But Thompsoc - I thought you prided yourself and your posts on not having personal attacks. That's what you keep telling us.thompsoc wrote:God you are boring Mooretreloar.
We lost because a little bugger in Clarko put out a game plan
that was better than the one Bux adhered to all day.
We had the better side.
But as usual Clako won the day.
What is it now 10/1 in Ckarko's favour.
Post Match. Pies lose to Hawks - All comments please
Moderator: bbmods
-
kymbo5@yahoo.com.au
- Posts: 1054
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 1:26 pm
- Been liked: 1 time
kymbo
-
mudlark
- Posts: 3561
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 8:01 pm
- Location: Maroochydore Qld
- Contact:
So, in other words you have NFI what you're ranting on about!!! The players execute poor skills because they have NO faith in the game plan and no idea what it actually is.This comes down directly to coaching. You are running around in circles trying to shore up your irrelevant argument and the answer is in the middle of the circle The COACH!!!mooretreloar wrote:I am not going to rehash my comments from the role of the player v the role of the coach thread, except to say, footballers are professional sportspeople, and its their job, which they are paid extremely well for, to execute on game day. Our players scored 2 out of 10 for their job performance today, thus sir or madam, you are the one that is wrong, plain and simple.mudlark wrote:I think you've lost sight of the forest there matey.Skill and execution errors come down to coaching. Don't you think? You keep selecting players who lack the basic skills required comes down to the coach and selectors.The lack of confidence within the playing group, who we know can fire at times, comes down to the non existent game plan that has them going all the way back to the defensive 10 yard square from the half forward flank.They are poorly schooled in what is required.It comes down to the coach. Who tells them to handball to someone in the middle of 3 opposition players? Who coaches the ruckman to palm the ball towards the opposition goal when we are running the other way?? The coach and the selectors.You're wrong, plain and simple.mooretreloar wrote:Just back from the game and dinner and have browsed through this thread. Not one poster has identified why we lost the game. Not one.
Unsurprisingly, for this site and from the usual suspects it is blame the coach and sack the coach. To be fair, as each week passes, it is becoming less and less likely that Buckley will keep his job, but posters seriously need wake up to themselves if they think we lost the game because of the coach. We could have had the best coach in the world coaching us today and we wouldn't have won.
We lost the game for three main reasons:
1) our skill execution was horrendous and as professional sportspeople the majority our players should be embarassed with the skill errors they served up today,
2) our decision making was appalling, the numbers of times our players chose the wrong option if you didn't see it, you wouldn't have believed it,
3) our much vaunted midfield should be ashamed of themselves. They were made to look like amateurs by one of, if not, the worst midfields in the competition. Going into the game we were the 2nd best stoppage/clearance side in the comp and they were 17th. Watching that game, you would have sworn the rankings were the opposite.
Despite all of our skill errors, dumb decisions and the worst performance of the year from our midfield, we still had our chances to win the game.
We are world champions at gifting goals to the opposition. All season we have worked our butts off to either get in front or stay level with our opponents or come from behind and in each and every situation just when we have the momentum or look like we have the momentum, we gift goals to the opposition. The end of the second quarter today was another example, we are on top, 4 goals to one in the quarter, to get back to level, then we gift 2 goals to Hawthorn in two minutes. One from rubbish play by in the middle and the other from rubbish play by our defenders.
A team cannot and will not win games of football in such an even competition against reasonable opposition if you gift your opponents multiple goals week in week out. Thus, you Buckley haters, even if we get a new coach, unless we cut out the gifting of multiple goals to the opponents week in week out, then we aren't moving up the ladder.
The positives of the day were De Goey, he was brilliant playing full time midfield and showed how good he is going to be. Josh Thomas had an excellent game in his first game back. Tom Langdon's 2nd half, especially his last quarter was very good and the signs are good he is close to getting back to his best. Mason Cox was good when the ball was kicked to him and it was great to see him kick straight.
-
think positive
- Posts: 40243
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 342 times
- Been liked: 105 times
-
What'sinaname
- Posts: 20133
- Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 10:00 pm
- Location: Living rent free
- Has liked: 8 times
- Been liked: 34 times
-
mooretreloar
- Posts: 1076
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:05 pm
The lack of modern day football knowledge on this site has to be read to be believed.
