And can I just point out that three posters have opened dialogue with me in this thread this morning.
I’ve merely responded.
So forgive me if I don’t think the issue is me being obsessed with Worsfold.
1 Like
Massive tick for Worsfold this week. Knew better than the supporters (me) who wanted to drop Myers. He was influential. Coaches are stubborn as a rule but he threw Hooker back. Played a first gamer who was ready rather than gift games to youth for the sake of it. Within a week turned a very poor performance around to beat the top side. Best thing for me, was from the first bounce we had obvious intent and were primed to crack in. Despite a few turnovers the skipper led the way.
5 Likes
I agree they were all good things.
It was good to see Heppell stepping up and being a more visible leader.
Obviously he’s done that before, but I think yesterday was the most consistent he’s been at that.
3 Likes
In one after-game interview that I saw, Stringer made mention of the baking the side received from Woosha during the week and that it had an effect on the playing group.
4 Likes
That’s interesting and noteworthy I reckon. As supporters after a loss some want to tear the joint apart. Worsfold’s got no plan B or C, he’s too quiet in the box, he doesn’t get angry enough etc etc. Coaches have there own philosophy that they’ll live or die by. Ranting and raving in the box isn’t going to help him coach better. I much prefer it to Malthouse at Carlton who paced up and down at the rear of the box and gave the impression to supporters and more importantly players that he had lost the plot. That might be his way of coping with pressure but it can’t have assisted his coaching.
You’re happy to ignore everything the coaches/leaders and players say on this point regarding not executing the same, unchanged, basic plan… but when Hooker back (!) is not mentioned… it’s a big thing.
You’re tying yourself in knots here.
1 Like
Malthouse has had a significantly better career and left Collingwood in a multi year contending position. Then bucks ■■■■■■ it all up.
One geriatric stint at Carlton doesn’t undo everything before. Just means he should be a coach in the future.
Until I get a “from the coach” email, I won’t believe it.
/snark
Again, you’re talking about the messaging out of the club, which is not something I really raised.
FWIW, I don’t think it’s been consistent, but it doesn’t bother me either way.
If you want to talk about Hooker, then are you disappointed that he was only thrown back in the last five to ten minutes last week or not?
That’s what I said I found disappointing, but you seem to want to talk about other things.
George W Bush, that’s not really a good recommendation.
1 Like
I would love to be a fly on the wall mid-week as to how we changed our positional structures after round 3. I felt it was strongly needed but I must admit I had the vibe Woosha may stay the course. But
Hooker goes back
McGrath goes back
Stringer goes forward
Heppell goes on a wing but has a focus on sweeping across half back where he can intercept.
Basically all of above playing to their strengths. I felt from the first minute we were in complete control of this game…in fact the score flattered Port to be honest.
We understood Port from defence likes to switch direction and attack and we setup defensively where Port could not make that switch across the ground. At some stages they had 6-7 kicks going from left to right and back without penetrating.
We still had some bad turn overs but that structure and defensive mindset had the game under our control for 120 mins.
Pleasantly thankful to Woosha and the coaching team and I hope this is now the model moving forward
Well planned, executed and got the result. All you can ask as fans.
18 Likes
Okay, that’s where we differ.
Not about the media, or messaging.
I thought last week was diabolical, and that the changes this week were wholesale, and…as you said, kind of obvious, and forced.
I don’t know which one is ‘how they want to play’, and I dread that it’s more last week than this week, they just want it to work better.
Again, that’s not messaging, that’s track record.
Hooker back has covered the loss of Gleeson who was great at the intercept marking. Playing stringer forward with the odd spell in the middle helps cover the hole Hooker leaves as we won’t see JD double teamed as much.
What we need to do is find an inside bull that we were hoping Stringer would become
1 Like
Maybe that could be Clarke, he is hitting some consistent form at the right time in that area
4 Likes
This is so blatantly stupid I don’t know even
Okay, I think you could probably stop now.
I’ve tried to respond to your queries despite your increasing snark, but now you’ve just fallen into abuse.
Good talk.
2 Likes
pork chops the lot of you.
You think it’s a point genuinely up for discussion that the “style” of play that completely didn’t work, on any level, that the coach said was not what they wanted, that the players openly said was a failure largely on tbeir part - might be the preferred option?
It’s not me being snarky here.
1 Like
Against my better judgement…
I think if we had somehow scraped across the line against the Bulldogs, whether or not Hooker was moved back towards the end of the game, we’d have seen no significant set-up changes this week.
In that respect, I think last week is the set-up they want to have.
Now the following may or may not happen, but I would not be surprised to see Hooker forward, Hartley dropped (pending Brown’s fitness), Myers more back than mid, and so on and so forth.
I’d be less surprised to see the set-up slowly change back to how it was for the first three rounds over time.
I hope it doesn’t, but I kind of think it will.
I also hope given recent experience that changes on game day happen a lot more quickly now.
Obviously I don’t mean the plan is not to run. That would be silly.
1 Like