Dogs too cautious: Eade

[Hotdog60]

WESTERN Bulldogs coach Rodney Eade believes his players can shake off the cautious approach they are currently employing in the second half of the season.

Eade said the Dogs were too conservative against Collingwood - and Essendon last week - and it was costing them dearly.

"All year, we haven't played great footy consistently and most of that's been due to making errors and our skill level hasn't been up to what we expect," he said, after the 10-point loss.

"I really noticed tonight, more than last week, a cautious approach.

"We've got to play the way we normally play and be able take teams on and if we lose, we lose.

"To lose in a conservative fashion … you're trying not to lose rather than trying to win."

He said his players' fear of making repeated mistakes caused them to surrender a 48-point lead to the Pies in the first three terms.

"We're building our game on being able to persevere and persist, even if we do make mistakes, to keep trying and going back to the well," he said.

"We've been reinforcing it with the guys. In the end, the guys throw caution to the wind.

"It's the way we play. We play a risk-taking game at times but playing conservative hurt us early."

MORE (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/95814/default.aspx)

[Rocco Jones]

Rocket really seems to distnce himself from the tactical approach our players take out on the field.

Perhaps our chip sideways with no real purpose default and how he constantly berats players has something to do with our 'conservative' approach.

At the moment it's either a case of Eade and co. giving them overly conservative instructions, the playing group not listening/carrying out his instructions or a combination of both.

All three answers don't really paint a good picture of Eade.

[LostDoggy]

Rocket really seems to distnce himself from the tactical approach our players take out on the field.

Perhaps our chip sideways with no real purpose default and how he constantly berats players has something to do with our 'conservative' approach.

At the moment it's either a case of Eade and co. giving them overly conservative instructions, the playing group not listening/carrying out his instructions or a combination of both.

All three answers don't really paint a good picture of Eade.

This is something that needs to be looked at more closely.

It's seems as though he is constantly going off & singling players out during matches, in which he lets rip with venom. I am a believer that if you continually do this, it's more likely to go in one ear & out the other. The players would get so used to Eade doing this, that they wouldn't pay attention to it anymore.

It's very rare you see coaches lose control, Eade seems to do it more often then most.

[Mantis]

This is something that needs to be looked at more closely.

It's seems as though he is constantly going off & singling players out during matches, in which he lets rip with venom. I am a believer that if you continually do this, it's more likely to go in one ear & out the other. The players would get so used to Eade doing this, that they wouldn't pay attention to it anymore.

It's very rare you see coaches lose control, Eade seems to do it more often then most.

The most often occurence of a dressing down is due to players not following the coaches instructions. Should players be immune to 'sprays' if they do this?

I guess what happens next is the concern because as yet players don't seem to punishable by way of demotion for continual 'stuff ups'.

[lemmon]

Is Eade the head honcho and coach of this team or not? This isn't the first time he has talked about our 'cautions approach' or 'chipping the ball around', the same things were said after the
St Kilda game. Its your game plan and style of Rocket, it's either not working or your not getting your message across, surely by round 11 the players know how you want them to play and what your game plan is. These issues should have been dealt with by this point.

[LostDoggy]

Think Baz needs a break for himself and for the team. Try to regain how we used to play before Barry a little.

[LostDoggy]

Whilst Eade is pondering the cautious behaviour that cost us yesterday; I hope he reflects on his own conservative approach earlier in the week when selecting the team.

The team we took into the game was a joke and many of us on WOOF said so on Friday when the final team was announced. This issue is bigger than just Everett's baffling ommission from the seniors; it is a fundamental weakness that Eade has often displayed that allows underperfoming senior players to coast and fails to reward the strong efforts of our young players at Williamstown.

Week in and week out, our team is built around a 'cautious approach'. If Eade and the match committee had shown the same steel that Collingwood does when they select their team, then some of yesterday's worst players wouldn't have been out on the ground to stink things up.

Football players must earn their spots in the seniors; it's not a divine right. They have to know that they are playing to hold their places in the team, but far too many of our players approach the game knowing that they'll be in the side next week and the week after that no matter what. Four bad performances in a row should be sufficient to have almost anyone being sent to Williamstown, but not here.

