For what it's worth
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- magnifisaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8039
- Joined: Sun 02 May 2004 2:52am
- Has thanked: 223 times
- Been thanked: 596 times
Re: For what it's worth
Tony you need to talk to Richo and tell him that Sainsational is working itself into a lather over the non selection of Acres. I'm presuming he's going to WA even if it's just visiting his folks.
Posting 20 years of holey crap!
Re: For what it's worth
Tony spoke about how hard it is tactically with new coaches. But there is also that thing where players will often play out of the skin in the first few handful of games under a new coach. It very energising and even scary to have a new coach who you don't know which are the favs are which aren't and suddenly everyone is in the mix and doing everything they can to be noticed. Whether D's can sustain that level this year is a huge question once Goodwins golden glow wears off.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3856
- Joined: Fri 16 Sep 2011 2:41pm
- Has thanked: 419 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Re: For what it's worth
There is something in this. Brisbane and Essendon (for the returning injectors) also give this some credence. It will be interesting to see how they all pan out over the longer haul.Bluthy wrote:Tony spoke about how hard it is tactically with new coaches. But there is also that thing where players will often play out of the skin in the first few handful of games under a new coach. It very energising and even scary to have a new coach who you don't know which are the favs are which aren't and suddenly everyone is in the mix and doing everything they can to be noticed. Whether D's can sustain that level this year is a huge question once Goodwins golden glow wears off.
But also waiting for the replay on 360 to see if Richo's come up with anything concrete (and shareable) in the last 48 hours ...
Always loyal
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6072
- Joined: Sat 12 Sep 2015 1:03pm
- Has thanked: 336 times
- Been thanked: 1557 times
Re: For what it's worth
Being fit enough is one thing. Only being effective 50% of the time you get the ball is another. Basing your strategy on pressure and gut running at all cost is crap.tony74 wrote:No we're fit enough. Just think the build up etc might have got to them. It looked like we had played the game before we ran out. I can assure you we are fit.dragit wrote:Yes, this is the only really worrying thing I have read about the game…Jacks Back wrote:Houston, we have a problem!tony74 wrote: To answer other queries we have basically no idea why we run out of puff,
We have no idea why we weren't fit enough to run out the game in round 1?
Too many hand balls, too many chip passes, too many players running hard to nowhere, to get nothing possession that 30-40% of the time end in stoppages and turnover.
I cant imagine how it feels to lead up endlessly and have the ball chipped around, sent sideways, backwards, overpossessed and then kicked to packs, over your head or just thumped clear and wide.
It is mentally exhausting just watching it.
We have young guys with pace, skill and the ability to improve. Play them and dont reward guys who try hard but lack skill or have the attributes you want in a leader but no idea how to create play. Pleeaasse!!!!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6594
- Joined: Sat 11 Jun 2011 4:52pm
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 1292 times
- Been thanked: 465 times
Re: For what it's worth
As I pointed out in the game thread we came out way too late to warm up properly as I reckon they thought it was a 4.40 start instead of a 4.35 start. This was mentioned on 360 tonight. We were just about to line up and do those little sprint things but before they could do that they had to go to their positions.SemperFidelis wrote:There is something in this. Brisbane and Essendon (for the returning injectors) also give this some credence. It will be interesting to see how they all pan out over the longer haul.Bluthy wrote:Tony spoke about how hard it is tactically with new coaches. But there is also that thing where players will often play out of the skin in the first few handful of games under a new coach. It very energising and even scary to have a new coach who you don't know which are the favs are which aren't and suddenly everyone is in the mix and doing everything they can to be noticed. Whether D's can sustain that level this year is a huge question once Goodwins golden glow wears off.
But also waiting for the replay on 360 to see if Richo's come up with anything concrete (and shareable) in the last 48 hours ...
Having said that we came out all guns blazing in the first quarter.
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
As ex-president Peter Summers said:
“If we are going to be a contender, we may as well plan to win the bloody thing.”
St Kilda - At least we have a Crest!
“If we are going to be a contender, we may as well plan to win the bloody thing.”
St Kilda - At least we have a Crest!
