1858

The OP is spot on.

A lot of sense in this post.

If CJ was under anywhere the same pressure that Joel Mac was under against the Hawks on Saturday he would have capitulated IMHO.

I agree, this happens all too often and the net result is not only putting ourselves under unnessecary pressure but it is also wasted energy cleaning up the mess. The irony is that when we should play on because we have space there is nobody to pass it to. Our ball movement must improve as well as our positioning and ground coverage. Yes, this is up to the coach but our conditioning is also a part of this.

No problem with that, but to put that comment in context of who we played on the weekend (ie some purely reactionary views in this thread) was the part I was addressing.

This is all well and good to listen to Dermie talk about how some of the Hawthorn players like to go about it but Collingwood could be a completely different scenario. I think any pre-determined gameplan you take with a grain of salt. Traditionally Collingwood give MOM a go more than zones so unlike Hawthorn we may not be as effective as they prefer this type of game. Horses for courses. The point is that there is no 1 single game type we should be employing, we need to learn all facets of modern footy. Unfortunately unless you can exert an effective zone in modern footy (which takes time) then there is no point worrying about AFL footy. MOM is just as important but it is hard to perfect everything at once which is why I give Bailey a bit of leeway when he focuses on one area over the other as part of the learning process. I do agree though that Bailey needs to be sharper as he goes along and needs to weigh up the pros and cons of sticking to a style in a game but he is allowed to develop as well as the club.

I agree. On top of that we also need to understand that our backline is a strength in relativity (to our midfield and forward line) but not in absolute terms. You only have to look at how easily Essendon scored against us in the 1st Challenge Match and now West Coast today at Casey that our defence needs all the integrity we can give it. If teams are scoring easily against us (yes I know it starts in the middle but that isn't the point here) we are hardly in a position to take key players out of our defence. Garland is one player I can understand being suggested as he (despite being a very handy defensive prospect) hasn't been integral to the defensive development over the last 12 months. Frawley (and to a lesser extent Rivers) on the other hand has been integral to our defensive shape and development and will be going forward so why undermind that? I still think Garland is of more value in defence but IF we have our bases covered down back then perhaps see if he can fill a hole elsewhere. Posters need to understand that we need to progressively develope our team not chop and change to suit short term qualms and over value our defence in the process. Yes, we have a hole up forward but our priority should be focusing resources without "robbing Peter to pay Paul" or we don't end up making real progress and (in the case of suggesting Frawley) risk wasting inportant development and using players to less than their optimum.

Can't these ****heads take a breath?

Only by coincidence I suspect. Norwood Redlegs in the SANFL have the same theme. "Freo way to go"... may have been a different story lol.

As long as the escalator isn't a metaphore for the AFL ladder I like it.

hmmm, perhaps a bit of 'The Prodigy' before home games?

This is as far as I got.

Grimes 29 touches by 3/4 time!!

Oh yeah, love the sound of that!

Good analysis and not only were Freo and North significantly more experienced, they were also playing at their home grounds which can't be underestimated.

Absolutely spot on.

Lack of effort can't be tolerated under any circumstances I absolutely agree mate but I think there was more too it than that on Sunday. I think we genuinely were shown what AFL in 2010 is about and many of the players who were putting in (lets say a "reasonable" effort) got a bit of a wake up call. Also our problem was that we spent too much effort on inefficient football due to the way our lack of speed was putting us in hot water. No doubt we were fatigued at the end of the game. I think our preparation was more the factor than simply just the effort but sure some players didn't dig in like they should have.

As individuals constantly performing under pressure, they probably have. As a collective group probably not and this is what has hurt us. North Melbourne is an interesting revelation since probably 2008 when the game took it's first major spike in elite pace - I don't just mean running but ball use, decision making, reading the play etc. For some reason North simply perform and I can't put my finger on it apart from to say that they keep it simple. (The Carey era is was a completely different style of footy). On top of that, collectively they look sharper, better drilled and most importantly up to a base level of conditioning to be competitive with the best. They play tempo football and apart from when Laidley was on the outer they seem to still get the simple things right. I tend to think that our training is not as advanced as it could/should be and I don't know if that is because of the coach, the players or our overall set up as a club. My POV is that Olympic Park will make a profound effect on our whole regime and outlook - "belief" as you say. Perhaps we are training well by our standards but not AFL standards. Bailey came from Port Adelaide who are very good at training IMO so there has to be more to it. I do think that we will at some stage this season perform in some games where we are polar opposites to what we were on Sunday.

Well, some of us who actually gave the Shane Crawford article an ounce of creedence were probably prepared for a less than brilliant game skills wise and hence had more time to put things into perspective. I agree it is still a concern but in context of our list and the players on the ground it is important to understand why we have skill errors. Yes, there were some genuine unforced errors (clangers) but the problem our youth will constantly face at AFL level is pressure and perceived pressure as a result of us not having enough top level senior players. Our over all game is slow and opposition teams dictate the play. Bailey knows exactly what is happening and he also realises that the senior players we have can only perform to a certain level which is on the whole inadequate. Our younger players will have to work harder under duress than their equivalents in nearly every other AFL team.

Agreed, we're a combination of tomorrow's footballers and yesterday's footballers with only a handful of today's footballers.

This is the crux of it.

No offence BB but apparently the club begs to differ. I'll go with the club on this one if they have had a long term focus and plan which Bailey has been squarely a part of since day 1. Stability is being severely under-rated in this thread as being a vital component to our performance, self belief and most of all success. It's not like we've signed Bailey up until the end of 2015.

The most important factor in all of this is the salary cap. I don't know how exactly the AFL calculates it every year (whether it is simple indexation or a more complex formula) however if the AFL has licence to pretty much pluck out any figure then watch this space.

I understand Sheahan's sentiment but it comes down to whether we place our mindset in that of a journo or the club. For mine, an extra contracted year (2011) is a satisfactory and important condition under which Bailey should coach this year. Naturally, 2012 in the bag is a different story though I think Sheahan mentioned that to gain some emotive weight to his over-all article. I have no doubt that Bailey knows exactly our flaws and exactly what 2010 football is all about. Getting us to perform is another story and from that POV Olympic Park can't come quick enough. I saw a lot of things in the Freo game that were pretty bad and despite it feeling obvious that the coach can easily rectify many of those instances our biggest challenge is still a tip-top squad - I don't mean injury free I mean a group of players who can adequately perform roles given to them at 2010 AFL level for 4 quarters. Even though Freo did the right things and we were ordinary the other night there was still a clear difference IMO in the condition of both sides as a whole. Freo looked fresh, hardly had a strapped player and ran in waves and positioned themselves well all night. Joel MacDonald was probably our best player, he played intensive tempo football under pressure and used his nouse and body and he just happens to be from an AFL club where he would have been considered average at best - this is an eye opener people. Both the coach and the players need time and stability.

The most notable positive for me was the way the team fought back late in the game prior to the final onslaught. Before I get picked up on this I do realise that Freo kicked the last 4 or 5 of the game however there is no question that our lads were very fatigued near the end - Freo mostly kept their tempo. My point is about players not dropping their heads. IMO our players performed in the following conditions: _______________________________________________________ No obvious forward targets. Travel and playing on a larger ground. No regular starting ruckmen. A significant group of players with limited or no senior experience playing together. Clearly not in the same condition in physique or fitness over 4 quarters as our opposition. _______________________________________________________ It is in this context that I appreciated the commitment of many of our younger players and new recruits when things were tough. At times they "looked" like they weren't trying but they were all night. We simply have many areas to work on with manning up, clearances, ball movement, disposal etc...