[The Coon Dog]

Whilst Eade is pondering the cautious behaviour that cost us yesterday; I hope he reflects on his own conservative approach earlier in the week when selecting the team.

The team we took into the game was a joke and many of us on WOOF said so on Friday when the final team was announced. This issue is bigger than just Everett's baffling ommission from the seniors; it is a fundamental weakness that Eade has often displayed that allows underperfoming senior players to coast and fails to reward the strong efforts of our young players at Williamstown.

Week in and week out, our team is built around a 'cautious approach'. If Eade and the match committee had shown the same steel that Collingwood does when they select their team, then some of yesterday's worst players wouldn't have been out on the ground to stink things up.

Football players must earn their spots in the seniors; it's not a divine right. They have to know that they are playing to hold their places in the team, but far too many of our players approach the game knowing that they'll be in the side next week and the week after that no matter what. Four bad performances in a row should be sufficient to have almost anyone being sent to Williamstown, but not here.

Name names!

[Mantis]

Name names!

'The Rocket' has named them in other threads - Stack, Eagleton, Hahn, Gia & Hill are the one's he is referring too.

It is hard not to disagree with him.

[Desipura]

How many chances do players get?
I hope that Hahn and the club come to an agreement that this should be his last year. Tell all the supporters and if the opportunity presents itself, give him one more game in the seniors. Ditto for Eagleton.
Sadly the game is getting quicker whilst Hahn is getting slower. There will not be too many occasions that he can play on someone as slow as him (L Brown). His opponent still had him covered for height.

Addison - I know he is a coaches favourite due to his willingness to put his head over the ball, this is not enough when you do not have the footy smarts to get the ball or prevent your opponent from getting it. Combined with his average ball skills especially under pressure, he will not be a long term AFL player.

Stack fumbles far too much and lacks intensity. His awareness is not the best at this stage. Apparently looks great on the training track with his skills, according to Chris Grant. Unfortunately the tempo at training is nothing like an AFL game.

Higgins needs a spell whether injured or not.

Gia - no more talk of him as captain. At best he is an opportunist forward who can occasionally pinch hit in the middle.

[Ozza]

I've always been a big fan of rocket - and still am. But he has had 2 shockers in a row with perplexing match ups and has taken too long to make moves IMO.

Davis always has a picnic against Harbrow and I can't believe he left Harbrow effectively at full back on Davis for the whole game.

Why would we have a player like Gia play a defensive forward game on Heath Shaw. I know Gia did a good job at limiting Shaw's influence - but Gia is a player we want to have the ball - and once we were getting smashed (particularly in the middle) we needed Gia's clean hands in there.

But the most frustrating part is how we had no forward structure at all for 3 quarters. If the ball was at a stoppage on Centre wing - we had nobody in our fwd line and Collingwood had at minimum - Davis and Cloke. And everytime we play like this we get smashed. Even at Centre bounces - all of our guys were lining at 45m out - with nobody starting deep. Everyone in the stadium can see that this lack of structure kills us - and yet it goes on for an hour and a half before anyone changes it.

Picking Eagleton and persisting with Hahn has been a disaster - admittedly Hahn went ok in the last quarter down back - but for 3 quarters he put in a disgraceful effort.

[Mofra]

Why would we have a player like Gia play a defensive forward game on Heath Shaw. I know Gia did a good job at limiting Shaw's influence - but Gia is a player we want to have the ball - and once we were getting smashed (particularly in the middle) we needed Gia's clean hands in there.
I agree here - Gia is one of our best ball users in heavy traffic, and in high pressure games ball use is one of the first things to suffer. Yes he played his role, but in the past he has been able to stand up for the team and I don't think he was given the opportunity to do so yesterday.

Stack's inability to actually pick up a ball was glaringly noticeable yesterday, ditto a lack of intensity and a propensity to pull out of contests. Needs a spell.

Mitch simply needs to find a role in the side. If he's not forward no 3, not a middle-bullocker and is a slow defender, is that enough for him to remain in the side?

Eagle did some nice things yesterday, but if he's rated no 19 or 20 in the side picked, would it be better to roll the dice with Easton Wood for the purpose of development? Would Easton really give us much less than Eagle? I'm not sure it's worth a 30+aged fringe player in his last season keeping a young guy out unless he's a bona fide gamebreaker, and I don't think Eagle can be that player in 2010.