VFL - we are in 2017, not 1967. The players aren't training two nights a week, whilst also having a real job. In this scenario, the impact of the coach on match day would be significantly more impactful.
AFL footballers are professional sportspeople. Have a think about what this entails.
AFL clubs are fully professional. Every club knows how every other club is going to play and wants to play. Each club has numerous opposition scouts, whose sole job is to analyse the opposition. That is, there aren't very many surprises, if any, on game day. This should be evident to posters that watch AFL closely, predominantly every club is trying to play the same way. I keep reading we went backwards and sideways, did you not watch the game? Hawthorn did exactly the same thing, the only difference was they hit many more targets than we did.
Our game plan and structures, that posters who bag these wouldn't have a clue what either of these are, have held up extremely well in 2017. We have been in a winning position in each and every game, bar last week against Port. This would not be the case if the coaching group were not providing the correct information to the players.
A win or a loss in modern day AFL football comes down to the ability of professional athletes to execute on game day.
Consequently, it is as clear as the nose on your face, if you know anything about AFL and sport, that we are 5-9 because of the poor skill execution and poor decision making of our players. These deficiencies have led to us gifting multiple goals to the opposition at inopportune times, which in such an even competition where the margin between a win and a loss is minuscule, is the reason we are 5-9 and not 9-5. If you want just one example from yesterday of which there were many, Howe kicking in straight to Mitchell in the last quarter. This has absolutely and utterly nothing to do with the coach.
VFL - we are in 2017, not 1967. The players aren't training two nights a week, whilst also having a real job. In this scenario, the impact of the coach on match day would be significantly more impactful.
AFL footballers are professional sportspeople. Have a think about what this entails.
AFL clubs are fully professional. Every club knows how every other club is going to play and wants to play. Each club has numerous opposition scouts, whose sole job is to analyse the opposition. That is, there aren't very many surprises, if any, on game day. This should be evident to posters that watch AFL closely, predominantly every club is trying to play the same way. I keep reading we went backwards and sideways, did you not watch the game? Hawthorn did exactly the same thing, the only difference was they hit many more targets than we did.
Our game plan and structures, that posters who bag these wouldn't have a clue what either of these are, have held up extremely well in 2017. We have been in a winning position in each and every game, bar last week against Port. This would not be the case if the coaching group were not providing the correct information to the players.
A win or a loss in modern day AFL football comes down to the ability of professional athletes to execute on game day.
Consequently, it is as clear as the nose on your face, if you know anything about AFL and sport, that we are 5-9 because of the poor skill execution and poor decision making of our players. These deficiencies have led to us gifting multiple goals to the opposition at inopportune times, which in such an even competition where the margin between a win and a loss is minuscule, is the reason we are 5-9 and not 9-5. If you want just one example from yesterday of which there were many, Howe kicking in straight to Mitchell in the last quarter. This has absolutely and utterly nothing to do with the coach.
-
watt price tully
- Posts: 20842
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:14 pm
The reason Collingwood is where it is now on the ladder is due to several reasons as is obvious to any one except those with tickets on themselves.
Is is a combination of factors including but not limited to:
1. Players skills
2. Coaching plans, strategies & tactics
3. Selection committee including the coach
4. Player availability.
On game day it is a combination of factors including player execution of skills & coaching tactics. The extent to which these factors occur in a game will vary on the day, the time & the scenario
This is common sense.
If a player or players on the opposing team are controlling the game, such as patterns of play not anticipated or not adequately addressed by pre-game planning then the coach needs to accountable & make moves accordingly.
If a coach or coaching team responds too slowly to difficulties encountered then the game can be lost or the advantage at that time point in time can be lost. If coaches are too inflexible to only see one way of doing things then that will reflect on what the team does.
To suggest it's players only is as limited and narrow an analysis as that view self evidently suggests. To not entertain the idea that there is a combination of factors at play (only the degree to which that combination is at play is debatable) & to reduce that to an arbitrary number based on speculation such as 98% & 2% is just as limited as doing accountancy on the back of a sheet of toilet paper.