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Re: For what it's worth
I'd buy into that if the Dee's were absolutely stunning, but they were just 'good', and we were putrid. If it wasn't for the first quarter I'd have thought the 30 point defeat flattered us.Bluthy wrote:Tony spoke about how hard it is tactically with new coaches. But there is also that thing where players will often play out of the skin in the first few handful of games under a new coach. It very energising and even scary to have a new coach who you don't know which are the favs are which aren't and suddenly everyone is in the mix and doing everything they can to be noticed. Whether D's can sustain that level this year is a huge question once Goodwins golden glow wears off.
- White Winmar
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5014
- Joined: Tue 02 Jun 2009 10:02pm
Re: For what it's worth
Goodwin's hardly a first time coach. He's had his hands on the reins since early in the 2016 season with Roos merely "supervising". He's been part of the succession plan for years and has had a number of turns coaching on match days. I doubt the players were out to impress him as though it was his first day on the job. As for not knowing about the new coach's tactics, I call shenanigans. In this modern age of television, video recording, spies at training and exposure in three preseason games isn't enough to give you an idea about the way the guy coaches, then we're screwed. We were outplayed, out thought and out coached. Simple. I doubt there was much of an element of surprise in this. When we were tested, we failed to respond.
I started with nothing and I've got most of it left!
- samuraisaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5910
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2011 3:23pm
- Location: M32
- Has thanked: 855 times
- Been thanked: 797 times
Re: For what it's worth
They were due to beat us - we can't be ungracious about this. They were better than us on the day and were 'on'. Let's see where we both sit in round 21. They have had a decade and a bit of top ten draft picks, and after Gold Coast and the Giants have stockpiled the third most top end talent.
I have seen us come out round 1 and play a blinder and finish bottom three or four, and then again I have seen us come out and win our first 10 and 19 games, and finish top four. There is no hard and fast rule about the portent of round 1 results.
Melbourne in the past 2 years have won games we wouldn't be able to win - Geelong at Geelong easily, Hawthorn at the G easily, and a close one against Collingwood at the G in a blockbuster on the Queens Birthday - and yet lose to the likes of us, Carlton, and a VFL strength Essendon.
What is more important now is how the team respond - we have to come out all guns blazing against the Eagles in Perth - because if we get another hiding like last year over there thee pressure really will be on. I think the loss to Melbourne was a good wake up call to the team and to us. I didn't expect us to play finals this year, and still don't. We need to get more games into McCartin and continue to develop players like Billings and Goddard, who are the future of the team, and start to reduce our reliance on Montagna, Riewoldt and Dempster. We desperately require an elite outside midfielder and our backline needs games together to gel.
I have seen us come out round 1 and play a blinder and finish bottom three or four, and then again I have seen us come out and win our first 10 and 19 games, and finish top four. There is no hard and fast rule about the portent of round 1 results.
Melbourne in the past 2 years have won games we wouldn't be able to win - Geelong at Geelong easily, Hawthorn at the G easily, and a close one against Collingwood at the G in a blockbuster on the Queens Birthday - and yet lose to the likes of us, Carlton, and a VFL strength Essendon.
What is more important now is how the team respond - we have to come out all guns blazing against the Eagles in Perth - because if we get another hiding like last year over there thee pressure really will be on. I think the loss to Melbourne was a good wake up call to the team and to us. I didn't expect us to play finals this year, and still don't. We need to get more games into McCartin and continue to develop players like Billings and Goddard, who are the future of the team, and start to reduce our reliance on Montagna, Riewoldt and Dempster. We desperately require an elite outside midfielder and our backline needs games together to gel.
Your friendly neighbourhood samurai.
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Re: For what it's worth
Totally agree...if Tony's points are the genuine consensus at the club then we're as one dimensional a sporting clubs as has ever existed.White Winmar wrote:I doubt there was much of an element of surprise in this. When we were tested, we failed to respond.
