yes, there are other reasons).

To add to my original comments, I've now watched the game again and will acknowledge that  what I said wasn't really as prevalent as I thought in the the later part of the 2nd qtr and the 3rd. However what I did see was another consequence of our slower play and that was a drop in intensity. It will take time for the team to gel and get the phases and intensity right.

To simply say that this is all Goodwin's fault and that he is not up to it is naive and is basically bleating from the sheep.

 

 

2 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Goodwins failed game plan got us to a preliminary final and the following year we were crueld by injuries. This year we have had a mini rebuild but been struck down by corona. Some posters are so pessimistic.

All facts, which can’t be disputed. However, do you think that opposition coaches have also worked out how to counter our game plan and this has also gone towards our decline from 2018? 

Edited June 16, 20204 yr by Ethan Tremblay

2 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

So, Goodwin's failed game plan has been replaced by Goodwin making the players doubt themselves and it's compounded by Goodwin not picking a consistent lineup, but we're relying on these issues to "resolve themselves"?

Also, are we saying that in the 2 chances Goodwin and the leaders had to address the players while Carlton had the momentum that they didn't recognize this need to adapt? That's not very convincing of the ability to 'rectify' going forward.

I'm not in the sack Goody camp, yet, but this sounds like a bit of a let off for him. He makes the decisions, he deserves the heat at the moment.

 

I should have asked before, are you related to SWYL? He has a habit of scanning a post and picking out something he can throw barbs at and ignores the parts he might agree with.

In your case did you not read the last line of my post? The challenge will be how quickly Goody can get everyone on the same page.

Now that's not a let off. The issues I spoke of can't be fixed at halftime by an address by the coach and to think otherwise just puts you squarely in the 97%.

As if I need to point out anything else but WTF. Your opening comments  really say a lot about you.

"Goodwin's failed game plan has been replaced by Goodwin making the players doubt themselves" So are you saying Goodwin shouldn't have tried to rectify as you say the failed game plan? (Personally I think it needs to be tweaked and players added to be successful). I didn't say anything about making the players doubt themselves, but we had 9 players who had played less than 20 games together, 3 that were playing in the side for the first time, should I go on. You seem to think that the side should instantly be like Richmond and everyone should be on the same page.  "it's compounded by Goodwin not picking a consistent lineup" well yes, in a way but that would be because we are trying to fix things wouldn't it?, "but we're relying on these issues to "resolve themselves"? That's not what I said, I said given sufficient time (like Bucks and Hardwick) Goodwin should be able resolve the issues ie getting everyone on the same page.

I'm not suggesting Goody be given a free ride but I don't see any option other than staying the course and you have indicated you don't think he should be sacked, so what exactly do you want him do?

1 hour ago, dworship said:

That will be the 97% I spoke of that John Demonic disagrees about (I think he believes he is in the 3% so he was offended). Mind you I wasn't thinking of him when I wrote the comment. He may paint himself into that position if he keeps up those kind of comments.

It reminds me of a conversation I had a long time ago with a mate (admittedly he is a Carlton supporter so factor that in). We were talking about politics and the great unwashed. I was saying the average Australian is a sheep (or just not as smart as they think they are). This was something he vigorously disputed. In marketing, the population is catagorised as 10% innovators, 10% early adapters and 80% sheep. That's why marketing of new products is done towards that top 20% and then after that the rest just follows along. There is a little get out clause in that many can move from category to category at times depending on the subject matter and the level of understanding/ expertise. I've been in the sheep/ ignorant category many times but I try hard to be open minded and get myself out of the majority group think. That's often why I'm not very popular (yes, yes, there are other reasons).

To add to my original comments, I've now watched the game again and will acknowledge that  what I said wasn't really as prevalent as I thought in the the later part of the 2nd qtr and the 3rd. However what I did see was another consequence of our slower play and that was a drop in intensity. It will take time for the team to gel and get the phases and intensity right.

To simply say that this is all Goodwin's fault and that he is not up to it is naive and is basically bleating from the sheep.