Everitt needs to play senior football. Addison, Cross, Moles, Williams and Morris aren't going to hurt teams with their footskills; on that score Everitt offers something important to the side with his ball use.

[The Coon Dog]

'The Rocket' has named them in other threads - Stack, Eagleton, Hahn, Gia & Hill are the one's he is referring too.

It is hard not to disagree with him.

In that case, I agree with him.

Sorry Rocket, I wasn't aware you had named them in other threads & it is hard to remember who posts what in different threads.

[dogsman26]

Ok, I'm noticing a trend here about Hahn and Eagleton being attacked, which I don't disagree with at all but I think more criticism needs to be given to Cooney and sadly Daniel Cross. Saying that Cross tries is just rewarding mediocrity which we shouldn't do. At his best Cross is one of the premium midfielders in the comp but he is far from his best. People really should be bagging more of the bigger named players, they are the ones who should be leading right now. Boyd is always a workhorse, Hall is trying, Lake tries, everyone else inlcuding Cooney is a dud right now. Cooney's finishing has been pathetic for the last couple weeks and reiterates many people's beliefs he is a mediocre brownlow medallist.

[LostDoggy]

The most often occurence of a dressing down is due to players not following the coaches instructions. Should players be immune to 'sprays' if they do this?


I've promised myself not to post on the game this week as I don't trust myself and don't want to be misinterpreted/cause misunderstandings etc.

However, this is an interesting point you raise, Mantis, that I think deserves some analysis. I think we have to ask ourselves what the desired 'end' result is in choosing to 'spray' a player. Is it to let everyone know that they screwed up and to mete out justice for a mistake and take out your frustrations on the player? Or is it to get the player to perform the role that is required of them, to pull the finger out, etc.? This is an important distinction because the first one is about punishment, the second one is about education.

If we agree that education and improved performance is the desired result, there are several different ways to achieve this -- yes, a spray is ocassionally the right option and with certain players, but human beings all respond quite differently to different stimuli. However, in this day and age of erosion of 'heirarchical' attitudes, sprays are becoming less and less effective, and coaches have to change their communication styles. In the old days the coach was by default an authority figure to be respected. These days, your players are more like to see everyone as roughly 'equal' and the coach as only one cog in the wheel that has to earn respect rather than be blindly given it -- Malthouse suggested as much last week when he talked about not being responsible for motivating the players, saying that his role as coach was to analyse opposition teams, create a response, teach etc., while motivation was left to the leadership group and the individual player.

Also, Paul Roos yesterday gave an excellent example of how to treat your players when Adam Goodes screwed up badly in letting his direct opponent have an uncontested possession in the forward 50. He just quietly spoke to him AFTER the quarter time team meeting, but always very respectfully. Bomber Thompson did the same thing with Steve Johnson at three-quarter time last Friday, discussing his 'non-team behaviour' with a natural light-hearted and quiet dignity without drawing attention of the rest of the team to it, after the huddle had broken up. This got the message across without belittling the player in front of his peer group. Mature players, especially, seem to respond more to a respectful discussion than if you treat them like naughty children. In fact, players GROW in maturity as you treat them as mature adults who are able to make their own decisions.

Perhaps treating the players like kids also leads them to stop taking risks or responsibility for their own behaviour because they just don't want to mess up and get 'scolded'.

Rocket has always been lauded for his tactical acumen and creativity, but I think it would be fair to say, with his history in losing the board at Sydney, having to have his portfolio cut after 2007 due to his failure to communicate effectively with the football department, Aker getting off the leash regularly, the lack of real on-field leadership all through the list, and the extremely risk-averse team mentality (which ironically leads to more turnovers), communication and people skills aren't his natural strengths. He works very hard at this, and is a polished communicator (especially with the media), but probably isn't as intuitive in this area as some other coaches are.

