News Crows Documentary?

[jackster83]

There's two edits of the footage about, one done by Herald Sun which removes all footage of everyone talking except Crouch, with extra inserts added to make it all look like it's directed at Crouch.

"Mr Crouch, don't take your anger out on me. GET BACK! GET BACK! NOOOO!!!"

 

[Sanders]

They were reviewing video, why would Nicks be in front of them?

 

[FR0GGY]

Which way were the water bottles facing?

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Keep in mind that this was after Round 2 last year. Our most embarrassing game in years and the club about to enter it's lowest ebb ever.

I will be interested to see the footage from later in the year.

Its a tv show. It will have a story arc which finishes after our Hawthorn game.

 

[Murray2503]

What I took out of this meeting was that we don't have decent players in our midfield so how can we expect to have a decent midfield. I also took out of this that Sloane is somewhat delusional or just giving the company line when he says we can get back to being the best two way midfield. We've never been the best two way midfield. I think Sloane is not the captain we currently need.

 

[1970crow]

What I took out of this meeting was that we don't have decent players in our midfield so how can we expect to have a decent midfield. I also took out of this that Sloane is somewhat delusional or just giving the company line when he says we can get back to being the best two way midfield. We've never been the best two way midfield. I think Sloane is not the captain we currently need.

Sloane only ever spruiks the company line, total shill.

 

[DJ75]

Whether it was directed at B Crouch or not, I love the stand from Nicks.
We have been a one way front running midfield from right back to the Roo, Macca, Goodwin midfields. It used to drive me crazy how forward of the ball they would all get. It worked amazingly well when you won the ball, but got us badly burnt when we didn't have it. There is a reason Josh Carr

Josh Carr

Age

44

Ht

179cm

Wt

80kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.8

4star

K

10.6

4star

HB

7.2

4star

M

4.0

4star

T

3.3

5star

CL

2.0

4star

No current season stats available

D

12.2

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

5.0

4star

M

2.6

3star

T

0.8

3star

managed to win 10 showdowns and have zero losses.

This philosophy continued on and on. Scott Thompson, Brad Crouch

5

Brad Crouch

Age

30

Ht

186cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

26.1

5star

K

12.1

4star

HB

14.0

5star

M

2.7

3star

T

5.5

5star

CL

5.0

5star

D

20.3

5star

K

11.1

4star

HB

9.1

5star

M

1.5

2star

T

3.9

5star

CL

4.6

5star

D

21.6

5star

K

10.0

4star

HB

11.6

5star

M

3.4

4star

T

4.2

5star

CL

2.6

5star

etc... are just continuations of the same philosophy they learnt at the club.

Sloane's statement is kind of understandable, as he was one of the few who genuinely ran both ways. But it also shows that he really only understood his own game and has zero clue what actually happens on field. It really demonstrates why he shouldn't be Captain.

 

[moogerfooger]

There's two edits of the footage about, one done by Herald Sun which removes all footage of everyone talking except Crouch, with extra inserts added to make it all look like it's directed at Crouch.

Need to wait for the full doco. But everyone knows he was terrible defensively - always was, always will be. What's interesting is everything else in that scene.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

Whether it was directed at B Crouch or not, I love the stand from Nicks.
We have been a one way front running midfield from right back to the Roo, Macca, Goodwin midfields. It used to drive me crazy how forward of the ball they would all get. It worked amazingly well when you won the ball, but got us badly burnt when we didn't have it. There is a reason Josh Carr managed to win 10 showdowns and have zero losses.

This philosophy continued on and on. Scott Thompson, Brad Crouch etc... are just continuations of the same philosophy they learnt at the club.

Sloane's statement is kind of understandable, as he was one of the few who genuinely ran both ways. But it also shows that he really only understood his own game and has zero clue what actually happens on field. It really demonstrates why he shouldn't be Captain.

That sounds good in theory, but I am a bit concerned with Nicks "all we do from here is defend" mentality.

The good teams at the moment have their patterns such that when there is a contested ball, you are either going to win or lose. If you lose, there's enough cover to restrict the other team. But if you win, there's enough offensive options to go forward.

What I'm seeing in our team is we win the ball, but have no options. It's a very reactive game plan and it won't work.

You have to have a strategy so that you can win 50% of the contested ball, but for the 50% you do win, you can exploit it better than what the other team can do with the 50% they win. What Nicks is saying (and what I've seen over both games and most of last year) is that for the 50% we lose, we'll be defensive so the other team only has a 20% chance of scoring, but in doing that we restrict our chances of scoring when we win to only 10%. It's a losing strategy.

 

[DJ75]

That sounds good in theory, but I am a bit concerned with Nicks "all we do from here is defend" mentality.

The good teams at the moment have their patterns such that when there is a contested ball, you are either going to win or lose. If you lose, there's enough cover to restrict the other team. But if you win, there's enough offensive options to go forward.