- saintsRrising
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 30091
- Joined: Mon 15 Mar 2004 11:07am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 711 times
- Been thanked: 1233 times
Re: For what it's worth
degruch wrote:Totally agree...if Tony's points are the genuine consensus at the club then we're as one dimensional a sporting clubs as has ever existed.White Winmar wrote:I doubt there was much of an element of surprise in this. When we were tested, we failed to respond.
Exactly, it did not take an Einstein to have realised in advance of the game that Gawn was most likely to win the HOs by a fair margin (though it turned out to be by a huge margin). So where were the set plays for the this? The Cats planned for Sandilands. The Saints seemingly thought that Gawn did not exist and took an ostrich approach instead!
Flying the World in comfort thanks to FF Points....
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23051
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
- Has thanked: 8972 times
- Been thanked: 3902 times
Re: For what it's worth
samuraisaint wrote:They were due to beat us - we can't be ungracious about this. They were better than us on the day and were 'on'. Let's see where we both sit in round 21. They have had a decade and a bit of top ten draft picks, and after Gold Coast and the Giants have stockpiled the third most top end talent.
I have seen us come out round 1 and play a blinder and finish bottom three or four, and then again I have seen us come out and win our first 10 and 19 games, and finish top four. There is no hard and fast rule about the portent of round 1 results.
Melbourne in the past 2 years have won games we wouldn't be able to win - Geelong at Geelong easily, Hawthorn at the G easily, and a close one against Collingwood at the G in a blockbuster on the Queens Birthday - and yet lose to the likes of us, Carlton, and a VFL strength Essendon.
What is more important now is how the team respond - we have to come out all guns blazing against the Eagles in Perth - because if we get another hiding like last year over there thee pressure really will be on. I think the loss to Melbourne was a good wake up call to the team and to us. I didn't expect us to play finals this year, and still don't. We need to get more games into McCartin and continue to develop players like Billings and Goddard, who are the future of the team, and start to reduce our reliance on Montagna, Riewoldt and Dempster. We desperately require an elite outside midfielder and our backline needs games together to gel.
Hmm.
I know, if my aunt had balls she would have been my uncle, but take away two atrocious tackles that resulted in dee goals and add some straight kicking for goal from Mav and Gresham and we win.
Last edited by saynta on Tue 28 Mar 2017 5:46pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9100
- Joined: Wed 29 Jun 2005 10:39pm
- Location: A distant beach
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 434 times
Re: For what it's worth
Well if I was director of coaching, I would issue AR with a big kick up the bum after the debacle against the Demons. It's almost like everything was on auto-pilot.
Re: For what it's worth
It is great to get Tony's reports as we find some stuff out, because he's ITK but sugar coated is generous description when reading his reports.... most of it is PR stuff.
Appreciate though, I just translate it a bit... otherwise I'd be queuing up for finals tickets already
Appreciate though, I just translate it a bit... otherwise I'd be queuing up for finals tickets already
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 675
- Joined: Tue 15 Mar 2016 7:03pm
- Has thanked: 85 times
- Been thanked: 136 times
Re: For what it's worth
I've always thought Richo lacks tactical nouse. His whole coaching philosophy is based around 'effort'. Well that only takes you so far if the opposition are also giving maximum 'effort' with a superior game plan & superior match day coach.
Re: For what it's worth
Myron Gaines wrote:I've always thought Richo lacks tactical nouse. His whole coaching philosophy is based around 'effort'. Well that only takes you so far if the opposition are also giving maximum 'effort' with a superior game plan & superior match day coach.
![Image](https://img.memesuper.com/2ac36806d7be83774c25faee9ead72cb_yes-yes-join-me-emperor-join-me-memes_400-400.jpeg)
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 675
- Joined: Tue 15 Mar 2016 7:03pm
- Has thanked: 85 times
- Been thanked: 136 times
Re: For what it's worth
What's that mean bluth dawg? Over my head with that pic.
Last edited by Myron Gaines on Fri 10 Aug 2018 8:42pm, edited 1 time in total.
- desertsaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10423
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 2:02pm
- Location: out there
- Has thanked: 187 times
- Been thanked: 705 times
Re: For what it's worth
haha. you're closer to the truth than bluth expected.Myron Gaines wrote:What's that mean bluth dawg? Over my head with that pic of some meth head
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
Re: For what it's worth
Just that there are quite a few of now "turning to the dark side" with our worries about Mr A Richardson tactically. Unless you totally screw it up ala Melbourne, you should be able to guide a bunch of talented, high pick kids combined with some senior talent to mid-table with some solid development. It's another thing to show you have the game plan, tactics, clever structures and match day moves that will give you an advantage over the top 8 teams where the big boys strut their stuff.Myron Gaines wrote:What's that mean bluth dawg? Over my head with that pic of some meth head
Nothing is particularity popping out for me with Richo's game plan beside effort and pressure like you say. When we are on we can move it quickly with players giving each other good support to get those rapid chains of movement going. The inability to stop momentum from the other team and shut things down is a worry for mine. But he deserves a chance for his really talented kids to ripen fully to see exactly what he is implementing. Shame he's not using more of them *cough* Acres *cough* White *cough* Schneider off the rookie list - WTF? *cough*
- Johnny Member
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4157
- Joined: Thu 05 Oct 2006 12:27pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: For what it's worth
Bluthy wrote:Just that there are quite a few of now "turning to the dark side" with our worries about Mr A Richardson tactically. Unless you totally screw it up ala Melbourne, you should be able to guide a bunch of talented, high pick kids combined with some senior talent to mid-table with some solid development. It's another thing to show you have the game plan, tactics, clever structures and match day moves that will give you an advantage over the top 8 teams where the big boys strut their stuff.Myron Gaines wrote:What's that mean bluth dawg? Over my head with that pic of some meth head
Nothing is particularity popping out for me with Richo's game plan beside effort and pressure like you say. When we are on we can move it quickly with players giving each other good support to get those rapid chains of movement going. The inability to stop momentum from the other team and shut things down is a worry for mine. But he deserves a chance for his really talented kids to ripen fully to see exactly what he is implementing. Shame he's not using more of them *cough* Acres *cough* White *cough* Schneider off the rookie list - WTF? *cough*
I think anyone who tries to make any definitive judgement on Richardson as a coach at this stage, is silly.
Coaches have two objectives:
1) To have a plan that will win a flag
2) To get his players to carry out the plan
The end result, is not up to the coach ultimately. It's the biggest myth in sport that a coach should be judged by results.
If the result is impacted negatively by his plan - then yes, it's his fault.
If the result is impacted negatively by his players not carrying out his plan - then yes, it's his fault.
But there are many other factors that influence results that a coach has no or little direct input into. The fitness of his players is one. The actual list of players he has at his disposal is another and the most critical.
This will vary from club to club in terms of how much input the coach has in these areas, particularly in regards to the list.
In Richardson's case - it's virtually impossible to tell if he has a plan that will win a flag. He's clearly focusing heavily on 'pressure' and 'intensity' and being 'strong' at contests - but so are all coaches. He's also clearly focussed on an '18 man defence' like just about all coaches are now. He's big on moving the ball fast.
Luke Beveridge isn't a strategic genius. He approaches his coaching from a similar angle. A former colleague of mine was an assistant at the Dogs, and told me that there is no 'game plan' as such down there. They have an 18 man defence, where each player is responsible for a piece of the ground when the team is defending. They back themselves and their teammates to win contests, and as a result react quicker then their opponents. They focus on quick handball to get the ball out of congestion, to hard runners on the outside who are already prepared for their mate to win the contest and then they attack.
The key is, for them as a team, to identify very quickly the moment when to attack, and when to defend. If one bloke doesn't get it right, they get cut open.
It's not rocket science.
The 'game plan' is good enough to win a flag. And Beveridge clearly was able to get his players to do it precisely. Great coaching. The question is, could Beveridge have got an inferior group of players, either in terms of talent or maturity, to carry out his plan?
No. In my opinion, it's a definitive no.
The same as Hawthorn couldn't carry out Clarkson's plan precisely for 4 years before they matured, and they unearthed champions - and the same as they couldn't do it last week when they're not the list they used to be.
