Certified Legendary Thread Alastair Clarksons.

[jay317]

Unless he can turn dumb footballers into smart ones he's going to have to get rid of them

 

[The Nostradamus]

Alright time to announce it this week

According to those in the know posters

 

[Fact not Fiction 2020]

Where's Fact not Fiction these days

 

[Themanbun]

Unless he can turn dumb footballers into smart ones he's going to have to get rid of them

Structures mean a lot mate.

 

[jay317]

View attachment 1462017

 

[Lomas]

View attachment 1462037

This seemed a bit forced.

 

[Souup]

Structures mean a lot mate.

I'm regularly blown away at how much this board's focus is on players rather than structure and other game-plan/execution related issues. Some bloke on another thread suggested there were 8 players today that don't belong at this level which is a ridiculously poor call.

If our side today had another genuine key forward target to take the attention off Larkey and some pressure smalls for when the ball hit the deck then we go close to winning.

It stood out like crazy watching the game, and the stats tell the exact same story:

We won contested possessions (+14) and clearances (+20)

but lost:

Tackles inside 50: Essendon 16-3 Us
Marks inside 50: Essendon 13-7 Us

I don't have the intercept mark stat but we clearly got flogged in that stat too. Throw that one in and you have all the answers for why we lost.

 

[Themanbun]

I'm regularly blown away at how much this board's focus is on players rather than structure and other game-plan/execution related issues. Some bloke on another thread suggested there were 8 players today that don't belong at this level which is a ridiculously poor call.

If our side today had another genuine key forward target to take the attention off Larkey and some pressure smalls for when the ball hit the deck then we go close to winning.

It stood out like crazy watching the game, and the stats tell the exact same story:

We won contested possessions (+14) and clearances (+20)

but lost:

Tackles inside 50: Essendon 16-3 Us
Marks inside 50: Essendon 13-7 Us

I don't have the intercept mark stat but throw that one in and you have all the answers for why we lost.

 

[Lomas]

I'm regularly blown away at how much this board's focus is on players rather than structure and other game-plan/execution related issues. Some bloke on another thread suggested there were 8 players today that don't belong at this level which is a ridiculously poor call.

If our side today had another genuine key forward target to take the attention off Larkey and some pressure smalls for when the ball hit the deck then we go close to winning.

It stood out like crazy watching the game, and the stats tell the exact same story:

We won contested possessions (+14) and clearances (+20)

but lost:

Tackles inside 50: Essendon 16-3 Us
Marks inside 50: Essendon 13-7 Us

I don't have the intercept mark stat but we clearly got flogged in that stat too. Throw that one in and you have all the answers for why we lost.

The number of times we missed goals from intercept marks in the goal square or touched on the line showed our forward structures are poor too.

 

[Makeshift Park]

I'm regularly blown away at how much this board's focus is on players rather than structure and other game-plan/execution related issues. Some bloke on another thread suggested there were 8 players today that don't belong at this level which is a ridiculously poor call.

If our side today had another genuine key forward target to take the attention off Larkey and some pressure smalls for when the ball hit the deck then we go close to winning.

It stood out like crazy watching the game, and the stats tell the exact same story:

We won contested possessions (+14) and clearances (+20)

but lost:

Tackles inside 50: Essendon 16-3 Us
Marks inside 50: Essendon 13-7 Us

I don't have the intercept mark stat but we clearly got flogged in that stat too. Throw that one in and you have all the answers for why we lost.

From my perspective watching from home, a second KPF, and an experienced and competent KPD to either replace Bonar or Dawson (one would have probably been fine) would have made the difference.

 

[Ball Dont Lie]

I'm regularly blown away at how much this board's focus is on players rather than structure and other game-plan/execution related issues. Some bloke on another thread suggested there were 8 players today that don't belong at this level which is a ridiculously poor call.

If our side today had another genuine key forward target to take the attention off Larkey and some pressure smalls for when the ball hit the deck then we go close to winning.

It stood out like crazy watching the game, and the stats tell the exact same story:

We won contested possessions (+14) and clearances (+20)

but lost:

Tackles inside 50: Essendon 16-3 Us
Marks inside 50: Essendon 13-7 Us

I don't have the intercept mark stat but we clearly got flogged in that stat too. Throw that one in and you have all the answers for why we lost.

