On 3/25/2021 at 10:37 PM, CHF said:

It is called optimism. A heady brew.

You mean a glass of this? (points at avitar)

14 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

Ah, so this particular round, the win or loss, is predicated only by the players investment in Goodwin? That's an intense read after 2 rounds Jimbob

If you'd read my post properly, you would have noted that I said if we lose 'in the same manner' we have been for years, it will be clear to me that Goodwin has lost the players. 

I'm not sure why that's so hard for people to come to grips with. 

Good teams know how to play us. Goodwin has done nothing to combat it. If we can win tonight, I'll have some faith. If we lose the game because of a complete drop off in a quarter and St Kilda move the ball with ease from contest to outside, it'll be the nail in the coffin for me as far as Goodwin goes. 

Our pants will be pulled down.  We had a win last week, now time for the usual inconsistency.   Happy to be proved wrong, but dont go putting your hard earned on this team at Marvel against Saints.

16 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

If we are going to win, it will be by denying them easy clearances and avoiding repeat turnovers in our forward half. 

This should be on Goodwin's whiteboard pre-game.

Agree wholeheartedly. 

And if we lose because of both those things, there's clearly something wrong with the messaging, game plan and therefore Goodwin as coach. 

Go dees. 

Edited March 26, 20214 yr by JimmyGadson

58 minutes ago, JimmyGadson said:

This should be on Goodwin's whiteboard pre-game.

Agree wholeheartedly. 

And if we lose because of both those things, there's clearly something wrong with the messaging, game plan and therefore Goodwin as coach. 

Go dees. 

No Worries, I had read it slightly differently.

I disagree that he has lost the players if we lose today, he will clearly have lost you though and that’s ok.

The coaching staff have been steadily addressing deficiencies, as all clubs do. If we lose today it will be via a myriad of the same ways that all clubs lose,  but if you/anyone wants it to fit the narrative that the players aren’t playing for the coach then you can.

But correlation doesn’t equal causation.

all clubs essentially address the exact same issues either in a systemic way or individual way each week anyway...

9 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

But correlation doesn’t equal causation.

all clubs essentially address the exact same issues either in a systemic way or individual way each week anyway...

But it's not each week. It's been three years + of the same problems. 

That's a large enough sample size to suggest Goodwin has not been able to deliver his message, is it not? 

Either that or he is so stubborn in believing we can cover those areas of weakness by playing the game on our terms solely. But that hasn't happened either has it? 

So, if we lose tonight and it's due to a breakdown again in those same areas we've seen for the last three + years, what do you think is happening? 

19 minutes ago, JimmyGadson said:

So, if we lose tonight and it's due to a breakdown again in those same areas we've seen for the last three + years, what do you think is happening? 

My take is, that the players are still with him and that he is competent as a coach. I don't quite see it black and white personally as though if you don't win a premiership you're no goo as a coach.

As an example, I have never enjoyed Ross Lyon, either his manner, or his style - but he is clearly a good coach -  his two teams also played with deficiencies, that he was unable to rectify.... but the process of rectification that never occurred, was that due to 'his message not getting through' - or was it something else?

So for me, coaching is an iterative process, some individual athletes will struggle with bringing their weaker parts of the game up to scratch (ie:...not go and retrieve ball, must guard/create space) - so who is that on, the coach or the player? If the player is given numerous chances, let's say Billy Stretch as an example, then his all around game makes it easy to dispose of him... a Jack Viney who clearly has a higher ceiling, is held on to (whilst still demonstrating similar deficiencies)...but this means the iterative process slows down, because who is is recruited who is competent at that specific skill? There are only so many players...

 

I'd also argue that the breakdown in those same areas, are exactly the same areas that all clubs breakdown in when they lose...

And all clubs, aside from Richmond have failed time and time and time and time and time again... 