So my point is, how can we assess whether Richardson's plan is any good, if he doesn't have the quality of player to carry it out properly? How can even tell what his plan is, if we don't see it regularly and carried out with precision?
The jury is out for mine as to whether Richardson is a good manager that can get guys to carry out a plan, but doesn't have a great plan - or is a really good coach. I'm not sure.
But until we have some genuine cattle at his disposal, I don't think it's possible to make a judgement.
- Con Gorozidis
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23532
- Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008 4:04pm
- Has thanked: 100 times
- Been thanked: 78 times
Re: For what it's worth
Acres fan this morningmagnifisaint wrote:Tony you need to talk to Richo and tell him that Sainsational is working itself into a lather over the non selection of Acres. I'm presuming he's going to WA even if it's just visiting his folks.
![Image](http://silkthermalimaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/shampoo.jpg)
Re: For what it's worth
I certainly haven't made any definitive statements on Mr A Richardson - just noted some of my worries about what I've seen of his coaching style and game plan. He's in what his 4th year. This is very much his team now and he's got to take responsibility for its shape.. He's brought in guys like Brown and Stevens that some would see as list cloggers. Obviously played a big role in trading out our pick 5 for Carlisle who we lost a year of footy in bonding with the backline, won't get back to full AFL fitness and touch until at least a third through this year, and has multiple injury concerns and is now in his peak and we are struggling to even make finals. He's pumped huge number of games into money-ball types Savage, Weller, Robbo etc that the jury is out on their long term, premiership winning ability . He took Schneider off the rookie list after Pelchen got shoved out the door instead of pumping games into some young players. He's had some bad injury luck with Paddy & Goddard who he probably though would be his young bookends by this stage. But this is very much the cattle he's developed.Johnny Member wrote:Bluthy wrote:Just that there are quite a few of now "turning to the dark side" with our worries about Mr A Richardson tactically. Unless you totally screw it up ala Melbourne, you should be able to guide a bunch of talented, high pick kids combined with some senior talent to mid-table with some solid development. It's another thing to show you have the game plan, tactics, clever structures and match day moves that will give you an advantage over the top 8 teams where the big boys strut their stuff.Myron Gaines wrote:What's that mean bluth dawg? Over my head with that pic of some meth head
Nothing is particularity popping out for me with Richo's game plan beside effort and pressure like you say. When we are on we can move it quickly with players giving each other good support to get those rapid chains of movement going. The inability to stop momentum from the other team and shut things down is a worry for mine. But he deserves a chance for his really talented kids to ripen fully to see exactly what he is implementing. Shame he's not using more of them *cough* Acres *cough* White *cough* Schneider off the rookie list - WTF? *cough*
I think anyone who tries to make any definitive judgement on Richardson as a coach at this stage, is silly.
Coaches have two objectives:
1) To have a plan that will win a flag
2) To get his players to carry out the plan
The end result, is not up to the coach ultimately. It's the biggest myth in sport that a coach should be judged by results.
If the result is impacted negatively by his plan - then yes, it's his fault.
If the result is impacted negatively by his players not carrying out his plan - then yes, it's his fault.
But there are many other factors that influence results that a coach has no or little direct input into. The fitness of his players is one. The actual list of players he has at his disposal is another and the most critical.
This will vary from club to club in terms of how much input the coach has in these areas, particularly in regards to the list.
In Richardson's case - it's virtually impossible to tell if he has a plan that will win a flag. He's clearly focusing heavily on 'pressure' and 'intensity' and being 'strong' at contests - but so are all coaches. He's also clearly focussed on an '18 man defence' like just about all coaches are now. He's big on moving the ball fast.
Luke Beveridge isn't a strategic genius. He approaches his coaching from a similar angle. A former colleague of mine was an assistant at the Dogs, and told me that there is no 'game plan' as such down there. They have an 18 man defence, where each player is responsible for a piece of the ground when the team is defending. They back themselves and their teammates to win contests, and as a result react quicker then their opponents. They focus on quick handball to get the ball out of congestion, to hard runners on the outside who are already prepared for their mate to win the contest and then they attack.
