Bickley does things Craig could never do

[Slippery Pete]

Since you have not commented on my response, I will continue.

The "new game plan" was apparently based on moving the ball around the boundary rather than through the corridor. Now I'm sure this observation was based on facts rather than the ramblings of "The Factory" and "The Analyser" (that would be the same David King that declared in May this year that Richmond were certainties to finish in the top six)

So what about the facts? What was the ratio of ball movements from defence that went down the boundary line compared to through the corridor? Which method produced the most goals? How did it compare to our approach pre-Bicks?

If anyone cares to watch the replay and map our ball movement you will find that if this was the game plan then we didn't follow it.!!!

What this one size fits all assessment conveniently fails to ignore is when the ball was moved along the boundary and when it was moved through the corridor. What was the state of the game? Which player was in possession? How long was there to go in the quarter? Were we trying to score, or trying to defend? What defensive mechanism were the opposition implementing at the time? Pure numbers on ball movement are useless without this analysis. However, nobody other than club analysts can reasonably provide this analysis, so we go by what we see. And what people saw was a subtle shift in when the ball was being moved through the corridor.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

You should take some of your own advice. You've made opposition injuries and misfortunes the cornerstone of your claim as to why the last two weeks are an abberation. Facts they may be, but on their own, they aren't much.

You haven't acknowledged the undisputed attitudinal fix implemented by Bickley - as per comments from the players ("closer to the edge, don't worry about giving away a 50"), you haven't acknowledged the use of Taylor Walker, as per comments from the Captain ("Taylor needs to stay in the side to get used to the way we play"), and most of all, you haven't answered Spackler's question.

Do you think Neil was wrong to quit?

 

[srv23]

Since you have not commented on my response, I will continue.

The "new game plan" was apparently based on moving the ball around the boundary rather than through the corridor. Now I'm sure this observation was based on facts rather than the ramblings of "The Factory" and "The Analyser" (that would be the same David King that declared in May this year that Richmond were certainties to finish in the top six)

So what about the facts? What was the ratio of ball movements from defence that went down the boundary line compared to through the corridor? Which method produced the most goals? How did it compare to our approach pre-Bicks?

If anyone cares to watch the replay and map our ball movement you will find that if this was the game plan then we didn't follow it.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

Next!!!

Since you've clearly done this based on your posts ie watched the replay and mapped the ball movement - could you please post the "facts" that prove your argument?

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

Since you've clearly done this based on your posts ie watched the replay and mapped the ball movement - could you please post the "facts" that prove your argument?

Happy to provide the data tomorrow or all the couldabeen coaches could take a look at the replay. The game is easier to understand without the beer googles.

I have never stated that Neil Craig should or should not continue coaching. What I do dispute is people stating their perceptions (or what they were told by the best friend or the uncle of one of the players) as "facts".

When Neil Craig said at the start of the season that we will play a more attacking style did that then become a fact? I like to base my opinions on things that you can measure. What I have seen in the last two weeks is a very inexperienced team falling over the line against two less experienced teams.

On Sunday we moved the ball along the boundary line twice in the first ten minutes and suddenly we are the new Collingwood. Check out the ball movement in the first quarter against Sydney and Essendon. If you weren't listening to the clowns on the commentary you could easily conclude we were making a greater effort to move the ball through the corridor (which I don't mind by the way). What has been different the last two weeks is that when we turned the ball over we weren't punished.

More than happy to discuss many of the other myths.

What about "the AFC has refused to trade players under the Craig regime".

 

[Slippery Pete]

More than happy to discuss many of the other myths.

".

Go on then. Address them. Im waiting. You obviously think they are myths. Here they are again, in case you didnt get them the first time.

You haven't acknowledged the undisputed attitudinal fix implemented by Bickley - as per comments from the players ("closer to the edge, don't worry about giving away a 50"), you haven't acknowledged the use of Taylor Walker, as per comments from the Captain ("Taylor needs to stay in the side to get used to the way we play"), and most of all, you haven't answered Spackler's question.

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

Go on then. Address them. Im waiting. You obviously think they are myths. Here they are again, in case you didnt get them the first time.

Firstly, I was not specifically referring to your recent comments as myths, I was referring to the last 18 months of "interesting" observations from a number of delusional posters.

