Bickley's Performance - Rate

Remove this Banner Ad

macca23 said:
Too early to make any call on Bickley's coaching prowess, given that we were playing the worst team in the comp.

He gets points for playing Knights, Dangerfield and van Berlo in the mid-field (31, 27 and 30 disposals respectively), but really that wasn't rocket science. I think many of us would have liked to see these players played in their correct positions for some time. More of a minus for Craig rather than a huge plus for Bicks.

We did have more aggro and we took a heap of risks - some which could have hurt us against a decent side.

Bickley gets a pass for the night, but that's about it. It doesn't enhance any claims in isolation for Bicks to be appointed as Craig's successor.

I'll be more interested in how we perform against quality teams such as Geelong.
Click to expand...

Totally agree

IMO the interview process will hold more weight than W/L over the next 6 weeks as this process should really test all candidates in terms of list assessment, game plan, on and off field stuctures, cultural values, football philosophy, leadership, people management etc etc

Bickley's biggest change is convincing the sub committee that he can inject new ideas and freshness
 
Whilst the Dead Cat Bounce theory obviously played a large role in yesterday's win (odds on we'll lose this week), the effect of the positional and structural changes on the result can't be ignored.

They've been covered already - Dangerfield playing predominantly in the centre square with Thompson and the Skipper gave us a huge advantage in the middle when we needed it. Reilly taken out of the midfield and given a job across half back was also pivotal. This is a classic example of something Neil never did. Giving a player of average ability LESS responsbility, not MORE. Give the players with genuine TALENT, like Dangerfield, license to impact the result.

The use of Gunston and the opportunity given to Aiden Riley, who we all know has something to offer, was pleasing. Let's hope they both remain in the side until season's end, and not undergo the in-out-in-out rubbish perpetuated by our former coach.

A forward structure that was not one-dimensional and enabled Walker to have several one on one contests and lead into space. If Tippett returns next week, I'd be very surprised and disappointed if he was played anywhere but in the ruck. Having Maric and Jacobs also playing well is a good headache to have. Perhaps our highest paid player will actually find himself fighting for a spot in the 22.

And finally - being given license to get nasty and retaliate. Scott Thompson's tackle near the boundary line in the last, and the melee shortly afterwards, was something we never would have seen under Neil. For seven years we've been baited and not allowed to respond.

NT Rabbit - you need to get over it mate. Yesterday's game was almost more embarrassing for Neil Craig than last week's 100 point loss. A novice coach with no experience actually showed him how to win ugly.
 
Without Tippett I think the Long Bomb Kick And Hope bit was missing yesterday. The guys had to actually think about where they were kicking it forward.

Yes, we played a shit team ...in fact I had no idea Port were THAT shit ...but we could easily have lost too for whatever reason we lose Showdowns to them when we are clearly travelling better.

I'll take the win - I'll take the fact that there was a bit more angst and grunt - and I'll take the fact that Walker kicked 4 and Knights played well.

Better than losing .....
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Ad76 said:
Mate, you're wrong here.

Our gameplan under Craigy featured a some distinct ball movement patterns that were missing today (although it reverted back a bit in the 2nd half):
- backwards movement and switch out of defense
- focus on movement through the corridor

Craig's philosophy centered around maintaining possession and preventing turnovers.

It was evident to me that there was a change this week, and i would not be surprised if the instruction was as simple as just move it forward at every opportunity.
Click to expand...

You have failed to take into account the total lack of pressure from Port. We switched around just as much as we always did, the difference being that without any pressure from the most insipid opposition we've faced all year, going forward became ridiculously easy.
 
King Elvis said:
Can't agree with this mate, especially the bold.

We still tried to switch it coming out of defence the vast majority of the time, it was painful to watch.

I was listening to the presser after, and Rucci trying to claim that we didn't go backwards or sideways anywhere near as much this week - not sure what game he was watching, but we still did the switch, still went backwards and sideways way, way too much.

The usual suspects (Stiffy, Danger etc) were trying to get the ball going forward, while the other usual suspects were stopping, propping and then going backwards or sideways.