That bloke was me and I am pretty comfortable with my assessment of 8 blokes. Agree 100% on the structure thing btw. But you still need blokes with footy IQ, skills, speeds, and hardness to execute. Not sure a system will turn Spicer, Lizard, turner, JZ, Bonnar, CCJ, archer, greenwood into premiership players but I am hoping to be proven wrong.

 

[Lomas]

From my perspective watching from home, a second KPF, and an experienced and competent KPD to either replace Bonar or Dawson (one would have probably been fine) would have made the difference.

Not really. Another competent half back hitting targets exiting the back line would have been better.

 

[shimaburnsgrieg]

That bloke was me and I am pretty comfortable with my assessment of 8 blokes. Agree 100% on the structure thing btw. But you still need blokes with footy IQ, skills, speeds, and hardness to execute. Not sure a system will turn Spicer, Lizard, turner, JZ, Bonnar, CCJ, archer, greenwood into premiership players but I am hoping to be proven wrong.

Correct.

You can have whatever 'structures' you like but if you are going into a game of AFL with those blokes mentioned then you aren't winning games.

 

[The acurate one]

I'm regularly blown away at how much this board's focus is on players . Throw that one in and you have all the answers for why we lost.

My opinion is you overrate structure or game plans. Joyce coached the hawks to a premiership then duly got sacked from the Bulldogs. Pagan at North Pagan at Carlton.

Doesn't matter how well you set up if your cattle are no good. Football is a basic game, which is the beauty of it. If you have a player who can't hit a target, how do you set up for that.

We have massive issues with our playing list, pace, skill by foot and hand, smarts and ability to mark the ball overhead.

Not many players tend to survive in a side that is horrid for 3 years straight. I've said it many times we have about 14 AFL quality footballers and then some we don't yet know about.

Getting flogged by ordinary sides doesn't augur well for many of our team.

 

[Souup]

That bloke was me and I am pretty comfortable with my assessment of 8 blokes. Agree 100% on the structure thing btw. But you still need blokes with footy IQ, skills, speeds, and hardness to execute. Not sure a system will turn Spicer, Lizard, turner, JZ, Bonnar, CCJ, archer, greenwood into premiership players but I am hoping to be proven wrong.

I don't disagree that players matter but there's a difference between a player who is a bad footballer and a player who is being let down by a poor system or needs some time. We'll have to agree to disagree on Bonar, CCJ and Greenwood not being good enough as I'm a fan of all 3 and think they have plenty to offer. The jury is out on Archer and Lazzaro, but considering the draft capital we spent on Archer, I'm not sure missing on him is going to be the end of the world. Agree that Spicer, Turner and JZ are close to (Spicer) if not already done, but Turner put in a good shift today.

This is neither here nor there but Greenwood was 1 game away from being a premiership player.

Not long ago people were suggesting Bailey Scott and Lachie Young were not AFL footballers, and now both these guys have shown they well and truly belong at this level in the last couple of months.

 

[Themanbun]

Yeah yeah yeah baby

 

[Mcarcherey]

absolutely destroyed * in the contest....but 78 turnovers to 62 is the story of the game - so many 12 point plays against us. as bad as the scoreline was, at least clarkson can see that we can win it at the source, where it counts..and that's with phillips and TT (if he gets his head right) still to come in.

look at it in reverse, if he was looking at potentially coaching * (which * fans seem to think he is a chance LOL) he'd be thinking "they can move the ball quickly once they get their hands on it, but if they're playing a team that can win it at the source and maintain possession they don't have a chance"

i know i'd rather a strong core of mids that can win it in the contest than a team of slighlty more skilled but soft outside mids/flankers. that's were finals are won.

