Post Match. Giants down Pies - All comments please

[mooretreloar]

I don't understand how the posters on this forum have arrived at their thoughts of what a coach's role is. It has me baffled beyond belief.

Tonight on SEN, Cameron Mooney and Terry Wallace, discussed the last 21 seconds of Richmond's loss to Fremantle. In the ten minute discussion of what went wrong, do you know the number of time Hardwick's name was mentioned with respect to blaming him for what went wrong in that 21 seconds? Zero.

This is because it is not in his control. It is in the player's control, they are the ones on the field and posters on this site need to start to understand this.

The coach prescribes the setup for such situations and they train for it.
Either Hardwick hadn't planned for such a scenario, his prescribed setup was poor, he hadnt drilled it into the team well enough, or the players arent good enough.
Either way, a lot of the responsibility lays with the coach.

No, it doesn't and posters on here need to start to realise this. The majority of posters highly overrate the impact of a coach on game day.

[mooretreloar]

The job of a coach is exactly that. To coach an athlete to get the most out of their body and performance.

The coach controls the athletes training program, strategy, planning and preparation.

He does not however control their minds and decision making - that part is up to the athlete.

So I understand that some like MT believe the impact of the coach is negligible on game day.

In individual sport you don't see the coach on the dais accepting the gold medal but rather you simply see the athlete. The coach can do little on the day of competition as his /her work has already been done and it is now up to the athlete to execute.

This dynamic changes, however, when you involve a team of athletes operating under one coach. The reason being is that unlike in an individual sport, the coach can now influence the execution of the the plans, and strategies. Yes the training cannot be manipulated nor can the preparation but the plans and strategies can.

For example - If one athlete is failing to execute the situation is dynamic and that player may be moved / removed to negate the impact of the failure. (ie dragging a player who has lost his cool and just gave away a 50) Likewise if the opposition is dominating a player can be moved or added to negate the impact of their success. (ie Tag Murphy with Greenwood.)

In AFL (a team sport) a coach can very much impact game day and that is why he shares in holding the cup a loft with his captain after a GF win. That said he is not responsible for momentary brain farts that cost games.

I don't think you can blame Buckley for the loss against GWS as he wasn't afforded the luxury to react to failures in an individual passage of play.

Against Carlton however he had time to react to various aspects of the game but simply didn't

I don't think he is currently a good coach - hes too hot and hold and doesn't seem flexible enough.

But be fair. GWS was not, IMO, his fault.

Excellent post, September Zeros.

Agree Buckley's coaching had an impact in the Carlton game. He failed to fix a glaring issue, which was Murphy being free ten metres of the contest at each and every stoppage. Murphy killed us and significantly contributed to Carlton beating us.

The only other game that his coaching has had an impact in 2017 was leaving Roberton as a loose man in defence against the Saints. Roberton killed us and significantly contributed to St Kilda winning.

I keep reading about structures and game plan, that they don't work and we don't have one. Wrong on both counts. If a team does not have structures or a game plan, they do not go inside 50 as much as we do, nor is their worst loss for the year 23 points. If you don't have structures and a game plan, a team will lose multiple games by ten goals plus.

[melliot]

I don't understand how the posters on this forum have arrived at their thoughts of what a coach's role is. It has me baffled beyond belief.

Tonight on SEN, Cameron Mooney and Terry Wallace, discussed the last 21 seconds of Richmond's loss to Fremantle. In the ten minute discussion of what went wrong, do you know the number of time Hardwick's name was mentioned with respect to blaming him for what went wrong in that 21 seconds? Zero.

This is because it is not in his control. It is in the player's control, they are the ones on the field and posters on this site need to start to understand this.

The coach prescribes the setup for such situations and they train for it.
Either Hardwick hadn't planned for such a scenario, his prescribed setup was poor, he hadnt drilled it into the team well enough, or the players arent good enough.
Either way, a lot of the responsibility lays with the coach.

No, it doesn't and posters on here need to start to realise this. The majority of posters highly overrate the impact of a coach on game day.

What the coach implements through the week, weeks, months and years is practiced on game day. I'd suggest the coach has a massive influence on game day. To change those implementations/plans on game day is limited for the coach. So I'll agree on that.

Not sure if you experienced the difference between 1999 and the start of 2000 for the Pies.

