binman

I prefer teak

Agree. I'm more talking about model than outcome. But where it useful to compare us to the tigers is where we are at in terms of our development as a team. The tigers are the best team of the last 3 years. But it 5 years of development and plenty of heartache, prior to that to get there. We are building. No guarantee we will get there but what the tigers show is there are no shortcuts.

No

This is an interesting game from a tactical perspective. Both teams have a huge emphasis on pressure. Though really every team now does. Both teams also are contest out. I'm not sure teally what their defensive system is, so can't say if differs from ours (though my vibe is it is) The dogs style reminds me a bit of how we played in the first half of 2018. Running in waves quick handballs, breaking down zones with speed of movement. When it works it can be devastating. But as we found the weak link is if the ball carrier is pressured super hard all game it breaks down. And I reckon that is where now differ. We zero in on the ball carrier and we more often look to get territory by kicking long, with less chains of handballs and/or neat kicks. When we do tic tac down the ground now we look to do so with the style the cats and West Coast do. Which when I think about it is a pretty big tactical shift.

I really like it. No change is a great sign.

Now that is the sort of weather forecast i can work with. Love the specificity of the diagonal breeze. I hope kozzie goes to that pocket and Langdon is on the optimal wing. Top job.

Appalling website. The ladder says it all on how bad. It has a message after 8 position saying top 8 teams make the finals. I mean really?

In the immortal words of one one Demonland's finest: Get tested, stay home, STFU.

Can't you see?

The other challenge is Goody (and any coach who comes to a club to build premiership winning team) is on the clock and losses create fugazzi. This means he needs to stay the course and have an admin that supports him. But the reality is improvement is important because fans get restless and the media loves to fan those flames. Many coaches don't get second chance if the admin blinks (which is stupid part of the AFL landscape - i was really pleased ratten got another shot, should never have been sacked by the blues, and no should bailey for that matter). In this respect 2018 was a bit of millstone as we dared to dream of flag, which if it came would have been 2-3 years ahead of goody's schedule

An area of expertise i'm guessing given your brooding avatar

Agree, fantastic insight. His injury history, even before getting to the AFL is insane. His commitment to the rehab and work required to get back to AFL level on multiple occasions is next level and must be so inspiring for his teammates. The interview is really top shelf. Andy's interviews (and this one a great example) are a terrific balance between well researched questions, good interviewing technique and coming from a shared place of passion for the club. I listen to a lot to the player and club interviews on radio and websites etc etc. More often than not they are by the book, with not much real insight and pretty dull. Vander's interview (and the others) was the opposite, genuinely interesting and insightful. As an example i didn't realise vanders isn't training between games. Provides context for his relatively average disposal efficiency. Also how close he came to permanent injury his eye is truly frightening.

AF that's a great description of the development of our game, the sequence of the blocks so to speak. I reckon the gears shift you mentioned is their ability to play tenpo footy when re we hired (or even when forced to by the opposition). We started to do that last year and are getting good at it now. The diferential in play on from marks v the pies was remarkable. I see what you mean about the way the tigere can surge when needed. For me that is all about getting control of the game's momentum, which arguably the most important thing in any sport. Our surge is a little different i reckon. Like the tigers it starts with pressure and resting the oppositins charge. But the tigers surge is a bit more of a blunt weapon. We can be lethal, and are getting better, at creating scoring chains and opportunities. We can suddenly flick the switch and be a bit more aggressive with our options and overlap run and also this is where the automated plays come in. Nothing beats score board pressure for writing back momentum.

I just saw this thread. Happy for Jim to receive the award but like all great ideas they need some work to take to the next level. I shined Jim's diamond and made it sparkle. Even wrote to the AFL to ask them to pass 'our' idea on to Gill

