Akum

Got to admit to being surprised he didn't see the writing on the wall & jump before he was pushed. The process at the Crows was so comparatively squeaky clean only because that's what Craig did. Or maybe there's a condition that if he quits, he doesn't get the rest of his contract paid out. In which case it's fair enough.

Clarko would be first preference, but doubt he'd switch, even with all the problems (mostly Kennett-driven) he seems to have had at Hawthorn, considering he's been so successful with a depleted list. Otherwise, Eade, Laidley (who's supposed to be a very good match-day coach and who IMHO squeezed a helluva lot out of a mediocre list on a shoestring in his time at North), or Burns (again, supposed to have really good tactical nous). Or if we're looking for a coach with mongrel, they don't come any more mongrel than Dean Wallis! Might not have anything else, though. And who is Murray Davis?

Got a strong feeling that there's a lot more to the Bailey situation. No info, just a hunch.

You prayed??? To whom??? They must have a gruesome sense of humour.

So whose decision was it that he should play? And how much advice to the contrary was overriden?

If true, it can only be because Viney has turned it (i.e. caretaker) down for other reasons. Royal surely wouldn't have been first choice.

I can't read Bailey any more, I can't see any discernible strategy. I thought that picking Bate & Dunn could only mean that we were putting "development" aside in order to give us more of a physical presence in the middle. But that's not how we used them. So why did we pick them in the first place? And we don't seem to do a fraction of the research on the other team that they do on us. Clarkson matched his stars on our youngsters (e.g Hodge forward on Nicho), while we had the wrong defence for that forward line. We needed someone to sit on Burchill to stop them attacking from defence, but he had just as much a free run as we allowed Goddard & Bob Murphy when we let them smash us. We seem to put in the same side irrespective of who we are playing. For example, Thompson & his Bombers showed everybody that the Cats' rebounding defenders don't like being matched up on, but whoever we choose on the forward line will leave Scarlett on his own the whole game and he'll destroy us. So I don't see any changes, other than those forced by injury. Certainly no changes that will make the slightest difference against Geelong, because we don't have a plan to beat them.

Oh, we got smashed but it was great! What the hell do you expect? Smart post.

Hodge on Nicho? Rivers on Hale & Bailey (both 200cm+)? Oh, and I thought we picked Dunn & Bate deliberately, just in case we might have needed more physical presence in the middle of the ground. Well we did need more physical pressure in the middle, but we left them in the forward line. They were both reasonable, but Dunn's greatest value has always been in a defensive role on bigger-bodied mids or attacking defenders - exactly what we could have done with today.

Yeah right. Because we play the ball so well thru CHF.

Nobody will be surprised if we lose this game and the next 3. Trouble is, we're going to get smashed by 10-12 goals each game, and look pretty hopeless in doing it. All those sides are going to make us look that bad. Prepare for it people. And we won't be able to fire a shot.

Biggest possession winner to half time - Stef Martin!

'Flu apparently.

Comprehensively outcoached and out-thought. In a game where we really need something - anything! - from the coach's box to try to stem the tide, we get nothing. Again.

My question exactly!

Hope she gets as much attention when we win than when we lose. Ever heard her barrack for the other team??

The ball was going over Trengove's head, he looked behind him to see Higgins setting himself for a speccy, so he just changed his body position slightly to make Higgins mistime his jump. Which Higgins did, so badly that he should have been penalised for it. It was a brilliant piece of quick thinking, typical of Trengove. The Jack Watts & Newman thing was completely different - Newman stopped Jack from getting to the drop of the ball. So the only thing Trengove should be allowed to do in that situation is to stand still & let Higgins take the ride on him, or if possible, bend slightly so that Higgins can get a better ride. Surely you're allowed to do something to stop someone taking a ride on you. Classic example of umpires who have no idea whatsoever what it's like to play the game. In contrast, clearly the "hands in the back" rule is out for the rest of the season.

The question remains: what would either of them be without Judd?

