Milton66 wrote:
SNAP.
I think Velvet's got your measure Rodger.
Not bad for someone who hasn't played or coached before.
Given all of Rodger's "apparent" experience...
Gee, the coach prepares the players, so well in fact, that they go out and win all those games.
Then, because the players execute the coach's instructions, he does not need to make any moves on the day... and therefore it makes the coach a bad game-day coach.
Now that's too funny.
But then again, why should I bother.
Over to you Velvet... you seem to cut him down far more eloquently than I could ever dream of doing.
BTW, don't hold your breath waiting on more evidence of poor game day coaching examples.
Sigh.
Have you seen the Grand Final?
I'm actually a believer in coaching being done prior, and limited changes on game day.
Building a game plan, and simply drilling it into the team until they are expert at it, to me is what coaching is all about.
I've been saying this for years, and said it about Thomas - which was always misconstrued as 'loving GT'. Those wanting brilliant tactical swings during games, and shifting to a Plan B at the drop of a hat, didn't understand my view that that deviates from practising and drilling in a game plan that needs to stand up under pressure. It's a quick fix.
Funnily, the same people now seem to think it's Ok to be stagnant on game day and instead, focus on building a team that is well drilled under pressure and can work their way through tough situations by sticking with the plan. Funny that.
If you spent more time reading what people write, instead of ordinary attempts at humour and sarcasm, you'd know exactly where I'm coming from and what my point is.
There does come a time however (the last quarter in a GF for example), when on game day, you need to be able to make things happen. The question is, when do you sacrifice your game plan and revert to a Plan B or a quick fix? Ideally the answer is never. Ideally you stick to your guns and have confidence in your plan.
This is what bothers me. We stuck with a solid plan for 3 and a bit quarters in the GF - then changed it at the death!
In the finals, Lyon relied on the Roo card too much. It got us over the line against Collingwood, and again against the Dogs.
It was foolish to attempt it against Geelong. Which is why I was pleased we didn't use it in the GF. But then I was so flabbergasted at a change in plan in the last quarter.
I'm amazed that Saints fans are happy to win H&A games now, and seem to be cool with the fact that we blew it in the GF.
Seems to matter little, cause we won 20 H&A matches.
We have a game plan that is based on effort and intensity - and worringly also on star players dominating the game.
What history tells us, is that both of these things can disappear very, very quickly.
If they do disappear, like we saw in the latter part of the year, we are very vunerable - even against ordinary sides.