John Worsfold


#7882

I think the biggest thing today for mine is what I’ve had echoing in my head over the last 2 weeks that Dimma stayed after the flag last year.

He said (and I’m paraphrasing here): “We really wanted to come up with a gameplan and style of play that didn’t mitigate other teams strengths or did anything except emphasise the strengths of our players and the way we wanted to play.”

The first thing I think of when I think of that is… Playing players in their preferred position first of all, that is the easiest correction to make.

Hooker - Back
Stringer - Majority forward (isolated on his opponent) and still pinch hitting in stints through the midfield.

Those two moves alone made us look a far different and most importantly, far more dangerous side.

Let’s just hope that’s how we keep things.

We’ve also got a lot more talent to come back into the side from today:

Colyer
McKenna
Ambrose
Gleeson

Are all players that can come in and are or could be best 22 players based on form.

Please Worsfold, keep playing to our players strengths and not how you would like your ideal team to play and as a result putting square pegs in round holes.


#7883

l agree with DJR, thread lacks Bovril.


#7884

Ok let’s just hope he doesn’t rush back Gleeson , Colyer or Ambrose without a run in the 2’s first. Nothing frustrates me more when a guy sits out for so long and comes straight back in (see Myers).


#7885

Someone said Ambrose played in the twos on the weekend


#7886

Guess what?
Your very first response in this instalment got personal. That’s the point where it all breaks down.


#7887

I’d you want to discuss this further, then pm me.
If you haven’t noticed, people are sick of both of our bullshit.


#7888

We don’t need to go there.


#7889

I think the positional changes obviously worked and we certainly looked more assured in defence. But the biggest difference was our work rate with and without the bal and our pressure. If we had brought the heat and worked as hard without Hooker going back we still would have won. I agree that the Hooker and Hurley + 1 of Hartley/Brown/Ambrose isn’t going to work against all teams. It’s annoying that Hurley can no longer take a strong tall forward as it throws the system out a bit.


#7890

Only played part of the game but Ambrose listed among the bests in the 2s.


#7891

This is the “is AOD legal?” of the post-saga era.


#7892

I personally don’t know how anybody has such strong views either way about Woosha.

I’ve never been so ‘On the fence’ about a coach, in the whole time I’ve been supporting the club.


#7893

I’ve said it before but … I don’t love him, I don’t want him sacked yet either. There’s a lot of room in between.


#7894

Even this season could go either way.

It could still descend into 2010 2.0.

But we could also get our b*itches Port Adelaide in a final, and finally win one.


#7895

Absolutely, the game is an ever-evolving beast and must be treated as such. Woosha is not this kind of coach and that is the problem.

These changes which were done today could have been implemented 2 games ago, much earlier last week etc.

Most Weeks, anymore than Hooker and Hurley and KP’s in defense should be it. Holding our numbers back (and not as much at the ball) significantly helped our structure too this week.

Port kept their extra back waaay too deep for mine - probably a sign that they were worried by the Daniher/Stringer talent staying forward. This stretched the ground out for us a bit.


#7896

Exactly right Peos and Rolo.

I’m totally on the fence, and also on the ‘there’s no way we can judge him properly yet’ team.

I find it absolutely astonishing that people can have such strong views about wanting him gone (or thinking he’s a gun, for that matter).

For one, there’s the fact that match day is only a part of a coach’s job description, and that none of us have the faintest idea what’s going on inside the club, or the clubrooms on match day, or the coaches box, or anything.

More broadly though and even putting that aside, I am amazed that some people are so absolutely certain of their own views to the point where they are totally convinced that they are right. I don’t really have strong opinions about much anymore. The older I get I realise that I don’t really know much about anything. Really strong opinions are normally evidence of a closed mind.

And even when I have strong opinions, I am always open to changing my mind. That’s not true of prominent posters in this thread. And it’s the same whether it be win, loss, Hooker back, Hooker forward, no matter what happens, the view never changes.

The greatest thing about this man is he’s steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday, that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change, this man’s beliefs never will.

-Stephen Colbert speaking about George W. Bush, White House Correspondents Dinner, 2006


#7897

If we’re allowing hindsight in here, Hooker looked like he settled in OK with whatever limited amount of training he’d done. Maybe he’d done some work behind closed doors, maybe not, who knows.

I’m sure the players are actually not that fragile. I’m just not going to pot the club for being, for once, consistent on their messaging. We’ve just got out of the woods.

Hooker back has always been an option, in the back pocket. We all know it - regardless of what’s being said to the media.


#7898

I find it difficult to reconcile your last two paragraphs.


#7899

I guess I’m just amazed at anyone who really gets upset (or, conversely, gets overly happy) with what’s said to the media. Which, right now, is where your position seems to be at.

We lived through the Sheedy era FFS!


#7900

Well, Sheedy racked up a lot of credits very early.
16 wins in a row, wasn’t it?
That’s going to build a certain amount of trust.

And again, I’m not sure how you follow ‘consistency of messaging’ with don’t worry about what he says to the media.

And, you know, no…not everyone knew that about Hooker.
It was heresy to suggest he might play there in the pre-season. Posters were losing their minds over the media consistently putting him back in their best 22.
‘Haven’t they listened to a word the club had said?’

shrugs

You see a secret plan.
That’s cool.
I see something else.


#7901

I’m not saying it was a secret plan. Quite the opposite. I’m saying it was a not-plan-but-clearly-an-option. And a very very very obvious one.
‘Could’ and ‘will’ are not the same thing.

For the life of me why you’re tearing hair out over what the coach says to media. They’re scum, should be treated as such.

Hooker back was always an option somewhere along the line… the unknown is whether that was five injuries deep; or a fortnight of poxy form.