The key is, for them as a team, to identify very quickly the moment when to attack, and when to defend. If one bloke doesn't get it right, they get cut open.
It's not rocket science.
The 'game plan' is good enough to win a flag. And Beveridge clearly was able to get his players to do it precisely. Great coaching. The question is, could Beveridge have got an inferior group of players, either in terms of talent or maturity, to carry out his plan?
No. In my opinion, it's a definitive no.
The same as Hawthorn couldn't carry out Clarkson's plan precisely for 4 years before they matured, and they unearthed champions - and the same as they couldn't do it last week when they're not the list they used to be.
So my point is, how can we assess whether Richardson's plan is any good, if he doesn't have the quality of player to carry it out properly? How can even tell what his plan is, if we don't see it regularly and carried out with precision?
The jury is out for mine as to whether Richardson is a good manager that can get guys to carry out a plan, but doesn't have a great plan - or is a really good coach. I'm not sure.
But until we have some genuine cattle at his disposal, I don't think it's possible to make a judgement.
What you spoke about with Bevo is exactly the sort of things I wonder about with Richo and his game plan. Is it going to be effective and innovative enough in the long run? What flashes of innovation is he showing? Is he learning from bad losses? Beveridge would have learned a hella lot from when we came back from 50pts down. He tightened up his fall back of flooding the half-back line when getting over-run. Worked brilliantly against GWS in the prelim. That is a smart, evolvoing coach. s*** happens in footy. But you don't want he same s*** happening again and again. I don't want to see us constantly having momentum against us and not being able to stop the flood. One game this year - ok s*** happens. Don't want to see it again next week. What are his control mechanisms to shut things down and make it a more neutral situation for a while until we can get on the front foot again.
YOu think the club won't be applying this analysis to Richo at this stage? Rubbish, of course they will. 4 years is a long time in footy - just ask Scott Watters. You want a club hierarchy that is constantly wondering if we have the right guy, (whilst simultaneously publicly pronouncing we do to support him). Look at the what the wrong coach can do at Gold Coast.
Richo also played a big role in the club strategy of not staying down long and bouncing back up keeping older players like Schneider and using the money-ball types where the ceiling was questionable. He constantly spoke of wanting to create a winning culture. For my mind he should have pumped more games into the talented, but more risky young guys which would have kept us down longer and got us a genuine class onballer in particular you can build a midfield around. Can't whinge about not having the developed young talent if he played a big part in that approach and took Schneider off the rookie list and pumped games into an erratic 33 yo.
- Johnny Member
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4157
- Joined: Thu 05 Oct 2006 12:27pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: For what it's worth
Bluthy wrote:
Richo also played a big role in the club strategy of not staying down long and bouncing back up keeping older players like Schneider and using the money-ball types where the ceiling was questionable. He constantly spoke of wanting to create a winning culture. For my mind he should have pumped more games into the talented, but more risky young guys which would have kept us down longer and got us a genuine class onballer in particular you can build a midfield around. Can't whinge about not having the developed young talent if he played a big part in that approach and took Schneider off the rookie list and pumped games into an erratic 33 yo.
?
The club announced it's blueprint for success in March 2014, and Richardson had only been hired 3 months earlier. Pelchen masterminded the blueprint, and Richardson was literally told what he was expected to achieve in terms of results - and the time frame in which he was expected to do it.
- WellardSaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8310
- Joined: Sat 26 May 2012 11:25am
- Location: Perth- the best weather in Oz, but the worst rednecks.
- Has thanked: 1876 times
- Been thanked: 874 times
Re: For what it's worth
do the right thing, Con, and confirm the pic was taken by the club's conditioning coachCon Gorozidis wrote:Acres fan this morningmagnifisaint wrote:Tony you need to talk to Richo and tell him that Sainsational is working itself into a lather over the non selection of Acres. I'm presuming he's going to WA even if it's just visiting his folks.
![Mr. Green :mrgreen:](./images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
A real Sainter will pledge allegiance to the ❤![🤍](//cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/twitter/twemoji@latest/assets/svg/1f90d.svg)
and despise the Pies, the Blues, and the Injectors.