The lack of on-field leadership, especially, I think, can be linked back to this issue. If Rocket sees himself as Top Dog and is a control freak, then he shouldn't be surprised that there will be no alpha males on the field. Bomber Thompson and Paul Roos (I think the best man managers in the game) have the absolute respect of their players behind closed doors, but they make their players the leaders on the field, which is also why their teams are chock-full of leaders on every line and at every age group (Brett Kirk, Adam Goodes, Hall, O'Keefe, Gablett, Ling, Chapman, Enright, Mackie, Scarlett, Bartel, Selwood, Mooney, etc. etc. etc.), while even our stand-in captain (Gia) doesn't look like a leader and our best players on every line (Lake, Boyd, Cooney, Murphy, Higgins etc.) are flighty and error prone. Coincidence? You might say that it's just luck, but Kirk and Goodes were not natural leaders when Roos took over that list, nor were Chapman, Harley, Ling or Gablett in their earlier days.

[Mantis]

^^^
A very thought provoking post Lantern, good job.

The balance between 'dressing players down' and 'pumping them up' is a very interesting subject matter. From what we see of Rocket on game day he is very passionate and seems to get emotionally involved in ways few coaches do. I guess he gets frustrated when players make errors with instructions they are expected to follow, which mainly occur due to lapses in concentration which in itself is poor. He does seem to let the emotion take over and gives more than the odd spray, but I do feel that he is quite good at 'geeing the players up' as well such that their confidence isn't too badly effected, but I guess you would need to ask the individual to find out for sure.

The on-field leadership issues never seem to go away from our club. We just don't seem to have every one pulling in the right direction this year and our performances are there for all to see. Injuries are hurting, but the lack of 'team play' is also killing us. All the messages that are coming out of the club seem to make us feel that the group is very tight and their is a great deal of modesty within the playing group, but at present we just aren't putting it together. Geelong players support each other and it seems that they have an extra player or 2 on the ground such is their link up play, but all they have is a desire to help out a team-mate when it's required... We don't have that at present.

No doubt Rocket faces a tough month ahead, he needs to lift the confidence of the group, make the tough (and correct) calls at the selection table and get us playing the type of footy we are capable of... It really seems that this next half a season will define his time with the Bulldogs, hopefully he is up for the challenge.

[The Pie Man]

-- Malthouse suggested as much last week when he talked about not being responsible for motivating the players, saying that his role as coach was to analyse opposition teams, create a response, teach etc., while motivation was left to the leadership group and the individual player.



No doubt Rocket faces a tough month ahead, he needs to lift the confidence of the group

I find the coaches role (and player leadership groups) in motivating players a really interesting point - one leadership training course I've been on suggested that trying to motivate people is a waste of time, and that the only person that can motivate you is yourself.

Team environments are a different beast to most - you hear people suggest some will 'walk taller' with Barry Hall in our forward line, like that will be a confindence boost.

[LostDoggy]

I find the coaches role (and player leadership groups) in motivating players a really interesting point - one leadership training course I've been on suggested that trying to motivate people is a waste of time, and that the only person that can motivate you is yourself.
Team environments are a different beast to most - you hear people suggest some will 'walk taller' with Barry Hall in our forward line, like that will be a confindence boost.

This is an interesting one -- I think a lot of the public's perception would have been warped by a million sports movies where the key moment is often the coach's magical pre-game or half-time address that mystically lifts everyone and the team comes back from the dead. I'm not saying that this can't happen, but motivational talks like this lose their power if used all the time.

The corollary to the 'only person that can motivate you is yourself' rule is that people are more influenced by their respected peers within the group (the 'real' leaders) than by an external authority figure. This is the theory behind the 'leadership group' model, but only works if the authority figure is willing to relinquish some (a lot) of responsibility and control to the group (and helps if there are strong/good/switched-on characters in the playing group). In my coaching days I've often asked my players/captains to run the game-day tactical talk, team talk etc. as this forces them to stop looking to me for answers or direction (which would have been drummed in ad nauseum via pre-season and training anyway), but to themselves and each other, and allows for a far more flexible and intuitive gamestyle which can adapt to situations on the fly and is very hard to counter when it clicks.

I think most teams have moved to to some model of player empowerment anyway, but there have been varying levels of success -- it comes more naturally to some players and coaches than others, and it's one of those things that can be awkward if it is seen as some externally imposed 'method' rather than a normal way of doing things.

