The Coach or the List?

[Johnny Member]

I don't like coach bashing generally.

More often than not, it's born out of frustration and an ignorance to the modern game. The other issue is the short-sightedness around changing coaches and generally the carnage that ensues. Sometimes, even if the coach isn't working out - sacking them isn't the best option anyway.


So this isn't a 'coach bashing' thread. But there are some concerns arising about Richardson's abilities for mine.

I see two areas which determine whether a coach is any good or not:

1) Is there 'game plan' or 'strategy' or their 'belief the way football should be played' or their 'recipe for a flag' or whatever you want to call it - is it good enough to win a flag?

2) Can they get the players to carry out their instructions every week? Do they get the buy-in?


I think everything else tends to fall under one of these categories. The talent at their disposal however, isn't really up to them generally. Unless they hand pick recruits from other clubs - then I see that as falling into category 1).

I saw Collingwood beat an undermanned, out of form Sydney Swans team by 1 point early in the year. Collingwood smashed records for their defensive pressure and efforts, and their tackle count was extraordinary. After the game, the football world - in particular Buckley and Collingwood people, were looking at the win as some sort of validation for their philosophy and for Buckley's coaching. I saw it as the opposite! I think I even posted about it on here at the time.

If you play the 'perfect game' in terms of your game plan and break records in several areas, against an undermanned and out of form team - and only win by 1 point, it tells me one of two things: Your plan is wrong. Or your list isn't good enough.

Collingwood have a midfield of Treloar, Pendelbury, Adams, Sidebottom and now Wells too! That's got to be close to the best in the comp on paper. Yes they have holes elsewhere - but I don't think we can be blaming their list.


Which brings me back to us and Richardson.

I'd argued with a few posters that it's been way too early to judge Richardson's coaching due to the fact that (using my theory above) we can't possibly know what category 1) actually is, until he has a decent playing list at his disposal that is capable of carrying it out.
I had no reason to doubt he wasn't capable of category 2), but the list just wasn't capable of doing what he wanted them to do.


In a nutshell, I blamed our list. I felt that our scrambling, muddled and generally rudderless style of footy was a result of either unskilled players not carrying out instructions consistently, or a possibility that Richardson had a very basis, junior footy esque' game plan as he knew he simply didn't have the cattle to execute anything that required high skill levels.


But since the GWS game, I'm not so sure anymore. There was a similar 'puffing on a cigar' vibe of vindication coming out of the Saints camp after that win to what I described above from Collingwood. This bothered me a bit at the time, as I felt that although it was a really good win against a good team - they were undermanned. But the main worry was, how we respond to the rest of the competition reacting to what everyone so clearly saw us doing that night.

They highlighted it in 'lab' on Foxtel after the game, they spoke about it on all the footy shows on the Monday. We negated their talls with Brown and Carlisle, we used Roberton at every opportunity to run the ball from half back, we 'pressured' and tackled hard, and we bombed it to the 'hot spot' 20m out from goal where our forwards 'flat handed' front and centre and our smalls kicked goals.

It worked well that night, but it was very basic and very easy to coach against.

I was pleased with the win, but the overriding thought was 'Can Richardson come up with something different when the inevitable happens and the opposition shuts this basic, simplistic 'junior footy' style strategy down?' DO we have something up our sleeve now that we're the hunted, not the hunter?


The answer was no, against Carlton. We fell over the line on pure ability. We had some excuses with being a player down for the whole match, and most felt that Carlton were actually a decent team.

The answer was no against Sydney. We were massacred and had no answer. We gave ourselves an excuse that 'Sydney are back' and even Richardson threw his hands up in the air and conceded that we were just outplayed.

The answer was a no against the Dogs. So much so, that it raised major queries over the excuses we gave ourselves against Carlton and Sydney.


We averaged 98.4 Points For after the GWS game. Since then, since we've 'revealed our hand', we've averaged 63!


So I'm now very concerned that regardless of the list, the 'game plan', the 'strategy' or whatever you want to call it - is flawed and nowhere near good enough to win a flag, let alone turn us into a finals team. Even more concerning, is that there doesn't seem to be any urgency to address it. We keep doing the same thing each week.