Remember one of the 10 Commandments : Thou shalt have no other team before thee
Remember one of the 10 Commandments : Thou shalt have no other team before thee
- barneyboyz
- Club Player
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: Thu 08 Mar 2007 10:13pm
- Has thanked: 177 times
- Been thanked: 123 times
Re: For what it's worth
I know that I don't write much here and therefore may not have much credibility, but this, in my opinion is one of the best and most balanced opinions I have read this week.Johnny Member wrote:Bluthy wrote:Just that there are quite a few of now "turning to the dark side" with our worries about Mr A Richardson tactically. Unless you totally screw it up ala Melbourne, you should be able to guide a bunch of talented, high pick kids combined with some senior talent to mid-table with some solid development. It's another thing to show you have the game plan, tactics, clever structures and match day moves that will give you an advantage over the top 8 teams where the big boys strut their stuff.Myron Gaines wrote:What's that mean bluth dawg? Over my head with that pic of some meth head
Nothing is particularity popping out for me with Richo's game plan beside effort and pressure like you say. When we are on we can move it quickly with players giving each other good support to get those rapid chains of movement going. The inability to stop momentum from the other team and shut things down is a worry for mine. But he deserves a chance for his really talented kids to ripen fully to see exactly what he is implementing. Shame he's not using more of them *cough* Acres *cough* White *cough* Schneider off the rookie list - WTF? *cough*
I think anyone who tries to make any definitive judgement on Richardson as a coach at this stage, is silly.
Coaches have two objectives:
1) To have a plan that will win a flag
2) To get his players to carry out the plan
The end result, is not up to the coach ultimately. It's the biggest myth in sport that a coach should be judged by results.
If the result is impacted negatively by his plan - then yes, it's his fault.
If the result is impacted negatively by his players not carrying out his plan - then yes, it's his fault.
But there are many other factors that influence results that a coach has no or little direct input into. The fitness of his players is one. The actual list of players he has at his disposal is another and the most critical.
This will vary from club to club in terms of how much input the coach has in these areas, particularly in regards to the list.
In Richardson's case - it's virtually impossible to tell if he has a plan that will win a flag. He's clearly focusing heavily on 'pressure' and 'intensity' and being 'strong' at contests - but so are all coaches. He's also clearly focussed on an '18 man defence' like just about all coaches are now. He's big on moving the ball fast.
Luke Beveridge isn't a strategic genius. He approaches his coaching from a similar angle. A former colleague of mine was an assistant at the Dogs, and told me that there is no 'game plan' as such down there. They have an 18 man defence, where each player is responsible for a piece of the ground when the team is defending. They back themselves and their teammates to win contests, and as a result react quicker then their opponents. They focus on quick handball to get the ball out of congestion, to hard runners on the outside who are already prepared for their mate to win the contest and then they attack.
The key is, for them as a team, to identify very quickly the moment when to attack, and when to defend. If one bloke doesn't get it right, they get cut open.
It's not rocket science.
The 'game plan' is good enough to win a flag. And Beveridge clearly was able to get his players to do it precisely. Great coaching. The question is, could Beveridge have got an inferior group of players, either in terms of talent or maturity, to carry out his plan?
No. In my opinion, it's a definitive no.
The same as Hawthorn couldn't carry out Clarkson's plan precisely for 4 years before they matured, and they unearthed champions - and the same as they couldn't do it last week when they're not the list they used to be.
So my point is, how can we assess whether Richardson's plan is any good, if he doesn't have the quality of player to carry it out properly? How can even tell what his plan is, if we don't see it regularly and carried out with precision?
The jury is out for mine as to whether Richardson is a good manager that can get guys to carry out a plan, but doesn't have a great plan - or is a really good coach. I'm not sure.
But until we have some genuine cattle at his disposal, I don't think it's possible to make a judgement.
Many reasons go to our loss last week, however I believe that skill error in kicking, picking the ball up and marking was the main.
When the rot sets in, well a whole side made up of Geelong, GWS, Hawks and Doggies best(s) would have difficulties...GWS, Sydney, West Coast from last years finals, anyone?
