Game plans, tactics and all that jazz

[Axis of Bob 10,168]

13 hours ago, Canary M Burns said:

A F's right, stats are a bit meaningless without context. Here is how both those elements look across the last 4 years, which I cant say matches my perception but its important to challenge the feel with numbers. 2019 has an asterix given we only won 5 games (small sample size) and one of those was against the Sun's where we lost uncontested possessions by 51 but fell over the line by a point. The trend is away from uncontested possessions in both wins and losses, which could be both our evolving gamestyle/zone but also the tendency of opposition teams in 2019-2020 to defend with the ball in hand. The stat is one element in a larger puzzle, but throws a bit of a light on trade offs happening as the team evolves and the difference between the 2018 Dees and the 2020 model.
 

UP diff	2020	2019	2018	2017
Season avg	-12.83	-19.9	8.2	25.7
Win avg	2.33	-16.2	25.125	31.9
Loss avg	-28	-21	-21.88888889	18.2
Marks diff	2020	2019	2018	2017
Season avg	-7.66	-5.2	3.16	0.1
Win avg	9	5	16.75	1.9
Loss avg	-24.33	-8.3	-9	-2

This is great.

I think it backs up the general idea of how we feel about the game in losses vs wins, but also backs up the notion that AFL observers really don't have access to (or haven't developed) the stats to demonstrate what we're discussing. It would be so much easier if this was the Demonland baseball forum! 

The UP/CP differentials (and UM) do demonstrate the crux of what we're getting at, which is that we are excellent at winning games that are contested and poor at winning ones that are not. That's why our losses often look easy but our wins look hard (although it could be the view of a supporter). The big question is about how a team like ours would go about making the game more contested. Does that involve pressing higher, or pushing a zone defender up closer to the ball, or playing a smaller faster forward line, or pushing our forwards higher up the ground, pull players out of the contest to have more inside 50, play the ball closer to the boundary line, etc... ?

Our success will come when we are able to play the game on our terms more (duh!) by making the opponents scrap more. So what is the best way to get the game on our terms?

[Binmans PA 25,897]

1 hour ago, Axis of Bob said:

This is great.

I think it backs up the general idea of how we feel about the game in losses vs wins, but also backs up the notion that AFL observers really don't have access to (or haven't developed) the stats to demonstrate what we're discussing. It would be so much easier if this was the Demonland baseball forum! 

The UP/CP differentials (and UM) do demonstrate the crux of what we're getting at, which is that we are excellent at winning games that are contested and poor at winning ones that are not. That's why our losses often look easy but our wins look hard (although it could be the view of a supporter). The big question is about how a team like ours would go about making the game more contested. Does that involve pressing higher, or pushing a zone defender up closer to the ball, or playing a smaller faster forward line, or pushing our forwards higher up the ground, pull players out of the contest to have more inside 50, play the ball closer to the boundary line, etc... ?

Our success will come when we are able to play the game on our terms more (duh!) by making the opponents scrap more. So what is the best way to get the game on our terms?

Good post, Bob.

What's also clear is that our CP game is not anything like what it was in 2018. We're way down on CPs. Is this a product or 6/6/6? Or is it a product of teams working out how to make us dispose of the ball under more duress than in 2018? Or is it similar to the balance we were trying to find in 2017-2018, but this time the balance between defensive system and winning CPs?

We're certainly not generating the same amount of CPs, but we've won 1,450 CPs (one less than Carlton who are also a game behind many others) and we're averaging 121 CPs per game. So let's say we add 121 to 1,450, we get 1,571, this would put us in the top 4 for CPs (or top 5 depending on how Carlton continue tracking). 

I really believe work rate is the key to getting the game played on our terms. We just don't bring it consistently enough.

[layzie 28,520]

1 hour ago, Axis of Bob said:

I think it backs up the general idea of how we feel about the game in losses vs wins, but also backs up the notion that AFL observers really don't have access to (or haven't developed) the stats to demonstrate what we're discussing. It would be so much easier if this was the Demonland baseball forum! 

