nutbean

You are talking about taking a set shot which is easier again. (except for some exceptions who overthing them and are more comfortable on the run)

is it that easy ? Swan hasnt, Priddis hasnt, Carrazo hasnt ( although in fairness he is better than he was). Hawthorn made it known that they wanted elite kicks of the footballs - there arent too many wasters of the ball at the Hawks

I hear you ...I am not referring to the kicks under pressure in hotly contested situations - compare Swan to Pendlebury. Pendlebury sometimes snaps out of a pack - or rushes the ball to boot from a clearance situation and sometimes it comes off sometimes not. When he has half a second he rarely wastes it - the same cannot be said for Swan.

We should know...it amazes that in the world of professional athletes one of the most fundamental skills is performed poorly and in so many cases never improves through out the career.

So I will use Scully as an example then. As much as we dislike him everything we have heard about him is the lengths he goes ( and has gone) to prepare himself to be the best footballer he can be. Yet his foot skills are below par. I have no reason to believe that he wouldnt work his arse off to be the best he can be so... 1/ Either he cannot master a correct kicking action AND/Or 2/ Clubs dont try and rectify imperfect actions I am not sure which one it is.

thats got nothing to do with skills at all....Simon Godfrey may have had confidence and trust but butchered the ball unmercifully - Terry Wallace played in premiership and was a mastercut butcher of the highest order. Swan played in a premiership side and is average. I do agree that the better sides usually afford their players a split second more to dispose of the ball than the likes of our team who always seem to be under pressure. I also agree it can be taught and improved with lots of work and the right attitude - but I actually think more often than not that if you have 2 or 3 years at the start of your career with poor skills - I dont think they improve.

I was thinking last night about our skill level and how much improvement can be made when 18 year olds come onto an AFL list. ( I include decision making in this discussion) There are Nathan Jones' who has worked very hard on his skills and we have seen an improvement with his hand and foot skills but for every Nathan Jones there are many more players from all clubs ( especially ours) who come to clubs as "butchers" of the ball and never progress past Tasman meats. You need to take injuries out of the equation because I believe the likes of Trengove who's footskills are quite good were hampered last season through injury. Watch the likes of Swan and Priddis - both getting huge amounts of football but both are still very wasteful and their skills ( especially by foot) are average at best. From our club who have now left - Rivers, Morton and Petterd who all were in the system for a long while still turn the ball over with regularity. Even watching our friend Tom Scully - by all reports still a maniac in his dedication to training - cant kick a football ( although he is good by hand) I just believe that most players who come into the system as turnover kings - stay turnover kings.

Had an interesting talk with a Collingwood friend ( there is an oxymoron if ever there was) - i mentioned to him that Clark is probably the most influential player we have whether he is getting a touch or not. ( I meant that in complimentary way) - he said Dawes is the same - runs to good position. made space for Cloke, hit contests hard, blocking, shepherding, busting packs.. even a no possession game didnt mean he didnt have influence. Now i hope he kicks goals which is what he is paid to do but I like his approach to his footy - even if you are not clunking marks you can still contribute.

i would like to talk to the players to see if we can see more good performances on a regular basis..after all they are ones who delivered us almost 15 quarters of shite and one quarter of excellence. Because apparently Neeld coached them poorly for 15 quarters but coached exceptionally for one.

Yes i entirely blame Neeld for the players playing ok in the first quarter, poorly in the next two quarters and then sensationally in the last quarter...yes...its Neeld....( how dare he not allow the players to play well.. come on Mark - let them play well...pleaaassse)

And whilst we want to tear strips off Neeld - are we to believe that he turned into a coach for the final quarter ? why arent we prepared to lay responsibility for where it must clearly sit - and that is with the players . This is certainly not an "all or nothing" statement and the coaches must take some responsibility for not being able to help with the lack of confidence, endeavor, daring or general go that players have displayed but in the end it comes back to the cattle on the field. Garland was a clear example - played the first three and half weeks - grabbing opponents, giving 3 metre starts and being completely reactive - this is not coaching - this is player mindset - the last quarter what does he do - he takes the game on - sits on his man - actually plays in front and played with daring and initiative - bingo !

So basically you want Neil Craig out ? thats exactly what he is employed to do.

And you know this how ? Interested in your critique of all our assistant coaches ( and methodology of forming your opinion)

Fitness - you want to blame neeld for that ??? I think there is consensus everywhere that we were so far behind every other club when he arrived and it would take a couple of seasons at least to build up fitness to anywhere near other clubs so that is a criticism that is most unfair. As to the other two points - it is again commonly held belief that many of the players we do have are not up to it - so is it the players who are not executing or the coach who is not giving them the right instructions - either way - it is damning on both. I just wont sit back and let the players off without accepting responsibility. Nathan Jones certainly doesnt give a rats who is or isnt the coach - he just has pride in what he does.