What I'm seeing in our team is we win the ball, but have no options. It's a very reactive game plan and it won't work.

You have to have a strategy so that you can win 50% of the contested ball, but for the 50% you do win, you can exploit it better than what the other team can do with the 50% they win. What Nicks is saying (and what I've seen over both games and most of last year) is that for the 50% we lose, we'll be defensive so the other team only has a 20% chance of scoring, but in doing that we restrict our chances of scoring when we win to only 10%. It's a losing strategy.

I agree, but if you are teaching a young team, you tend to teach defence first and then add on top of it. This might just be the first baby steps we are seeing.

 

[CrowsB4hoes]

I agree, but if you are teaching a young team, you tend to teach defence first and then add on top of it. This might just be the first baby steps we are seeing.

True but you have to wonder. The reason why Derrsma and Butters look so good is they are let off the leash a bit because of that mentality. I bet if Port had picked up Jones, he'd look a million dollars playing in that culture compared to ours.

 

[Vhaluus]

They were reviewing video, why would Nicks be in front of them?

I mean.. there was another coach in front of them.

 

[DJ75]

True but you have to wonder. The reason why Derrsma and Butters look so good is they are let off the leash a bit because of that mentality. I bet if Port had picked up Jones, he'd look a million dollars playing in that culture compared to ours.

I agree with this 100%.
Duursma playing for us would be Jones. No doubt.
In a successful, experienced team, you can let a young guy play on instinct and attack - because the team will likely cover any defensive errors they make. It builds confidence in the guy. It's why guys like that look so good.

In a team where the experienced players are shot and playing for themselves, letting a young bloke run free will teach more bad habits and take much longer to turn the team around.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Can we not draft players who can both attack and defend? One has to be a foreign concept for all our draftees

 

[Interloperer]

I agree, but if you are teaching a young team, you tend to teach defence first and then add on top of it. This might just be the first baby steps we are seeing.

Thats not how you teach a young team.

But it is how you babysit a bunch of no-hopers in the hope of minimising the extent to which they embarrass themselves.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Can we not draft players who can both attack and defend? One has to be a foreign concept for all our draftees

Remember Blighty always saying tackling stats were overrated, because if we have a lot of tackles, that means we didn’t have enough of the ball?

In a sport like basketball, defensive ability is paramount. That’s because there are rules (shot clock etc) that impose limits on how long you can run offence. So even if you are great offensively, bad defence can still cost you enormously.

That theory doesn’t apply in our game. There is no limit to how long you can possess the ball offensively. In fact the goal should be to run offence for as long as possible so that you don’t have to defend. Of course defence is still important, but in our game it is of secondary importance to offence.

If you have a “defence first” mindset in Aussie Rules, you will, amazingly, be defending a lot...

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Remember Blighty always saying tackling stats were overrated, because if we have a lot of tackles, that means we didn’t have enough of the ball?

In a sport like basketball, defensive ability is paramount. That’s because there are rules (shot clock etc) that impose limits on how long you can run offence. So even if you are great offensively, bad defence can still cost you enormously.

That theory doesn’t apply in our game. There is no limit to how long you can possess the ball offensively. In fact the goal should be to run offence for as long as possible so that you don’t have to defend. Of course defence is still important, but in our game it is of secondary importance to offence.

If you have a “defence first” mindset in Aussie Rules, you will, amazingly, be defending a lot...

I see defence as trying to win the ball

I don't see it as just a negative skill for those who don't have the ball necessarily

McLeod, Caven, Smart and co were only able to be the half back springboard because we could win the ball back

 

[MRB37]

True but you have to wonder. The reason why Derrsma and Butters look so good is they are let off the leash a bit because of that mentality. I bet if Port had picked up Jones, he'd look a million dollars playing in that culture compared to ours.

It's somewhat easier for young players to look good in a team where the senior players are doing the basic correctly. We don't even have that and then wonder why the kids look crook.

As for the defence stuff, Nicks has said before about wanting to score off turnovers. Ideally you want to win the ball first, but if not then you're next best option is to force the opposition to cough it up and launch your scoring from your back half. It's not something that will all magically unlock though, we had it at times on the weekend, but every time it came to nail the one kick that would open up the field we seemed to completely fluff it up.

So I guess the hope is with continued experience we can start hitting those kicks more and more and then the game will slowly start to open up, which will then allow Nicks more room to add to the gameplan further.

 

[Slippery Pete]

I see defence as trying to win the ball

I don't see it as just a negative skill for those who don't have the ball necessarily

McLeod, Caven, Smart and co were only able to be the half back springboard because we could win the ball back

I see winning a contested ball as an offensive quality.

But regardless, there were some references made about midfields not running both ways...

Such as this...

