07-24-2021, 11:41 PM
(07-24-2021, 10:43 PM)Gointocarlton link Wrote:Given the turnover of players we have had in the last 5-6 years let alone the last 20, how does this "culture" or mindset of players not playing for the coach or getting up for important game manifest itself over such a long period of time across multiple coaches? 95% of this forum knew, or was fairly confident, we would lose yesterday even before H was an out. I am of the opinion that despite the outs, we had the talent on the park to beat NM and yet...
Firstly, 95% of the people knew we would lose yesterday? BS. Everyone was arguing against me for suggesting it was even possible.
Secondly, correlation does not equal causation. You look at the end result - poor performance - and assume the same reason for it. That is your problem and the problem from the club as a whole over the past 2 decades.
Poor performance? - Sack the coach.
Poor performance? - Sack the coach
etc.
How about looking at it this way....
Poor performance under Brittain = Injuries
Poor performance under Pagan = Lost the players
Poor performance under Ratten = Injuries
Poor performance under Malthouse = fractured club
Poor performance under Bolton = lost the players
Poor performance under Teague = Injuries.
One thing Teague has been able to do is become competitive in our on-field performances. When he first took over, he had a youngish, inexperienced list with some aging stars. Now those kids are starting to come good and we can't field a side. It was only our competitiveness that has allowed us to put in an acceptable behaviour the last couple weeks. To be fair, this result should've occurred 3 weeks ago.
What is being said now is the same thing that was being said at the halfway point. Then, as predicted, we started playing some easier opposition and had players available and the wins 'miraculously' came. Now we have been hit by more injuries (and to key personnel) and our performances start to struggle again.
Its not rocket science guys.