Strafford

To me this is part of the problem. I read an article (which also may be part of our problem as a fan base lol) in which it stated that Neeld looked up to Blight and it compared his actions in dumping our guys from the leadership group to what Blight did when he first arrived at Adelaide, but.... Blight cut four leaders from the Crows, but the difference is they were done as players and more importantly they were let go immediately. By doing what we did in my view we had two outcomes. The guys buckled down and supported the kids as leaders and embraced change, thus in fact ironically showing good leadership. Or if they were problem children, undermining the kids authority at every opportunity and not buying into the new team culture. If you don't value guys remove them from the club don't allow things to fester. There just to me seemed too much bull at a gate stuff. A year of settling in rather than drastic changes in my view would have been a better approach.

I can't remember anyone saying Watts wasn't going to be good player. You can't blame a poor draft year on recruiters. I agree with Morton he did divide a few, because although rated as the best kick in the draft he was also thought of as soft and very outside. Gysberts was probably taken a bit high.

It really isn't an either or, development is a vital part of the recruiting process. Although mistakes are made. With Roos for example, the Swans took Veszpremi, even though for all his natural ability the kid had problems with work ethic and looking after his body, their culture didn't help there. We took Morton even though his main knocks were very outside and skinny as. We probably did take Gysberts a bit high as well, but the struggles of others we have taken was unlikely to have been forseen by many at the time. Hawthorn supposedly the masters of list management burned two pick sixes on Thorpe and Dowler.

From memory Hardwick, Connelly and someone else..Sheedy? were last four. No idea about who else we talked to before the end process.

It's a bit frustrating now I'm here in Tassie, because it is just so hard to work out the structures and tactics from the TV, because sometimes you could be cursing a bloke for stuffing up, but in reality it wasn't his fault. I'm not adjusting lol.

Very interesting article, but again to me just highlights how important team defensive efforts are to the backlines success. You take out junior who averaged around 7.5 tackles a game that season and the example he was setting and it does make a difference. Our current midfield just isn't capable of that type of pressure as a whole. Jordie will help but... The Forward pressure isn't great and lets hope that kicking down the line becomes a better option when Dawes comes in, as structurally that should help us bring it out of the back half and make it less likely to just go flying back in, Although he will come into the side under enormous pressure and he will be underdone. That will not help a bloke who was struggling with confidence towards the end at the Pies, although I'm not sure the role they were asking him to play suited him. I don't think backup ruck is his go. I actually really like Dawes as a player and I thought he was coming along really nicely until his hand injury and then he stalled a bit. I think part of that was that he picked up a few technical flaws with his marking when he was trying to protect the hand. I'm not sure he ironed them out when he healed and that hurt his confidence. I have high hopes for him but also a feeling of trepidation, because a guy with confidence issues could be destroyed coming into our team right now.

Neeld certainly hasn't helped, but he has probably just been part of a process that has hit the confidence levels. We just don't know why some decisions have been made and who has been the driving force behind those decisions. In my view list management has been poor, but who has been responsible, a number of people probably.

Junior was a huge loss for one. Our midfield pressure under Bailey just wasn't as bad in reality as the perception was.

At least we were enthusiastic for the first half...but then ouch. Coaching staff and players still have a lot of work to do. Fitness does explain some of it, but not how we came out after the long break. That was mental. It's just a shame. The first half is not how a good team is defensively, but at least our players and the fans enjoyed it and a bit of enthusium was generated. Unfortunately totally undone by the 3rd. Sigh.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm as nervous as hell. I just want to see effort and more of an idea as to how we want to play going forward. Fingers crossed.

I agree our problems are mulit causal. Which is why you end up with so many heated discussions when people try to pin down how to cure our ills by citing only one or two of them. In effect both both sides are actually right, but just don't go that extra step to recognise that fact. Which is why they had to be so careful in handling the aftermath of 186, but in my view stuffed it. To me a number of people probably shared the blame so any impression that any one person or faction won was always going to end in more tears.

