John "given em nothin" Worsfold


Is it the Neela approach now?

Edit: but I guess I’ll answer your question.
Yes. I think Worsfold wants to turn That style of play into a winning one.
I don’t think he’s trying to lose. I think he believes that style of play will be awesome once it clicks.

Maybe I’m wrong.
Maybe it’s the players periodically and simultaneously forgetting the way they played previously, while going against the coaches instructions.

But I don’t think it is.


What do you call the approach sans Neeld?


Coaching could have controlled that by playing an extra two talls and played less aggressive and kicked long down the line. Gain more territory, less consequence on skill error. It’s not like this is a one off and we disposed poorly, we’ve done that all year.


I call it the ‘■■■■, we’re 2-6 and headed for disaster’ approach.


It’s a theory, but pragmatically I think you’re way off the mark.


“Guys guys guys stop attacking and defending well. Go slower, cough up the ball, and don’t pick your man up”

Calling it a theory is very, very kind.


You are one of those people that the strength of a list is 100% dependent on a teams current ladder position and fluctuates from week to week, if we are winning ‘great list’ if we are losing ‘nuh poor list’.
I take list strength as what it is perceived at, at the start of the season before a ball is bounced. From that i think if you go back after the addition of 3 top liners over the off season, most people on here had our list as top 4. Christ even worsfold was talking being a real challenger and would of expected us to at least get a top 6 finish. For mine its a top 6 list at a minimum and is underachieving. I’d have us as list strength about the same as port adelaide and melbourne.
Collingwood, hawks, richmond and west coast are the 4 teams that on paper are not as powerful but have great systems and coaching. It’s always better to be a systems based team as opposed to a talent based team for mine, because talent based teams (like us) ebb and flow depending upon who is out on the park. Collingwood have pretty much half their list wiped out, no key defenders but their systems still hold ups, i think most people on their list talent had them finishing 10 to 14 this season.


How is our list, on paper, more powerful than Richmond’s?


It isn’t now because they have won and flag and reproduced. But if you took it on last year richmonds list was being talked about as bottom 6 quality heading into season 2017. What happened though, they brought in new coaches, new game plan and have been killing it ever since because their systems make everyone look like a star.

Throw some of those players into a ■■■■ team they wouldn’t be anywhere near the players they are playing for the tigers.


So you ignore any player development over preseason (impossible to tell before a ball is bounced) and improvement over the year?


We should poach a coach from a club with recent success and get him to implement the game plan and systems at Essendon. I think Melbourne tried it with an ex assistant of Collingwood’s a while back. Maybe he’s gettable as an assistant.


One person on had us top 4. Most had us 6-8. If you told them Daniher would miss the year, I’d say all would have lowered their expectations.

Most in this Age in have us missing the 8:


They also had about 6 or so new best 22 players last year.

It’s impossible to separate list and game plan for mine.

New plan, yes, but that pressure and run that they improves so much was in part facilitated by guys like Rioli and Castagna in ways that guys like Miles and Taylor Hunt would never be able to.
Chicken and egg.

They certainly improved what their bottom half dozen were able to add to the side, and balanced out the strengths and weaknesses of their top players a lot better.


We’ve started that with Richardson, Ratten, Caracalla or a recent retiree would be another step we could take.


And you forgot the Hawthorn players coach themselves on the ground.


But that’s not a prediction on the aspect of our list.


I thought the styles of play were very different.
For the sake of brevity I’ll be simplistic, and say that against Sydney (and in other games) we’ve played a ‘wear them down until we break them’, both in individual contests and the game generally.
I’m a fan of that.

Against Hawthorn we went back to the style of play which we completely destroyed Port with last year (which Hinkly both sookily and correctly said wouldn’t stand up long term).
I’m not a fan of that.

Exciting when it works, though.


It’s definitely true that the two games were played differently.

We broke sydney down the guts, then we broke their defence completely.

Hawks’ zone stood up better, for longer, and picked us off more, and we were pushed wide.


There is so much more space at the G which most likely influenced that. We can’t expect the same result going from Etihad to the G. Probably why we’ve struggled at the G all year.


I don’t want to say that Richmond is the answer to everything, but…I think it’s a reasonable answer to that.