Regarding Taylor Walker, he was dropped back to Norwood for two matches earlier in the season for what were easily measured deficiencies. Are you crediting Neil for Taylors more enthusiastic approach to tackling and putting pressure on opponents since he returned? He was then injured against Brisbane and after a month on the sidelines he played one (not exactly BOG) game for Norwood and was reported. After another week off he was asked to play another game for Norwood. Hardly languishing in the two's. In the two games back he has played on the highly rated Salter and the dominating Staker. I have to admit Bicks has totally transformed the lad as will be obvious from his games against Geelong and West Coast.

As for playing closer to the edge can you point to the evidence that this has happened. Craig like all other coaches has made similar statements but taking a fiercely competitive attitude into the next game doesn't mean a lot if you respond like Melbourne did in the last three quarters on Saturday.

Finally on Carls question, I don't think things have or will change dramatically with a new coach. What I do like is that we have put lots of games into young lads this year and hopefully some of them will turn into good footballers.

 

[srv23]

Happy to provide the data tomorrow or all the couldabeen coaches could take a look at the replay. The game is easier to understand without the beer googles.

I have never stated that Neil Craig should or should not continue coaching. What I do dispute is people stating their perceptions (or what they were told by the best friend or the uncle of one of the players) as "facts".

".

With all due respect - but unless you have already analysed the game and have the stats to back up your argument - you too are stating your "perception" of watching the game as "fact". Just curious what makes your "beer goggles" more perceptive than everyone elses.

I will check this thread tomorrow and look forward to you posting the data to back up your argument.

 

[FR0GGY]

I have never stated that Neil Craig should or should not continue coaching. What I do dispute is people stating their perceptions (or what they were told by the best friend or the uncle of one of the players) as "facts".

When Neil Craig said at the start of the season that we will play a more attacking style did that then become a fact? I like to base my opinions on things that you can measure. What I have seen in the last two weeks is a very inexperienced team falling over the line against two less experienced teams.

More than happy to discuss many of the other myths.

Oh really, you could have at least looked up the facts instead of making things up.
http://afl.allthestats.com/index.ph...e&id=160&catid=34&Itemid=56&qry=1&match=13910
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=5299

Port and Brisbane were both older and more experienced.
Got any more myths for us?

 

[Slippery Pete]

As for playing closer to the edge can you point to the evidence that this has happened.

Keep playing dodgeball...you're getting good at it.

We're not debating how well the instruction was carried out. We're pointing out that it was an instruction.

Same thing with Walker. Who really knows what's responsible for his performances this week and last? It's all subjective - luckily for you. What we're discussing is the sentiments of the Captain of the footy club- Taylor needs to stay in the side now.

Two confirmed deviations away from Neil Craig's philosophies.

Deny it all you want.

These two things have changed.

Not debatable.

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

Oh really, you could have at least looked up the facts instead of making things up.
http://afl.allthestats.com/index.ph...e&id=160&catid=34&Itemid=56&qry=1&match=13910
http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=5299

Port and Brisbane were both older and more experienced.
Got any more myths for us?

Glad you could join the party Froggy. I have the skills to check the stats but thanks for the heads up.

The substance of my statement was that we have struggled against the more experienced teams this year. Our performances against Gold Coast, Brisbane, Port and Richmond is not a great indication of where the team is at, regardless of the coach. We have had two decent wins this year, against Hawthorn and Sydney. A win against Geelong or West Coast will indicate things have changed. Either a win or a loss against the Gold Coast or Richmond would be consistent with our inconsistent form.

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

Since you've clearly done this based on your posts ie watched the replay and mapped the ball movement - could you please post the "facts" that prove your argument?

The argument in this and other threads has been that we have "changed the game plan" in the last two weeks. Interestingly while most assert we have moved to a more Collingwood style of moving the ball along the boundary line (as commented by David King and Brian Taylor in the first quarter on Saturday) others say the new game plan is to attack down the corridor. Go figure.

The facts are that there were 31 transitions from defence to attack on Sunday. This does not include the 16 kick ins when a point was scored. Fortunately most of the kick ins went to the boundary line as per usual (two excursions down the corridor resulted in turnovers)

Most of the movements from our defence started with turnovers. There were 6 ball movements along the boundary line after gaining possession, we switched the ball 8 times and went down the corridor 17 times. (If the game plan was to go down the boundary line then Thommo and Armstrong were having a slash when this instruction was made)

We gained possession of the ball 11 times on the boundary line and then moved it into the corridor resulting in two goals. On 4 occasions we gained possession on the boundary line and moved it down the line resulting in one goal. Two of these attacks were in the first quarter and prompted David King's "analysis". The 8 boundary line attack that followed a switch did not create any goals.