Too true. I decided yesterday that I wanted to see what our scoring from forward 50 stoppage ratio was, being 2020 all sorts of stats are available right? Wrong. I spent a wild goose chase trying to find this across many different sites and nothing like it exists, not even at the basic level like stoppages inside 50 total. 

[Grr-owl 1,075]

58 minutes ago, A F said:

I really believe work rate is the key to getting the game played on our terms. We just don't bring it consistently enough

Spot on. 

Two things: 1. Work rate. 2 Consistency.

I reckon 2 will come when the team realises that 1 is the only way to a premiership, and that will bring confidence.

[Axis of Bob 10,168]

2 hours ago, A F said:

I really believe work rate is the key to getting the game played on our terms. We just don't bring it consistently enough.

I agree that work rate is one of the most important things for getting the game on our terms (as well as defensive cohesion). 

Part of that is at selection and drafting, and it's a question that's hard to answer. Do we play defensive forwards at the expense of, much more talented, goal kicking forwards? Given that scores are lower and goals much harder to come by, is the sacrifice of the goal kicking for defense worth it?

[Engorged Onion 9,239]

6 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

I agree that work rate is one of the most important things for getting the game on our terms (as well as defensive cohesion). 

Part of that is at selection and drafting, and it's a question that's hard to answer. Do we play defensive forwards at the expense of, much more talented, goal kicking forwards? Given that scores are lower and goals much harder to come by, is the sacrifice of the goal kicking for defense worth it?

Great question! How long is a piece of string!

[binman 37,793]

1 hour ago, Grr-owl said:

Spot on. 

Two things: 1. Work rate. 2 Consistency.

I reckon 2 will come when the team realises that 1 is the only way to a premiership, and that will bring confidence.

Yep.

On both fronts there is an interesting psychological aspect - paging Dr onion: 

1. The all team defence model only works when all players do the required work. I suspect if you confidentially asked each player after each game if they expended maximum effort (not did they play well) most would say yes. But two stats posted of late suggest our work rate is not up to scratch week in, week out -  our inside 50 tackles and pressure is well behind that of the top teams and the uncontested possession differential in our losses. So there is a psychological disconnected. 
2. Relates to the first in so far as for me the key issue is consistency of effort rather than consistency of performance. The fist begets the second.  Until such time as the team can consistently bring maximum, or close to maxi mun effort, week in week out we will fail to make top 4. And you don't win flags from outside the top 4. Effort is largely a psychological construct. How to  achieve consistent effort is obviously a critical challenge

[Binmans PA 25,897]

42 minutes ago, Axis of Bob said:

I agree that work rate is one of the most important things for getting the game on our terms (as well as defensive cohesion). 

Part of that is at selection and drafting, and it's a question that's hard to answer. Do we play defensive forwards at the expense of, much more talented, goal kicking forwards? Given that scores are lower and goals much harder to come by, is the sacrifice of the goal kicking for defense worth it?

Interesting.

I'd be inclined to say that we could be transformative in the way teams go about team selection/balance if we played a bunch of mids as permanent forwards, in Harmes, Jones and Viney, if it works. The latter two are good kicks for goal and Harmes is a good kick for goal on the run, so I'm getting impatient to see something like this tried.

It comes down to who we leave out then. Is it Fritsch? Is it Melksham? Or both?

It's clear the FD haven't settled on the best mix for the forwardline, so I hope the above is the path they take.

Edited August 27, 2020 by A F

[Binmans PA 25,897]

11 minutes ago, binman said:

Yep.

On both fronts there is an interesting psychological aspect - paging Dr onion: 

1. The all team defence model only works when all players do the required work. I suspect if you confidentially asked each player after each game if they expended maximum effort (not did they play well) most would say yes. But two stats posted of late suggest our work rate is not up to scratch week in, week out -  our inside 50 tackles and pressure is well behind that of the top teams and the uncontested possession differential in our losses. So there is a psychological disconnected. 
2. Relates to the first in so far as for me the key issue is consistency of effort rather than consistency of performance. The fist begets the second.  Until such time as the team can consistently bring maximum, or close to maxi mun effort, week in week out we will fail to make top 4. And you don't win flags from outside the top 4. Effort is largely a psychological construct. How to  achieve consistent effort is obviously a critical challenge

Even more so when you have an elite fitness base like our guys allegedly have, working under an elite fitness boss.