Now that's Ok if you're teaching a young group the basics and aiming to be a contender in 3-4 years, but are we really that far back? Does it take 5 years to teach a team the basics? At what point will we moving forward then?

I have a bad feeling that Richardson was involved in that freak breakout year at Port, and as a result sees that manic, break neck footy as the key. But the reality is, that once it was worked out by the comp, they fell away rapidly and have been noncompetitive since. They've had to change it all around to get back to being a decent team which they are this season.

I fear that we are flogging a dead horse in that sense. Are we trying to emulate a game style that was ultimately proven to be flawed?

[dals_da_bomb]

Stkildas history of turning over coachs makes it really difficult to want to turn over another one.
Its hasnt fixed the drought yet.
Is that because we havent found the right one? I have no idea.

I like him - his pleasing - I feel like the club has turned a corner in marketing and alike -
but i would like to see some real grunt in our coachs box - a little like Chris Scott.
I want someone to get angry like I get angry!


I really like you post - Im looking forward to following - but im no where near knowledgeable enough to add much to it.

[Johnny Member]

Stkildas history of turning over coachs makes it really difficult to want to turn over another one.
Its hasnt fixed the drought yet.
Is that because we havent found the right one? I have no idea.

I like him - his pleasing - I feel like the club has turned a corner in marketing and alike -
but i would like to see some real grunt in our coachs box - a little like Chris Scott.
I want someone to get angry like I get angry!


I really like you post - Im looking forward to following - but im no where near knowledgeable enough to add much to it.

We can't sack him.

For a number of reasons:

1) As you above, it doesn't work - especially for us!
2) He's contracted
3) The club did set him the job of being top 4 by 2018 - so the club needs to give him until then to achieve that.
4) The media love him. Which is great - until you want to sack him! They'd maul us.


Look, I hope I'm wrong. I hope that he's giving different directive from the box and we're just one or two good players away from being able to execute well each week. I'm just getting a bit concerned over the past month that that isn't the case.

[dals_da_bomb]

I already shudder at what it would look like if or when he is sacked.

[tony74]

O.k. Let's get real here. We were poor on Saturday and the previous Saturday. Adelaide was poor against North and Melbourne in fact. Sydney was poor in the first few rounds. Hawthorn were poor against us and the GC. You know if anyone thought we were certainties for the Grand Final before the season started you had rocks in your head. We still have a fair way to go but as the Dogs showed last year it can all fall into place very quickly ( and fall apart very quickly ) We have a plan B and C to be exact but we didn't execute it. Simple- We were poor.
The coach and the list aren't going anywhere. A few stumbles on the way will happen. Stick fat people. Believe it or not I don't think we're far off.

[Zed]

Its list.

Its an average list. Too many guys who cant hit targets under pressure. Turnovers killing us - and that's mostly a skill and decision making thing.

And when he hit bottom, we lucked out in weakish draft. I like Paddy , but seriously he looks nothing like a #1 pick. I get the whole "big guys take time" argument, but he just doesnt ooze the class of #1 pick. Reiwoldt started in a bottom team also, but just looked like a cut above from his first season. How many times does Paddy drop marks under minimal pressure compared to say when Nick started - or if thats harsh, compared to say another big guy like Weitering ?

Where are the next Reiwoldt, Lenny. Dal, BJ and Milne on our list ? . I just dont see enough of that kind of class coming through. Jack Steven maybe, Billings perhaps showing the odd glimpse, but no real AA class. I doubt we will have any AA's again this year. I only see the reincarnations of Brett Peake, Andrew McQualter, Rob Eddy, Jason Blake and Farren Ray.

[Johnny Member]

We have a plan B and C to be exact but we didn't execute it.

That's what I need to hear.

[meher baba]

I don't like coach bashing generally.

People who read your posts could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

Is there 'game plan' or 'strategy' or their 'belief the way football should be played' or their 'recipe for a flag' or whatever you want to call it - is it good enough to win a flag?

Up to now, and through to the end of 2017, Richo's primary mission has been to develop the players on his list, building their confidence, skills and teamwork. Perhaps at some point he's going to start training our team to play according to a complex Ross Lyon- or Clarko-style structure, but that doesn't have to be now. Anyway, Richo doesn't seem to me to be that style of coach.