Or more recently the change from McCartney to Beverage at the Dogs.

What about when Hinkley took over the Power?

The difference of a head coach can be stark. But not always successful.

[Lone Ranger]

The job of a coach is exactly that. To coach an athlete to get the most out of their body and performance.

The coach controls the athletes training program, strategy, planning and preparation.

He does not however control their minds and decision making - that part is up to the athlete.

Except in set play situations like the last 20 seconds of the Richmond game. In such scenarios the players dont get to chose where they want to stand ... there is a set play structure dictated by the coach.

There are also team rules that you must follow. Those rules heavily influence decision making. Thats why a lot of "flair" has disappeared from the game.

So whilst decision making is extremely important, and what differentiates the great players, there are some scenarios where the coach has a lot of influence and some where the coach does largely "control the minds and decision making".

[mooretreloar]

I am about done trying to reason with you guys.

I am also very aware that my comments go against your mission of getting Buckley sacked, so I very much doubt my comments will receive any positive feedback.

Jack Riewoldt also spoke on AFL360 last night about the last 21 seconds against Fremantle. He explained that it was his job to position the forwards, Cotchin's job to position the mids and Rance's job to position the backs. Again, no mention of Hardwick.

So, to conclude my comments on this issue, please just think long, hard and clearly about what is the responsibility of the players of what is the responsibility of the coach.

Skill errors, decision making and goal kicking are not the responsibility of the coach and we are 2-6 because we have failed in these three areas. The reasons for 4 of our losses in 2017 are directly attributable to the players and the reasons for 2 of the losses (St Kilda and Carlton) in 2017 are attributable 50/50 to the players and the coach.

[Boogie Knights]

More succinctly (and in support of what mooretreloar is saying), let me use the word horticulture in a sentence.

You can lead a horticulture, but you cannot make her think...

[September Zeros]

The job of a coach is exactly that. To coach an athlete to get the most out of their body and performance.

The coach controls the athletes training program, strategy, planning and preparation.

He does not however control their minds and decision making - that part is up to the athlete.

Except in set play situations like the last 20 seconds of the Richmond game. In such scenarios the players dont get to chose where they want to stand ... there is a set play structure dictated by the coach.

There are also team rules that you must follow. Those rules heavily influence decision making. Thats why a lot of "flair" has disappeared from the game.

So whilst decision making is extremely important, and what differentiates the great players, there are some scenarios where the coach has a lot of influence and some where the coach does largely "control the minds and decision making".

No- they absolutely have to choose where to stand. And if they choose wrong and do not follow the said play structure as dictated by the coach in preparation and match simulation then the result can be exactly what we have seen.

Chicken or the egg. We wont ever know. Its possible its poor planning. Its also possible the players just effed up the plan and failed to execute while the coach pulled his hair out screaming why.

[Lone Ranger]

The job of a coach is exactly that. To coach an athlete to get the most out of their body and performance.

The coach controls the athletes training program, strategy, planning and preparation.

He does not however control their minds and decision making - that part is up to the athlete.

Except in set play situations like the last 20 seconds of the Richmond game. In such scenarios the players dont get to chose where they want to stand ... there is a set play structure dictated by the coach.

There are also team rules that you must follow. Those rules heavily influence decision making. Thats why a lot of "flair" has disappeared from the game.

So whilst decision making is extremely important, and what differentiates the great players, there are some scenarios where the coach has a lot of influence and some where the coach does largely "control the minds and decision making".

No- they absolutely have to choose where to stand. And if they choose wrong and do not follow the said play structure as dictated by the coach in preparation and match simulation then the result can be exactly what we have seen.

Chicken or the egg. We wont ever know. Its possible its poor planning. Its also possible the players just effed up the plan and failed to execute while the coach pulled his hair out screaming why.

Agree but if they chose to stand in the wrong spot then SOME of the responsibility lies with the coach.
Even if it was just a brain fade, ultimately they are his players and he must wear SOME of the blame. (He brought them into the club, or kept them at the club).

All Im saying is that saying Hardwick had NO responsibility for that last 20 seconds is incorrect.

[Lone Ranger]

Jack Riewoldt also spoke on AFL360 last night about the last 21 seconds against Fremantle. He explained that it was his job to position the forwards, Cotchin's job to position the mids and Rance's job to position the backs. Again, no mention of Hardwick.

