Bickley's Performance - Rate

[RichardMarx]

"Stupidity is the deliberate cultivation of ignorance" - William Gaddis

I'm not being ignorant - I'm just sick of your one-eyed BS view. eg. Reilly was tagging Ebert (but he wasn't playing as a defender) ?????

 

[King Elvis]

That I half agree with, but a lot of it had to do with no Tippett to bomb it blindly too.

 

[NTRabbit]

That I half agree with, but a lot of it had to do with no Tippett to bomb it blindly too.

Along with the lack of pressure on the ball carrier, and the lack of a loose man sitting right in front of Walker 90% of the time. It's a lot easier to kick inside 50 without one man on your hammer and another closing you down from the front. Port supporters would also argue that it's because Nick Salter isn't a defender's arseh*le.

 

[Elite Crow]

NT you must have been watching a different team this year, because you are the only one who is imagining the moves Craig made.

Vince has not been played at HBF for the majority of the year. To be truthful he only played there in small bursts on the weekend.

Knights played midfield for the last qtr against Geelong only, and if you want a refresher look at your post, lucky I've got a good memory:

Knights went on the ball and picked up some junk time stats.
today.

Reilly played in defence, he did not tag.

Danger has played mostly forward for the last 6 weeks. Craig even had to defend this decision.

As for desperate, you are the one so desperate to try and defend your position that Craig should have and will be coaching next year that your making things up.

But if your going to come across as the world authority on all things football, you might want to get your facts straight.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Danger has played mostly forward for the last 6 weeks. Craig even had to defend this decision.

He categorically said the team needed Patrick more up forward than it needed him in the midfield, and that he'd love "two Dangerfields" so he could leave one up forward.

He was obssessed with the concept of Dangerfield up forward, and to make the treachery even worse, he held this obsession whilst playing Walker in the SANFL.

And NT Rabbit wonders why his position became untenable.

 

[Elite Crow]

He categorically said the team needed Patrick more up forward than it needed him in the midfield, and that he'd love "two Dangerfields" so he could leave one up forward.

He was obssessed with the concept of Dangerfield up forward, and to make the treachery even worse, he held this obsession whilst playing Walker in the SANFL.

And NT Rabbit wonders why his position became untenable.

NTs position is untenable. He is talking rubbish but with arrogance. There was a thread on the main board awhile back discussing Craigs future. He was adamant Craig would be coach next year and we were a bunch of idiots for suggesting otherwise, and who was right in the end?

If you want to be a FIGJAM, try not to make mistakes because it makes you look like an arrogant bleep.

 

[sbenno]

Interesting thread... views seem to be polar opposites; that Bicks was subtley different, which made all the difference; or that people are inventing these differences for the purposes of justifying a win.

I'm a bit in between. While there appear to be differences between Bicks and NC, they're not master-stroke, six-goal-swing differences. Basically swapping Reilly and vB around is not an "ellen to the forward line" move by any stretch.

I'm more of the opinion that the emotion of the week got the boys fired up, which contributed more to the win than any of Bick's moves. Next week will be a better measure, once the emotion has calmed a bit.

 

[Elite Crow]

Sbenno but the main problem is with this thread is that one poster won't even acknowledge moves such as VB and Reilly swapping even occurred. This despite saying Bicks acknowledging he moved VB into the midfield from defence.

 

[King Elvis]

benno, I think there were definitely SUBTLE differences, but I think the quality of the opposition was the biggest factor.

 

[Vader]

Bicks might have re-shuffled the deckchairs slightly, but the gameplan was still 100% identical to that which Craig had been implementing.

Yes, the midfielders finally started to lower their eyes after quarter time (probably the result of a roast from the coach - 3 goals from 20 F50 entries is NOT a good return). However, the single biggest factor at play here was the quality (or lack thereof) of the opposition. The opposition failed to put any pressure on our ball carriers, or to implement anything in the way of effective defensive tactics.

There's no way we could/should be hailing Bickley as a revolutionary until we see how his troops go against an AFL standard opponent, which Port are not (by Primus' own admission).

 

[Slippery Pete]

There's no way we could/should be hailing Bickley as a revolutionary until we see how his troops go against an AFL standard opponent, which Port are not (by Primus' own admission).

Not revolutionary by any stretch, but those tweaks definitely had an impact on the result.

For starters, there's a fair chance Walker would not have even played.

 

[Vader]

Not revolutionary by any stretch, but those tweaks definitely had an impact on the result.
Highly debatable, given the lack of an opposition.

For starters, there's a fair chance Walker would not have even played.

Walker was always going to play once Tippett got injured.