If you play the 'perfect game' in terms of your game plan and break records in several areas, against an undermanned and out of form team - and only win by 1 point, it tells me one of two things: Your plan is wrong. Or your list isn't good enough.

I reckon any coach would consider that they are doing ok when they win a game. The Saints at our best under Ross Lyon quite often struggled to put away bottom of the table teams until the last minutes of a game.

I'd argued with a few posters that it's been way too early to judge Richardson's coaching due to the fact that (using my theory above) we can't possibly know what category 1) actually is, until he has a decent playing list at his
disposal that is capable of carrying it out. I had no reason to doubt he wasn't capable of category 2), but the list just wasn't capable of doing what he wanted them to do.

I mustn't have been paying enough attention, because all I can seem to remember you doing is endlessly bagging Richo and bagging our list. You know, like this.

In a nutshell, I blamed our list. I felt that our scrambling, muddled and generally rudderless style of footy was a result of either unskilled players not carrying out instructions consistently, or a possibility that Richardson had a very basis, junior footy esque' game plan as he knew he simply didn't have the cattle to execute anything that required high skill levels.

But since the GWS game...the main worry was, how we respond to the rest of the competition reacting to what everyone so clearly saw us doing that night.
They highlighted it in 'lab' on Foxtel after the game, they spoke about it on all the footy shows on the Monday. We negated their talls with Brown and Carlisle, we used Roberton at every opportunity to run the ball from half back, we 'pressured' and tackled hard, and we bombed it to the 'hot spot' 20m out from goal where our forwards 'flat handed' front and centre and our smalls kicked goals.

It worked well that night, but it was very basic and very easy to coach against.

I was pleased with the win, but the overriding thought was 'Can Richardson come up with something different when the inevitable happens and the opposition shuts this basic, simplistic 'junior footy' style strategy down?' DO we have something up our sleeve now that we're the hunted, not the hunter?

So negating talls with tall defenders, running the ball from half back and pressuring and tackling hard is "junior footy"? That's funny, because most of the teams I have seen win premierships in the last three decades or so have done all of these three things in spades.

Or is it just the bombing the ball to just in front of the goal square the thing that you consider "junior footy"? If so, why are you so certain that it's a tactic, as opposed to a failing on the part of the players responsible: 1) the forwards for not making quality leads and 2) the midfielders for not being accurate enough with their kicking.

The answer was no against Sydney. We were massacred and had no answer. We gave ourselves an excuse that 'Sydney are back' and even Richardson threw his hands up in the air and conceded that we were just outplayed.

The answer was a no against the Dogs. So much so, that it raised major queries over the excuses we gave ourselves against Carlton and Sydney.

So we were convincingly beaten ("massacred" is an overstatement) by the two grand finalists from last year. They played better than us. Some of our players didn't play so well. You can't bag the coach after only two such losses against quality opponents.

We averaged 98.4 Points For after the GWS game. Since then, since we've 'revealed our hand', we've averaged 63!

It's only three games, and we lost two of them. It's hard to average around 100 consistently when you lose 2 out of 3.

So I'm now very concerned that regardless of the list, the 'game plan', the 'strategy' or whatever you want to call it - is flawed and nowhere near good enough to win a flag, let alone turn us into a finals team. Even more concerning, is that there doesn't seem to be any urgency to address it. We keep doing the same thing each week.

It's only been a little over a fortnight since we beat the Blues. How urgent is this?

I have a bad feeling that Richardson was involved in that freak breakout year at Port, and as a result sees that manic, break neck footy as the key. But the reality is, that once it was worked out by the comp, they fell away rapidly and have been noncompetitive since. They've had to change it all around to get back to being a decent team which they are this season.

I fear that we are flogging a dead horse in that sense. Are we trying to emulate a game style that was ultimately proven to be flawed?

You didn't mention "manic break neck footy" earlier in your post: you talked about bombing it to the forward line, moving it off the half back line, etc. I didn't see much manic break neck footy in the past two games: rather, a lot of chipping around in the backline that ended up in a turnover. If Richo is trying to coach the team to deliberately give turnovers to the opposition 75 metres out from goal, then I'm with you, he has to go immediately!

