Agree with you. If we had won against the dogs I’m almost certain they would of gone with the same exact setup for yesterday. Hooker forward etc.
I really hope that yesterday is the start of the coaches being more flexible.
Not only can it reinvigorate players, but the team also.
Setup (Hooker fwd, Stringer mid etc) yes. But that’s fine.
But you can’t honestly suggest +100 marks and +100 uncontested possessions to the Dogs was all down to three or four (major) positional moves and Hartley coming in for Brown??
“Stringer forward this week, this means we have to chase our opponents.”
“Hooker back, and you know what he’s like, so you’d better not fumble that loose ball on centre wing”
It’s absurd, it doesn’t hold water, and needs to be called out.
The way the game is changing so quickly - flexibility is the name of the game not only for the coaches but also the players. Creativity, flexibility and pace is a powerful and potent trio.
Last week for mine was a effort issue as well as poor selection and coaching.
Our forward line looked so much better yesterday. Much more pressure when the ball hit the ground and a lot more run which forced turnovers.
I was ecstatic that the coach tried something different.
Whatever clicked in the players minds yesterday, worsfold has to find a way to make it stay clicked
We have so many players who can play in different areas of the ground and play well. We need to be using that to our advantage when things aren’t going well
You could probably lose the last line there, that sort of thing really is tedious.
The not running is of course an almost entirely different issue, but a coaching one nonetheless.
It has to be.
If it’s one or two players, sure. Player issue.
If it’s the whole team?
Oh jesus flipping christ
“Who’s at fullback” is game plan/style?
Not running is… something different, that’s not gameplan.
You’re impossible.
I reckon people are forgetting that opposing teams have different set-ups in attack, and one size doesn’t fit all.
Credit Sheedy as being the one who really got players to be more flexible.
So stop friggin’ talking to me!
I’m not asking you to!
I’ve tried to be patient, despite you ending every post with, ‘you’re a jerk.’
‘Oh, okay…not calling you a jerk now, but what about…’
‘Okay. I understand what you’re saying. Guess what? You’re a jerk!’
If you don’t like my opinion, then fine!
Quite.
Speaking of.
G’day.
I’m happy we won with the tinkering.
Me too.
Agree with most except the switch part.
There was a few times port had loose players all down the wing, think it was in the first qtr.
They did it once and luckily players were able to scrmabke across and cover, but it was very sinilar to the dogs, this week they xovered better tho.
Other times the switch was on , they just didnt use it, was odd actually, cos a couple of times they looked foe it, players were free , but still choose to go the same side most of the players were on.
Feel like crossing the floor?
You don’t get me, I’m part of the union.
Hope so. People say his disposal is suspect but so is that of a few of our better players. Getting over 30 touches and 10 tackles is good enough to make up for whatever poor disposal he has. JJ disposal was shocking when he first started, got it much better later on
if you’re really pretending I’ve not made the point about positional changes and gamestyle as two separate, albeit linked, issues - then yes, you’re getting treated with a fool.
As to a succession of a dozen punters getting the ■■■■■ with you, one by one, over months, if not years, over the various contortions of one basic issue: it’s a real headscratcher.
“That’s a different issue” FMD.
I couldn’t resist:
Change da rulez - no cazual eeemployment 4 neyone unless u da union memba!