binman

I hope he would acknowledge our issues are in part due to the players he recruited. For a start the decision to take Salem and Tyson rather than Kelly

To quote the commentary on NBA 2K20, 'we've seen that movie a few times'

You can't coach skill errors? What does that even mean? What you can do is recruit players who will make skill error for their whole careers. And choose not to recruit barely a single elite kick in 8 years. And then you can marry that decision with a game plan that, like any game plan, relies on players hitting targets inside 50 (or if bombing it in at least kicking it to a forwards advantage) and not making dozens of ridiculous turnovers every game (because of the decision to recruit players who will make skill error for their whole careers). And then you can go to post match press conference and wearily answer the same question about connection going inside 40. And promise we will work on it. Unlike you Saty i don't blame the players. If you don't have the skills, you don't have the skills. You might improve a bit (or like Salem and Oliver you might go backwards) but there is no magic fairy dust that is suddenly going to make a rubbish kick into a good one. Again, both Roos and Goodwin are to blame for our list and our current problems as their recruiting strategy as been to weighted towards contest ball winners at the expense of skill.

Sure, but the point remains is that a player who comes to the AFL as a poor or even average kick will rarely get much better, particularly their field kicking. The reason of course is like golf swing it is all about technique and by the time they get to the AFL they have kicked it hundreds of thousands of times. Very hard to change a golf swing and very hard to change kicking technique. I can count on one hand dees players who have improved more than marginally. Jones is one, who gtes much more penetration than when he first started Set shots are easier to correct because it is more mental, they have time to gather themselves and they can develop a set routine. Cassboult is good example. This is the key reason i feel so concerned about where we are at as club. As i have been banging on about we are simply a terrible kicking side, at a time in footy's evolution where kicking in the skill that separates teams as all teams now compete and defend. All clubs have our one wood. But the best ones have mix of a few elite kicks (like say bot Kellys), above average kicks (like say Heath Shaw), mostly average kicks and very few, if any real butchers (insert 15 dees players here). I don't care what game plan is employed if you have team full of poor kicks then you are stuffed. And it will take years to recruit and draft ourselves out of this problem. Again as i have noted before i put the blame squarely at the feet of Goodwin and Roos for almost exclusively chasing competitive ball winners and getting no elite ball users. Viney is the prefect example. As is Brayshaw. Oliver is becoming one.

Can't imagine Simon would find it that funny. Though i'm sure he would find some learnings from the experience

When the story of this match is written lets not forget they didn't have a bench in the last

The story of our team I'm afraid.

Total respect for Hibberd.

Fair suck of the sav. At training we rarely miss a target. Yes I know it is pretty well known that in an AFL game there is usually a fair bit of pressure but hey let's get training right first. The key thing is that there is lots of learnings. That our players could expect pressure in a game of footy is one of those learnings.

It might be both

Levers running is so lazy. Got himself caught in no mans land then and allowed dusty to kick under no pressure

Smith has to be dropped for not manning the mark properly. Unforgivable

That was the worst decision i have seen all season against trac

Good Lord I hope bennell gets fit soon. We need his kicking skills more than we need competitive beasts. Am I right in thinking Bedford is a a good kick? If so I'd put him straight in. We work so hard for so little result. But we kickec two great goals through agaggresse kicks. I hope they keep it up. Rather lose attacking then lose in a scrappy game of rugby

Reminds me of one of more depressing sledges i yell at the footy when the dees are being flogged and their fans are giving it to us (which Ive noted on here before): Shows how rubbish you are (insert team here) - a half decent team would be 10 Goals up (or 15 if they are already 10 up)

No, their slow ball movement was primarily a tactic to ensure the game was not played fast as clearly with our selections and their lack of leg speed a fast game would have been to our advantage. They had 60 more non contested marks than us. That has to be close to some sort of record. And 54 more uncontested possessions. The game was played on their terms and in a way that negated our relative strengths As you point out they only scored 7 goals. I thought the defence played pretty well but i wouldn't be too quick to pump up their tyres as the Cat's game style also meant they only had 38 inside 50s (we had 46). And with 12 scoring shots they scored with close to every third entry and with 9 marks marked it every four times they came inside 50.