 

 

There's no point harping on about an arbitrary percentage of astute observers. Only to say that you fail to take into account that DL is already a very niche small percentage of a larger group of demon fans that don't spend much time discussing and dissecting our matches, list management and coaching on a forum. Edit: So I think most people on here have to have some level of astuteness to spend their time on a niche forum reading and discussing these topics.

There are very few people right now that are in the extreme category of thinking Goodwin needs to be sacked immediately. Almost all are in the wait and see how the next year or two pans out as we await how Goodys tactical changes play out on field, how the group adapts to challenges etc 

Tbh the 3% figure you threw out seemed like an attempt to pump yourself up and put the rest of the forum down, but it seems it was just a marketing theory. I don't want to derail the discussion however, so I'll leave it at that.

 

 

 

Edited June 16, 20204 yr by John Demonic

9 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Goodwins failed game plan got us to a preliminary final and the following year we were crueld by injuries. This year we have had a mini rebuild but been struck down by corona. Some posters are so pessimistic.

excuses continue

I once had tennis coach explained to me in that the best players get the balance between arousal and precision right, and can maintain this balance throughout the game and tournament. 
Transposing this to the MFC in 2020 and our performance vs Carlton in particular seems to explain our erratic performance. We started the game at the right level (aroused and precise), but then dropped it midway through the second, and struggled to regain it for the remainder of the day. so what happened?

Without wanting to aggravate the froth and bubble crew and generate another outpouring of “More Excuses!!!”, I’d suggest a couple of things:

1. At 7-zip up we thought “this is easy” and our arousal dropped. I do this regularly when 4-0 up in tennis...

2. The Blues at zip-7 think we’re about to get fully humiliated and their arousal lifted. 
3. While it took a couple of quarters to restore our arousal, the fact that we did (5min from the end), and we won is significant to our development. 
it’s significant because teams can rarely dominate for 4 quarters, and rarely maintain high arousal-precision for 4 quarters, so the key to success is being able to produce it when required in order to win.
Anyway, just my two bits...

Edited June 16, 20204 yr by PaulRB

11 hours ago, dworship said:

In writing this I've realised we're trying to get a cohesive 22 play together and many of them have played together very little. If you look at how Richmond, Collingwood and WC play "together" I think it's more an effect of time spent out on the field. In some respect how many players we have available (many of which are new to the Club) may be compounding the problem. There is already a big question over Goody however if he is given as much time as Buckley and Hardwick some of the issues should resolve themselves.

The challenge will be how quickly Goody can get everyone on the same page.

 

 

There is a mob who have developed some metrics around this (anyone who is triggered by stats and metrics look away now) Gain Line Analytics

http://www.gainline.biz/

I heard about them when one of the guys was a guest on Mark McGowans "Trends" podcast

https://player.whooshkaa.com/episode?id=399765

10 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Goodwins failed game plan got us to a preliminary final and the following year we were crueld by injuries. This year we have had a mini rebuild but been struck down by corona. Some posters are so pessimistic.

You can't say the game plan is great because we made a prelim once and then back it up by saying we've just had a "mini rebuild".

 

55 minutes ago, PaulRB said:

I once had tennis coach explained to me in that the best players get the balance between arousal and precision right, and can maintain this balance throughout the game and tournament. 
Transposing this to the MFC in 2020 and our performance vs Carlton in particular seems to explain our erratic performance. We started the game at the right level (aroused and precise), but then dropped it midway through the second, and struggled to regain it for the remainder of the day. so what happened?

Without wanting to aggravate the froth and bubble crew and generate another outpouring of “More Excuses!!!”, I’d suggest a couple of things:

1. At 7-zip up we thought “this is easy” and our arousal dropped. I do this regularly when 4-0 up in tennis...

2. The Blues at zip-7 think we’re about to get fully humiliated and their arousal lifted. 
3. While it took a couple of quarters to restore our arousal, the fact that we did (5min from the end), and we won is significant to our development. 
it’s significant because teams can rarely dominate for 4 quarters, and rarely maintain high arousal-precision for 4 quarters, so the key to success is being able to produce it when required in order to win.
Anyway, just my two bits...

yep two bits

now I have heard everything on this forum

they relaxed at 7 zip and lacked the mental fortitude to go on with it, panicked and just saved a game. Arousal methinks has very little to do with it

Mental strength and leadership from our senior players. This is a feature of the team and it isn't being coached out of them

 

8 hours ago, dworship said:

I should have asked before, are you related to SWYL? He has a habit of scanning a post and picking out something he can throw barbs at and ignores the parts he might agree with.

