- Jul 19, 2010
- 26,244
- 68,542
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
the only reason the scoreboard has been positive for Bickley is the incompetence of our opposition.
Brisbane smashed us at AAMI earlier in the year. And so did Port.
Please explain.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 7 - Pride Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
the only reason the scoreboard has been positive for Bickley is the incompetence of our opposition.
Perhaps I'm a cynic, but without the freshening of minds that has resulted from the change of coach, and yes, some moves that Bickley made in the box yesterday, I don't reckon the "incompetence of the opposition" would have been enough to carry us over the line.
Fair enough. But I believe that credit should not be given where it is not due and the fact of the matter is that we are equally as horrible under Bicks and the only reason the scoreboard has been positive for Bickley is the incompetence of our opposition.
I was happy with the result but very concerned about the way we played yesterday.
I think it's a case of chicken vs egg.How anybody can testify that the Johncock move wasnt the defining influence on the result of the game is beyond me.
It's humourous to watch the same posters constantly make excuses for Craig though.
Not in 2010 or 2011 anyway. Prior to that? I think we would have fought our way out of it. Then again, prior to that we wouldn't have been trailing a team as bad as the 2011 Brisbane Lions outfit.We were challenged in both games by the opposition and both wins were very un-neil craig like. If Craig was subjected to the same circumstances I honestly think we would have definitely lost yesterday.
There is no way that Neil would have had us playing attacking footy when we were down by 4 goals nor would he have made a pro-active attacking move with the game still in the balance. Neil would have had us going ultra defensive, overusing the handball and playing uncontested football and we would have lost.
I think we also used the corridor less yesterday, and actually took less unnecessary risks against the forward press with our ball movement. We moved the ball quickly to score, but it was very measured and discriminatory. Looked like a direct implementation from Bickley.
That's the way I saw it anyway.
We were challenged in both games by the opposition and both wins were very un-neil craig like. If Craig was subjected to the same circumstances I honestly think we would have definitely lost yesterday.
There is no way that Neil would have had us playing attacking footy when we were down by 4 goals nor would he have made a pro-active attacking move with the game still in the balance. Neil would have had us going ultra defensive, overusing the handball and playing uncontested football and we would have lost.
How anybody can testify that the Johncock move wasnt the defining influence on the result of the game is beyond me.
It's humourous to watch the same posters constantly make excuses for Craig though.
Bickley hasn't turned our team to a winning one in two weeks without the influences of Craig's structures and intent. How the boys have played in the last two games, is how they were expected to play under Craig but didn't. The base elements were there, they just needed a size 12 boot up the clacker to wake them up.
This week will be the real test for Bicks.
I thought the man on man move in the fourth was far more telling than the Johncock move. It meant they had to kick to a contest and it turns out we were up to the task and started winning contests all over the ground.
Bickley hasn't turned our team to a winning one in two weeks without the influences of Craig's structures and intent. How the boys have played in the last two games, is how they were expected to play under Craig but didn't. The base elements were there, they just needed a size 12 boot up the clacker to wake them up.
This week will be the real test for Bicks.
I've been wondering... Could Bickley not share these ideas under Craig? Was Craig THAT set in his ways?
True.. but neither of those moves had any real impact on the result yesterday. Dangermouse was good against Port, but had almost no impact at all against Brisbane.Very, very good question.
Even Neil's biggest fans would have to admit that Dangerfield to permanent midfield and Riley into the team wouldn't have happened while Neil was there. Possibly others too but I'll leave it at that for now. Why couldn't the remaining coaches have convinced him to try these fairly obvious, simple moves?
Jenny
disagree, Bickley has significantly simplified the structure and game plan, this is what we have been screaming for all year
Bick's is also playing players in their best positions, VB and Knights (Midfield) and Walker (FF) are examples of this
you are drawing a long bow with your statement, I would go as far as saying that we would have lost yesterday if we played with Neil's robust structure and game plan
It doesn't matter if they did or didn't have any real impact.True.. but neither of those moves had any real impact on the result yesterday. Dangermouse was good against Port, but had almost no impact at all against Brisbane.
Walker probably would have come in under Neil Craig - if only because Tippett was MIA through injury and he would have had no alternative. To Bickley's credit, he announced Walker's selection before Tippett's injury was known.
Well, no. If the moves aren't having any observable effect (some are - most notably VB into the midfield, some aren't), then you need to ask if Craig was right in his previous positioning.It doesn't matter if they did or didn't have any real impact.
The question is why they are being tried now, and weren't previously.
Bickley is simply applying the george costanza philosophy that if every natural coaching instinct from craig, be it a positional move or team selection was wrong, then the opposite must be right.
The attacking mindset is the best part. Your always half a chance if you keep attacking. Id forgotten how much I missed that.
I think we also used the corridor less yesterday, and actually took less unnecessary risks against the forward press with our ball movement. We moved the ball quickly to score, but it was very measured and discriminatory. Looked like a direct implementation from Bickley.
That's the way I saw it anyway.
I wonder if all this praise will continue to be reaped on Bicks after the weekend.
The attacking mindset is the best part. Your always half a chance if you keep attacking. Id forgotten how much I missed that.
disagree vader.
the change in approach breeds confidence and inspires desire irrespective of the individual performances.
it also prepares us for the future. something you never seem to consider with your cold, often wrong, analysis of what happened in the last 5 minutes.
I wonder if all this praise will continue to be reaped on Bicks after the weekend.