Its the senior players job to ensure players setup as per the coach's structures. Rance doesnt decide how to structure on a whim, he tries to ensure the players setup as per the coaches requirements.
This isnt suburban footy. Its highly regimented.

[Krakouer Magic]

I am about done trying to reason with you guys.

I am also very aware that my comments go against your mission of getting Buckley sacked, so I very much doubt my comments will receive any positive feedback.

Jack Riewoldt also spoke on AFL360 last night about the last 21 seconds against Fremantle. He explained that it was his job to position the forwards, Cotchin's job to position the mids and Rance's job to position the backs. Again, no mention of Hardwick.

So, to conclude my comments on this issue, please just think long, hard and clearly about what is the responsibility of the players of what is the responsibility of the coach.

Skill errors, decision making and goal kicking are not the responsibility of the coach and we are 2-6 because we have failed in these three areas. The reasons for 4 of our losses in 2017 are directly attributable to the players and the reasons for 2 of the losses (St Kilda and Carlton) in 2017 are attributable 50/50 to the players and the coach.

Give it a spell. As if a player like Revolt is gonna come out and bag the coach. In any event, I rewatched the Tigers game. I'd like to see the view from behind the goals to check. But there were 9 Tigers in the defensive 50. 6 in the middle which means 3 fwd of centre. I don't actually think that was such a poor coaching or structure to be honest. It's really on the mids that allowed freo to break free so quickly. It came out so quick and the kick was so perfect it didn't give defenders a chance. Allthough maybe coaches need to consider putting 12 back.

I compare the structure Harwick had with that of Leon Cameron on the weekend with 38 seconds on the clock. They had 2 fwd of centre and 10 in defence so that was clearly smart coaching. Did we have 9 or 10 back vs HFC in round 23??? I guess that's just dudes on the field forgetting their roles yep again which then makes you think do the players even pay attention to the coach at all???. So we have 2 coaches at 2 different clubs that are able to drill it into their team to get back in defence.

If coaches have no influence on where players structure up, why bother having them? I guess it was just luck we used to get it right when MM was coach. It's just all on the players. It's all the players fault for never being able to learn from their mistakes. It's just all on the players and never the coaches fault... with that in mind we may as well sign Bucks up right now for 50 years cause it's just never gonna be his fault.

[The Boy Who Cried Wolf]

The simple fact of the matter is that the coach should have ingrained into his players what 'scenarios, strategies and tactics' should be used in these dying moments of a game. It's the coaches responsibility to make sure this happens more often then not and that all the players are on the same page.

It is therefore a coaching issue.

Why Bucks is failing to get this through to his flock is anyone's guess, we digress but in the end its his responsibility.

[mooretreloar]

I am not the one that needs to give it a spell. The Buckley bashers need to get a grip and actually understand 1) the game of football, 2) the role of a coach and 3) the role of a player.

Unlike the Buckley bashers, I am able to look at it objectively and note where the players got it wrong and where the coach got it wrong. I have noted two games in 2017 where Buckley's coaching was not up to scratch, whereas you Buckley bashers blame everything on him. He does not kick it, he does not handball, he does not tackle, he does not shepherd, he does not kick at goal.

I will throw your argument back at you, if the coach has so much impact why does a team have any players. 22 players take the field, these 22 players have 98% of the impact on the result of a game. If you don't believe this you have not played sport at a high enough level. You are also insulting professional sportspeople, not just in the AFL, but in any sport around the world.

I will give you an analogy. A welder has received constant safety training, including the need to wear his/her safety gear whilst welding. He/she signs off at the end of each training session that he/she understands the training the he/she has received. He/she has regular catch ups with his supervisor and at each of these sessions his/her supervisor re-iterates the safety aspect of his/her job.

Despite all of the training and the supervisor constantly re-iterating the safety aspect of the job, one day the welder decides to take a shortcut and weld without his/her safety gear and is injured. The welder made the decision to take the shortcut, the welder decided not to do the right thing and the result was an injury. This is not the trainer's fault, this is not the supervisor's fault, this is the welder's fault, as the welder is the one that has the act of welding under his/her control.