In your case did you not read the last line of my post? The challenge will be how quickly Goody can get everyone on the same page.

Now that's not a let off. The issues I spoke of can't be fixed at halftime by an address by the coach and to think otherwise just puts you squarely in the 97%.

As if I need to point out anything else but WTF. Your opening comments  really say a lot about you.

"Goodwin's failed game plan has been replaced by Goodwin making the players doubt themselves" So are you saying Goodwin shouldn't have tried to rectify as you say the failed game plan? (Personally I think it needs to be tweaked and players added to be successful). I didn't say anything about making the players doubt themselves, but we had 9 players who had played less than 20 games together, 3 that were playing in the side for the first time, should I go on. You seem to think that the side should instantly be like Richmond and everyone should be on the same page.  "it's compounded by Goodwin not picking a consistent lineup" well yes, in a way but that would be because we are trying to fix things wouldn't it?, "but we're relying on these issues to "resolve themselves"? That's not what I said, I said given sufficient time (like Bucks and Hardwick) Goodwin should be able resolve the issues ie getting everyone on the same page.

I'm not suggesting Goody be given a free ride but I don't see any option other than staying the course and you have indicated you don't think he should be sacked, so what exactly do you want him do?

I'm not sure where in my post I made personal comments or attacks against you so I'm not sure why you feel the need to attack people in your posts, notably in your OP before anyone had even said anything.

You completely missed the point that the "challenge" Goodwin needs to address is of his own making.

Let's address some of your points.

 

You said: "In Max's comments on 360 he has alluded to the players thinking too much about the above instruction and when they were challenged by Carlton instead of adapting to the new rhythm/pace of the game they simply stuck to their instructions."

Then you said: "I didn't say anything about making the players doubt themselves"

So players 'thought too much about instruction' and didn't play the way they should have, but they weren't doubting themselves?

 

You said: "we had 9 players who had played less than 20 games together, 3 that were playing in the side for the first time, should I go on. You seem to think that the side should instantly be like Richmond and everyone should be on the same page."

Nowhere did I say I expected instant cohesion. In fact, what I said was Goodwin only has himself to blame for lack of cohesion because he doesn't pick a settled lineup.

Then, you say this lack of cohesion you're saying is the main problem will be 'fixed' by changing the team. That goes completely against the whole point you're trying to make.

 

You said: "if he is given as much time as Buckley and Hardwick some of the issues should resolve themselves."

On this I challenged you, as I believe things don't just "resolve themselves". You then backpedalled to make it 'oh, now I meant Goodwin can resolve it'. It's not what you said.

 

You said: "I'm not suggesting Goody be given a free ride"

You also said: "if he is given as much time as Buckley and Hardwick"

 

I'm not in favour of simply waiting for things to "resolve themselves" or just "staying the course". I'm in favour of Goodwin, his coaches and our onfield leaders showing us they've made the practical changes necessary to address the consistent issues we've had in Goodwin's tenure. I'm in favour of a coach who will use his half time and 3/4 time addresses to deal with what is happening on the field effectively. I'm in favour of our leaders actually leading for a change and showing they can deal with a shift in momentum.

But hey, I want to see a flag, you're just happy to "stay the course" so maybe I'm in the "97%" that want the team to succeed.

Edited June 16, 20204 yr by Lord Nev

44 minutes ago, Kent said:

yep two bits

now I have heard everything on this forum

they relaxed at 7 zip and lacked the mental fortitude to go on with it, panicked and just saved a game. Arousal methinks has very little to do with it

Mental strength and leadership from our senior players. This is a feature of the team and it isn't being coached out of them

 

Methinks engaging in a discussion with people unwilling to consider alternate opinions to their own, is really tedious. 
 

and for those of curious minds, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerkes–Dodson_law

Edited June 16, 20204 yr by PaulRB

9 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

All facts, which can’t be disputed. However, do you think that opposition coaches have also worked out how to counter our game plan and this has also gone towards our decline from 2018? 