We're just lucky Port are shitter than we are.
Click to expand...

I think the difference was the movement was alot quicker, so our sideways movement actually had a chance of escaping the rolling zone.
 
King Elvis said:
I don't think it was a lot quicker, it was just the calibre of the opposition.
Click to expand...

We butchered it terribly at times and our errors weren't punished to the degree that they would've been against superior opposition.

But that doesn't change the fact that strucutural and positional changes allowed us to be far more efficient. It was obvious that players were specifically instructed to lower their eyes going forward, and spot up a target, even if it meant risking a turnover. We spotted up more leads yesterday than I think we have all season.

We've matched that effort at various times this year, but we've never been more efficient or looked more dangerous going forward than we did yesterday.
 
Slippery Pete said:
We butchered it terribly at times and our errors weren't punished to the degree that they would've been against superior opposition.

But that doesn't change the fact that strucutural and positional changes allowed us to be far more efficient. It was obvious that players were specifically instructed to lower their eyes going forward, and spot up a target, even if it meant risking a turnover. We spotted up more leads yesterday than I think we have all season.

We've matched that effort at various times this year, but we've never been more efficient or looked more dangerous going forward than we did yesterday.
Click to expand...

And I reckon this was because we didnt look for the perfect pass. We showed confidence in the player leading even if he had a player at close quarters. Wasnt just going forward either. Again this meant we moved the ball quicker because we didnt have to wait 30 seconds to wait for an open player, and then have to go the other way when the zone closed us down.
 
Adelaide Cows said:
Cant disagree the Power were sh!t, but there was a definate change in the way we moved the ball.
Click to expand...

Only because the Power players applied zero pressure.

In previous games, for quarters and parts of quarters, we have moved forward in exactly the same way - the difference being that in those games, the opposition responded, applied significant amounts of pressure, and severely punished the resulting skill errors, so much so that the players collapsed in on themselves and stopped playing to the gameplan.

Yesterday? We were still punished by turnovers - the majority of the Power goals came from turnovers - but Port coughed up the ball so many times under our pressure that we scored even more from their turnovers.

How many times were Port players hemmed into circles and stoppages - which we flogged them at in terms of clearances, and scores from - by our players pressuring theirs? How many times did you see Port even attempting, let alone succeeding in doing the same thing? With a few exceptions, we swtiched with impunity and they failed to adequately close the space for the next man in the chain.

The gameplan was exactly the same, the opposition were just too rubbish to do anything about it.
 
Adelaide Cows said:
And I reckon this was because we didnt look for the perfect pass. We showed confidence in the player leading even if he had a player at close quarters. Wasnt just going forward either. Again this meant we moved the ball quicker because we didnt have to wait 30 seconds to wait for an open player, and then have to go the other way when the zone closed us down.
Click to expand...


Spot on.
 
NT its hard to take your post seriously if you won't acknowledge that Bicks changed things such as positional moves. All the players have said since the game that they were told to attack and take the game on. They have emphasized that repeatedly.

Your Reilly was tagging Ebert comment was bizarre to say the least. Was he also tagging Matt Thomas in the last qtr when Thomas was resting up forward?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Elite Crow said:
NT its hard to take your post seriously if you won't acknowledge that Bicks changed things such as positional moves. All the players have said since the game that they were told to attack and take the game on. They have emphasized that repeatedly.
Click to expand...

Several of the players also emphasised that they were told to play "closer to the edge" even if it meant giving away a free kick or a 50.

We know this is completely at odds with Neil Craig's philosophy. So not only were there positional/structural changes, there was an immediate philosophical change.
 
Elite Crow said:
NT its hard to take your post seriously if you won't acknowledge that Bicks changed things such as positional moves.
Click to expand...

When someone comes up with any positional changes Bickley actually made, I'll acknowledge them.

The only one so far is Walker playing as the primary tall forward with Maric as a pseudo centre half forward, which was more because Tippett was out and the other choices were non-existent, rather than some revolutionary insight.