[Rocco Jones]

Fantastic posting Lantern, could not agree with you more.

[LostDoggy]

'The Rocket' has named them in other threads - Stack, Eagleton, Hahn, Gia & Hill are the one's he is referring too.

It is hard not to disagree with him.


Cheers Mantis. But please don't forget Addison on the list. That guy's selection each week makes no sense to me whatsoever. He needs to head back to Williamstown to find some form.




Sorry Rocket, I wasn't aware you had named them in other threads & it is hard to remember who posts what in different threads.




No worries mate.

[LongWait]

..........

However, this is an interesting point you raise, Mantis, that I think deserves some analysis. I think we have to ask ourselves what the desired 'end' result is in choosing to 'spray' a player. Is it to let everyone know that they screwed up and to mete out justice for a mistake and take out your frustrations on the player? Or is it to get the player to perform the role that is required of them, to pull the finger out, etc.? This is an important distinction because the first one is about punishment, the second one is about education.........

In my experience leaders who are prone to give a public spray are usually doing so for entirely selfish reasons. It relieves their frustration and is an overt demonstration to others of their leadership and decisiveness. In reality, it is usually the refuge of those who don't know what to do next.

A public spray is to be used very, very, very sparingly in my view.

[LostDoggy]

Think Baz needs a break for himself and for the team. Try to regain how we used to play before Barry a little.

Absolutely. It can't hurt, anyway, and will only make us more unpredictable. I'm willing to weather another loss to see if this works.


Gia - no more talk of him as captain. At best he is an opportunist forward who can occasionally pinch hit in the middle.

Boyd should be the shoe-in.


I've always been a big fan of rocket - and still am. But he has had 2 shockers in a row with perplexing match ups and has taken too long to make moves IMO.

Davis always has a picnic against Harbrow and I can't believe he left Harbrow effectively at full back on Davis for the whole game.

Why would we have a player like Gia play a defensive forward game on Heath Shaw. I know Gia did a good job at limiting Shaw's influence - but Gia is a player we want to have the ball - and once we were getting smashed (particularly in the middle) we needed Gia's clean hands in there.

But the most frustrating part is how we had no forward structure at all for 3 quarters. If the ball was at a stoppage on Centre wing - we had nobody in our fwd line and Collingwood had at minimum - Davis and Cloke. And everytime we play like this we get smashed. Even at Centre bounces - all of our guys were lining at 45m out - with nobody starting deep. Everyone in the stadium can see that this lack of structure kills us - and yet it goes on for an hour and a half before anyone changes it.

Picking Eagleton and persisting with Hahn has been a disaster - admittedly Hahn went ok in the last quarter down back - but for 3 quarters he put in a disgraceful effort.


I've promised myself not to post on the game this week as I don't trust myself and don't want to be misinterpreted/cause misunderstandings etc.

However, this is an interesting point you raise, Mantis, that I think deserves some analysis. I think we have to ask ourselves what the desired 'end' result is in choosing to 'spray' a player. Is it to let everyone know that they screwed up and to mete out justice for a mistake and take out your frustrations on the player? Or is it to get the player to perform the role that is required of them, to pull the finger out, etc.? This is an important distinction because the first one is about punishment, the second one is about education.

If we agree that education and improved performance is the desired result, there are several different ways to achieve this -- yes, a spray is ocassionally the right option and with certain players, but human beings all respond quite differently to different stimuli. However, in this day and age of erosion of 'heirarchical' attitudes, sprays are becoming less and less effective, and coaches have to change their communication styles. In the old days the coach was by default an authority figure to be respected. These days, your players are more like to see everyone as roughly 'equal' and the coach as only one cog in the wheel that has to earn respect rather than be blindly given it -- Malthouse suggested as much last week when he talked about not being responsible for motivating the players, saying that his role as coach was to analyse opposition teams, create a response, teach etc., while motivation was left to the leadership group and the individual player.