I'll meet you half way - everything about our footballers ( save a handful) and football department is [censored] - the score is on the board - the footballers are horrible and play without conviction so they must take responsibility for that and that the coaches cant instill anything into those horrible footballers is an indictment on them. And we do agree on one thing - coaches get sacked not the team.

Not sure if that is true (players hating his guts) but it says more about the players than it does about the coach...tail wagging the dog.

You cant pull up your socks if you havent got socks to pull up. As i said before - easier to sack a coach than sack 20 plus footballers Its a two way street - it is up to the coach to get the best out of the players but more important for players to get the most out of themselves. On Saturday I saw players have a crack for 40 minutes..are you suggesting for the balance of the game where it went horribly pearshaped that the reason is because the coaches didnt have a crack ?

Ponder this question - if indeed it is the coach - how do you explain 40 minutes of football on Saturday where we were competitive and had a real crack... Unfortunately Neeld only gave them half a tank of motivation.....Neeld only coached them to run a little under two quarters. At what stage do the players take responsibility for what is going on, on the field ?

My opinion is different from yours and thats fair enough...all entitled to our opinion - but dont let facts stand in the way of your argument. We attracted Mitch Clark and Chris Dawes to the club - whilst they may not be champions - both are very good footballers that were "attracted" to the club.

And is an indictment on the players at Port Adelaide .... This constant excusing of the players makes me want to vomit. I can blame general fitness, game plan and players being played out of position to the coach but a footballer who goes at it hlaf hearted is the coaches fault ? This idea that it is up to a coach to motivate a player to play well sickens me....good god...these guys are paid a small fortune... If a player wants or doesnt want to play for a coach then we have the wrong players. Of course it makes a difference but put the blowtorch on the players where it squarely belongs. Players like Jones and Clark dont play for the coach - they play for pride in their performance - Even though Clark hasnt been great he looks like he gives a damn. We are seeing the difference between the athletes in our team and professional athletes in other teams - guys who give a rats arse about their performances and dont need a coach to get them up or a cause. We have been blaming coaches who cannot motivate the team since 1964 - how about blaming players who dont take pride in their performance.

So I gather the players have no responsibility or accountability for their actions ( or inactions) on the field. I think I might have overheard Neeld "Col....don't bother standing your ground or trying to make position - just grab the arms mate - the umpire won't see it ..ohh and also ...always make sure you give your opponent a 3 metre headstart - thats the way ! Tommy Mc - don't feel for the body of the opposition mate - people will start to talk and question your manliness...And all you players - go about it half arsed...dont lay a tackle in the second half as I more than happy with your first half".... Ultimately the coach gets the blame for the rabble that the team is because it is easier to sack one or two coaches than the 20 plus players that take the field. Your example of Colin Garland and blaming coaches - we have had a plethora of coaches and assistants - but you would rather blame ALL of them for not having a little word in Col's ear rather than maybe think that Colin Garland is what Colin Garland is ? I actually do blame a whole line of coaches and assistants for not dropping Garland years ago as apart from a handful of games he has been doing the same stuff from day one.

I will not comment on the veracity of the claim - so I will not crucify any player based on rumour and "in your endo". As a general response to anyone defending any of our players getting on the turps ? These guys are paid great wads of money to be professional athletes - if you want go out and get shitfaced or eat pizza's morning noon and night or party hard 24/7 then alls good but pick a different profession - its not that hard. As a professional footballer you are paid to turn out in the best possible shape and getting hammered is both disrepectful to the club and supporters who have an expectation of professional athletes being professional but also disrespectful to teammates who do the right thing. To repeat - this is a general comment aimed at all footballers from all clubs and not in response to unproven claims on Big Footy.

So if Royal is our big issue please explain Nathan Jones and Matt Jones and to a lesser d egree Viney? Royal is really horrible except for those guys ? You would have zero idea whether Royal is good or bad..or any other assistant coach. Only the likes of Neeld/Craig and the players would know.

3 words - FMD ! so the player is constantly grabbing the arm - thats the backline coaches fault...the player is constantly giving his opponent 3 metres start to the ball - thats the coaches fault. The player is constantly being outbodied - blame the coach. If it helps you sleep at night by giving the players excuses not to perform by blaming the coaches then fine. I prefer to lay the blame on the blokes on the field who actually have to show some heart. ( please explain "blaming the coach" when a player Nathan Jones is coached by Brian Royal who everyone wants to knife ? He is horrible coach except with Jones ???)

I'll be there but I cant promise I will last the whole game.