Adam The God

I think the idea of 'brand' is a prevalent construct in modern footy. It's a powerful unifier when it comes to the style that the club is going to play and what the club itself stands for culturally. That could be based on pace of ball movement, controlling the ball by foot, the contest, surge at every contest, any of these and all of these themes, and whilst some coaches will let certain very talented players get away with more, they'll usually demand that their players adhere to the philosophy the club stands for under the banner of 'brand'. So in effect, both 'types' you mention @binman, I believe enable some players to play their own way and demand that others fit into the system or ultimately fail. There isn't a strict rigidity to the modern day coach in this sense. A bit of 'let people be people' mentality. We've seen this play out with Dustin Martin within Hardwick's 'rigid' system at Richmond. But as @La Dee-vina Comedia points out, there are certainly the authoritarians and the life coaches. However, the days of authoritarian coaches are numbered IMO. Clarkson is the last one and he is running on the back of being the greatest coach of the modern era. The authoritarian coach does not resonate with how the next generation communicates in the modern world, whether that be the corporate world or otherwise. As a sports coach myself for the last 15 years (I'm 33), I see the younger coaches that come up around me and their style is very different from mine. I try to balance the authoritarian with the life coach. The younger coaches are very much life coaches. Whereas, I won't tolerate stuffing around, but I will try to offer as much personal support to my team as individuals, in order to make them grow as people and as players. I very much started as an authoritarian and have drifted more towards the life coach, or at least the balance of both, as well as being friendly and overly encouraging. I see it as just merely reading the room and the way the world is moving and how to connect with people. I think you've got to be able to take a player under your wing and they've got to know you're trustworthy and will be there for them. This to me is the modern day coach, the teacher, the mentor, but I'd agree with @Engorged Onion (I think I'm agreeing anyway) by saying that the modern day coach has all of the traits you listed across Type 1 & 2. Let's examine Simon Goodwin. I think he fits many of the Type 1 traits you list (stubbornly backs in his system and his players, and has a clear philosophy on how the game should be played), but I think he's shown Type 2 traits such as flexibility within that system, even to the philosophy that his system seems to stands for. He moved on Jack Watts because he was not combative enough for Goodwin's contested style and chose to sacrifice Jack's skill in order to do that. Yet two years later, he brings in Harley Bennell who exhibits many of Jack's traits. Goodwin has compromised here IMV, for the benefit of the list. Bennell brings a skillset that others do not and can play through the midfield. We desperately need that skillset through our midfield. FWIW, I'd also argue Goodwin substituted Watts for Fritsch in our forwardline, so we haven't lost anything there, but what this illustrates to me is that the contested style doesn't apply to everyone, clearly. So whilst I do think there's far more grey and coaches tend to exhibit many of the traits you listed, rather than either or, I do think there is some validity to your two types framework, @binman, in that some coaches are definitely more capable of flexibility than others. The spectrum that @Engorged Onion mentions is probably a better way for viewing this flexibility. I'd put Chris Scott in the very flexible category, for example. But I think all successful coaches have to believe in a brand that they've built over their time at the club. It is their blueprint, their vision and their philosophy, and goes to the heart of their integrity as a coach. They have to be willing to back it in until it's clear it doesn't work. If it doesn't work, they've got to be able to outline why and how they'll get their team to play a different way with some tweaks or major to minor surgeries. Most coaches don't get to admit this and try again before being sacked, but I reckon Hardwick and Buckley have both had chances to admit that the style they played was not adequate and have evolved as coaches along the way. They were backed in again because clearly they brought other characteristics and traits to the role of head coach that their respective clubs felt would still lead them to the ultimate success. This might sound strange, but I'd compare modern day coaching and the constant evolution of the game, with the innovation and competition within the computer software industry. When each competitor discovers a new function or operation that works, others look to incorporate into their system, what clearly works from these other competitors, whilst maintaining the integrity of their own 'brand'. This ultimately makes a stronger end product. So coaches, just like software companies, have to have the vision of Steve Jobs, but be willing to be adaptable with the competition around them, in order to be successful. For our sake, I hope Goodwin is willing to be continually adaptable, without undermining the brand he's been selling since 2017.

Good call. I wonder what a Talia would command in terms of salary and contract? Still 29 come the end of this year. We'll definitely be looking at full back options to free up May and Lever, and enable Tomlinson to play wing or half forward. I used to coach Seedsman. Arrogant little bugger, but could be handy outside run and provide decent outside ball use.

I think like Lockhart, Chandler has been modelled into a small, zippy defender. It's intriguing given a lot of these guys were drafted as forwards.