That can be said about every team. Don't you think opposition coaches know Richmond's game plan and can just counter it?

#coaching advisor

 

It was interesting listening to Max last night. He talked about the variables that might have caused the second half fade out. One of them being how some of our players might interpret the terminology about patience with the ball differently. It might take a while before we are on the same page but this season isn’t that long.

Here’s a terminology that can’t be read in different ways.

Beat those [censored]ers on Sunday!

To me our first quarter was based around fast ball movement with high pressure, after that we went into slow ball movement and pressure dropped off.

Slow ball movement just allows your opposition to set up in front of the ball.  When that happens the good sides have the ability to move the ball and make the defensive team to shift, they keep doing this until they find a hole in the defensive trap.  Issue we have when we try to control the ball we usually turn it over across half back or the middle of the ground, once that happens you will get scored against.

Big concern for me is we dominated whilst we controlled the clearances as soon as that balanced out we couldn't score. I don't know why Jackson wasn't used in more centre bounces, something different a bloke that cab jump over you like Nic Nat compared to height and size of Max Gawn.  To me they can compliment each other and on Saturday we should have used the switch more especially after quarter time

1 hour ago, Lord Nev said:

You can't say the game plan is great because we made a prelim once and then back it up by saying we've just had a "mini rebuild".

 

There is a difference between game plan and players capable of achieving it.

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

That can be said about every team. Don't you think opposition coaches know Richmond's game plan and can just counter it?

#coaching advisor

 

Absolutely. But other coaches adapt and have a plan B to counter the counter. Goodwin on the other hand...

Edited June 17, 20204 yr by Ethan Tremblay

It's always interesting starting a thread on here and stirring the pot with a throw away line or two. But I need to be careful if I don't want the point of the thread to be missed. Sad really that it's taken till Dee Z to understand what the thread was about. I have to take some ownership of that.

The thread was supposed to be about unintended variables/ consequences (there was a hint in the title) and how that could effect the way we play. Also, that time playing and playing together appears to be the most likely way of addressing the issues.

The comment to Lord Nev about his relationship to SWYL somewhat derailed the thread, although there are striking similarities. Waldorf and Statler come to mind.

21 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

There is a difference between game plan and players capable of achieving it.

Sure, but I was addressing your point that we made a prelim but then apparently had a "mini rebuild".

I agree we've seemingly improved our list, but I think "mini rebuild" is going a bit over the top and to feels like another excuse to buy Goodwin more time without getting pressure.

1 minute ago, dworship said:

It's always interesting starting a thread on here and stirring the pot with a throw away line or two. But I need to be careful if I don't want the point of the thread to be missed. Sad really that it's taken till Dee Z to understand what the thread was about. I have to take some ownership of that.

The thread was supposed to be about unintended variables/ consequences (there was a hint in the title) and how that could effect the way we play. Also, that time playing and playing together appears to be the most likely way of addressing the issues.

The comment to Lord Nev about his relationship to SWYL somewhat derailed the thread, although there are striking similarities. Waldorf and Statler come to mind.

Perhaps if you focused more on the football talk and less on the snipes and snarky comments there would be less 'misinterpretation'.

Dear Demonland - I have a problem I hope you can help me with:

THE CAUSE: I’ve read this discussion and I don’t know if I am in the 3% astute category or the 97% non-astute group, and it’s worrying me. If I call myself astute, then I am possibly labelling myself as arrogant or elitist. If I say I am not astute, then surely I’m belittling myself, perhaps unfairly (although maybe not).

Can you please help?

39 minutes ago, Neil Crompton said:

Dear Demonland - I have a problem I hope you can help me with:

THE CAUSE: I’ve read this discussion and I don’t know if I am in the 3% astute category or the 97% non-astute group, and it’s worrying me. If I call myself astute, then I am possibly labelling myself as arrogant or elitist. If I say I am not astute, then surely I’m belittling myself, perhaps unfairly (although maybe not).

Can you please help?

If you have to ask you're in the 97%