Also, Paul Roos yesterday gave an excellent example of how to treat your players when Adam Goodes screwed up badly in letting his direct opponent have an uncontested possession in the forward 50. He just quietly spoke to him AFTER the quarter time team meeting, but always very respectfully. Bomber Thompson did the same thing with Steve Johnson at three-quarter time last Friday, discussing his 'non-team behaviour' with a natural light-hearted and quiet dignity without drawing attention of the rest of the team to it, after the huddle had broken up. This got the message across without belittling the player in front of his peer group. Mature players, especially, seem to respond more to a respectful discussion than if you treat them like naughty children. In fact, players GROW in maturity as you treat them as mature adults who are able to make their own decisions.

Perhaps treating the players like kids also leads them to stop taking risks or responsibility for their own behaviour because they just don't want to mess up and get 'scolded'.

Rocket has always been lauded for his tactical acumen and creativity, but I think it would be fair to say, with his history in losing the board at Sydney, having to have his portfolio cut after 2007 due to his failure to communicate effectively with the football department, Aker getting off the leash regularly, the lack of real on-field leadership all through the list, and the extremely risk-averse team mentality (which ironically leads to more turnovers), communication and people skills aren't his natural strengths. He works very hard at this, and is a polished communicator (especially with the media), but probably isn't as intuitive in this area as some other coaches are.

The lack of on-field leadership, especially, I think, can be linked back to this issue. If Rocket sees himself as Top Dog and is a control freak, then he shouldn't be surprised that there will be no alpha males on the field. Bomber Thompson and Paul Roos (I think the best man managers in the game) have the absolute respect of their players behind closed doors, but they make their players the leaders on the field, which is also why their teams are chock-full of leaders on every line and at every age group (Brett Kirk, Adam Goodes, Hall, O'Keefe, Gablett, Ling, Chapman, Enright, Mackie, Scarlett, Bartel, Selwood, Mooney, etc. etc. etc.), while even our stand-in captain (Gia) doesn't look like a leader and our best players on every line (Lake, Boyd, Cooney, Murphy, Higgins etc.) are flighty and error prone. Coincidence? You might say that it's just luck, but Kirk and Goodes were not natural leaders when Roos took over that list, nor were Chapman, Harley, Ling or Gablett in their earlier days.


This is an interesting one -- I think a lot of the public's perception would have been warped by a million sports movies where the key moment is often the coach's magical pre-game or half-time address that mystically lifts everyone and the team comes back from the dead. I'm not saying that this can't happen, but motivational talks like this lose their power if used all the time.

The corollary to the 'only person that can motivate you is yourself' rule is that people are more influenced by their respected peers within the group (the 'real' leaders) than by an external authority figure. This is the theory behind the 'leadership group' model, but only works if the authority figure is willing to relinquish some (a lot) of responsibility and control to the group (and helps if there are strong/good/switched-on characters in the playing group). In my coaching days I've often asked my players/captains to run the game-day tactical talk, team talk etc. as this forces them to stop looking to me for answers or direction (which would have been drummed in ad nauseum via pre-season and training anyway), but to themselves and each other, and allows for a far more flexible and intuitive gamestyle which can adapt to situations on the fly and is very hard to counter when it clicks.

I think most teams have moved to to some model of player empowerment anyway, but there have been varying levels of success -- it comes more naturally to some players and coaches than others, and it's one of those things that can be awkward if it is seen as some externally imposed 'method' rather than a normal way of doing things.

These three posts are fantastic posts guys, well done. I might be biased though, because I've been saying it for a few weeks now — it seems to me that Rocket has lost the playing group. Ask yourself what is the differentiator between teams like Geelong, Sydney, etc and the rest? Leadership groups. And the difference is their leadership group wields real power. They decide on player indiscretions, and they lead ON THE FIELD. They are the blokes you look to when you're 50 points down. Goodes is the epitome of a leader, he was awe-inspiring against us in Canberra and reminded me yet again why he won the Brownlow twice.

With command comes total responsibility for all those under your command, whether it be your direct fault or not. Rocket must take a good hard look inside himself.

[Mantis]

Absolutely. It can't hurt, anyway, and will only make us more unpredictable. I'm willing to weather another loss to see if this works.

Our only forward who looks like winning a contest is Hall. If you take him out we will have no-one. With the mid-season break just 2 weeks away I can't see the point.


Boyd should be the shoe-in.

On what basis? He can't be through his ability to lift his team because if that was the case he might pick a man up.


