Opinion Coach: James Hird

[Kaiser Powser]

Pardon me for intruding but I believe after 2016 he will move to Hawaii, apparently he promised his wife this a while back. You could always try and convince him otherwise but I think he is pretty set on moving on after 2016.

Probably, but he was also pretty set on retiring from coaching after he left the Swans. Also Bomber didn't want to coach again after Geelong. Some things return the flame a bit. He might hand over the reigns to Goodwin and still have a fire in the belly. Who knows.

 

[ManWithNoName]

They need to pick themselves up, and keep moving toward the finish line, not quit the race.

Yes but they finish last.

 

[fishardansin]

I would say, also, that the impact of the absence of Myers, Hocking, Zaharakis and Winderlich cannot be ignored. We're undoubtedly worse with them out.

However, I also think the kind of tempo and game plan issues we're having wouldn't be just magically fixed if they were playing.

Sorry Doss I'll disagree with that. Myers and Hocking playing on the ball means a lot more ball going our way from the stoppage. We look quicker when we're directing traffic. However, I do concede that if the ruck situation doesn't sort itself out it doesn't matter. Zaka's run through the middle and Winderlich's pace will make a big difference.

Winderlich's leading at the ball will also make a massive difference. If he comes back with any sort of form you watch us change. Ball movement will be a lot more direct. Carlisle (if he's still forward) and Daniher will play better as a result.

Our backline has been magnificent. They will be even better if the midfield is more effective so that opposition transition is slower.

 

[fishardansin]

God I hope Hirdy turns it around in the second half of the year to shove it up the jecksie of a few around here!!

Not sure he will though. Needs a big change of the "game plan" once he gets everyone back. Start 6 forward but push one up to the contest and two behind it. I would like to see Dempsey/Colyer/Fantasia/Coonehy types in that role. Play all three gun KPDs in defence. Play McKernan AND one of Giles or Bellchambers. Daniher as CHF and resting ruck as FF. Winderlich to play deep forward also.

Back in our inside mids to win lots of ball and feed it back to the run and gun HFFs mentioned above. They can run straight at the defence. Also rely upon our three gun KPDs to turn the ball over and feed it to these players also, who can hurt the opposition back on the quick transition. Daniher leads up and goes back with the flight sometimes. Winderlich is a leading option from deep and there is a resting ruck to always stay at the back of their zone.

C'mon Hirdy, it's not 2011 anymore!!

Also folks really should be looking at Thompson for the lack of attack in our structure now.

 

[MightyDons4]

Really need to implement an offensive press into our game plan if we continue to attempt to move the ball forward at a faster rate.

 

[TheFrenchCut]

Sorry Doss I'll disagree with that. Myers and Hocking playing on the ball means a lot more ball going our way from the stoppage. We look quicker when we're directing traffic. However, I do concede that if the ruck situation doesn't sort itself out it doesn't matter. Zaka's run through the middle and Winderlich's pace will make a big difference.

Winderlich's leading at the ball will also make a massive difference. If he comes back with any sort of form you watch us change. Ball movement will be a lot more direct. Carlisle (if he's still forward) and Daniher will play better as a result.

Our backline has been magnificent. They will be even better if the midfield is more effective so that opposition transition is slower.

Contested ball has taken a massive hit this year with Myers and Hocking out, and Ryder's taps to advantage. But something I think people are forgetting is that Ryder was also an extra midfielder essentially, averaging 4 or so clearances a game last year, whereas Tbell is only at roughly 1 and a bit. While good, I don't think we've (in the last few years) had the greatest clearance unit, which probably makes all these factors even more difficult to recover from. I still don't understand why, after all the above, we haven't been using Kav at centre bounces.

 

[Demz]

im backing John Worsfold as our next Coach

 

[ManWithNoName]

im backing John Worsfold as our next Coach

That's great. Now we just need to work out what club it is you support.

 

[Demz]

That's great. Now we just need to work out what club it is you support.

goodluck

 

[Doss]

That's probably what UTG said.

 

[Demz]

That's probably what UTG said.

UTG??

 

[Doss]

Oh don't worry, just a wistful reference to a certain main board poster who delights in giving off the impression he has the inside word on all the goings on at Essendon (he doesn't; he just loves trolling the **** out of us at any opportunity, like a moth to a flame).

 

[Demz]

Oh don't worry, just a wistful reference to a certain main board poster who delights in giving off the impression he has the inside word on all the goings on at Essendon (he doesn't; he just loves trolling the **** out of us at any opportunity, like a moth to a flame).

ohh ok

anyway im off to watch the footy show, have a good night all

 

[windyhill]

How is it possible to move to Hawaii? Citizenship and all that? If its easy im going.

He could probably buy Hawaii.

 

[yodellinhank]

Yes but they finish last.

I suppose you're one of those people who think you can't succeed as a life coach if you haven't done a significant life-coaching apprenticeship?

 

[Doss]

lol, life coach.

 

[ManWithNoName]

I suppose you're one of those people who think you can't succeed as a life coach if you haven't done a significant life-coaching apprenticeship?