Edited August 27, 2020 by A F

[Engorged Onion 9,239]

1 hour ago, binman said:

Yep.

On both fronts there is an interesting psychological aspect - paging Dr onion: 

1. The all team defence model only works when all players do the required work. I suspect if you confidentially asked each player after each game if they expended maximum effort (not did they play well) most would say yes. But two stats posted of late suggest our work rate is not up to scratch week in, week out -  our inside 50 tackles and pressure is well behind that of the top teams and the uncontested possession differential in our losses. So there is a psychological disconnected. 
2. Relates to the first in so far as for me the key issue is consistency of effort rather than consistency of performance. The fist begets the second.  Until such time as the team can consistently bring maximum, or close to maxi mun effort, week in week out we will fail to make top 4. And you don't win flags from outside the top 4. Effort is largely a psychological construct. How to  achieve consistent effort is obviously a critical challenge

So this is how I would work through point one - in an elite environment (yeah sounds arrogant I know)

The bolded part in point one - should be asked post game/review any way. But, link it to metrics that are typically gathered.

More importantly is understanding the gap between what the metrics show and what it felt like...and its never because someone is 'weak minded'

Questions like - why did it feel a particular way, what made it harder, what made it easier at times etc. That exploration allows the individual to reflect, make sense and most importantly choose action 'next time' when they're fatigued, or feel they cannot be arsed, for what ever reason is showing up for them...'the vibe' of the day, feeling anxious, not wanting to [censored] up etc

It's a much more important to understand (oh oh! Values work coming up here) - what the individual wants to stand for, and how do their efforts (behaviours) move them towards and away from that ideal. It's easy to act in line with your values when you are comfortable (Oliver running away from packs) vs when you are not (dinky handballs) - but the key from any psychological perspective - is to be aware of your discomfort as its occuring, and choose the more useful action... then of course, when it pays off, it becomes easier and easier to replicate.

Essentially, if you don't know what your thinking, you've got no choice over your behaviours - particularly when the stress and pressure is on.

The only reason ANYONE is willing to have anxiety, fatigue etc, is in service of what matters.... Know your values, be more consistent when it counts not just when its easy, because you're more willing to do the uncomfortable behaviour (which is often the most useful).

ie: A consistent follow through on your kick, when you are 30metres out, yet your brain is telling you not to [censored] up - so you either - try to 'guide it through' or kick too hard, just to get the act over and done with, to remove your anxiety.

Another example - particularly to fatigue (and Binman's idea of asking players to rate their effort out of 10 post game) - would be to get someone who has rated themselves exhausted... so essentially 10/10 given... they then go home to their family, and low and behold a man with a gun is there aimed at your  head... he says... 'go run a further 10km champ'

Well, you would do it wouldn't you ...now its not just due to 'adrenaline' - you're willing to have the pain and fatigue (recalling that you're 10/10 exhausted) - in service of what matters, and there is a genuine acceptance of the fatigue and emotional experinces that will arise along the way of running your 10km... this is what is missing for the notion of consistency of effort. - as you said @binman

Actually, evolutionary wise - your brain would rather you be on your couch drinking beers, eating pizza (CONSERVING ENERGY) rather than expending it (so it makes sense there is a dissonance between what we feel we can give vs what we actually can give)... you brain does this...just in case their is a bear back in your cave and you need to run.

Essentially it always stores more energy than you need, in case you need some more in special circumstances.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Engorged Onion

[Grr-owl 1,075]

Gee, we’re getting into some meaty stuff now...

I find the difference between perceived effort and actual effort fascinating. When you’re up and about, you can go and go and go and it feels easy. But when you’re flat, just getting out of bed can leave you breathless. Everything seems a chore, but you’ve done bugger all.