These three posts are fantastic posts guys, well done. I might be biased though, because I've been saying it for a few weeks now — it seems to me that Rocket has lost the playing group. Ask yourself what is the differentiator between teams like Geelong, Sydney, etc and the rest? Leadership groups. And the difference is their leadership group wields real power. They decide on player indiscretions, and they lead ON THE FIELD. They are the blokes you look to when you're 50 points down. Goodes is the epitome of a leader, he was awe-inspiring against us in Canberra and reminded me yet again why he won the Brownlow twice.

With command comes total responsibility for all those under your command, whether it be your direct fault or not. Rocket must take a good hard look inside himself.

First you say Rocket has lost the players, which would mean the players would be playing in spite of him, but then go on to put the blame on our leadership group (which is selected by the players).... Which is it?

[LostDoggy]

How did we score last year?

[Scorlibo]

Gia - no more talk of him as captain. At best he is an opportunist forward who can occasionally pinch hit in the middle.

Gia was in very good form not so long ago, of late he has been targeted by the opposition because they recognise how important he is to our forward thrusts. He has been the best score assist player in the AFL for about 5 years now.

[Mantis]

Gia was in very good form not so long ago, of late he has been targeted by the opposition because they recognise how important he is to our forward thrusts. He has been the best score assist player in the AFL for about 5 years now.

Very good players get targetted every week and they still find a way to have an influence.

[Rocco Jones]

Very good players get targetted every week and they still find a way to have an influence.

True. Gian is a good player. Nothing more, nothing less.

[LostDoggy]

Ok, I'm noticing a trend here about Hahn and Eagleton being attacked, which I don't disagree with at all but I think more criticism needs to be given to Cooney and sadly Daniel Cross. Saying that Cross tries is just rewarding mediocrity which we shouldn't do. At his best Cross is one of the premium midfielders in the comp but he is far from his best. People really should be bagging more of the bigger named players, they are the ones who should be leading right now. Boyd is always a workhorse, Hall is trying, Lake tries, everyone else inlcuding Cooney is a dud right now. Cooney's finishing has been pathetic for the last couple weeks and reiterates many people's beliefs he is a mediocre brownlow medallist.


Firstly, let me say I am a massive Boyd/Cross fan.
But Boydy has been shocking the last couple of weeks, by his standards anyhow.
Far too many mistakes.
Like you alluded to with Cross, he tries hard sure, but if I see another 1 metre handball to someone who is covered (I mean obviously, because IF YOU ARE HANDBALLING YOU ARE UNDER PRESSURE AND 1 METRE IS NOT A DISTANCE THAT WILL DO ANYTHING TO REDUCE THAT PRESSURE!) **** **** ****!

I just checked his skill error stats, ranking 3rd in the league at present.
That's a lot of mistakes.

[Sockeye Salmon]

IF YOU ARE HANDBALLING YOU ARE UNDER PRESSURE AND 1 METRE IS NOT A DISTANCE THAT WILL DO ANYTHING TO REDUCE THAT PRESSURE!) **** **** ****!


There's a team based a bit further down Geelong Rd that you need to go and check out.

If a Geelong player is under pressure he handballs immediately to another guy whether that teammate is under pressure or not. If he is, he handballs immediately to someone else, whether that guy is under pressure or not. And so on until someone gets the thing who isn't under pressure and then they go like blazes.

They simply don't care about the pressure. They just back themselves in that their ball handling will be certain and they will have the extra number at every contest.

[LostDoggy]

There's a team based a bit further down Geelong Rd that you need to go and check out.

If a Geelong player is under pressure he handballs immediately to another guy whether that teammate is under pressure or not. If he is, he handballs immediately to someone else, whether that guy is under pressure or not. And so on until someone gets the thing who isn't under pressure and then they go like blazes.

They simply don't care about the pressure. They just back themselves in that their ball handling will be certain and they will have the extra number at every contest.

Agreed, the difference is the recipient is moving, (aka running), and ready to receive it.
Normally, watching Geelong, you'll see that there are several people 'moving'.
Dogs, take note.
It's not science.

[LostDoggy]

I might add that the handballs from Geelong hit their target too.
That helps.

[LostDoggy]

We are handballing more like Adeliade then we are Geelong