I really can't follow your analysis.

[Johnny Member]

I don't like coach bashing generally.

People who read your posts could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.

Is there 'game plan' or 'strategy' or their 'belief the way football should be played' or their 'recipe for a flag' or whatever you want to call it - is it good enough to win a flag?

Up to now, and through to the end of 2017, Richo's primary mission has been to develop the players on his list, building their confidence, skills and teamwork. Perhaps at some point he's going to start training our team to play according to a complex Ross Lyon- or Clarko-style structure, but that doesn't have to be now. Anyway, Richo doesn't seem to me to be that style of coach.

If you play the 'perfect game' in terms of your game plan and break records in several areas, against an undermanned and out of form team - and only win by 1 point, it tells me one of two things: Your plan is wrong. Or your list isn't good enough.

I reckon any coach would consider that they are doing ok when they win a game. The Saints at our best under Ross Lyon quite often struggled to put away bottom of the table teams until the last minutes of a game.

I'd argued with a few posters that it's been way too early to judge Richardson's coaching due to the fact that (using my theory above) we can't possibly know what category 1) actually is, until he has a decent playing list at his
disposal that is capable of carrying it out. I had no reason to doubt he wasn't capable of category 2), but the list just wasn't capable of doing what he wanted them to do.

I mustn't have been paying enough attention, because all I can seem to remember you doing is endlessly bagging Richo and bagging our list. You know, like this.

In a nutshell, I blamed our list. I felt that our scrambling, muddled and generally rudderless style of footy was a result of either unskilled players not carrying out instructions consistently, or a possibility that Richardson had a very basis, junior footy esque' game plan as he knew he simply didn't have the cattle to execute anything that required high skill levels.

But since the GWS game...the main worry was, how we respond to the rest of the competition reacting to what everyone so clearly saw us doing that night.
They highlighted it in 'lab' on Foxtel after the game, they spoke about it on all the footy shows on the Monday. We negated their talls with Brown and Carlisle, we used Roberton at every opportunity to run the ball from half back, we 'pressured' and tackled hard, and we bombed it to the 'hot spot' 20m out from goal where our forwards 'flat handed' front and centre and our smalls kicked goals.

It worked well that night, but it was very basic and very easy to coach against.

I was pleased with the win, but the overriding thought was 'Can Richardson come up with something different when the inevitable happens and the opposition shuts this basic, simplistic 'junior footy' style strategy down?' DO we have something up our sleeve now that we're the hunted, not the hunter?

So negating talls with tall defenders, running the ball from half back and pressuring and tackling hard is "junior footy"? That's funny, because most of the teams I have seen win premierships in the last three decades or so have done all of these three things in spades.

Or is it just the bombing the ball to just in front of the goal square the thing that you consider "junior footy"? If so, why are you so certain that it's a tactic, as opposed to a failing on the part of the players responsible: 1) the forwards for not making quality leads and 2) the midfielders for not being accurate enough with their kicking.

The answer was no against Sydney. We were massacred and had no answer. We gave ourselves an excuse that 'Sydney are back' and even Richardson threw his hands up in the air and conceded that we were just outplayed.

The answer was a no against the Dogs. So much so, that it raised major queries over the excuses we gave ourselves against Carlton and Sydney.

So we were convincingly beaten ("massacred" is an overstatement) by the two grand finalists from last year. They played better than us. Some of our players didn't play so well. You can't bag the coach after only two such losses against quality opponents.

We averaged 98.4 Points For after the GWS game. Since then, since we've 'revealed our hand', we've averaged 63!

It's only three games, and we lost two of them. It's hard to average around 100 consistently when you lose 2 out of 3.

So I'm now very concerned that regardless of the list, the 'game plan', the 'strategy' or whatever you want to call it - is flawed and nowhere near good enough to win a flag, let alone turn us into a finals team. Even more concerning, is that there doesn't seem to be any urgency to address it. We keep doing the same thing each week.

It's only been a little over a fortnight since we beat the Blues. How urgent is this?

I have a bad feeling that Richardson was involved in that freak breakout year at Port, and as a result sees that manic, break neck footy as the key. But the reality is, that once it was worked out by the comp, they fell away rapidly and have been noncompetitive since. They've had to change it all around to get back to being a decent team which they are this season.