Is is a combination of factors including but not limited to:
1. Players skills
2. Coaching plans, strategies & tactics
3. Selection committee including the coach
4. Player availability.
On game day it is a combination of factors including player execution of skills & coaching tactics. The extent to which these factors occur in a game will vary on the day, the time & the scenario
This is common sense.
If a player or players on the opposing team are controlling the game, such as patterns of play not anticipated or not adequately addressed by pre-game planning then the coach needs to accountable & make moves accordingly.
If a coach or coaching team responds too slowly to difficulties encountered then the game can be lost or the advantage at that time point in time can be lost. If coaches are too inflexible to only see one way of doing things then that will reflect on what the team does.
To suggest it's players only is as limited and narrow an analysis as that view self evidently suggests. To not entertain the idea that there is a combination of factors at play (only the degree to which that combination is at play is debatable) & to reduce that to an arbitrary number based on speculation such as 98% & 2% is just as limited as doing accountancy on the back of a sheet of toilet paper.
Last edited by watt price tully on Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
-
Magpietothemax
- Posts: 8024
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:05 pm
- Has liked: 26 times
- Been liked: 31 times
Thanks Mooretreloare for your analysis regarding Carlton's list compared with ours. Also, your observation that we have attempted a rebuild without falling to the very bottom, and therefore don't have nearly as many top picks in our list, as do Carlton, who went for the full downward plunge before resurfacing, has clarified me.
Therefore, it has been a more rapid harnessing of talent among Carlton's young team than we have achieved
It seems more or less that you are saying that in the modern era of fully professional AFL sport, all clubs invest heavily in sports scientists, high quality coaching staff, world class infrastructure, scouts to glean information from other teams, etc etc, so in reality the only factor between teams is the calibre of their athletes, the number one defining attribute being decision making and ability to execute these decisions skillfully under pressure.
From the outside, we observers see Luke Beveridge suddenly taking the Western Bulldogs to a premiership, and think he is a master coach. But such a conclusion is based solely on surface impressions, because we aren't taking into account the quality of their previous picks, and therefore the decision making capabilities and levels of skill that these players could quickly harness.
If I am understanding you accurately, it seems that you would argue that in this even competition, the decisive difference between teams is the quality of the decision making and skills, measured broadly by the number of top picks in their list. Therefore, it is mostly about recruitment strategies and list management.
We have attempted to rebuild by a combination of a few top draft picks and some older/more experienced players (Greenwood, Varcoe, Howe, Dunn, Mayne, Wells, ) to avoid falling too low, but this strategy is still unproven. Would that be a good summary?
Therefore, it has been a more rapid harnessing of talent among Carlton's young team than we have achieved
It seems more or less that you are saying that in the modern era of fully professional AFL sport, all clubs invest heavily in sports scientists, high quality coaching staff, world class infrastructure, scouts to glean information from other teams, etc etc, so in reality the only factor between teams is the calibre of their athletes, the number one defining attribute being decision making and ability to execute these decisions skillfully under pressure.
From the outside, we observers see Luke Beveridge suddenly taking the Western Bulldogs to a premiership, and think he is a master coach. But such a conclusion is based solely on surface impressions, because we aren't taking into account the quality of their previous picks, and therefore the decision making capabilities and levels of skill that these players could quickly harness.
If I am understanding you accurately, it seems that you would argue that in this even competition, the decisive difference between teams is the quality of the decision making and skills, measured broadly by the number of top picks in their list. Therefore, it is mostly about recruitment strategies and list management.
We have attempted to rebuild by a combination of a few top draft picks and some older/more experienced players (Greenwood, Varcoe, Howe, Dunn, Mayne, Wells, ) to avoid falling too low, but this strategy is still unproven. Would that be a good summary?
-
Magpietothemax
- Posts: 8024
- Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:05 pm
- Has liked: 26 times
- Been liked: 31 times
Thanks Mooretreloare for your analysis regarding Carlton's list compared with ours. Also, your observation that we have attempted a rebuild without falling to the very bottom, and therefore don't have nearly as many top picks in our list, as do Carlton, who went for the full downward plunge before resurfacing, has clarified me.
