SugarShane
C12 H22 O11
He was unstoppable in AFL 98 on PC.Barry Stanfield?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He was unstoppable in AFL 98 on PC.Barry Stanfield?
And what confirms this is the continual rhetoric that the midfield mix was right.A staged change implies a strategy with an end goal to get us to the mix we had today, but it was far from planned.
Every week they had to reduce their CBA but they did it by an amount they thought they could get away with and still win, when that failed they reduced some more until we finally got to todays midfield and we saw how effective it was.
They could have gone with this midfield round 1 at worst rd 2, but they didn’t think it was their best midfield mix.
A strategy to slowly change the midfield mix that results in 4 losses is not a good strategy at allA staged change implies a strategy with an end goal to get us to the mix we had today, but it was far from planned.
Every week they had to reduce their CBA but they did it by an amount they thought they could get away with and still win, when that failed they reduced some more until we finally got to todays midfield and we saw how effective it was.
They could have gone with this midfield round 1 at worst rd 2, but they didn’t think it was their best midfield mix.
A way more obvious and parsimonious explanation is just that they saw the need to move to a mix with more Soligo/Rankine/Rachele but wanted to do it gradually over time rather than all at once. This aligns perfectly well with the observed tendencies of the coaching group (pretty conservative, not prone to massive changes in approach overnight) and all the things they have said and done since the criticism hit the club after the round 2 loss.A staged change implies a strategy with an end goal to get us to the mix we had today, but it was far from planned.
Every week they had to reduce their CBA but they did it by an amount they thought they could get away with and still win, when that failed they reduced some more until we finally got to todays midfield and we saw how effective it was.
They could have gone with this midfield round 1 at worst rd 2, but they didn’t think it was their best midfield mix.
Not when compared to just having a better midfield mix in the first place, no. I'm not sure if a drastic response after the Geelong game would have been better or not, but it's fair to say this is not a coaching group that makes drastic responses pretty much ever, so I doubt that was ever on the cards. Everything is pretty methodical.A strategy to slowly change the midfield mix that results in 4 losses is not a good strategy at all
Not when compared to just having a better midfield mix in the first place, no. I'm not sure if a drastic response after the Geelong game would have been better or not, but it's fair to say this is not a coaching group that makes drastic responses pretty much ever, so I doubt that was ever on the cards. Everything is pretty methodical.
You don’t move to a gradual change if you think the end result will help you win games, they aren’t going to sacrifice games.A way more obvious and parsimonious explanation is just that they saw the need to move to a mix with more Soligo/Rankine/Rachele but wanted to do it gradually over time rather than all at once. This aligns perfectly well with the observed tendencies of the coaching group (pretty conservative, not prone to massive changes in approach overnight) and all the things they have said and done since the criticism hit the club after the round 2 loss.
I'm not even sure I understand what you think it is the club was doing. They thought Crouch/Dawson/Laird was the best mix, but wanted to move to another mix for... reasons. But only at the speed they could 'get away with' without losing? And this is while they went from 0-2 to 0-4? Why would they even bother if they didn't see a need for change? Why wouldn't they just rebound back to the preferred setup when introducing Soligo didn't result in wins? Doesn't it just make way more sense that they didn't want to suddenly change the entire makeup of the midfield at once and also they had nowhere else to put their experienced midfielders so they took a staged approach?
edit: Also Nicks said in the presser tonight that they were 'slowly' introducing new faces into the midfield mix or something along those lines. Though I hadn't seen that when I wrote the post obviously.
Can you seriously believe this is even a discussion?You think they made a decision a month ago that this was their preferred midfield, but didn't play it that they way only prepared to conduct a slow transition?
Methodically badNot when compared to just having a better midfield mix in the first place, no. I'm not sure if a drastic response after the Geelong game would have been better or not, but it's fair to say this is not a coaching group that makes drastic responses pretty much ever, so I doubt that was ever on the cards. Everything is pretty methodical.
'Could' doesn't really have anything to do with it. My assumption given that the coaching staff are pretty conservative and change things pretty slowly is that they would approach changing the midfield by making gradual adjustments over a period of time. They absolutely could have responded to the Geelong loss by say dropping Laird and putting Rankine and Soligo in the middle but obviously this coaching group would never do that any more than they would respond to a horrible performance by making 6 unforced changes. They've never shown the slightest inclination to making sudden and drastic changes before, but it's clear that they have gradually decreased the midfield time of Crouch/Laird/Dawson over the last few weeks, beginning with the game where they were widely criticised for using that midfield mix.You don’t move to a gradual change if you think the end result will help you win games, they aren’t going to sacrifice games.
My point is they wanted to run with their preferred set up but only made subtle changes each week thinking that their main core with some minor tweaking would be enough. Each week it wasn’t they had to make more changes until they got to a winning formula.
It’s absurd to think slowly introducing players to the midfield whilst losing was part of some master plan. Soligo and Rankine could easily have played the same role they did today in round 1,2,3 and 4.
But they’ve clearly fooled some devotees.
Fair dinkum what absolute garbage.
Where you been for the first month?
To be fair the last 5 years have probably made a lot of supporters fair weather. Who really cares?
Fair dinkum. I had to laugh when the commentators claimed it was an epic battle but you'd have to give to edge to Weitering, with Walker on four goals in the 3rd quarter plus a couple given away!
I'd hate to see what a bad game for Weitering looks like!
Not that this was their preferred midfield - not really sure it is at this point. More that they wanted to move away from the exclusive Crouch/Laird/Dawson setup and find other roles for those players while introducing more Soligo/Rankine/Rachele, but that they would make it a gradual transition to avoid being too 'destabilising', or similar.You think they made a decision a month ago that this was their preferred midfield, but didn't play it that way because they were only prepared to conduct a slow transition?
Could you show your opponent the ball on AFL 98?He was unstoppable in AFL 98 on PC.
To the Carlton supporter who sat in front of me and told me I was “in for a treat to watch the 2024 premiership side tonight”, gagf!
He was unstoppable in AFL 98 on PC.
Yeah. It was a good Adelaide performance but most of the good fortune flowed one way.He might still be right
Play that game 20 times, and Carlton win 19