We gained possession in the defensive corridor on 8 occassions, going down the guts 6 times ( 2 goals) and moving it down the boundary line twice (no goals).

In summary we have not become the new Collingwood, our game plan was statistically similar to the previous 16 games. The big difference was the effective centre clearances that resulted in goals for us which was matched by similar statistics by the Lions. If we allow the same amount of quick clean ball out of the centre by Geelong it will get very ugly and I doubt that they will allow us the same luxury.

Any other information that you require?

 

[Elite Crow]

Thats a shitload amount of effort youve put in just to prove a point. Havent you got better things to do?

 

[SydCrow]

Thats a shitload amount of effort youve put in just to prove a point. Havent you got better things to do?

glad you agree that the point is proved

you can't call for evidence and then bag the guy when he provides it

 

[weneverland]

The argument in this and other threads has been that we have "changed the game plan" in the last two weeks. Interestingly while most assert we have moved to a more Collingwood style of moving the ball along the boundary line (as commented by David King and Brian Taylor in the first quarter on Saturday) others say the new game plan is to attack down the corridor. Go figure.

The facts are that there were 31 transitions from defence to attack on Sunday. ......

In summary we have not become the new Collingwood, our game plan was statistically similar to the previous 16 games. The big difference was the effective centre clearances that resulted in goals for us which was matched by similar statistics by the Lions. If we allow the same amount of quick clean ball out of the centre by Geelong it will get very ugly and I doubt that they will allow us the same luxury.

Any other information that you require?

Impressive work AFGM. I really appreciate the effort.

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

Thats a shitload amount of effort youve put in just to prove a point. Havent you got better things to do?

I have also been working on resurrecting the share market.

I do think you don't get a complete picture of what's happening when you watch the match live. I enjoy analysing the replay and it's amazing how inaccurate one's immediate impression of the match can be. There were posters calling for Dangerfield to be given some time on ball four games after this move was first made.

 

[Elite Crow]

glad you agree that the point is proved

you can't call for evidence and then bag the guy when he provides it

I didnt call for any proof

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Finally on Carls question, I don't think things have or will change dramatically with a new coach. What I do like is that we have put lots of games into young lads this year and hopefully some of them will turn into good footballers.

So that's a yes then? You think he was wrong to step down?

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

Putting words in my mouth?

I think he made the right decision to step down.

Do I think Bickley or any other coach would have significantly improved our win/loss record this year? My answer is no.

1) We started the season with 10 players over 25 years of age.

2) We have one top 5 draft pick (the recycled Richard Tambling) and no father son selections. This group make up less than 5% of listed players yet nearly 35% of the elite players in the competition. We have one player that has made an All Australian side, Rutten in 2005.

3)We immediately lost Stevens, Porplyzia, Davis and Mackay for most or all of the season.

4)We had twelve players who were coming off major operations and/or missed most of 2010 (Vince, Knights, Otten, Tambling, Moran, Martin, Symes, Schmidt, Young, Shaw, Craig and Talia). How have this group performed this year?

Our improvement was going to come from players who had played less than 30 games, many of whom were rookie elevations.

Nevertheless the pass mark for Craigy as outlined by many fair minded people on Big Footy was to win at least one final (TW13 said 2 finals i.e. finish 1,2 ,3 or 4)

Does that answer your question?

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

With all due respect - but unless you have already analysed the game and have the stats to back up your argument - you too are stating your "perception" of watching the game as "fact". Just curious what makes your "beer goggles" more perceptive than everyone elses.

I will check this thread tomorrow and look forward to you posting the data to back up your argument.

Still waiting srv23

 

[srv23]

Still waiting srv23

Been at work looking after the health of people in south australia so have only just had the chance to check the post. Winter is a pretty busy time in our public hospitals...

I appreciate the effort. Good on you. I'm curious though how that compares statistically to games under Craig and if that is actually similar to his game plan or not. Having said that, if there is no difference I'm happy to concede the point. I just think that having a go at other peoples "perceptions" and claiming your as fact is wrong. On the flip side, you've now provided the analysis and the stats so I'm happy to concede that in that aspect of the gameplan, there is little difference. (If indeed the stats are similar under Craig)

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Putting words in my mouth?

I think he made the right decision to step down.