The best performers in any field narrow the gap between their best and worst by combining technical proficiency with mindfulness. That is, they have elite skills that shine when their confidence is high, and when their confidence and energy is low, they are aware of it and take steps to rectify the situation or, if not that, to maximise their performance given the circumstances. Hard work, that.

Nobody can be always on top of their game. That is the dynamic which makes test cricket so fascinating. Even Hendrix blew hot and cold, but nobody ever worked harder at the fundamentals than he. Interesting to note that friends knew he was in trouble when he began turning up places without a guitar; he’d stopped working so hard and lost his way.

Where do energy and confidence come from? The players have to work that one out in their own minds.
 

[Axis of Bob 10,168]

I'm reminded of the story about Ablett Jnr, earlier in his career when he was a dangerous forward pocket, being told by his teammates that he could be the best player in the competition if only he worked harder. Ablett was shocked and affronted because he thought he WAS working hard. Of course he later discovered what working hard really was but he wasn't able to know what working hard felt like until he actually had already done it.

This happens with a lot of players and some unfortunately never cross that barrier, or it happens too late for them. The suburban leagues are filled with talented former AFL listed footballers who never quite got it.

[58er 5,593]

14 hours ago, A F said:

Interesting.

I'd be inclined to say that we could be transformative in the way teams go about team selection/balance if we played a bunch of mids as permanent forwards, in Harmes, Jones and Viney, if it works. The latter two are good kicks for goal and Harmes is a good kick for goal on the run, so I'm getting impatient to see something like this tried.

It comes down to who we leave out then. Is it Fritsch? Is it Melksham? Or both?

It's clear the FD haven't settled on the best mix for the forwardline, so I hope the above is the path they take.

Melky should go first. Completely under achieved  in most stats this year.

Fritta needs a wake up call though as he is a wasted A grade talent potentially.Who ever Is forward coach needs to work on his leading to pockets near the boundary accuracy on goals lack of body strength and IMO is too reliant upon marking fir his scoring opportunies. Should be good at on the run goals with his ability. IE what's he wasting his time kicking 1/2 goals per game when he is a 40/60 potential goals per season player even in this reduced time of games.
Our elephant in the room again Developmrnt if skills !!' Work rate etc
 

[Engorged Onion 9,239]

9 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

Gee, we’re getting into some meaty stuff now...

I find the difference between perceived effort and actual effort fascinating. When you’re up and about, you can go and go and go and it feels easy. But when you’re flat, just getting out of bed can leave you breathless. Everything seems a chore, but you’ve done bugger all.

The best performers in any field narrow the gap between their best and worst by combining technical proficiency with mindfulness. That is, they have elite skills that shine when their confidence is high, and when their confidence and energy is low, they are aware of it and take steps to rectify the situation or, if not that, to maximise their performance given the circumstances. Hard work, that.

Nobody can be always on top of their game. That is the dynamic which makes test cricket so fascinating. Even Hendrix blew hot and cold, but nobody ever worked harder at the fundamentals than he. Interesting to note that friends knew he was in trouble when he began turning up places without a guitar; he’d stopped working so hard and lost his way.

Where do energy and confidence come from? The players have to work that one out in their own minds.
 

100% it's mindfulness. It's often taught to calm down/relax. But this is problematic as it teaches experiential avoidance.

What's the nature of sport? It's uncomfortable, we know it intellectually, but when the experiences arise (anxiety, fatigue etc) - we don't necessarily want to have it, and we engage in internal or external behaviours that move us away from what's useful.

Essentially, if you don't know where you head is at, you've got no capacity to bring your attention back on to the relevant task at the time.

That's the notion of performance consistency - its not about NOT getting caught up in things, you will, but noticing that you are to bring you attention back time and time and time and time again, irrespective of what is showing up...and shortening the gap of how much time you are NOT aware of what you're getting caught up in.

Then it starts to feel easier, and you are executing, and as a consequence, feeling better, more confident, and the upwards spiral.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Engorged Onion

[jnrmac 18,914]

On 8/10/2020 at 3:57 PM, Axis of Bob said:

The real issue that makes a zone so effective in AFL is the speed of the ball through the air, and the man on the mark. 

