It’s easily fixed.
1 Like
We don’t need to play harder or most consistent, just slower and in line with whatever this confusing game plan is.
1 Like
Paul Barnard, Mark Johnson, Dean Solomon, Jason Johnson, Dean Wallis, Gary Moorcroft. Damian Hardwick
These guys were not the most talented players in our last premiership, they probably wouldn’t have made the top 5, but without them, we wouldn’t have won it.
17 Likes
My frustration with the club/team is we refuse to do the non negotiables. The major change in Collingwood this year is their pressure. They went from a low 160 index to 180 which is slightly above league average. Pressure is where the game is at right now and it’s a non negotiable if you wanna win. The good news is that it’s completely controllable by the players in the team irrespective of what the opposition does.
I’m sick of hearing the excuses like our skill level was poor or our opposition took away the corridor etc. it’s rubbish. Our skill level is poor due to pressure, either physical or inferred but if you look at the Port game & the last qtr of the Crows game, the difference is the required work rate to lift the pressure and create turnovers. We are deadly off the turnover but we don’t create enough. We currently sit 15th on the pressure index over five weeks. That’s bottom four and will likely reflect that in March results if we don’t change it.
Work rate & pressure is purely mental IMO. It cannot be physical as I believe our players are in great condition physically, it’s an attitude to work hard without the footy that must change if we’re to be successful. The bulldogs did it in the heat of September in 2016, Richmond are doing it now after persistence in the early part of last year, Collingwood have recognised it & addressed it quickly. It’s a quick turnaround by those three teams and it is less reliant on who you have on the field personnel wise. Collingwood we’re without Fasolo, Elliott, Moore, Goldsack, Adams and a few others, but had some lesser likes prepared to work hard and sacrifice their own games for the betterment of the team.
It starts at the top. Pendlebury took the responsibility of curbing Cripps a few weeks ago, Sidebottom ran with Sloane last week, Howe put his hand up to negate Charlie Curnow, these are actions of leaders & the team tows the party line and follows by buying into the team ethos. It’s a credit to them. Why do we not do it? We surely can do it, but who do you see leading the way? We need to buy in now before it’s too late. We can do it but we need to WANT to do it.
47 Likes
Hire this man.
7 Likes
We aren’t willing to do the hard work. Chasing, tackling, manning up, hunting the ball. To me when a group aren’t willing to commit to these things for 120 minutes it shows a lack of desire. Forget “process”, “our game”, “team plan” and all the other modern day crap that gets dished out. You’ve gotta want it. We don’t.
2 Likes
I fear that whilst we can do it if we want to do it, we don’t enjoy having to do it.
The teams that are elite in pressure LOVE doing it. They get around a team mate like a goal has been kicked when he smothers, tackles, chases or blocks.
The pressure act is seen as important as the goal itself.
3 Likes
Our supporters are slaughtering the side on SEN at the moment. Just telling it as it is. Refreshing, and Cornes is agreeing.
2 Likes
McKenna was rubbed out for a high bump last year I think surprise surprise huh
I’m so sick of hearing about Richmond’s small forward-line, about their non-ruckman.
Those things are friggin’ incidental.
What Richmond did, what the Bulldogs did, what Hawthorn and Geelong do, is play tough, uncompromising football.
Specifically the first two built a plan around the players they had at that moment. And for the Bulldogs that was a team that was a long way from the best players on their list.
They minimised their weaknesses, they exploited other teams weaknesses.
We do not do that.
We’re not going to be a good team until we do.
sigh We got destroyed by Cox and Dunn.
Cox and friggin’ Dunn.
That’s embarrassing.
16 Likes
I agree with your analysis on Dogs and Rich 100pc.
What do you think the game style is that we should be playing with the cattle we’ve got? Particularly given that we’re not exactly the hard uncompromising types?
Genuine question
1 Like
I think the OP is correct. We are soft and have been for many years. We remain soft until we prove we have changed. We have a few non-soft players and some very good players. But overall the team plays soft footy, is hopelessly inconsistent and struggles to implement and maintain the manic defense needed to win flags. But we do have some serious talent. We have some gaps in the list but so does every team given the talent is spread over 18 clubs.
So many things…
My biggest annoyance at the moment is that we don’t separate our tall forwards enough.
We have such an advantage there, and instead of that advantage being spread, particularly at MCG, over a massive attacking space, we bottle it up where defenders can help each other out.
And of course they run it out after they’ve spoiled, because they’re smaller and more athletic.
I’m not saying Pagan’s paddock, but there has to be a happy medium between that and what we’re doing now.
1 Like
The thing with richmond imo was , they didnt design a gameplan around the cattle they had , they simply used different cattle to implement the high pressure game.
Collingwood has done similar but by luck due to injuries.
With the players they are missing, the high pressure stuff they have brought the last 2 weeks may not be there or the same, cos really faz and elliott arent gonna be running around offering the same level of defensive pressure.
Richmond were the same, when you looked at thwir vfl gf squad, therr were plently of best 22 staples feom years past.
Its not about working with what youve got, its about replacing the players you need too, with guys who have no preconceived notions about their importance or role to the team,
And you cant just make guys who its not first nature start doing it week in week out , because they always revert back to original programming, hence they can do it one week , but they cant do it for a sustained block of games.
You have the gut the best 22 , qnd find young guys willing to do it. Trying to make zaka , myers , giddard , hepp , green and so on do it is not gonna work , cos it hasnt worked before.
I think being unable to bring the same effort week after week would indicate we are at least mentally soft.
2 Likes
Thats it in a nutshell.
We seem to have a mentality that, if the opposition kicks 15 goals , we will simply kick 16. Without having aplan to do so other than just attack.
Instead of having the mentality, ok if we score 6 goals, we will keep the opposition to 5.
Likw i said before , we have too many chiefs and not enough indians.
I ageee with that. The question is though how do you manage to pull that off in this era where everyone has to push up the ground and defend?
And of course the other issue is, if you do want to persue a one-out tall forward scenario, then the forward who is best placed to actually pluck those marks is Hooker…
Being soft and being inconsistent are not mutually exclusive.
1 Like
I hate to say it but this is so true. We have so many players that pick and choose when to go, I have seen Hurley pull out of contests many times in his new role. I miss the old, angry, heavier, mongrel Hurley.
8 Likes
My favourite bit of play on Wednesday was when Cox marked almost uncontested in front of goal. He missed the shot. We kick out long to 50m and like usual an opponent marks it. He bombs it into the goal square where this time Cox marks uncontested.
Three contests in a row that we were too soft to even make into contests.
1 Like