St. Kilda Football Club. Going strong, since 1960 ![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
- barneyboyz
- Club Player
- Posts: 1133
- Joined: Thu 08 Mar 2007 10:13pm
- Has thanked: 177 times
- Been thanked: 123 times
Re: For what it's worth
I know that I don't write much here and therefore may not have much credibility, but this, in my opinion is one of the best and most balanced opinions I have read this week.Johnny Member wrote:Bluthy wrote:Just that there are quite a few of now "turning to the dark side" with our worries about Mr A Richardson tactically. Unless you totally screw it up ala Melbourne, you should be able to guide a bunch of talented, high pick kids combined with some senior talent to mid-table with some solid development. It's another thing to show you have the game plan, tactics, clever structures and match day moves that will give you an advantage over the top 8 teams where the big boys strut their stuff.Myron Gaines wrote:What's that mean bluth dawg? Over my head with that pic of some meth head
Nothing is particularity popping out for me with Richo's game plan beside effort and pressure like you say. When we are on we can move it quickly with players giving each other good support to get those rapid chains of movement going. The inability to stop momentum from the other team and shut things down is a worry for mine. But he deserves a chance for his really talented kids to ripen fully to see exactly what he is implementing. Shame he's not using more of them *cough* Acres *cough* White *cough* Schneider off the rookie list - WTF? *cough*
I think anyone who tries to make any definitive judgement on Richardson as a coach at this stage, is silly.
Coaches have two objectives:
1) To have a plan that will win a flag
2) To get his players to carry out the plan
The end result, is not up to the coach ultimately. It's the biggest myth in sport that a coach should be judged by results.
If the result is impacted negatively by his plan - then yes, it's his fault.
If the result is impacted negatively by his players not carrying out his plan - then yes, it's his fault.
But there are many other factors that influence results that a coach has no or little direct input into. The fitness of his players is one. The actual list of players he has at his disposal is another and the most critical.
This will vary from club to club in terms of how much input the coach has in these areas, particularly in regards to the list.
In Richardson's case - it's virtually impossible to tell if he has a plan that will win a flag. He's clearly focusing heavily on 'pressure' and 'intensity' and being 'strong' at contests - but so are all coaches. He's also clearly focussed on an '18 man defence' like just about all coaches are now. He's big on moving the ball fast.
Luke Beveridge isn't a strategic genius. He approaches his coaching from a similar angle. A former colleague of mine was an assistant at the Dogs, and told me that there is no 'game plan' as such down there. They have an 18 man defence, where each player is responsible for a piece of the ground when the team is defending. They back themselves and their teammates to win contests, and as a result react quicker then their opponents. They focus on quick handball to get the ball out of congestion, to hard runners on the outside who are already prepared for their mate to win the contest and then they attack.
The key is, for them as a team, to identify very quickly the moment when to attack, and when to defend. If one bloke doesn't get it right, they get cut open.
It's not rocket science.
The 'game plan' is good enough to win a flag. And Beveridge clearly was able to get his players to do it precisely. Great coaching. The question is, could Beveridge have got an inferior group of players, either in terms of talent or maturity, to carry out his plan?
No. In my opinion, it's a definitive no.
The same as Hawthorn couldn't carry out Clarkson's plan precisely for 4 years before they matured, and they unearthed champions - and the same as they couldn't do it last week when they're not the list they used to be.
So my point is, how can we assess whether Richardson's plan is any good, if he doesn't have the quality of player to carry it out properly? How can even tell what his plan is, if we don't see it regularly and carried out with precision?
The jury is out for mine as to whether Richardson is a good manager that can get guys to carry out a plan, but doesn't have a great plan - or is a really good coach. I'm not sure.
But until we have some genuine cattle at his disposal, I don't think it's possible to make a judgement.
Many reasons go to our loss last week, however I believe that skill error in kicking, picking the ball up and marking was the main.
When the rot sets in, well a whole side made up of Geelong, GWS, Hawks and Doggies best(s) would have difficulties...GWS, Sydney, West Coast from last years finals, anyone?
St. Kilda Football Club. Going strong, since 1960 ![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)