(06-28-2015, 01:18 AM)DJC link Wrote:No, it is not simplistic thinking.

In 2010 Malthouse had a team that had been built around his gameplan and could execute it to perfection.  Even so, opposition coaches had developed tactics to counter the Collingwood style.

Five years later and the game has changed dramatically and Malthouse is trying to mould a team to a gameplan that has been left behind.

Broadly speaking, there are three factors that will determine the effectiveness of a gameplan; predictability, execution and probability of scoring.  The Malthouse gameplan was too predictable (and therefore easy to counter), was poorly executed (creating scoring opportunities for the opposition) and resulted in low percentage scoring opportunities for us.  It also created a culture of helplessness among the playing group who must have felt that they were being asked to play with one hand tied behind their back.

I haven't seen the team play under Barker but it seems that one of the main differences is tackling with intent, a facet of the game that was sadly lacking under Malthouse.

I suspect that Barker, now that he has freed the shackles, will tailor the gameplan to counter and exploit opposition strengths and weaknesses.  It will be interesting and informative to see how we go about it today.