You can cover space because the ball generally travels relatively slowly through the air as well as from decision to kick (ie, a step or two, drop the ball, then swing the leg .... it takes time) and defenders are able to use this time to cover territory. So you don't need as many people to cover the ground against the medium/long pass and instead you can use these extra numbers where you need them .... to cover the long kick down the line. 

Sorry but I don't buy that at all.

A clean kicking team that can pick targets is way faster than any defender

[Dr. Gonzo 22,399]

On 8/25/2020 at 11:06 AM, Skuit said:

I stumbled across this article yesterday. It's a review of Time and Space by James Coventry, which Dee Man mentioned early in this thread - written by Russel Jackson (who I've been told has moved on from the Guardian due to a dispute). 

The review alone covers some interesting tactical developments and their surprise originators, which I was probably too young at the time to care about or have picked up on - though I think most wouldn't be aware of these aspects of AFL history. 

I'll be looking to pick up a copy now. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2015/jul/15/understanding-afl-tactics-russell-jackson. 

 

 

I can't recommend this book highly enough. Goes into the history of tactics since the games inception covering the critical evolutions across Vic, WA and SA as well as the rule changes by the ANFC

[Canary M Burns 50]

Great stuff Engorged Onion, its fascinating to get those insights especially the possible downsides of mindfulness within an elite program. 

The interface between game plans, fitness programs etc and the players who carry them out can be easy to overlook from all the way up on level 3. I was speaking with someone who had recently been working in strategy/analysis at an A League club. As part of this role he would put together videos every week for each player on their likely match ups with strengths/weaknesses and the like. With all the other things players have to do while at the club they were loaded on to i-pads for the players to go through in their own time. From memory he told me only about half would be watched.  

Edited August 28, 2020 by Canary M Burns

[Axis of Bob 10,168]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Sorry but I don't buy that at all.

A clean kicking team that can pick targets is way faster than any defender

You're misunderstanding it. This is how teams defend because they can cover more space this way because the ball takes time to travel through the air.

If you're kicking to a stationary player only 50 metres away, the ball would take up to 3.5 seconds to travel from the kicker's boot to the target. If you add the time it takes the player to kick the ball then that's over 4 seconds to get the ball to a team mate 50 metres away. 

If the ball is being kicked to a stationary target inside a zone 50 metres away, how far away do the defenders need to be if that player can mark the ball uncontested? 30 metres away Otherwise you're just send hospital kicks. If the ball got there faster then they would have to stand closer to the 'free' player. A shorter kick (say 30m) will have about 2.5 seconds from hand to target, so a defender only need to be 10 or 15 metres away from the target to effect a spoil. That's why a zone works. 

[Grr-owl 1,075]

6 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

100% it's mindfulness. It's often taught to calm down/relax. But this is problematic as it teaches experiential avoidance.

What's the nature of sport? It's uncomfortable, we know it intellectually, but when the experiences arise (anxiety, fatigue etc) - we don't necessarily want to have it, and we engage in internal or external behaviours that move us away from what's useful.

Essentially, if you don't know where you head is at, you've got no capacity to bring your attention back on to the relevant task at the time.

That's the notion of performance consistency - its not about NOT getting caught up in things, you will, but noticing that you are to bring you attention back time and time and time and time again, irrespective of what is showing up...and shortening the gap of how much time you are NOT aware of what you're getting caught up in.

Then it starts to feel easier, and you are executing, and as a consequence, feeling better, more confident, and the upwards spiral.

Great post. Great article. Useful advice in any walk of life. And, yes, mindfulness is more than achieving a desirable state of mind, it’s about pure observation.

I might derive from it a conclusion that our team needs to embrace the experience of footy, the positives and negatives, the ups and downs, the pain and the pleasure, as a totality, and understand that whole as a positive. That’s getting a bit woo woo, but I reckon you know what I mean.

At this point I want to bring something up which I reckon has damaged the group. The pain of the Prelim loss against WC was allowed to linger. I think it has given the group an anxiety of winning. That is, once their performance is high, they embrace the result for a while, but then at the back of the mind is the knowledge that high performance leads to pain, and bad practice creeps in. Not sure what the term is — Success Anxiety? Perhaps this mechanism is also at work in the the drop off of Adelaide after a GF loss, and GWS, possibly.

[Grr-owl 1,075]

4 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I can't recommend this book highly enough. Goes into the history of tactics since the games inception covering the critical evolutions across Vic, WA and SA as well as the rule changes by the ANFC

The Guardian article is awesome. Will have a go at getting the book. Now I know that when I sensed a team of scientists had been brought in to study the game while my back was turned (18 years or so) I was not entirely off. 

Was also pleased to read about he blowback re rotations. Had long suspected it must have been very tough to change attitudes about that. Even now we hear Carey and others declaring their failure to understand why teams bring players off after kicking goals. It’s simple: it’s better overall to bring a bloke off when he’s done something good than when he’s done something bad. Psychology.

[binman 37,793]

Dr onion,  anther psychological questions. 

I juts listed to Richo interviewed by Ben Gibson on the taking points spot on the dees website.

Asked how is that is that so many players could be flat for such an important game he answered that that our system requires effort, energy and pressure and agreed we 'were off a bit'.

He then said, that they 'didn't spend too much time on the why Gibbo' and then paraphrasing said instead they 'just addressed what happened, that it is not us' and that  we are going to so something about it, and the Saints are the next opportunity.

Focus on acknowledging that our effort was not us, showed edits of us working hard and then replicated that effort on the track on edits and  'hopefuly, well not hopefully' we will bring the required effort against the Saints.

A couple of questions.

The first is that for me logic suggest that understanding the why is pretty important in terms of minimising the risk in the future of happening again. Understanding why is a key part of the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) model many organisations use. Does that principle apply in this context?

And secondly, is the model they did employ to address the problem a sound one?

[Dr. Gonzo 22,399]

On 8/27/2020 at 12:26 PM, Axis of Bob said:

This is great.

I think it backs up the general idea of how we feel about the game in losses vs wins, but also backs up the notion that AFL observers really don't have access to (or haven't developed) the stats to demonstrate what we're discussing. It would be so much easier if this was the Demonland baseball forum! 

The UP/CP differentials (and UM) do demonstrate the crux of what we're getting at, which is that we are excellent at winning games that are contested and poor at winning ones that are not. That's why our losses often look easy but our wins look hard (although it could be the view of a supporter).

I think it goes a bit deeper than that as it depends on the quality of our opposition. We struggle against the top tier teams but can do it seemingly easily against the middle-lower sides. We get the game on our terms by brute force overpowering the poorer teams in the contest and sreamrolling over them running forward. Whereas teams who can match us in the middle and also have some pace and skill to outrun us on the outside and retain possession we struggle to match. This is what most commentators have been saying for the last couple of years.

[Binmans PA 25,897]

14 hours ago, 58er said:

Melky should go first. Completely under achieved  in most stats this year.

Turns out Fritsch made the decision for us this week...

Quote

Fritta needs a wake up call though as he is a wasted A grade talent potentially.

I could be totally wrong, but I get the sense that right now, Fritsch is happy just kicking his goals. He doesn't want to get his hands dirty with pressure acts. Maybe this is a confidence thing and his focus right now is trying to increase his accuracy. Who knows, and of course I'm only speculating.

Quote

Who ever Is forward coach needs to work on his leading to pockets near the boundary accuracy on goals lack of body strength and IMO is too reliant upon marking fir his scoring opportunies.

Plapp is the forward coach.

Quote

Should be good at on the run goals with his ability. IE what's he wasting his time kicking 1/2 goals per game when he is a 40/60 potential goals per season player even in this reduced time of games.
Our elephant in the room again Developmrnt if skills !!' Work rate etc

I think the opposition let him lead to the pockets a bit last week, because it's harder to kick them from there. I think we need to be smarter in our forward set ups.

And on another point I've made a bit on here is about Goodwin's philosophy of setting the system and the player's roles within it and then in-game deviating very little from that. Here is a quote from Richo on Goody's philosophy as per The Talking Points release today. "We're going to get what we deserve [if you don't bring the required work rate]".

This to me demonstrates we will continue to show little movement in the box and the players must take responsibility (and this is obviously wider than Fritsch and Melksham) for their game's and their work rate. It's player empowering. Are they up to it?

Edited August 28, 2020 by A F

[58er 5,593]

6 hours ago, A F said:

Turns out Fritsch made the decision for us this week...

I could be totally wrong, but I get the sense that right now, Fritsch is happy just kicking his goals. He doesn't want to get his hands dirty with pressure acts. Maybe this is a confidence thing and his focus right now is trying to increase his accuracy. Who knows, and of course I'm only speculating.

Plapp is the forward coach.

I think the opposition let him lead to the pockets a bit last week, because it's harder to kick them from there. I think we need to be smarter in our forward set ups.

And on another point I've made a bit on here is about Goodwin's philosophy of setting the system and the player's roles within it and then in-game deviating very little from that. Here is a quote from Richo on Goody's philosophy as per The Talking Points release today. "We're going to get what we deserve [if you don't bring the required work rate]".

This to me demonstrates we will continue to show little movement in the box and the players must take responsibility (and this is obviously wider than Fritsch and Melksham) for their game's and their work rate. It's player empowering. Are they up to it?

Some very well made points AF and thanks for your response.

Unfortunately not much joy really out of it all.

Melky still in team ( only good game vs Cwood) and Fritsch surrendering on his own sword. and no doubt we will miss him warts and all, 

If Bayley is happy now playing his role then that Is a damning reflection  of the Coaching stsff. We need much more from him in view of Tommy's form and others like Melky Hannan and Harmes lack of impact on the games,

Also the lack of flexibility in the coaching box on game day is breathtakingly poor.

It looks as though changes in selection are considered flexibility by our FD and Coach.

I thought thst Richo  made a point that we would up the speed factor due to the Saints  run snd carry. Who is fast enough to play on Butler for eg? Jay Lockhsrt  should be tagging him IMO.

This looks like the slowest team all season with Brown Oscar Wagner and Jonesy do our mids will have to play super games to keep the ball in motion IMO.

Oh and some Forward  accuracy Like vets Pies would be nice!!

 

 

[Engorged Onion 9,239]

15 hours ago, binman said:

A couple of questions.

The first is that for me logic suggest that understanding the why is pretty important in terms of minimising the risk in the future of happening again. Understanding why is a key part of the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) model many organisations use. Does that principle apply in this context?

And secondly, is the model they did employ to address the problem a sound one?

From experience in a previous life, reflective practice has looked a bit like this. 

Players will go and look at vision with their line coach where they made errors...Im dumbing down a bit but...

Coach: "What happened here"

Player: " I don't know, or, I made an error"

? Ok, next time do x, y z, let's work on that this week

P ""ok"

 

Or

In a group environment - when the debrief is on,  players don't necessarily want to shame themselves, so don't admit to anxiety, or not wanting to make errors...which of course means, they're not reflecting, and processing, to then become aware of when it shows up next time..(this is anecdotal evidence.)

So in some sense, the process in the football club is still a bit... "you [censored] up, what can you do differently next time (behaviourally), ok go practice it"

 

Now Richardson's response could have been a straight bat to a question in a public sphere, and they really DO drill down into sense making  - so yes CQI (which i have no idea about as a measurement tool) would be an apt analogy

 

I am big on how the subtlety of language effects accountability - and the notion of 'we're off a bit' to me is diminishing what responsibility you can take irrespective of how you feel, but also the cultural lexicon of football clubs that 'this happens'. Which is true, you cannot have a team at the peak throughout the year...but as a tool of explanation, is not deep enough.

@binman, id PM you some other information re: the bolded bit, but alas, you have no PM.

Edited August 28, 2020 by Engorged Onion