Correct. I don't think anyone can succeed as a life coach.

 

[Lads23]

I really hope Hird can turn things around, however at the moment with his current game plan and selections I can't see how things will improve. Myers, Winderlich and Hocking will help but it's not going to get us close to where we wanted to be at the start of the season. Looks like the bombers drought of not winning a final will continue for a while, unless something drastic can change.

 

[expires]

He could probably buy Hawaii.

Well that's a better way of going about it than what Cook or the Japanese employed.

 

[Howard Moon]

Not sure if anyone posted/read this but it feels spot on.

Knee jerk reaction to stagnant use without completeing the butterfly effect of the game plan tweak. Running into dead ends

The biggest change in the past month has been the Bombers’ willingness to play-on after a mark.

They have moved from playing on after a mark an average of 30.35 per cent of the time in the first four rounds to 43.4 per cent over the past four rounds.

They are now second in the competition for play-on after a mark percentage.

The shift happened after the Bombers’ Anzac Day loss to Collingwood when their ball movement appeared stagnant and their switching of play was countered.

They scored just 49 points so tok a different tack against St Kilda, playing on after a mark 44.2 per cent of the time.

Such a shift was reasonable but the structure needed to follow.

That hasn't happened.

Essendon’s forwards and midfielders collapse back to defend well as a group, but don't transition forward quickly enough to give the kicker an outlet.

In fact they seem to disappear in a puff of smoke.

With an inexperienced forward line – apart from Paul Chapman – and no real support from a ruckman, the kicker rarely has a player forward of the action that draws the ball.

Experienced defenders are letting their Essendon opponents push into defence to help out.

They then rely on their teammates to put enough pressure on in attack to ensure there’s enough uncertainty in the ball carrier's mind to make him handball, go backwards, or cough it up.

Hence the Bombers are ranked second for disposals differential in the past four rounds but can't score, their 15.1 metres average gained per disposal for the year is the fourth worst in the competition.

Their kick-to-handball ratio of 1.2:1 is 15th and their stoppage numbers inside 50 have plummeted, as they can't trap the ball in. No wonder Chapman is struggling as scraps from stoppages are his bread and butter.

The Bombers concede more scores after an interception than 12 other teams and often lose the ball in the midfield.

They might have improved their scores once inside 50 since the change but they are not going inside enough.

Poise is needed. The accelerator pedal needs to be worked according to need.

Defenders and midfielders need to be trusted to win contests and absorb pressure in the back half.

Jake Carlisle needs to measure his performance on whether he can provide an outlet from the back half and it's worth considering Jonathan Giles to lend support up forward. If his problem is running power at least he will be forward of the football in transition.

Easier said than done of course but the Bombers have managed to do so under James Hird before and can regroup during the bye.

At the corresponding point in 2012 and 2013, Essendon had won eight and lost three.

Its contested possession numbers were high and the Bombers led the competition for inside 50s.

Their scores per inside 50 were around 49 per cent in that time but have dropped to 41 per cent in 2015.

They were a good clearance team but they are ranked 17th in that statistic this season and in 2012 they led the competition at this stage for metres gained per disposal.

Interestingly their mark and play-on percentage at that time was still high in competition terms at 38.3 per cent but well below their frenetic football in the past four weeks of playing on after a mark 47.2 per cent of the time.

And they have always attacked through the corridor under Hird.

The Bombers have plenty out of their control at the moment but their speed of ball movement is one thing they can control.

And their forwards need to return home inside 50 once they leave.

The problems are not insurmountable but they need to be corrected quickly.

The bye is a good time for reflection.

ESSENDON'S MARK/PLAY-ON PERCENTAGE IN 2015
R1 v Sydney Swans: 30.0%
R2 v Hawthorn: 36.8%
R3 v Carlton: 28.7%
R4 v Collingwood: 25.9%
R5 v St Kilda: 44.2%
R6 v Fremantle: 37.9%
R7 v North Melbourne: 39.8%
R8 v Brisbane Lions: 46.2%
R9 v Richmond: 34.0%
R10 v Geelong: 48.4%
R11 v West Coast: 45.0%

Stats supplied by Champion Data

 

[yaco55]

Not sure if anyone posted/read this but it feels spot on.

Knee jerk reaction to stagnant use without completeing the butterfly effect of the game plan tweak. Running into dead ends

The biggest change in the past month has been the Bombers’ willingness to play-on after a mark.

They have moved from playing on after a mark an average of 30.35 per cent of the time in the first four rounds to 43.4 per cent over the past four rounds.

They are now second in the competition for play-on after a mark percentage.

The shift happened after the Bombers’ Anzac Day loss to Collingwood when their ball movement appeared stagnant and their switching of play was countered.

They scored just 49 points so tok a different tack against St Kilda, playing on after a mark 44.2 per cent of the time.

Such a shift was reasonable but the structure needed to follow.

That hasn't happened.

Essendon’s forwards and midfielders collapse back to defend well as a group, but don't transition forward quickly enough to give the kicker an outlet.