Agree on Junior, but Sheedy was shot and needed time away. Perhaps a senior coach may have been better at heading off any problems with role overlap, but Sheeds showed at the Bombers that he didn't mind indulging in "Politics" so who knows. Where he could have helped would have been spruiking the club...he is a master at it...but actually coaching...meh. The key to a figurehead coach succeeding would have actually been who we would have put around him, so too many ifs and buts for me. The more important question for me anyway is who of the up and comers did we pass up and why. Carlton and Freo went inhouse without much of a process and the Bombers went inhouse after a process. From memory Voss was all the buzz at the time, but we still would have had a fair few to choose from. Although any new coach experienced or otherwise, after a relatively short time was going to face the prospect of not being the guy of a new CEO and Pres. Just all sorts of bad timing.

This is good news. Very pleased. You can legitimately argue that he was given the captaincy too early, especially after his injury problems, as he probably just needed to concentrate on his own game without the distractions that come with the role....but.. I had a little bit to do with the Knights as he was coming through and this kid was always going to be a captaincy candidate some stage whichever club he went to. I'm just glad he ended up with us. Well done Jack.

At the risk of opening myself up to captain obvious calls, despite different gameplans, styles of play, attacking defensive, weaknesses up forward or downback(although not both at the same time) the key to winning the big dance is a top midfield or at least something elite about how it operates. This becomes much more important if you and/or your oppo play wide as you have many more stoppages. Adherence to whatever overall gameplan is vital, but I just think our midfield is a long way off it at the moment. We in my view really need to chase a top mid from somewhere, if nothing else to take the tag to allow the others to grow and to set an example. Now where to find this bloke...lol

Perhaps Beamer was the brain of the operation...

Sounds simple, but when you spread and turn the ball over you can't stand on your opponents toes. That is half the problem they are caught in no mans land petrified of making mistakes. Considering the supposed emphasis on defensive accountability the whiteboard we saw prematch seemed a little odd.

I'm sorry you are disappointed. I read the thread I don't agree with you. Most of the arguments seem to be have been covered in that thread we move on. The fact I have put it down to the agree to disagree basket hardly means I am trying to convince you or need your acceptance so I'm not sure where that came from.You are entitled to your view. Why would you want to cover it all again?

Thanks for that HT. I disagree with Satyriconhome of course, but you just saved us a useless period of back and forth without one convincing the other lol. I guess that is why you get paid the big bucks.

Welcome. I guess it is transitional play as well. We just don't move quickly enough into the different phases of the game. A great deal of that is confidence in yourself and in your teammates to execute. If you look at the better sides they have confidence that their blokes will win a contest or execute a pass, so they can set up much more quickly. Our guys hesitate simply because they just aren't sure at times.

A very good post. Another problem is the lack of defensive skills of many young players coming into the system. If you have a young team this process is going to be harder. We also seem to have a few players stuck in the process rather than what they are trying to acieve. That is being so consumed by setting up their zone, but not actually stopping the oppo getting the ball, the supposed end product.

I'd actually be interested to read your views on culture mate? I have a sociology degree so perhaps I'm biased, but I'd love to read your view.

Yep, but it has to hopefully be the right experience. This goes to your baggage point. We have to make sure that we identify the right ones to keep. Not that we have many experienced players left. My problem with the stategy that we seem to have embarked upon now and into the future is that it has and will rid us of players we needed to move on, but also some we would have been better off keeping. We in my view seem to have thrown the baby out with the bath water.

I actually think WYL makes a good point. Culture is passed on. Our kids have also had to deal with a number of traumas in relatively recent times, which has probably contributed to their mental fragility. You can't encourage an attitude that It's never their fault, but I just wonder if we have looked after the mental health of these kids properly. Did Neeld go too hard too early?

Good point. Culture is passed on good or bad. For good or ill your senior players are always the link to those who came before. These influences dilute over time so those who immediately preceded you will always have the greatest impact.