We have a huge gaping coaching hole in game strategy & tactics. By "strategy" I mean what plans we make before the game against the side we are playing next, and includes selection & positions, and how to nullify their strengths & exploit their weaknesses etc. By "tactics" I mean changes that need to be made during the game. Our coaching team seriously lacks these skills at present, and we'll never be a top side if we don't get them from somewhere. This doesn't necessarily mean that DB goes; the alternative is to bring in someone with these specific skills (if we already have someone internally, so much the better), and Dean to continue as head coach. I doubt that Hird has these skills, but he has Thompson who does (well, against Geelong at least). Last year the top teams didn't bother to prepare for us, but they are now leaving nothing to chance and meticulously preparing and planning for us (much better than we plan & prepare for them!). Ess vs Geelong is a classic example of how an inferior team can beat a better team through superior strategy & tactics. Whether a strategy & tactics specialist coach would work depends on whether Dean is OK about sharing power with & taking advice from someone else on decisions during the game. Not everybody can do this, but internally the FD will know whether he can or not. Dean does seem to have the respect of his players & the rest of the coaching team & FD, and if this impression is true, then the amount of disruption created by sacking him at the end of the season is not going to be worth it. Besides, he does do a lot of other things right.

Would make interesting reading to bump all the posts over the past couple of years that bagged him to the extreme. Does anybody have the time ... and the vindictive streak ... to do it?

From other posts in this thread, we just need ... * To wait for bodies to become mature enough * More experience * A strong, injury-free pre-season * To improve minor problems such as kicking for goal * More intensity, endeavur, effort * Meaner nastier players * A better attitude * Different leadership * To stay patient. Sorry, I just don't buy that things are basically OK but "we just need" any or all of the above.

Or - when we're allowed to play our game, we do really well. When we're not allowed to play our game, we get absolutely smashed because nothing whatsoever is ever done about it. Ever. The teams that beat us beat us in exactly the same fashion. We learn nothing from one smashing to the next. We have no contingency plans for what to do if we are confronted by forward pressure; for how to get midfield drive if Scully is countered (all the top teams know that Scully is our most damaging mid and he's the one who needs their top tagger); what to do if we're getting outmuscled; what to do if bombing high to the square isn't working (we were bombing just as much in the last quarter as in the first); what to do if we're caught ut with a mismatch in defence (too small or too tall); what do to if a seriously damaging mid or two on the other team starts to dominate. All of these things were deliberately planned by Eade, and we did absolutely nothing. We make no changes, just keep hammering away at the same old things & find that the harder we try, the worse it gets. Which is right when the opposition coach knows he's got us and ... voila! Last quarter blowout. The problem is that every loss looks the same and nothing is ever done to stop it happening next time. It needs more than hanging tough and just waiting for time. That's what poor clubs do; good clubs make their own future.

Larkins is usually pretty spot-on about these sorts of things, and he usually has a lot more than a 'Light' piece of taping to go on. Even a slight calf strain would seriously limit his effectiveness - his leap, initial speed, sideways movement etc. Nothing to gain & lots to lose if they get it wrong.

You keep pushing this. Essendon won because two of their coaches knew the Geelong side inside out, knew where they were vulnerable, and exploited it beautifully. They planned and prepared and gave the players something to play for. It's not that they just had a positive attitude - that's Oprah, not AFL! We lose because nothing changes. We don't learn from our previous losses. We don't learn what to do when a side (any side) nullifies our strengths, and we don't learn what to do when they exploit our weaknesses. We all get sucked in to blaming the players' attitude. At least we had a crack on Friday. We just found that the harder we tried, the worse it got. We literally had no answers. And that's the coaching staff. Not just Bailey - we have nobody in our current coaching staff who has any tactical or strategic capacity whatsoever. If that doesn't change, nothing will change.

This explains a lot. If Jurrah has a lower leg problem of ANY sort, it's going to seriously impair his effectiveness. Just don't understand why we need to play injured players. Surely they've learned something from the Davey debacle!