I don't thin it has an expiry date. At least i hope not as i plan to buy some stuff (and checked the email i got to see if there was an expiry date and there wasn't)

Yep agree. And clever coaching in terms of maximizing their chances of winning. A big part of my frustration is I think we should have spanked them. And leaving that aside it was a dreadful game to watch. As I noted elsewhere a noun point would at least provide some incentive to score

Yes that is certainly a possibility, as I noted in anorher post on this topic. But i would argue we didnt really work our way into the game as such. We were never out of it. We simply played the game on their terms. How uninspiring for a team promising to play fast exciting footy on a perfect day for footy at the g. And tactically surely the point was to expose their lack of leg speed by playing to our strength. That was why we picked a fast team after all. But more importantly the ends didn't justify the means. We lost. Who cares how close we got. Goodwin was specifically asked about Scott's ploy to play slow in the post game presser. He said a key learning was that we needed to press up and not allow so many uncontested marks. And they would look to do next time when faced with that tactic. That suggests to me that he wasn't happy with how we responded to Scott's tactics. And to be honest I have a different take on what Scott's tactics mean. Sure they were designed to combat our preferred game style. But there is little proof that style is a strength for us - apart from one quarter of football we have barely scored this season. And I also worry that the tactic was in part employed because Scott believed, with some justification, we would be unable, or unwilling to counter it.

Because knowing how we planned to play Scott simply implemented a go slow, keepings off game plan aimed to stymie our strategy (fast ball movement, lots of inside 50s and trapping it inside 50) and stopping us playing the game on our terms. And we seemingly did nothing to disrupt Scott's strategy.

Agree. Given this don't you find it strange how we allowed the cats game to play out?

Zones and system. Both of which require complete trust and synergy to work. Which takes time to develop. Which is why clubs are generally loathe to change their back six if they can avoid. I think they are committed to their current set up and asumming this is the case shouldn't change it An issue with one player playing the key intercept role these days is that opposition teams can target them to negate their influence. They can do this in a number of ways, for example by playing a defensive forward on them or spreading the forward line and isolating them against a big (as teams are doing with lever). This means teams now need mutiple intercept options. And perhaps this is why they like Smith in the side.

I am increasingly of the view the only way to increase scoring is to incentivise it . And the most logical way to do is say a priemership point for 100 points, win or lose (Or 80 in 16 minute quarters). As we have seen rules changes have unintended consequences but more importantly don't work. Coaches will always find a way to have defence as the fundamental tactical strategy. For example let's say we didn't allow any rotations. The coaches would just then implement the go slow tactics Scott employed so players can simply get their rest on the ground (remembering the principle of rotations is players getting 2 or 3 minute tests so they run in bursts). They might do the same if we went to 16 a side. No better way to stop your opponent scoring than by controlling the ball. Its exactly how weak soccer teams generally look to beat teams with more gifted players. It is what Scott did to us. If coaches had a premiership point as an option their risk reward assessment would change. And whilst they would still be inherently defensive they would at least have another option. Conditions are a furphy. The issue is defensive zones and systems not conditions. And contrary to standard argument there is no advantage at the docklands as it is narrower and harder to break zones there. The g is easier to score on. Sure rain is an issue but luck has always played a part and it would even out in any case.

No, watching a terrific series on Netflx called Dark (which i highly recommend). It is all about alternative realities.

I have a lot of time for May and really like his interviews. He is refreshingly honest and as you say answers the questions he is asked. I totally agree with your comment about tactical nous, particularly as it applies so the coaches. I'm a Goodwin fan but against the blues his lack of tactical response to arrest their momentum was poor as was the lack of a tactical response in the Cast game. As i posted earlier in this thread (and i think in the game thread) we totally telegraphed how we wanted to play with our selections (and in pre match pressers) ie we wanted to play fast and trap it inside 50. So what did Scott do? Deny us the ball and inside 50s by playing keeping offs and by playing so slowly negating our desired game plan. He said as much in his post game presser. Simples. Mays comments suggest not but surely the coaching unit should have planned for this eventuality? Perhaps they did but either were happy to have low scoring game thinking we would get on top (which to be fair we nearly did) or the the players did not respond to instructions. On the former being happy for a low scoring game is hardly in line with his promise of fast attacking brand of football dees fan would enjoy. But more importantly why would they be happy to have the game played totally played on the Cat's terms? Surely we want to play it on ours, how we had trained to play? On the latter Goodwin noted post game that one of the 'learnings' was not to allow so may non contested marks. I mean, really? Surely they did not need to learn that post game and both the coaches and players should have responded after the quarter time break by pushing up and denying them easy kicks and marks. Doing so would have opened us up to counter attacks but would have forced the game to be more offensive and therefore more on our terms and in line with how we trained and selected. And supposedly one of the 'learnings' from the blues game (according to May coincidentally) was that we played not to lose after quarter time rather then to win. Well why didn't we apply that learning and attack them, take risks - play to win - rather then sit back and let them control the tempo of the game and keep close to them with hope of sneaking what would have been an undeserved win. I tipped the dees coming into that match (after having tipping correctly for all the previous seven games in the round and being in with chance of a healthy pick 9 jackpot in my tipping comp) as i thought we would twin. And win well. We should have. And i believe would have if Goodwin had responded to Scott's go slow palaver.