mo64

Then define competitive and accountable specifically in a "game plan" sense?

Summed it up perfectly Hards. And Rhino, in regards to West Coast, you need players of the ilk of Judd and Cousins to make their game plan work. They're generational players, and you're not going to find replacements for them in the next 20 years. So what do you do? Based on your theory, you persist with the game plan until someone comes along that can emulate Judd and Cousins. My theory is that you work with what you've got, and try to make improvements by enhancing your list. In regards to leadership, everyone was saying that Geelong lacked leadership prior to 2007. Their best player in the GF is also their most ill disciplined player. For mine, leadership is not the biggest issue. The game plan is. The game has changed, and by the time Bailey get's his playing list to suit his game plan, it will be outdated, because the game is constantly changing.

1) Ability and skills - If Bailey doesn't believe that he has the players with the ability and skills to carry out his plan, how many drafts does he think it will take until he does? 2) Fitness is a given. Can't be used an excuse. 3) Commitment and competitiveness comes with belief. Without belief in what you're doing, comes frustration (refer MFC players).

Well if the game plan is to be competitive, it's not working. And if you run and carry via handball, the greater the opportunity for the opposition to dispossess you via pressure. The turnover causes your teammates to be out of position, and be seen to be unaccountable. So unless you have super-skilled elusive midfielders, you are kidding yourself if you think it can work. The Eagles are a case in point. Without Judd and Cousins, how well does their run and carry game plan hold up?

I'll answer that for him. None.

Ok I'll answer it. 25, there happy? If freewheeling football is the best way for our players to kick a winning score, then that's the way we should play. Give the players license to be attacking, rather than having the mindset of negative accountability. As i've written ad nauseum, the players appear to be focussing too much on doing the "Bailey thing", rather than playing instinctively. In turn, their confidence is shot. If Moloney was dropped after round 1 for his lack of accountability, it was a disgrace. It's probably lost on you Rhino that a team actually has to kick goals to win a match. But that's not important to you, as long as the players are accountable.

I was going to reply in depth, but quite frankly, anyone who raises this old chestnut of "how many players would get a game with blah, blah, blah" is not worth the effort.

So what's your solution Jaded? We remain winless and uncompetitive for the next 5 years, which is how long it will take to totally regenerate a list capable of following Bailey's game plan. The list is not that bad. The players are playing reactive rather than instinctive football, and the coach is to blame. Everything that Hards has written is spot on. Most of you are delusional about Bailey's game plan being the answer to success.

Exactly right paddo. Gone are the days when forwards can rely on being spoon fed on the lead. You can afford to have 1 one trick pony in your forward line, but not 3. Our forward set up is non-productive, and needs to be changed. If we persist with Miller at CHF, Robertson has to go. I'd like to see Dunn given extended time in the forward line.

And I suppose you think that the timber will just fall from the trees!

Every time we discuss the issue of 'game plan' you raise disciplines that I consider to be the basics of footy, and should be adhered to, regardless of game style. Basics such as head over the ball, pressure, tackling, chasing, blocking etc, are all areas that we needed to improve post Daniher. I'm yet to see any results of this changing under Bailey. The area of Bailey's 'run and carry' game style that I despise is using handball to a stationary teammate as the 'get-out' option. This only works if your teammate has great evasive skills. We have very few players with evasive skills. If our 'get-out' option was a 30-40 metre kick to 3 or 4 designated areas, at least the players up the ground know where to position themselves. A quote from Cam Bruce in today's Age "we want to get to that stage where we just know where the ball's going and can get there". For mine, this is an indictment on the coach, not the players. BTW, how are the West Coast going with their 'run and carry' style without Cousins and Judd?

No, to be competitive, you build your game plan around your players' strengths, not weaknesses. But that doesn't excuse the players from not doing the basics (the 1%ers). Over a period of drafts, you develop your list and game plan to a level that is achievable. Also, our selection policy of cumbersome tall forwards and non-contributors (Garland and Weetra) defies his own game plan.

No, what pisses me off is that many on this forum believe that Bailey's new game plan is faultless, and that a review of our list will be the cure to all our woes. Our list has some shortcomings, but is not that bad. The nature of the draft and trade week means that there are no guarantees that our list will get dramatically better over the next 2 seasons. If we cull talented players unable to grasp Bailey's game plan, who do we replace them with? BTW, I'd like someone to ask him why Moloney, Newton and Petterd didn't play for Sandy last week.

If Holland is the best credentialled player on our list to handle a particular player, of course it's going to improve our chances of winning a game. Who do you have in mind as someone who can handle the gorillas?

I hope you're not referring to Meesen? He will turn out to be Craig Cameron's greatest blunder. Yes, worse than drafting Luke Molan.

So Jaded you reckon that we should start tanking now, by not playing the best available players? I'm not a huge Ben Holland fan, but he is clearly a better option against the gorillas than Carroll. And quite frankly, he's a better full forward option than Neitz.

To be a top 4 team, we don't need a CHF taking chest marks on the wing.

On another forum, I read a post on Sylvia by a recruiting officer from another club. His take on Sylvia was that he hasn't got the football nous to be a midfielder, and as a result, he doesn't rack up easy possessions. In turn, he's often second to ball, which means that his tackling stats will be good, but also gets him frustrated, and prone to giving away free kicks. He's a reactive rather than proactive footballer. On the upside, his marking and kicking are very good, and could be effectively utilised at AFL level. He's a forward that can pinch hit in the midfield. I tend to agree with this assessment of Sylvia. I don't think that lack of fitness is the reason behind his poor stats. I'd rather see him play the Robbo role in the forward line. At least he'll make a contest, and tackle and chase.

I don't equate hardness to giving out cheap shots, and getting reported. And your comparisons are ludicrous. Miller isn't fit to tie Hansen or O'Keefe's bootlaces. McPhee has played CHF for a whole 2 weeks since Lucas got injured, and Edwards is more of a goalkicker than Miller. And I don't understand your point of "why can't Melbourne and Miller be the exception to the rule?" What rule are we talking about. Success?

I'll take the 2 goals a game that a Bate or Dunn could provide, ahead of Miller's perceived toughness. Name one other CHF in the AFL that plays the same role as Miller? A non goalkicking CHF is a luxury we can't afford.

Good observations Hards. For a change we were able to get some goals from our mids, but I'd like to see them given the license to push forward more often. But if they're caught up playing handball games, this won't eventuate.

One of his better games, and that's not saying much. I can't see why Bate or Dunn couldn't play a similar leading role, and both are far more likely to kick a goal. Miller has kicked something like 35 goals in 96 games. That's pathetic. Im my opinion he offers us little, and opposition coaches don't need to show him any respect.

Not a bad suggestion grazman.

BRB, Excuse my ignorance, but I'd be interested to know if Sandy's gameplan has changed at all this season. Do they play "run and carry" or a traditional "kick and numbers at the fall of the ball"?