I fear that we are flogging a dead horse in that sense. Are we trying to emulate a game style that was ultimately proven to be flawed?

You didn't mention "manic break neck footy" earlier in your post: you talked about bombing it to the forward line, moving it off the half back line, etc. I didn't see much manic break neck footy in the past two games: rather, a lot of chipping around in the backline that ended up in a turnover. If Richo is trying to coach the team to deliberately give turnovers to the opposition 75 metres out from goal, then I'm with you, he has to go immediately!

I really can't follow your analysis.

You can't follow it because you're clearly misinterpreting it and looking for semantics instead of reading what I've actually written.

I've defended Richardson vehemently for the past 3 years. I haven't bagged him whatsoever.

I've also clearly stated above that we can't, nor shouldn't sack him.


If you want to follow my analysis, simply read it. It's all there, and it's really clear. Has been for 18 months.

[meher baba]

As far as I am concerned, our biggest problem remains that of determining our best 22 going forward, and possibly strengthening it in a couple of key areas. There are a few key issues here.

1) Riewoldt. Let's say we are aiming for top 4, and therefore an outside chance of a premiership, in 2018. If Riewoldt can deliver at even 75% of his peak standard in 2018 and perhaps even 2019 (I can't really see even superhuman Nick going on any longer than that), then he needs to be built front and centre into our planning for next year. Otherwise, perhaps we would be better to encourage him to retire.

2) The forward line. With or without Riewoldt, it's far and away our greatest weakness. It isn't a premiership-winning forward line: even in the 21st century when several premierships have been won by teams without monster full forwards. Our best shot remains that of McCartin reaching consistent AFL standard, with two out of Bruce, Membrey and Riewoldt as foils (playing all four at once unbalances the team, as I've argued several times in the past). If this strategy doesn't work, I reckon our number one priority for any high draft picks we might have next year is to get another quality forward: ideally one who can play second ruck as well. Most posters on here think that a creative midfielder is our highest priority, but I beg to differ. That said, I accept that there don't seem to be many quality forwards in the AFL who are going to be looking to switch clubs next year.

3) The midfield: a high quality creative midfielder certainly wouldn't do us any harm if we can get one. But, as discussed above, I would prefer a quality forward. Our midfield has come on wonderfully in the past year or so, and is now perhaps our greatest strength: particularly if Armo could get back to his best. It's our forward line that sucks.

4) The ruck: gee we could do with a second ruckman-cum-forward. Longer is one-dimensional and, while he was better against the Dogs than I've seen him play before, I don't think he's the sort of player you'd see in a premiership team. Hickey is better value, but is more of a defender than a forward from what I've seen of him. Is Lewis Pierce finished? He certainly looked promising in the one AFL game he played. Anyway, this area certainly needs more work.

These are the main issues IMO. There's a lot of fuss about Montagna and Gilbert on this forum, but I don't think the question of whether they stay or go is very important. Gilbert is still only 30 and thoroughly deserves his place on form this year. When Webster comes back, I would imagine that there will be serious consideration given to replacing Joey with Savage. But Joey might still be able to fill another hole: it depends on our injury list. Whether or not he retires is not urgent: he has played very well in the earlier games this year, but (like many others) has been a little out of form more recently. But he's a quality player: some posters on here are far too quick to rush to judgement. If they got their way, and he was dropped for someone like Rice, and then Rice played badly, they'd immediately start calling for Joey to be brought back. Patience, grasshoppers...

[meher baba]

I've also clearly stated above that we can't, nor shouldn't sack him.

So, if it's not about getting rid of Richo, then what is the purpose of all your negative posting? Is the idea that we should all slash our wrists?

[Johnny Member]

I've also clearly stated above that we can't, nor shouldn't sack him.

So, if it's not about getting rid of Richo, then what is the purpose of all your negative posting? Is the idea that we should all slash our wrists?

?

You perceive a post to be negative, and you manage to interpret that as 'getting rid of Richo', and 'slashing our wrists'??



I post on here because I like to talk about, and discuss footy. I don't consciously decide to post something negative, same as I don't consciously decide to post something positive. I post what I think.