[ilovenathanbuckley]

Everyone can stop arguing about the coach. He won't be there next year so no point arguing. Hope for he's sake he just calls it himself. Pert gone too, Ed still has a chance but 90% of the board will be gone too.

[ROB]

HAWKS won 6 games by less than a goal in 2016.
WHY - experience, experience, experience.

When we have a core/ stable playing group that have played with each other for an extended period, these mistake will be far fewer.

I've sen BJ, Shaw and many others make fundamental errors in their early days - you can't buy experience, other wise it would be an expense item in every FD budget.

Concur!

Experience helps. Organised good systems wins flags.

Explain how the dogs won the flag. They weren't that experianced

BTW I not expecting flags, I'm expecting to see organised system of play that plays the percentages in each senario. We don't do that very well. And it consistantly cost us games despite having some game dominace.

Also BTW we aren't that young. Lions are young. We have enough experience to play good footy.

My point re experience also includes experience or familiarity with team mates - we haven't had our best side on the park and settled for years for a variety of reasons and until we get a chance to put a settled best 22 on the field, and they get experienced or familiar with each other, then we may struggle.

[Krakouer Magic]

I am not the one that needs to give it a spell. The Buckley bashers need to get a grip and actually understand 1) the game of football, 2) the role of a coach and 3) the role of a player.

Unlike the Buckley bashers, I am able to look at it objectively and note where the players got it wrong and where the coach got it wrong. I have noted two games in 2017 where Buckley's coaching was not up to scratch, whereas you Buckley bashers blame everything on him. He does not kick it, he does not handball, he does not tackle, he does not shepherd, he does not kick at goal.

I will throw your argument back at you, if the coach has so much impact why does a team have any players. 22 players take the field, these 22 players have 98% of the impact on the result of a game. If you don't believe this you have not played sport at a high enough level. You are also insulting professional sportspeople, not just in the AFL, but in any sport around the world.

I will give you an analogy. A welder has received constant safety training, including the need to wear his/her safety gear whilst welding. He/she signs off at the end of each training session that he/she understands the training the he/she has received. He/she has regular catch ups with his supervisor and at each of these sessions his/her supervisor re-iterates the safety aspect of his/her job.

Despite all of the training and the supervisor constantly re-iterating the safety aspect of the job, one day the welder decides to take a shortcut and weld without his/her safety gear and is injured. The welder made the decision to take the shortcut, the welder decided not to do the right thing and the result was an injury. This is not the trainer's fault, this is not the supervisor's fault, this is the welder's fault, as the welder is the one that has the act of welding under his/her control.

Where do I even begin with this... objectively you say? I rip players for their shit play too don't worry about that. I even pointed out Crisp, Elliott and Howe for poor errors. And as for greenwood, I think I counted at least 4 basic skill errors vs gws the other night that were all on him. Howe was lagging off Stevie Johnson to much for my liking as he led up the flanks as well in the 2nd qtr. I doubt Bucks would have instructed him to do that. Cause if Bucks did we are in more trouble than I thought as Johnson is one of the most dangerous players on the field with ball in hand. Basically his opponent should wear him like a glove.

Your safety analogy is flawed by the way. It's very simplistic. Perhaps the training methods are up of date, or are boring as bat shit and don't engage the welder. Perhaps the welder is illiterate or learns through different methods that are not provide to him. Perhaps the training he receives contridicts certain aspect of the message.

Seriously there are a many reasons why some coaches and managers can get ordinary people to reach their potential or do extraordinary things. Very few coaches and managers can actually understand and can get the best out of individuals and teams collectively. It's actually a rare skill. Not many can learn it. It's kind of like Buckley's right foot and kicking skill. It's a skill not many possess.

As for my opinion about Buckley's strategy's and overall football philosophy insulting sportspeople or athletes world wide I find that well more than a little bizarre. I'll just say Bill Belichick and Greg Popovich say hi!! Craig Bellemy, Wayne Bennet and Phil Gould say hello!! Tom Hafey, Mick Malthouse and Allen Jeans say bonjour!!

It's just pure freaking magic that coaching royalty like Bellemy can take washed up players or players with little talent and turn them into absolute gems time and again, and then a few years later they sign multi year multi million dollar deals with rival clubs and never play as well as they did at the storm.