We have been a one way front running midfield from right back to the Roo, Macca, Goodwin midfields. It used to drive me crazy how forward of the ball they would all get.

A play involving all three of those blokes usually does not result in needing to run the other way. That’s the whole point, that’s how you win games.

When Dusty Martin has the football do you reckon his team mates are thinking “Gee we better prepare to run the other way here...”

 

[GreyCrow]

It's somewhat easier for young players to look good in a team where the senior players are doing the basic correctly. We don't even have that and then wonder why the kids look crook.

As for the defence stuff, Nicks has said before about wanting to score off turnovers. Ideally you want to win the ball first, but if not then you're next best option is to force the opposition to cough it up and launch your scoring from your back half. It's not something that will all magically unlock though, we had it at times on the weekend, but every time it came to nail the one kick that would open up the field we seemed to completely fluff it up.

Isn't the defence idea counterproductive to launching from turnovers?

If you are defensively minded you are not ahead of the play ie your loose players are minding an opposition player rather than being open

Or

Your forwards are running into congested space

 

[MRB37]

Isn't the defence idea counterproductive to launching from turnovers?

If you are defensively minded you are not ahead of the play ie your loose players are minding an opposition player rather than being open

Or

Your forwards are running into congested space

If you work hard enough you can do both. It's how we played with Walsh and Pyke. We don't work hard though, so when we do win it we can't move the ball worth a shit cause everyone is standing around, so it goes to the long bomb game.

There were more than a few occasions when we did get some ball movement from the back half going and we'd get to the centre square and have nothing to go to because we don't move quick enough.

 

[jackster83]

Isn't the defence idea counterproductive to launching from turnovers?

If you are defensively minded you are not ahead of the play ie your loose players are minding an opposition player rather than being open

Or

Your forwards are running into congested space

Our issue is we are flat footed and reactive. That affects both our attack and defence.

How many times do we get the first possession from a centre bounce, only to do a panic handball under pressure to a stationary team mate under pressure. One or more panic handballs later the ball spills out, gets picked up by an opponent and then they cruise forward Harlem Globetrotters style.

Campo might be gone but we've not changed our midfield game plan one iota.

 

[Golumless]

Remember Blighty always saying tackling stats were overrated, because if we have a lot of tackles, that means we didn’t have enough of the ball?

In a sport like basketball, defensive ability is paramount. That’s because there are rules (shot clock etc) that impose limits on how long you can run offence. So even if you are great offensively, bad defence can still cost you enormously.

That theory doesn’t apply in our game. There is no limit to how long you can possess the ball offensively. In fact the goal should be to run offence for as long as possible so that you don’t have to defend. Of course defence is still important, but in our game it is of secondary importance to offence.

If you have a “defence first” mindset in Aussie Rules, you will, amazingly, be defending a lot...

The last decade has shown how badly Blightys opinions on tackling has aged. Especially with the rise of manic pressure being one of the most vital indicators for how a side is going. After all, pressure ruins skill execution and allows you to suffocate teams out of the game. It's not new either, defence had a stranglehold of the sport even with Blight won premierships with us. Blight subconsciously knew this, as much as he didn't want to acknowledge it, as we were 1st and 3rd in tackling during our two premiership years, and we had the best defence both years.

Considering how much the AFL has been trying to open the game up in the past 5 years, you have grounds to argue the ability to limit the ability of the opposition to use the ball and to limit the ability to be scored against has become the easiest way to become a consistently good team.

 

[Thetrader15]

Remember Blighty always saying tackling stats were overrated, because if we have a lot of tackles, that means we didn’t have enough of the ball?

In a sport like basketball, defensive ability is paramount. That’s because there are rules (shot clock etc) that impose limits on how long you can run offence. So even if you are great offensively, bad defence can still cost you enormously.

That theory doesn’t apply in our game. There is no limit to how long you can possess the ball offensively. In fact the goal should be to run offence for as long as possible so that you don’t have to defend. Of course defence is still important, but in our game it is of secondary importance to offence.

If you have a “defence first” mindset in Aussie Rules, you will, amazingly, be defending a lot...

Port had 49 tackles to 38 and 432 possessions to 301.

There goes that theory.

 

[Mutineer]

The last decade has shown how badly Blightys opinions on tackling has aged. Especially with the rise of manic pressure being one of the most vital indicators for how a side is going. After all, pressure ruins skill execution and allows you to suffocate teams out of the game.

Considering how much the AFL has been trying to open the game up in the past 5 years, you have grounds to argue the ability to limit the ability of the opposition to use the ball and to limit the ability to be scored against has become the easiest way to become a consistently good team.

So you would think Richmond would be top of the class yes?

Nope far from it.

AFL Statistics Team Rankings for Season 2020

AFL Statistics Team Rankings for Season 2020.

www.footywire.com