Like you I'm anxious with having Goodwin, and the tension for me is that, if we are winning some games, and not others, as long as the loses are not blow outs, then I'd give Goodwin one more year- this is essentially, the process of creating a team with a range of optimal attributes - for me, games experience - Richmond 'popped' 3 years ago when the core of their midfield hit 130-150 games..we are one season off from that......now clearly that's not the only 'magical' thing to occur... but nonetheless it's a process of refinement of

• strategy
• athletes that can fill a demand (trading, drafting)
• and the players themselves, either by their own willingness, or by other means, act on the coaching departments instructions

If the losses start to blow out.... he is done... not from an optics perspective... but the players clearly have no motivation to continue their football career under his stewardship.

 

Jimmy, when you sit back and reflect on the days that we win, in your warm glow... what do you attribute those wins to?

 

Edited March 27, 20214 yr by Engorged Onion

23 minutes ago, JimmyGadson said:

But it's not each week. It's been three years + of the same problems. 

That's a large enough sample size to suggest Goodwin has not been able to deliver his message, is it not? 

Either that or he is so stubborn in believing we can cover those areas of weakness by playing the game on our terms solely. But that hasn't happened either has it? 

So, if we lose tonight and it's due to a breakdown again in those same areas we've seen for the last three + years, what do you think is happening? 

Sorry, to answer the question directly

• not having relevant personnel - winger (either fast with ball, or can spread, or decent disposal)
• no tall forwards
• all mids move to the ball, rather than create space.
• a range of poor disposals

These will be the reasons we lose tonight...

some of those reasons are not on Goodwin

17 minutes ago, Engorged Onion said:

My take is, that the players are still with him and that he is competent as a coach. I don't quite see it black and white personally as though if you don't win a premiership you're no goo as a coach.

As an example, I have never enjoyed Ross Lyon, either his manner, or his style - but he is clearly a good coach -  his two teams also played with deficiencies, that he was unable to rectify.... but the process of rectification that never occurred, was that due to 'his message not getting through' - or was it something else?

So for me, coaching is an iterative process, some individual athletes will struggle with bringing their weaker parts of the game up to scratch (ie:...not go and retrieve ball, must guard/create space) - so who is that on, the coach or the player? If the player is given numerous chances, let's say Billy Stretch as an example, then his all around game makes it easy to dispose of him... a Jack Viney who clearly has a higher ceiling, is held on to (whilst still demonstrating similar deficiencies)...but this means the iterative process slows down, because who is is recruited who is competent at that specific skill? There are only so many players...

 

I'd also argue that the breakdown in those same areas, are exactly the same areas that all clubs breakdown in when they lose...

And all clubs, aside from Richmond have failed time and time and time and time and time again... 

Like you I'm anxious with having Goodwin, and the tension for me is that, if we are winning some games, and not others, as long as the loses are not blow outs, then I'd give Goodwin one more year- this is essentially, the process of creating a team with a range of optimal attributes - for me, games experience - Richmond 'popped' 3 years ago when the core of their midfield hit 130-150 games..we are one season off from that......now clearly that's not the only 'magical' thing to occur... but nonetheless it's a process of refinement of

• strategy
• athletes that can fill a demand (trading, drafting)
• and the players themselves, either by their own willingness, or by other means, act on the coaching departments instructions

If the losses start to blow out.... he is done... not from an optics perspective... but the players clearly have no motivation to continue their football career under his stewardship.

 

Jimmy, when you sit back and reflect on the days that we win, in your warm glow... what do you attribute those wins to?

 

Great post

3 hours ago, JimmyGadson said:

If you'd read my post properly, you would have noted that I said if we lose 'in the same manner' we have been for years, it will be clear to me that Goodwin has lost the players. 

I'm not sure why that's so hard for people to come to grips with. 

Good teams know how to play us. Goodwin has done nothing to combat it. If we can win tonight, I'll have some faith. If we lose the game because of a complete drop off in a quarter and St Kilda move the ball with ease from contest to outside, it'll be the nail in the coffin for me as far as Goodwin goes. 

Stronger teams can 'read' our game - easily - and thus, such game plans must be terribly transparent to do those things that offset us from winning more matches. Our coaching must by now know how we are beaten or out-manoeuvred. I see much benefit from the ascent of Yze and Chocko in that coaching mix, plus their advice. Lewis the Jordan could see it in his first year but he, too, it appears, was not listened to by the coaching leadership. Time for the complete change is now - lest we fully stagnate within the space of a smallish and unrefreshed mindset.

 

1 hour ago, Engorged Onion said:

Sorry, to answer the question directly

• not having relevant personnel - winger (either fast with ball, or can spread, or decent disposal)
• no tall forwards
• all mids move to the ball, rather than create space.
• a range of poor disposals

These will be the reasons we lose tonight...

some of those reasons are not on Goodwin

Aside from having two first choice key forwards unavailable, all other points you mention are directly on Goodwin. They have to be. Your post doesn't make sense. Three of those points you've raised have been issues since he took over. 

He has had ownership of the team since 2017 and therefore has the final say on what type of side he wants to build to fit his game-plan. 

As far as your other post goes, Ross Lyon took his sides to grand finals and had them competing inside the top four regularly. I have no idea why you'd make that comparison. His sides were focused on defence more than attack but they were so good in that area, more often than not it didn't matter that they weren't high scoring. 

They were consistently strong in one area for a long period of time and were extremely hard to beat. The complete opposite of us. 

Of course every side across the AFL has its weakness areas. But since 2018, we have been beaten by top 8 sides consistently in exactly the same way. And any time that occurs over the course of seasons without much change, to a club who is supposed to be challenging, the coach is naturally going to come under heavy scrutiny. 

Remember, we are meant to be challenging for top four by now. And we're not. We can't even make the 8.

28 minutes ago, JimmyGadson said:

Aside from having two first choice key forwards unavailable, all other points you mention are directly on Goodwin. They have to be. Your post doesn't make sense. Three of those points you've raised have been issues since he took over. 

He has had ownership of the team since 2017 and therefore has the final say on what type of side he wants to build to fit his game-plan. 

As far as your other post goes, Ross Lyon took his sides to grand finals and had them competing inside the top four regularly. I have no idea why you'd make that comparison. His sides were focused on defence more than attack but they were so good in that area, more often than not it didn't matter that they weren't high scoring. 

They were consistently strong in one area for a long period of time and were extremely hard to beat. The complete opposite of us. 

Of course every side across the AFL has its weakness areas. But since 2018, we have been beaten by top 8 sides consistently in exactly the same way. And any time that occurs over the course of seasons without much change, to a club who is supposed to be challenging, the coach is naturally going to come under heavy scrutiny. 

Remember, we are meant to be challenging for top four by now. And we're not. We can't even make the 8.

Clearly we see things differently and thats fine - the last I'll say in this conversation on this is as follows.

• Club's can put out public goals on performance as much as they want - for mine, its lovely, and it's irrelevant- all clubs are vying for the same thing ultimately in a 5 year period anyway.... so I don't use them to guide my decision making on club hope's from the marketing brochure.
• I disagree that we get beaten, 'consistently in exactly the same way'.
• I also disagree that the other points are solely 'on Goodwin'.
• We made the top 8, we failed to make the top 8 2 other times, by the barest of margins. Sport is about the barest of margins - I see 'barest of margins' as a mitigating factor for any team. Take Brisbane last night...Take Stephen Milne, Take Tomlinson from last year.
• The comparison was not about Ross or Simon, I could have easily used Damian Hardwick or Alister Clarkson or Stewie Dew...it doesn't matter - the point was - all coaches/teams, have deficiencies - including  the ones that win in any given season...
• Ultimately, you are I are debating 
  • who's responsibility is performance - I subscribe that there are two parties in this - the information giver (coach, football department) and the information receiver (player/athlete). I don't subscribe to a binary view that the buck stops with the coach.
  • Finally, time frame's. Mine is clearly more elastic than your's. 

Enjoy the game today, I hope if we win (or when we win another game throughout the season),  we can have another conversation about  what benefit the coach and FD have had on the team and what role they had to set up the win.

 

Edited March 27, 20214 yr by Engorged Onion

My key area of frustration is that we have a premium midfield/elite ruckman but more often than not we can't play the game on our terms out of the middle. We've built our brand on contested footy = lots of stoppages. Winning clearances must be central to this. Why is it a problem year after year? 

On 3/26/2021 at 4:15 PM, Deemania since 56 said:

Salem has to perform ... in close and on the break with some good kicking.

Delivered in Spades against Saints!

12 hours ago, Tarax Club said:

Delivered in Spades against Saints!

It was most opportune for him to exhibit the goods, TC. It really made a backline difference.

On 3/27/2021 at 2:13 PM, JimmyGadson said:

He has had ownership of the team since 2017 and therefore has the final say on what type of side he wants to build to fit his game-plan. 

 

Did you end up having a nice glow after the win?

What were your thoughts on the game plan and then the execution of it? @JimmyGadson

Hangin for your round 3 preview @CHF!

On 3/29/2021 at 8:44 AM, Engorged Onion said:

Did you end up having a nice glow after the win?

What were your thoughts on the game plan and then the execution of it? @JimmyGadson

I gave my two cents in the post game thread @Engorged Onion.

Good win, another big test this week. 

Edited March 29, 20214 yr by JimmyGadson

On 3/25/2021 at 9:47 PM, CHF said:

I am a ‘glass half full’ kind of guy.

You're in the lion's den, my friend.

On 3/27/2021 at 4:29 PM, In Harmes Way said:

My key area of frustration is that we have a premium midfield/elite ruckman but more often than not we can't play the game on our terms out of the middle. We've built our brand on contested footy = lots of stoppages. Winning clearances must be central to this. Why is it a problem year after year? 

From Goody's first two seasons we have made some pretty big tactical changes to way we play the game.

In some respects some of the fundamentals have changed.

For example winning clearances is not as an important indicator/focus as it was in 2018 and 2019.

To be clear clearances are still important - just not central to our game plan. If i was to put a figure on it i reckon the club would be happy to end the year on break even in clearance differential as opposed to being say plus three in 2018

And some fundamentals have not changed - for example winning contested ball remains critical.

The tactical shift commenced in 2019, when we took the opportunity of a lost season to introduce tempo footy (which also helped mitigate the risk of demoralising thrashings), something we took into 2020, and was on display in both our two games this season.

In 2020, particularly the second half of the season, we moved away from being a stoppage and clearance based team first and foremost to a team :

• that has shifted the dial to trying to win pure clearances that result in scoring opportunities - even though in doing so we 'lose' more clearances than we have historically done
• when we 'lose' clearances we put the ball carrier under pressure, force a poor kick or handball and look to create a  turnover from HB that we can counter attack from and set up scoring chains
• that is now all about intercept marks (Cameron will  now be sweating on how to prevent  Lever and May having field day)

This tactical shift has been really evident this year.

As evidence of this shift we have had different mixes in our center square set ups - eg Kossie starting each quarter there, Jordon playing as a mid (unlike the bulls, most of his possessions are uncontested), Nibbler and Harmes  (they used Melksham this way too last the end of last year).     

Another example is letting one player try and win the contested ball (instead of multiple players at the contest) and having players on the outside to receive if they do win it - which if it is Viney, Trac or Oliver is more often than not the case.

Jordon. Spargo and Kossie have all been great this year being that outside the contest receiver, as was Salem on the weekend.

Another shift, albeit a less dramatic one, is we are now all about territory. I guess we always have been - and in some ways it was key to our tactics in 2018 - but territory is a kpi again. Get it forward. The difference between now and 2018 is that we are prepared to give ground to make ground now. 

All of the above speaks to a team that is evolving tactically and contradicts the erroneous narrative that Goody as coach has not evolved.

I also think it speaks to some of our challenges - these sort of big tactical shifts can't be easy to implement and some players will find it harder than others to change. I wonder if brayshaw is one such example.

On Gus, he better learn how to adapt because his future at the dees is on the wing. With our new way of playing the very last thing we need is another inside bull.   

Edited March 30, 20214 yr by binman