Post Match. Pies lose to Hawks - All comments please

[kymbo5@yahoo.com.au]

[DT]

How come Cox was 'gassed'? He plays mainly as a forward and yet did not have enough fitness years run out a game. What the hell is going on? This admission is a huge fail for Davoren.

[mudlark]

[think positive]

exactly

[ANNODAM]

So, what are everyone's plans in September?

[What'sinaname]

[SwansWay]

Some idiot over in the Herald Sun comments section singled Dunn out as a horrible ball user and one of the reasons we lost.

[mooretreloar]

The lack of modern day football knowledge on this site has to be read to be believed.

VFL - we are in 2017, not 1967. The players aren't training two nights a week, whilst also having a real job. In this scenario, the impact of the coach on match day would be significantly more impactful.

AFL footballers are professional sportspeople. Have a think about what this entails.

AFL clubs are fully professional. Every club knows how every other club is going to play and wants to play. Each club has numerous opposition scouts, whose sole job is to analyse the opposition. That is, there aren't very many surprises, if any, on game day. This should be evident to posters that watch AFL closely, predominantly every club is trying to play the same way. I keep reading we went backwards and sideways, did you not watch the game? Hawthorn did exactly the same thing, the only difference was they hit many more targets than we did.

Our game plan and structures, that posters who bag these wouldn't have a clue what either of these are, have held up extremely well in 2017. We have been in a winning position in each and every game, bar last week against Port. This would not be the case if the coaching group were not providing the correct information to the players.

A win or a loss in modern day AFL football comes down to the ability of professional athletes to execute on game day.

Consequently, it is as clear as the nose on your face, if you know anything about AFL and sport, that we are 5-9 because of the poor skill execution and poor decision making of our players. These deficiencies have led to us gifting multiple goals to the opposition at inopportune times, which in such an even competition where the margin between a win and a loss is minuscule, is the reason we are 5-9 and not 9-5. If you want just one example from yesterday of which there were many, Howe kicking in straight to Mitchell in the last quarter. This has absolutely and utterly nothing to do with the coach.

[watt price tully]

The reason Collingwood is where it is now on the ladder is due to several reasons as is obvious to any one except those with tickets on themselves.

Is is a combination of factors including but not limited to:

1. Players skills
2. Coaching plans, strategies & tactics
3. Selection committee including the coach
4. Player availability.

On game day it is a combination of factors including player execution of skills & coaching tactics. The extent to which these factors occur in a game will vary on the day, the time & the scenario

This is common sense.

If a player or players on the opposing team are controlling the game, such as patterns of play not anticipated or not adequately addressed by pre-game planning then the coach needs to accountable & make moves accordingly.

If a coach or coaching team responds too slowly to difficulties encountered then the game can be lost or the advantage at that time point in time can be lost. If coaches are too inflexible to only see one way of doing things then that will reflect on what the team does.

To suggest it's players only is as limited and narrow an analysis as that view self evidently suggests. To not entertain the idea that there is a combination of factors at play (only the degree to which that combination is at play is debatable) & to reduce that to an arbitrary number based on speculation such as 98% & 2% is just as limited as doing accountancy on the back of a sheet of toilet paper.

[Magpietothemax]

Thanks Mooretreloare for your analysis regarding Carlton's list compared with ours. Also, your observation that we have attempted a rebuild without falling to the very bottom, and therefore don't have nearly as many top picks in our list, as do Carlton, who went for the full downward plunge before resurfacing, has clarified me.
Therefore, it has been a more rapid harnessing of talent among Carlton's young team than we have achieved
It seems more or less that you are saying that in the modern era of fully professional AFL sport, all clubs invest heavily in sports scientists, high quality coaching staff, world class infrastructure, scouts to glean information from other teams, etc etc, so in reality the only factor between teams is the calibre of their athletes, the number one defining attribute being decision making and ability to execute these decisions skillfully under pressure.
From the outside, we observers see Luke Beveridge suddenly taking the Western Bulldogs to a premiership, and think he is a master coach. But such a conclusion is based solely on surface impressions, because we aren't taking into account the quality of their previous picks, and therefore the decision making capabilities and levels of skill that these players could quickly harness.
If I am understanding you accurately, it seems that you would argue that in this even competition, the decisive difference between teams is the quality of the decision making and skills, measured broadly by the number of top picks in their list. Therefore, it is mostly about recruitment strategies and list management.
We have attempted to rebuild by a combination of a few top draft picks and some older/more experienced players (Greenwood, Varcoe, Howe, Dunn, Mayne, Wells, ) to avoid falling too low, but this strategy is still unproven. Would that be a good summary?

[Magpietothemax]

Thanks Mooretreloare for your analysis regarding Carlton's list compared with ours. Also, your observation that we have attempted a rebuild without falling to the very bottom, and therefore don't have nearly as many top picks in our list, as do Carlton, who went for the full downward plunge before resurfacing, has clarified me.
Therefore, it has been a more rapid harnessing of talent among Carlton's young team than we have achieved
It seems more or less that you are saying that in the modern era of fully professional AFL sport, all clubs invest heavily in sports scientists, high quality coaching staff, world class infrastructure, scouts to glean information from other teams, etc etc, so in reality the only factor between teams is the calibre of their athletes, the number one defining attribute being decision making and ability to execute these decisions skillfully under pressure.
From the outside, we observers see Luke Beveridge suddenly taking the Western Bulldogs to a premiership, and think he is a master coach. But such a conclusion is based solely on surface impressions, because we aren't taking into account the quality of their previous picks, and therefore the decision making capabilities and levels of skill that these players could quickly harness.
If I am understanding you accurately, it seems that you would argue that in this even competition, the decisive difference between teams is the quality of the decision making and skills, measured broadly by the number of top picks in their list. Therefore, it is mostly about recruitment strategies and list management.
We have attempted to rebuild by a combination of a few top draft picks and some older/more experienced players (Greenwood, Varcoe, Howe, Dunn, Mayne, Wells, ) to avoid falling too low, but this strategy is still unproven. Would that be a good summary?

[watt price tully]

[watt price tully]

[thompsoc]

[mooretreloar]