2018 Rd 11: Post Game Pragmatism: Carlton vs Sydney

[PaulP]

That’s pretty much how I see it Paul.

Of course, Bolts showed his hand as a tactician and match day coach when he had good sides in Hawthorn and Box Hill.

Wrong fella David.

[DJC]

Wrong fella David.

Bloody autocorrect 

I was sure that I had typed “Thry”!

[Thryleon]

No harm no foul David.

[kruddler]

Absolutely.

If you want to teach someone how to do something the best way is via repetition.


Do it again and again and again until they know it and learn it.

So if true, all Bolton is teaching blokes is how to lose.....and i think we're getting pretty darn good at it!

[LP]

So if true, all Bolton is teaching blokes is how to lose.....and i think we're getting pretty darn good at it!

In fairness to BB, I think he's got our defensive setup pretty well sorted if he was to play that game style. I think we could easily win a few sub-10 goal games if we wanted to do it that way.

To me it appears BB and our club are under external pressure to play more allegedly "attractive" football. Which seems to be pretty thinly focussed on goal scoring. The broadcasters repetitive emphasis on Carlton scoring 100pts, even when we are ahead at the time, seems to confirm that!

[ElwoodBlues1]

Theres another factor.

Cripps demands an opponent.

Nick Graham doesnt.  They will simply park someone on the next best midfielder (hypothetically Fisher).

No Cripps, means an additional decrease in output from at least one other midfielder (Fisher) and another samish performance from lets say Paddy Dow.

Cripps often gets an opponent at the stoppage then after that the opposing teams have an opponent running off him looking to exploit his lack of pace.....the opponent can often
be a different player.

[IvanAwfulbigone]

In fairness to BB, I think he's got our defensive setup pretty well sorted if he was to play that game style. I think we could easily win a few sub-10 goal games if we wanted to do it that way.

Maybe, just MAYBE, the strategy of stemming the flow of heavy losses by shoring up our defence was the wrong horse to back.  I mean, on the surface it seemed logical.  If I was on the interview panel and the prospective coach pitched a game plan based on sound defence after which the focus would shift to forward structure and scoring, I probably would have bought it.

However ... WHAT IF some maverick, crazy-son-of-a-b*tch waltzed in there and said, "Pfft, don't care how many points the opposition scores. Recruit me 4 or 5 natural born forwards, help me build a decent midfield, then let the other clubs try and catch us."

Much easier to play back than forward which is why I put the emphasis on natural born.

Unfortunately, we'll never know. The horse has already bolt(on)ed.

[LoveNavy]

Menegola hardly gets looked at, yet Rowe cops a $1500 fine.

Sinclair flops around like a fish and gets $1000 fine.

Level playing field my ar$e.

I'm still pi$#ed about that.  >

[PaulP]

Maybe, just MAYBE, the strategy of stemming the flow of heavy losses by shoring up our defence was the wrong horse to back.  I mean, on the surface it seemed logical.  If I was on the interview panel and the prospective coach pitched a game plan based on sound defence after which the focus would shift to forward structure and scoring, I probably would have bought it.

However ... WHAT IF some maverick, crazy-son-of-a-b*tch waltzed in there and said, "Pfft, don't care how many points the opposition scores. Recruit me 4 or 5 natural born forwards, help me build a decent midfield, then let the other clubs try and catch us."

Much easier to play back than forward which is why I put the emphasis on natural born.

Unfortunately, we'll never know. The horse has already bolt(on)ed.

For whatever reason, most coaches seem to be either ex defenders or ex mids. There are, as always, exceptions, but it's generally the case. I think the emphasis on defence starts from there. I also think that as you imply, it's easier to defend than to attack. I would say attacking is a more creative act than defending. Coaches talk a lot about defensive structures and defensive mechanisms, but rarely about attacking structures and attacking mechanisms. I think coaches also feel a little uneasy about high scoring, shoot out footy, because they don't have as much control over the players - it tends to be more instinctive when you play that way.

Many coaches preach the mantra of a strong defence, and regard building from the back as important to a successful attacking game - Malthouse, Leigh Matthews, even Ratten started out trying to shore up our defence in late 07 and 08.

[JonHenry]

Maybe, just MAYBE, the strategy of stemming the flow of heavy losses by shoring up our defence was the wrong horse to back.  I mean, on the surface it seemed logical.  If I was on the interview panel and the prospective coach pitched a game plan based on sound defence after which the focus would shift to forward structure and scoring, I probably would have bought it.

However ... WHAT IF some maverick, crazy-son-of-a-b*tch waltzed in there and said, "Pfft, don't care how many points the opposition scores. Recruit me 4 or 5 natural born forwards, help me build a decent midfield, then let the other clubs try and catch us."

Much easier to play back than forward which is why I put the emphasis on natural born.

Unfortunately, we'll never know. The horse has already bolt(on)ed.

Pretty much Geelong of the early 90's and we all know what happened there.
4 Grand Finals and zero wins.