 

[Billy Not Really]

absolutely destroyed * in the contest....but 78 turnovers to 62 is the story of the game - so many 12 point plays against us. as bad as the scoreline was, at least clarkson can see that we can win it at the source, where it counts..and that's with phillips and TT (if he gets his head right) still to come in.

look at it in reverse, if he was looking at potentially coaching * (which * fans seem to think he is a chance LOL) he'd be thinking "they can move the ball quickly once they get their hands on it, but if they're playing a team that can win it at the source and maintain possession they don't have a chance"

i know i'd rather a strong core of mids that can win it in the contest than a team of slighlty more skilled but soft outside mids/flankers. that's were finals are won.

Clarkson would be looking at the centre clearance wins as well (42 - 22) and with a cleaner structure particularly in the forward half and rotate out the list with some better role players and put more emphasis on the higher skilled players being involved in the plays outside of the centre, that's easily turned into a win albeit with straighter kicking (something we also gotta get better at.)



The team of Simpkin-JHF-Goldy-LDU-TT-Powell-Phillips etc. at your disposal. That's power from the centre that's winning clearances already for more than a few quarters at an early stage of development for a lot of those names.

 

[Horace]

I could potentially eat a hamburger with beetroot but I would never order it. I don't know how anybody could eat "burger" with pickle. I'd rather eat cat food.

Horace - how about bringing us all back a Kermond's hamburger next time you go back home

I'd love too SoS, but I never get that far to Warrnambool these days. Kermonds burgers were/are the best burgers.

Speaking of Warrnambool, or more precisely the recent events at Kirkstall. The lad who disposed of the other two and then himself, was the son of, and one of my friends back in my school days at Timboon. Same year level. From what I'm told its was all pretty gory.

 

[Psicosis]

As much as I hope we can land Clarko, just get me someone who can f****** coach.

 

[Spud11]

"Parmi is what we use here. The full word is parmigiana, so it makes sense."

Chef and author of The Kitchen Think, Anthony Telford, says people who prefer to say 'parma' are "trying too hard to be colloquial".”

Trying too hard to be colloquial
Definitely. When you add an ‘A’ to a perfectly fine abbreviation using an ‘I’, you’re trying too hard.
And trying hard in anything is unaustralian!!

Article from this month, this year. The data is in:

Is it chicken parmi or parma? Aussie dictionary update reignites the enduring food naming debate

Researchers reveal which Australian English slang words will make it into the Australian National Dictionary - will parma, parmi (or both) make the cut?

www.goodfood.com.au

 

[Lomas]

"Parmi is what we use here. The full word is parmigiana, so it makes sense."

Chef and author of The Kitchen Think, Anthony Telford, says people who prefer to say 'parma' are "trying too hard to be colloquial".

Article from this month, this year. The data is in:

Is it chicken parmi or parma? Aussie dictionary update reignites the enduring food naming debate

Researchers reveal which Australian English slang words will make it into the Australian National Dictionary - will parma, parmi (or both) make the cut?

www.goodfood.com.au

Oh, you sweet summer child.

 

[Pagans Paddock99]

I don't disagree that players matter but there's a difference between a player who is a bad footballer and a player who is being let down by a poor system or needs some time. We'll have to agree to disagree on Bonar, CCJ and Greenwood not being good enough as I'm a fan of all 3 and think they have plenty to offer. The jury is out on Archer and Lazzaro, but considering the draft capital we spent on Archer, I'm not sure missing on him is going to be the end of the world. Agree that Spicer, Turner and JZ are close to (Spicer) if not already done, but Turner put in a good shift today.

This is neither here nor there but Greenwood was 1 game away from being a premiership player.

Not long ago people were suggesting Bailey Scott and Lachie Young were not AFL footballers, and now both these guys have shown they well and truly belong at this level in the last couple of months.

Greenwood was an astute insurance policy with the uncertainty of Cunnington, Anderson and Philips this year.

In a perfect world, the other 3 are fit, healthy and firing and Greenwood is a clearance beast in the VFL keeping pressure on the seniors.





Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[SMaturin]

It’s parma.

Parmigiana is pronounced “parmajarna” anyway, so the derivation makes sense.

No one gives a stuff how it’s spelt.

And that chef sounds like a w***er.

 

[Only Forwards]

As much as I hope we can land Clarko, just get me someone who can f****** coach.

It isn’t just one. It’s a functional FD with a clear understanding of what we are looking to achieve with a plan and style that fits the players that we have.