Vince has played HBF most of the year, Knights played midfield in his last game (not to mention the ridiculous circle of "get Knights out of the midfield, he's a ball magnet but he can't kick!" to "get Knights into the midfield, he can't kick but he's a ball magnet!"), and Doughty taking the primary tagging role while Reilly sits on someone else is something that this board has discussed at least for the last 3 weeks.

I understand you're desperate to ascribe the win to something radically different the new coach is doing, to get an immediate justification, but there's nothing that can be gained from a game against the worst opposition in the league by an enormous margin. We played the same gameplan, with the same skill level, and Port made no attempt at all to force anything different. The only thing that can be said to be different is that more senior players than just Thompson, Johncock and Rutten actually put in four quarter efforts.

Try waiting for us to play against real opposition the next few weeks before trying to draw anything out of it - even Brisbane as they are now are orders of magnitude better than Port.
 
NTRabbit said:
You got the coaching change you wanted, why do you still feel the need to completely invent 'facts' to support your position? Let it go.
Click to expand...

Are you disputing that playing "closer to the edge" was an instruction to the playing group yesterday, or are you disputing that it wasn't a part of Neil Craig's playbook?

I'll wait for you to clarify this before I take you apart.
 
NTRabbit said:
When someone comes up with any positional changes Bickley actually made, I'll acknowledge them.

The only one so far is Walker playing as the primary tall forward with Maric as a pseudo centre half forward, which was more because Tippett was out and the other choices were non-existent, rather than some revolutionary insight.

Vince has played HBF most of the year, Knights played midfield in his last game (not to mention the ridiculous circle of "get Knights out of the midfield, he's a ball magnet but he can't kick!" to "get Knights into the midfield, he can't kick but he's a ball magnet!"), and Doughty taking the primary tagging role while Reilly sits on someone else is something that this board has discussed at least for the last 3 weeks.

I understand you're desperate to ascribe the win to something radically different the new coach is doing, to get an immediate justification, but there's nothing that can be gained from a game against the worst opposition in the league by an enormous margin. We played the same gameplan, with the same skill level, and Port made no attempt at all to force anything different. The only thing that can be said to be different is that more senior players than just Thompson, Johncock and Rutten actually put in four quarter efforts.

Try waiting for us to play against real opposition the next few weeks before trying to draw anything out of it - even Brisbane as they are now are orders of magnitude better than Port.
Click to expand...

I'll have to watch closely again but I don't believe Vince played HBF. He was on the ball most the time and pushed back really hard to the FB line to help with brining it out and clogging up space. Was showing good leadership for mine and busting his ass.. not playing HBF. Reilly was playing HBF but you seem to have missed that so I guess you had to plug someone in there.
 
Allefgib said:
I'll have to watch closely again but I don't believe Vince played HBF. He was on the ball most the time and pushed back really hard to the FB line to help with brining it out and clogging up space. Was showing good leadership for mine and busting his ass.. not playing HBF. Reilly was playing HBF but you seem to have missed that so I guess you had to plug someone in there.
Click to expand...

As I said in an earlier post, on Sunday Vince played more midfield than HBF than he had since the early rounds of the season - since his return from injury and being dropped he has played most of his time on the HBF, pinch hitting in the middle at roughly the same rate Goodwin did in his final season. Vince has been the go to guy for the second kick out of defence or a point for most of this time, basically the target that Jaensch or Johncock aimed at (when they couldn't find him, hooray for the kick down the line to Jacobs plus retinue). Vince was then in charge of the spread into attack, as the modern "attacking half back flank" or whatever the hell they want to call it does. Earlier, someone claimed that they saw Vince playing HBF briefly on Sunday, and they were pleased with the revolutionary move from Bickley. I pointed out it wasn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

adelaidecrows
Analysis Rating our offseason!
Replies
23
Views
1K
Kane McGoodwin
Kane McGoodwin
John Who
Top 10 Crows in relation to BnF top-5 ratings
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Kane McGoodwin
Kane McGoodwin
I
Analysis Crows Player Ratings
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
140
Views
10K
Interloperer
I

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top