Therefore, it has been a more rapid harnessing of talent among Carlton's young team than we have achieved
It seems more or less that you are saying that in the modern era of fully professional AFL sport, all clubs invest heavily in sports scientists, high quality coaching staff, world class infrastructure, scouts to glean information from other teams, etc etc, so in reality the only factor between teams is the calibre of their athletes, the number one defining attribute being decision making and ability to execute these decisions skillfully under pressure.
From the outside, we observers see Luke Beveridge suddenly taking the Western Bulldogs to a premiership, and think he is a master coach. But such a conclusion is based solely on surface impressions, because we aren't taking into account the quality of their previous picks, and therefore the decision making capabilities and levels of skill that these players could quickly harness.
If I am understanding you accurately, it seems that you would argue that in this even competition, the decisive difference between teams is the quality of the decision making and skills, measured broadly by the number of top picks in their list. Therefore, it is mostly about recruitment strategies and list management.
We have attempted to rebuild by a combination of a few top draft picks and some older/more experienced players (Greenwood, Varcoe, Howe, Dunn, Mayne, Wells, ) to avoid falling too low, but this strategy is still unproven. Would that be a good summary?
Therefore, it has been a more rapid harnessing of talent among Carlton's young team than we have achieved
It seems more or less that you are saying that in the modern era of fully professional AFL sport, all clubs invest heavily in sports scientists, high quality coaching staff, world class infrastructure, scouts to glean information from other teams, etc etc, so in reality the only factor between teams is the calibre of their athletes, the number one defining attribute being decision making and ability to execute these decisions skillfully under pressure.
From the outside, we observers see Luke Beveridge suddenly taking the Western Bulldogs to a premiership, and think he is a master coach. But such a conclusion is based solely on surface impressions, because we aren't taking into account the quality of their previous picks, and therefore the decision making capabilities and levels of skill that these players could quickly harness.
If I am understanding you accurately, it seems that you would argue that in this even competition, the decisive difference between teams is the quality of the decision making and skills, measured broadly by the number of top picks in their list. Therefore, it is mostly about recruitment strategies and list management.
We have attempted to rebuild by a combination of a few top draft picks and some older/more experienced players (Greenwood, Varcoe, Howe, Dunn, Mayne, Wells, ) to avoid falling too low, but this strategy is still unproven. Would that be a good summary?
-
watt price tully
- Posts: 20842
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:14 pm
Mudlark there can never be one single reason to explain what occurs on game day. To suggest otherwise is self evidently a narrow way of seeing and analysing: It is not only the coach but other elements as well. It is not only the players but other elements as well. This of course is elementary.mudlark wrote:So, in other words you have NFI what you're ranting on about!!! The players execute poor skills because they have NO faith in the game plan and no idea what it actually is.This comes down directly to coaching. You are running around in circles trying to shore up your irrelevant argument and the answer is in the middle of the circle The COACH!!!mooretreloar wrote:I am not going to rehash my comments from the role of the player v the role of the coach thread, except to say, footballers are professional sportspeople, and its their job, which they are paid extremely well for, to execute on game day. Our players scored 2 out of 10 for their job performance today, thus sir or madam, you are the one that is wrong, plain and simple.mudlark wrote: I think you've lost sight of the forest there matey.Skill and execution errors come down to coaching. Don't you think? You keep selecting players who lack the basic skills required comes down to the coach and selectors.The lack of confidence within the playing group, who we know can fire at times, comes down to the non existent game plan that has them going all the way back to the defensive 10 yard square from the half forward flank.They are poorly schooled in what is required.It comes down to the coach. Who tells them to handball to someone in the middle of 3 opposition players? Who coaches the ruckman to palm the ball towards the opposition goal when we are running the other way?? The coach and the selectors.You're wrong, plain and simple.
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
-
watt price tully
- Posts: 20842
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 1:14 pm
Like a few of our players Dunn didn't have his best day & some of his clangers were costly.SwansWay wrote:Some idiot over in the Herald Sun comments section singled Dunn out as a horrible ball user and one of the reasons we lost.