Refining the system is a good way of describing Goodwin approach. He has made a number of adjustments to his system. I guess it an exercise in semantics in terms of how immutable a system needs to be over time to be considered the same sytem but I agree with aob that he had a model in mind and he has been putting the blocks together. As an example I think he is prepared to add Harley now (and for that matter take the punt on Jackson and kozzie) only because he thinks he has got all the pieces of the puzzle in place. It is really interesting, in the last couple of weeks (coincidentally since this thread has started- though that might be classic confirmation bias hey EO?) all the talk from goody and players about our game plan is how critical defence is. Variations on, it all starts with our defence. I listened to lever on the zoom session tonight and he said much the same. Said they pride themselves on how hard they are to score against. He made a couple of very interesting comments relevant to our game plan. He said that in the early 2000s defence was your back six versus the forwards. But that now it is an all team concept that requires all team buy in. No surprises there. But he said that what many fans perhaps don't grasp is that low possession numbers are not an indication a player has not played well. That they often don't see how hard that player has worked to play their role in the all team defence and how important their contribution is. Specifically mentioned harmes in this respect, saying his numbers are much lower this year but he is as valuable. On possessions he said they can be a misleading stat for us as we are a low possession team that looks to kick long to a contest and battle from there. The really interesting comment was that the big improvement in our defence wasn't as result of the back six or forwards defending better it was the midfield buying into the all team defence and now really working hard both ways. He used gus getting six (I think) intercept marks in the pies game as an example. Said mids have all been star juniors used to being offensive. Working hard the other way takes some time to learn. Implied the penny has dropped. And I reckon we are seeing the result. Conceding three second half goals in the last 3 games, in total, is evidence of that.

Gold. Love it. I am going to get that slogan printed on a T shirt. Or even better some masks

Some good points AoB. I might not have made the distinction clear enough. My type one is all about the system. System first. Everything second. Type two still has systems but they are not the foundation of their approach to coaching. For me goody is an example of type one and Clakson type two. In my view Clarkson key philosophy has been about ball movement through excellent kicking. That philosophy has influenced recruitment and game style. But it is not a system. Obviously he uses systems but they don't appear as fundamental to his approach

Thanks FD. In the spirit of keeping this thread on page one so its doesn't disappear of Broadway to general discussion board i thought i'd throw up a topic of conversation that has been exercising my brain a bit of late. I would interested poster's thoughts about my hypothesis that there are three types of coaches in the AFL; Type one They have a very clear philosophy, system and game plan that they believe is the model that will bring the ultimate success They gave complete belief in that model and back it to be any any opponent (once fully implemented ie the right players, 100% buy in and enough time to make the system automatic) They essentially have one game plan - Plan A - and they drill this plan into their team and demand adherence to the rule the plan demands for it to work They are often regarded as stubborn and unwilling to change game plans when losing The players have to conform to the game plan - the coach doesn't shape the game plan around the strengths of the players Whilst these coaches might have specific strategies and tactics for each game to negate an opposition's strengths and exploit their weakness, these are really just tweaks around the edges - the game plan essentially remains the same every game, regardless of opponent They are confident if their team executes their game plan and brings the required intensity they will beat any opponent - even when they are losing In season adjustments to the game plan (eg shifting the zone or hand balling forward from stoppages) happen but the fundamentals don't change In game they make few tactical changes - tweaks yes, big changes no Type two They have a very clear philosophy about the game and how it should be played to bring the ultimate success They have a clear system and game plan but it is more fluid, particularly from season to season and less didactic than the type one They also have one game plan - Plan A but have a number of variations of that theme, so to speak These coaches put a lot of focus on specific strategies and tactics for each game to negate an opposition's strengths and exploit their weakness, these are more than just tweaks around the edges - The game plan does not remains the same every game - it shifts depending on their opponent Planning for your opponent is a key element of their coaching philosophy In season adjustments to the game plan (eg shifting the zone or hand balling forward from stoppages) happen often but the non negotiable such as work effort, buy in, commitment and pressure don't change In game they make as many tactical changes that they think is necessary to maximise their team's chance of winning and do so proactively The are more likely to shape the game plan around the strengths of the players Type 3 Somewhere in the middle of type one and type two

Good thing he was annoyed not furious

Is that a metaphysical riddle?

Low grade annoyance? Tightness sin his annoyance? My diagnosis is a mild case of exasperation. Grumpy Gary Baker avatar tells me he will be fine to play. And that is is his constant state

1,500 views of a fella walking off a footy oval ground. What is our collective diagnosis?

Is his injury being annoyed? If so i have the same injury 20 times day with my two kids and our shared learning and work space!

To be honest i'm more worried about both the dogs and the saints than i was the pies. I have a theory. Which, in contrary to my normal tomes about such matters i will try to explain succinctly. I think there are number of teams who have similar game plans to Goody. Not exactly the same of course but similar in terms of their philosophy, defensive system and zones. The Pies are one. And there are a number of teams with different game plans, albeit not radically different. The saints and dogs are two examples. My theory is we struggle against the teams with different game plans.

Naughton is the real deal. A natural football. Agree Smith could do ok, and agree pressure on the ball carrier and blocking up leading lanes and space important. But the only player at the demons i think is good enough to take Naughton is May.