If you perceive that to be negative, then so be it. I have no issue with people disagreeing, or not liking what I post - that's called discussion.


So what is the purpose of my negative posting you ask? There is no purpose, other than to express my opinion.

[Johnny Member]

O.k. Let's get real here. We were poor on Saturday and the previous Saturday. Adelaide was poor against North and Melbourne in fact. Sydney was poor in the first few rounds. Hawthorn were poor against us and the GC. You know if anyone thought we were certainties for the Grand Final before the season started you had rocks in your head. We still have a fair way to go but as the Dogs showed last year it can all fall into place very quickly ( and fall apart very quickly ) We have a plan B and C to be exact but we didn't execute it. Simple- We were poor.
The coach and the list aren't going anywhere. A few stumbles on the way will happen. Stick fat people. Believe it or not I don't think we're far off.

One question though....


Does the coach truly believe, that 'bombing it to the top of the square' is a feasible 'Plan A'?

And second to that - is that what the players are being instructed to do? Because they sure as hell do it a lot!

[iwantmeseats]

Richo is a GUN.
If looking like your thinking real hard in the box or under questioning on 360 means you can coach.

[White Winmar]

Agree with MB about another quality tall forward is a priority. I posted it elsewhere, stating a Peter Wright type should be who we're after. I got a pretty lukewarm response to that idea with the consensus being that we needed midfielders and more midfielders. I'm going to explode people's heads with this one. We need another quick, goal kicking classy small forward specialist. Think Betts, Garlett, Motlop, Rioli. A permanent fixture who can give 40-50 a year as Milney used to.

The problem atm is we have lots of small guys who are being tried in that role, but are not good enough to be dangerous on a consistent basis. Minch, Lonie, Wright, Weller et.al. won't be that player. Gresham is good enough, but needed more in the midfield, as is Sinclair. With a possible trade and draft bonanza coming up for us, I think it's possible we could get one tall forward, one gun small forward and two quality mids. That would give us what we need, both in the short and long term.

JM, if your "flat hands" theory is true, then Hamill needs a wake up call. McCartin and Bruce have gone from clunking marks regularly, to what we've seen this year. Paddy dropping and double grabbing and Bruce, completely bereft of confidence and not grabbing anything. In the recent past, one of the few highlights Paddy provided was his ability to take a strong pack mark. None so far this year. Let big forwards do what they are primarily paid to do. Take grabs inside 50 and convert. This "bring the ball to ground" nonsense makes no sense. Get in front, take the grab and if you drop it or get spoiled, it still comes to ground. That's where your quality small forwards come in. We haven't got any other than Gresh, who are anywhere near the standard required.

[White Winmar]

Agree with MB about another quality tall forward is a priority. I posted it elsewhere, stating a Peter Wright type should be who we're after. I got a pretty lukewarm response to that idea with the consensus being that we needed midfielders and more midfielders. I'm going to explode people's heads with this one. We need another quick, goal kicking classy small forward specialist. Think Betts, Garlett, Motlop, Rioli. A permanent fixture who can give 40-50 a year as Milney used to.

The problem atm is we have lots of small guys who are being tried in that role, but are not good enough to be dangerous on a consistent basis. Minch, Lonie, Wright, Weller et.al. won't be that player. Gresham is good enough, but needed more in the midfield, as is Sinclair. With a possible trade and draft bonanza coming up for us, I think it's possible we could get one tall forward, one gun small forward and two quality mids. That would give us what we need, both in the short and long term.

JM, if your "flat hands" theory is true, then Hamill needs a wake up call. McCartin and Bruce have gone from clunking marks regularly, to what we've seen this year. Paddy dropping and double grabbing and Bruce, completely bereft of confidence and not grabbing anything. In the recent past, one of the few highlights Paddy provided was his ability to take a strong pack mark. None so far this year. Let big forwards do what they are primarily paid to do. Take grabs inside 50 and convert. This "bring the ball to ground" nonsense makes no sense. Get in front, take the grab and if you drop it or get spoiled, it still comes to ground. That's where your quality small forwards come in. We haven't got any other than Gresh, who are anywhere near the standard required.