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
-
thompsoc
- Posts: 6357
- Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:28 pm
We have 14 first round picks on our list.Magpietothemax wrote:Thanks Mooretreloare for your analysis regarding Carlton's list compared with ours. Also, your observation that we have attempted a rebuild without falling to the very bottom, and therefore don't have nearly as many top picks in our list, as do Carlton, who went for the full downward plunge before resurfacing, has clarified me.
Therefore, it has been a more rapid harnessing of talent among Carlton's young team than we have achieved
It seems more or less that you are saying that in the modern era of fully professional AFL sport, all clubs invest heavily in sports scientists, high quality coaching staff, world class infrastructure, scouts to glean information from other teams, etc etc, so in reality the only factor between teams is the calibre of their athletes, the number one defining attribute being decision making and ability to execute these decisions skillfully under pressure.
From the outside, we observers see Luke Beveridge suddenly taking the Western Bulldogs to a premiership, and think he is a master coach. But such a conclusion is based solely on surface impressions, because we aren't taking into account the quality of their previous picks, and therefore the decision making capabilities and levels of skill that these players could quickly harness.
If I am understanding you accurately, it seems that you would argue that in this even competition, the decisive difference between teams is the quality of the decision making and skills, measured broadly by the number of top picks in their list. Therefore, it is mostly about recruitment strategies and list management.
We have attempted to rebuild by a combination of a few top draft picks and some older/more experienced players (Greenwood, Varcoe, Howe, Dunn, Mayne, Wells, ) to avoid falling too low, but this strategy is still unproven. Would that be a good summary?
So Huston we have a problem!
we don't eat our own at collingwood we just allow them to foul our nest.
-
mooretreloar
- Posts: 1076
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 8:05 pm
No worries Magpietothemax, it is a pleasure having an intelligent conversation with someone on this site.Magpietothemax wrote:Thanks Mooretreloare for your analysis regarding Carlton's list compared with ours. Also, your observation that we have attempted a rebuild without falling to the very bottom, and therefore don't have nearly as many top picks in our list, as do Carlton, who went for the full downward plunge before resurfacing, has clarified me.
Therefore, it has been a more rapid harnessing of talent among Carlton's young team than we have achieved
It seems more or less that you are saying that in the modern era of fully professional AFL sport, all clubs invest heavily in sports scientists, high quality coaching staff, world class infrastructure, scouts to glean information from other teams, etc etc, so in reality the only factor between teams is the calibre of their athletes, the number one defining attribute being decision making and ability to execute these decisions skillfully under pressure.
From the outside, we observers see Luke Beveridge suddenly taking the Western Bulldogs to a premiership, and think he is a master coach. But such a conclusion is based solely on surface impressions, because we aren't taking into account the quality of their previous picks, and therefore the decision making capabilities and levels of skill that these players could quickly harness.
If I am understanding you accurately, it seems that you would argue that in this even competition, the decisive difference between teams is the quality of the decision making and skills, measured broadly by the number of top picks in their list. Therefore, it is mostly about recruitment strategies and list management.
We have attempted to rebuild by a combination of a few top draft picks and some older/more experienced players (Greenwood, Varcoe, Howe, Dunn, Mayne, Wells, ) to avoid falling too low, but this strategy is still unproven. Would that be a good summary?
You have summed up my view extremely well.
There is no doubt Beveridge had an impact with the Dogs with his man management skills, but McCartney did a lot of the "donkey" work building the Dogs side from scratch. Beveridge added the cream and they won a flag as a result. The results of his team in 2017 should re-iterate to posters that no matter how good a coach supposedly is, he is only as good as the 22 players that represent him and the club on game day. The Bulldogs' skill execution and decision making have been horrendous at times this year and the other area letting them down is their lack of intensity, which may be a result of a premiership hangover.
It is likely we will change the coach, as I don't think the club will be able to "sell" re-signing Buckley because the go to for 'Joe Public', as is evidenced on this site, is to blame everything on the coach.
Last edited by mooretreloar on Mon Jul 03, 2017 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.