The Doc needs a tranquilliser. He doesn't know whether he's coming or going. Any excuse to have a go at the club.

Did you watch our last match (without Jackson)?

You mean, if @woz keeps posting, there will be more posts from @woz?

I'm not exactly sure why the criticism of Lockhart exists in this instance either. He's solid and has very quickly grown into the role.

I prefer the Richmond surge. Not only do they increase the intensity around stoppages and contests, they throw in these different looking set ups around stoppages. Geelong can't win finals and when games are more contested, I don't think their keepings off works anymore in big finals. It might get you to the big finals, but wining the contest and then surging still looks pretty good to me. But each to their own, mate. : )

I'm liking some of the analysis around Geelong's centre stoppage set ups (from @george_on_the_outer), as well as what I witnessed in the Richmond v Suns game last night. I think these sorts of tactics are what's required to make us more unpredictable and utilise Max's strengths to the fullest. It actually makes very little sense to keep our set up as compact has it has been when we have Oliver and Petracca's explosiveness in there. Even Viney can be explosive occasionally. I'd be looking at these set ups carefully if I was Benny Mathews, which I'm sure he's doing.

This is the guy I'd go with. But make him earn it. Let's see how Jones plays against the Dogs, if he stands up, maybe we look at one of our other guys coming out for Bedford. Maybe Kozzie for a rest. We want pressure and work rate in the role. Jones is bringing that, but he's not bringing goals and as I've said previously, can get lost in transition.

The AFL will be able to pack 18,000 more people into Optus Stadium than the Gabba, so that's the financial move they'll make. Eagles are a massive shot at winning it this year. Plus, they'll get the double chance.

I reckon we're playing funny buggers with Max at the moment. You don't say PCL if you don't mean it. He won't play this week IMO.

Max has had some outstanding games this year, but he's also had 2 or 3 ordinary ones, and then been injured. I wouldn't have him in my AA team at this point.

Yep, it was definitely his best game for a while. Probably two or three years. He stays in for the moment.

Lol any chance to do a best 22.

You've got no track record except for whinging in every thread.

@Dr.D covering himself in glory in another thread, I see.

Pretty disingenuous using these stats as any sort of evidence given through the first 10 rounds he barely attended centre bounces.

Richmond just won a centre clearance with a similar set up, but with only mid 1v1 out wide. Resulted in a goal. The way Richmond up the tempo is so reminiscent of Liverpool upping the tempo. They've done it for 4 years. They get a little bit of a sniff of momentum and then just crank the intensity around every contest. It draws errors from the opposition and they have this interesting team sensibility to make their move at the right time. I would be surprised if anyone beats them to the flag this year. They have gears and they've demonstrated it over almost half a decade now. We've gotta be looking at this and using it to dominate the opposition when Gawn returns. Oliver and Petracva have bursts of speed so we won't get caught with pace.

Great pick up @george_on_the_outer and @Engorged Onion. I'm surprised more teams don't try this. I suspect it could be easy to combat too. If the ruckman taps to his feet, it takes two players out and if the opposition mids step up, it's not worth the Geelong mids staying wide without a dominant ruckman.

The word 'deserve' was what I was referencing in relation to a few posters now who have said he 'deserves' to play 300.

I've got a large enough history over 11 years of posting that would seem pretty hypocritical if I didn't mention it, hence my reference to it. And no one deserves to make it to 300. I think you might be missing my point. Oliver is my favourite player by a long way, but he doesn't deserve to make it to 300 unless he warrants selection in 300 games. Surely, I shouldn't have to point that out.

Hang on, so when you say 'goal to goal line' what do you mean? Do you mean they come from CHF and CHB? This sounds like it's akin to players off the back of the stoppage if I'm understanding this correctly. I've only got Foxtel IQ 2, the one where you can't watch it whenever you want anyway. If someone rewatches the replay in the next few days, could you let me know where Viney was playing? I could have sworn he played off the back of many of the stoppages. So he'd enter the contest at pace and either attempt to tackle or hopefully look for a handball receive. Most of what I saw were attempted tackles and pressure at the back of the stoppage. I also think it's a risky move, because it leaves the Collingwood opponent by himself on the outside, so if Viney doesn't impact the stoppage, it's akin to the aggressive press failing around a stoppage, and could grant an easy takeaway. This is why I kept saying he was like a bee to honey and got sucked in too often.

It's not really worth going into anymore. The past is the past and I think we should focus on the present and the future.

I reckon the forward coaching has been really top notch the last 5-6 weeks. Incidentally, I think this occurred after moving Plapp into the forward coaching role. FWIW...