[Rocket]

We have a serious lack of elite ball users. Billings perhaps ..on his day.

I would look very hard at our Recruiting team. We have far too many guys in the side who under pressure, butcher the ball.

That's why Hawks so good in their day. Elite ball users under pressure.

[suss]

O.k. Let's get real here. We were poor on Saturday and the previous Saturday. Adelaide was poor against North and Melbourne in fact. Sydney was poor in the first few rounds. Hawthorn were poor against us and the GC. You know if anyone thought we were certainties for the Grand Final before the season started you had rocks in your head. We still have a fair way to go but as the Dogs showed last year it can all fall into place very quickly ( and fall apart very quickly ) We have a plan B and C to be exact but we didn't execute it. Simple- We were poor.
The coach and the list aren't going anywhere. A few stumbles on the way will happen. Stick fat people. Believe it or not I don't think we're far off.

It feels that way to me too. If a guy like Richo with 20+ years in the system can't put together a winning game plan I'd be stunned.

We just need a bit more time, and an elite mid or two, and things will improve very quickly.

[Darth Vader]

Personally, I think the "flat hands" theory is a load of bollocks. Bruce & Paddy are just down on confidence/form and are dropping their marks.

[tony74]

O.k. Let's get real here. We were poor on Saturday and the previous Saturday. Adelaide was poor against North and Melbourne in fact. Sydney was poor in the first few rounds. Hawthorn were poor against us and the GC. You know if anyone thought we were certainties for the Grand Final before the season started you had rocks in your head. We still have a fair way to go but as the Dogs showed last year it can all fall into place very quickly ( and fall apart very quickly ) We have a plan B and C to be exact but we didn't execute it. Simple- We were poor.
The coach and the list aren't going anywhere. A few stumbles on the way will happen. Stick fat people. Believe it or not I don't think we're far off.

One question though....


Does the coach truly believe, that 'bombing it to the top of the square' is a feasible 'Plan A'?

And second to that - is that what the players are being instructed to do? Because they sure as hell do it a lot!

Its not rocket science ( and I stress they did not follow the instructions )

Quick entry to the forward line if a player is on his own
Quick entry to the forward line when the numbers are even and we have one tall and one small at least
Slow entry to the forward line when its crowded, wait for space, change the angle.
Unfortunately we failed to pull the trigger, particularly on the second option, and panicked. We all saw the result.

[stonecold]

All part of the learning curve!!!!!

And the players that don't learn quickly enough won't survive!!!!!

[White Winmar]

Personally, I think the "flat hands" theory is a load of bollocks. Bruce & Paddy are just down on confidence/form and are dropping their marks.

I do too, Darth Vader, and also believe it is a confidence thing, but there does seem to be a tendency to bring the ball down. We have four players who are strong overhead and play forward for us. Just mark the bloody thing!

[thejiggingsaint]

Reading the OP, and in particular the "itemised" points [ (1 & (2 ] one could be forgiven for thinking the post was addressing itself to the Ross Lyon era ! Blight's Geelong side ( including Ablett senior ) managed to choke in three Grand Finals ! Did this make him a "coaching failure"?
Yes he did finally get two flags with the crows, does this make him a "super coach"? Personally, I think it would be LUNACY on a scale unprecedented (even by St Kilda FC standards) to do anything other than back this coach and his staff 100%

[Impatient Sainter]

I agree with the OP. Richo is great for the club but his game day coaching requires work. Thats not to say he cant imorove because he can and hopefully he will.

[Linton Lodger]

O.k. Let's get real here. We were poor on Saturday and the previous Saturday. Adelaide was poor against North and Melbourne in fact. Sydney was poor in the first few rounds. Hawthorn were poor against us and the GC. You know if anyone thought we were certainties for the Grand Final before the season started you had rocks in your head. We still have a fair way to go but as the Dogs showed last year it can all fall into place very quickly ( and fall apart very quickly ) We have a plan B and C to be exact but we didn't execute it. Simple- We were poor.
The coach and the list aren't going anywhere. A few stumbles on the way will happen. Stick fat people. Believe it or not I don't think we're far off.

Precisely.

There is nothing wrong with our Coach or the List and as tony74 says, we are real close.