In fact they seem to disappear in a puff of smoke.

With an inexperienced forward line – apart from Paul Chapman – and no real support from a ruckman, the kicker rarely has a player forward of the action that draws the ball.

Experienced defenders are letting their Essendon opponents push into defence to help out.

They then rely on their teammates to put enough pressure on in attack to ensure there’s enough uncertainty in the ball carrier's mind to make him handball, go backwards, or cough it up.

Hence the Bombers are ranked second for disposals differential in the past four rounds but can't score, their 15.1 metres average gained per disposal for the year is the fourth worst in the competition.

Their kick-to-handball ratio of 1.2:1 is 15th and their stoppage numbers inside 50 have plummeted, as they can't trap the ball in. No wonder Chapman is struggling as scraps from stoppages are his bread and butter.

The Bombers concede more scores after an interception than 12 other teams and often lose the ball in the midfield.

They might have improved their scores once inside 50 since the change but they are not going inside enough.

Poise is needed. The accelerator pedal needs to be worked according to need.

Defenders and midfielders need to be trusted to win contests and absorb pressure in the back half.

Jake Carlisle needs to measure his performance on whether he can provide an outlet from the back half and it's worth considering Jonathan Giles to lend support up forward. If his problem is running power at least he will be forward of the football in transition.

Easier said than done of course but the Bombers have managed to do so under James Hird before and can regroup during the bye.

At the corresponding point in 2012 and 2013, Essendon had won eight and lost three.

Its contested possession numbers were high and the Bombers led the competition for inside 50s.

Their scores per inside 50 were around 49 per cent in that time but have dropped to 41 per cent in 2015.

They were a good clearance team but they are ranked 17th in that statistic this season and in 2012 they led the competition at this stage for metres gained per disposal.

Interestingly their mark and play-on percentage at that time was still high in competition terms at 38.3 per cent but well below their frenetic football in the past four weeks of playing on after a mark 47.2 per cent of the time.

And they have always attacked through the corridor under Hird.

The Bombers have plenty out of their control at the moment but their speed of ball movement is one thing they can control.

And their forwards need to return home inside 50 once they leave.

The problems are not insurmountable but they need to be corrected quickly.

The bye is a good time for reflection.

ESSENDON'S MARK/PLAY-ON PERCENTAGE IN 2015
R1 v Sydney Swans: 30.0%
R2 v Hawthorn: 36.8%
R3 v Carlton: 28.7%
R4 v Collingwood: 25.9%
R5 v St Kilda: 44.2%
R6 v Fremantle: 37.9%
R7 v North Melbourne: 39.8%
R8 v Brisbane Lions: 46.2%
R9 v Richmond: 34.0%
R10 v Geelong: 48.4%
R11 v West Coast: 45.0%

Stats supplied by Champion Data

This is an indictment on the media's assessment of various playing styles - Especially seeing that the media uses Champion Data stats - Media continually say that EFC play slow and boring footy - The media may be right about the boring part - I never thought we played too slow, in fact posted the last two weeks that we played too fast - Biggest issue is poor disposal/turnovers and lack of movement in the forward line.

 

[Saint]

There's a balance between moving the ball too fast and not getting a good disposal away and waiting too long and not taking a risk and allowing defences to get organised against us.

It's not a gameplan change, or a coach change, it's educating players so they make the right choices and perhaps picking players who repeatedly make the right choices with the ball (not including what they do without the ball).

People try to boil down football to stats or basic game plans, but the subtleties are way too much for definitive problems or solutions.

To sack a coach is mainly down to connection between coach and players. If the coach has the players, which Hird clearly does, then you can get people in to help with gameplan or coaching young players. Having a coach the players will play for is a key ingredient in the whole mix. Without that, you won't get anything out of them, even if you've devised a flawless game plan.

I think the reason coaches get sacked after so many losses is that the players lose faith in what they're doing, not for specific game plan, selection or match-day issues.

 

[ManWithNoName]

There's a balance between moving the ball too fast and not getting a good disposal away and waiting too long and not taking a risk and allowing defences to get organised against us.

It's not a gameplan change, or a coach change, it's educating players so they make the right choices and perhaps picking players who repeatedly make the right choices with the ball (not including what they do without the ball).

People try to boil down football to stats or basic game plans, but the subtleties are way too much for definitive problems or solutions.

To sack a coach is mainly down to connection between coach and players. If the coach has the players, which Hird clearly does, then you can get people in to help with gameplan or coaching young players. Having a coach the players will play for is a key ingredient in the whole mix. Without that, you won't get anything out of them, even if you've devised a flawless game plan.

I think the reason coaches get sacked after so many losses is that the players lose faith in what they're doing, not for specific game plan, selection or match-day issues.

The Carlton players loved playing for Mick.

 

[bombadeer]

The Carlton players loved playing for Mick.

I believe Carlton is the worst administered club in living memory. Any action Carlton take, we should take the equal and opposite action.

We should hire Mick Malthouse.

 

[dnbassador]

Maybe we have been doing preseason until the bye and next week we run home nicely

#dreaming


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk