Woosha – final moments or finals moment?

Old mate Marc McGowan has just posted on Twitter:
“Coaching changes at Essendon. Opposition strategy coach Rob Harding and forwards coach Paul Corrigan to move on at season’s end. Story on afl.com.au soon”

Does he mean at the end of this year, or at the end of their contracts, some time in the distant future - who knows?


End of the year - https://m.afl.com.au/news/2019-07-12/two-bombers-assistant-coaches-set-to-depart-at-seasons-end

Season’s end would indicate end of this year.

Also makes me think that the club will keep John on, but change out assistants.

1 Like

Not surprised about Corrigan, forward line has struggled.
Bit of a surprise about Harding. Wonder whether he left or we pushed him?

Well most want the forward coach gone.

Rob seemed like he added value, but at same time we don’t seem to set up well against anyone.

1 Like

Discussed here

1 Like

Corrigan has got nothing out of Daniher. He makes Fantasia look like he’s injured. Pretty sure he injured Smack’s hamstring.


This in the Woosha thread…

To this in the other coaches thread…


Disagree. Its the AFL contantly changing the rules to try to counteract what the coaches were doing. If they had just left the rules alone the game would have evolved as another coach started to counteract the tactics of a previous coach. Instead of letting this natural progression take place, the AFL had to start jumping in to try to change the game.
I wonder if they have every done a proper analysis of any of their changes prior to implemenation, and I doubt very much they have ever done one after. They just bring in another rule.
They have given us what we have to day. In a bid to try to stop the coaches tactics to win games, being effective.
You couldnt make this ■■■■ up.


The AFL have an obligation to keep the game attractive enough so that people want to go and see it and keep growing it so that other sports don’t eat into viewership.

Coaches begged for extra interchange so that they could cover for injured players as they cried that they were losing games because they only had 17 fit players left (Which was true at times)

So the AFL gave them extra interchange and what did the coaches do?

They turned the game into a shuttle run, with Collingwood recording 170 rotations in 1 game and 150 + every game.

The coaches talk a good game but the bottom line is they don’t give a rats ■■■■ about the state of the game all they care about is winning so it is the AFL’s job to try to fix what the coaches break.

The biggest mistake the AFL have made is to ever listen to one word the coaches have said and this BS about having them over to dinner at Gills is a joke.

The coaches are a cancer on the real game of football that was based on 1 v 1 contests between great players and was once great but is now pretty ordinary.


It’s a combination of both those things but don’t blame the coaches. They do what they can within the rules to win. If it’s all out defence that wins the day then of course you’d do it. The game is also a victim of the superior fitness of the players. Being able to cover vast distances has helped this defence mindset.


And who was it that got the players back earlier and earlier and devised training programs so that they could take advantage of the extra interchange and get them to do flat out efforts up and back for 3-4 minutes then get interchanged.

It wasn’t the AFL…

Hot take: it’s not the AFL or coaches, it’s professionalism.


True but it begins and ends with the coaches.

I’ll make this my last post on this as it is a hot topic for me and i’ll go on and on until it’s DonToDeath

The coaches devise a gameplan they want to play and everyone else comes along for the ride.

The Fitness dept and the other cocophany of departments we have these days map out a program for his gameplan, then they train it and implement it in games.

It begins and ends with the coaches.


So who is it in the middle?

The AFL by pandering to their requests.

1 Like

Damn you and your superior intellect. :joy:

I was just summarising your post.

1 Like

I agree with all that too. But I think it’s the efforts they have made to stop tactics. They didn’t like the flood, so they tried to speed the game up. So they stopped the number of ball ups (and created a balls up) by changing the holding the ball rule. Firstly with prior opportunity. Then when there was still too many ball up they let it spill free in a tackle.
Then they changed the deliberate point, because they want the ball to stay in play. They they changed the kicking to the boundary because they don’t want a ball up.
Somewhere in amongst all this the coaches realised they needed more interchange rotations so the AFL have to give them what they want because they, the AFL, want the game to be fast.
Then it was in the back, then Hands in the back, then sliding into the legs, which are all a direct result of trying to speed up the game.
It’s like any skill you try to do too fast, skill level drops.
There are very few great marks anymore, there’s too much interference. Those calls don’t get made because the AFL doesn’t want to stop the game.
It’s a vicious circle, and although some games are still ok, the skill level on display is woeful, people can’t even kick a goal from a set shot.
Think of the highest score, 37 17, Most teams would be lucky to kick that in their first five games each year.
Thing was, they had a free flowing game, and because the coaches got more professional started using better tactics the AFL went on a Blitz to keep their broadcast partners happy. And ruined the game in the process.
This is probably the wrong thread but too late now.

1 Like

No, no.
This is still all Worsfold’s fault somehow.