Do I think Bickley or any other coach would have significantly improved our win/loss record this year? My answer is no.

I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Argue that a different coach would have made no difference but at the same time Craig made the right decision to step down.

You can't argue that Craig should have stayed on, because he himself knew that he shouldn't. So you seem to be settling on this 'hedge your bets' stance: He was right to go but it makes no difference that he has.

That sentence doesn't make sense. If, as you've been saying, him stepping down has not had a positive impact, then logic says that he should have stayed.

1) We started the season with 10 players over 25 years of age.

2) We have one top 5 draft pick (the recycled Richard Tambling) and no father son selections. This group make up less than 5% of listed players yet nearly 35% of the elite players in the competition. We have one player that has made an All Australian side, Rutten in 2005.

3)We immediately lost Stevens, Porplyzia, Davis and Mackay for most or all of the season.

4)We had twelve players who were coming off major operations and/or missed most of 2010 (Vince, Knights, Otten, Tambling, Moran, Martin, Symes, Schmidt, Young, Shaw, Craig and Talia). How have this group performed this year?

Our improvement was going to come from players who had played less than 30 games, many of whom were rookie elevations.

Nevertheless the pass mark for Craigy as outlined by many fair minded people on Big Footy was to win at least one final (TW13 said 2 finals i.e. finish 1,2 ,3 or 4)

Does that answer your question?

I'm a fan of the facetious quip too, but this is deflection.

It sounds above as though you are saying that Craig (or whoever coached us in 2011) was doomed to fail due to circumstances beyond their control.

Or essentially that a coach cannot have a positive (or negative) impact on a playing group. That there are more influential factors at play. Now, that's fine. There's certainly more than an element of truth there.

However, again you're insinuating that Craig should have stayed but don't quite have the balls to say it, because you know it is an indefensible position. Given that he stepped down of his own volition.

 

[moogerfooger]

We used to be the side that "everyone knew what to expect". It started out as a compliment, then it became a backhanded one. Now, we're a little bit unpredictable.

But we've also only beaten the 15th and 17th teams, in a year when the gulf between the top and the bottom is the widest in living memory. We're about to find out about that first-hand.

IMO Craig was taking us backwards, Bickley has got us back to an equilibrium. Instead of playing like a bottom 4 side, I reckon we're in the 9-12 range under Bicks, and that's where we would have finished had he been coach all year.

Is he the answer moving forward? No. But he's showing us that even little changes can make a big difference.

 

[A FEW GOOD MEN]

Carl, my statement had nothing to do with the merits of immediate consumption versus delayed gratification.

Whoever coached us this year had one job to do. Namely to get games into the wide range of potential champions identified on BigFooty after our domination of the Freo B grade in the pre-season.

One approach would have been to banish Doughty and give Stevens, Johncock, Scott Thompson, Rutten, Reilly, Porplyzia, Symes, Vince and Maric (i.e. everyone over 24 years old) the year off. I call this the Power approach. As it happens injury meant that we have had an average of only 6 of these "oldies" in the team throughout this year. Do you think getting flogged every week accelerates the development of younger players? Yet every game given to Stevens, Reilly and Symes apparently did untold damage to our future.

A balanced approach is to give the 18-22 years oldplayers with greater potential as many games as possible (Smith, Talia, Gunston, McKernan, Davis, Walker, Otten, Sloane, Dangerfield, Jacobs and Mackay)

Secondly provide opportunities for the next level down to sink or swim (Craig, Shaw, Luke Thompson, Young, Petrenko, Wright, Cook, Armstrong, Jaensch, Sellar, Schmidt, Martin and Henderson)

If we had very few injuries, not played as many youngsters, won 11 games and lost the first final I believe we would be in a worse situation than we are now.

I also believe that it became commercially untenable for Craig to continue which doesn't mean it was the best course of action. People power has spoken, just like it has at Richmond on numerous occasions over the last 25 years. I hope it works out better for us.

 

[Slippery Pete]

I also believe that it became commercially untenable for Craig to continue which doesn't mean it was the best course of action. People power has spoken, just like it has at Richmond on numerous occasions over the last 25 years. I hope it works out better for us.

Good clubs act before their hand is forced.

 

[SydCrow]

Good clubs act before their hand is forced.

tell that to Mick Malthouse

back on topic - I see that Danger has been named at CHF. Is that a typo?

 

[1980GFVideo]

Looks like Bickley is not a fan of Tambling.