Hardwick outcoaches again

[TFLUA-Tiger]

The clear difference is the good teams dont ALLOW you do that to much ie manning up the free players forcing you to kick to a contest.

And what is Hardwick's plan for when we play good teams who don't allow us to do this?

 

[TFLUA-Tiger]

I think partly because good opposition teams put so much pressure back onto us that we aren't able to. For example against Port when we're kicking it around the back pockets and slowly progressing forward we were able to find that nice next target. Against Freo or Geelong they man up well and don't offer that easy progression out so the mental pressure builds up and we worry about what we're going to do. Then when the lead does present itself we're second guessing because the opposition player might be too close even though they're really not.

It's just experience and maturity. While our average age has gone up, we're still playing kids.

You've highlighted the step up in class between Fremantle/Geelong and Port Adelaide that I alluded to - but again, my point was not WHAT makes it more difficult to do it against good teams than against Port, but WHY we can't find a way to do it. And, if we can't do it, WHY don't we seem able to adopt another tactic.

I don't agree that it's purely experience and maturity. It's partly about confidence in a player's abilities and decision making but also partly about a confidence in a gameplan, and adhering to a gameplan that not only suits our players but enhances their point of difference to other squads.

Simply, I don't think we've reached that point. You can put some of that down to player's lacking maturity and experience, but lots of that needs to be created by the coaching staff. Players need to know exactly what Plan A, B, C and D are and these plans need to be good enough to defeat good sides.

I refuse to believe now that we get beaten by sides purely because they're more experienced and mature.

 

[DrMike]

You've highlighted the step up in class between Fremantle/Geelong and Port Adelaide that I alluded to - but again, my point was not WHAT makes it more difficult to do it against good teams than against Port, but WHY we can't find a way to do it. And, if we can't do it, WHY don't we seem able to adopt another tactic.

I don't agree that it's purely experience and maturity. It's partly about confidence in a player's abilities and decision making but also partly about a confidence in a gameplan, and adhering to a gameplan that not only suits our players but enhances their point of difference to other squads.

Simply, I don't think we've reached that point. You can put some of that down to player's lacking maturity and experience, but lots of that needs to be created by the coaching staff. Players need to know exactly what Plan A, B, C and D are and these plans need to be good enough to defeat good sides.

I refuse to believe now that we get beaten by sides purely because they're more experienced and mature.

Other than individual players skill levels on the day I don't think it could be anything but experience and maturity. The confidence in the game plan is certainly there, you only have to look at last years results against Sydney and Hawthorn to see that. Sometimes players don't play well, sometimes umpires do have a legitimate impact on the game, sometimes players are unwell, sometimes players are unwell, sometimes all of things add up and you can't do anything about it.

 

[TFLUA-Tiger]

Other than individual players skill levels on the day I don't think it could be anything but experience and maturity. The confidence in the game plan is certainly there, you only have to look at last years results against Sydney and Hawthorn to see that. Sometimes players don't play well, sometimes umpires do have a legitimate impact on the game, sometimes players are unwell, sometimes players are unwell, sometimes all of things add up and you can't do anything about it.

You don't quite follow my arguments do you?

I argued that it's not only about a confidence in a gameplan, but about having a gameplan (sometimes multiple) that is capable of allowing us to win CONSISTENTLY against good opposition.

It's also about having a tactician who is able to pull the trigger and implement these differing game plans and try other options if games aren't going our way.

I understand that we won against Hawthorn and Sydney. I'm not potting Hardwick's coaching entirely. He has good days, and good decisions, but I don't think he's a master tactician.

At any rate, he's in charge of a very talented squad that I expect to be capable of beating quality sides on its day. Now, increasingly, I expect it to beat good sides consistently. We certainly have the cattle to do it. Do we have the tactician?

 

[DrMike]

You don't quite follow my arguments do you?

I argued that it's not only about a confidence in a gameplan, but about having a gameplan (sometimes multiple) that is capable of allowing us to win CONSISTENTLY against good opposition.

It's also about having a tactician who is able to pull the trigger and implement these differing game plans and try other options if games aren't going our way.

I understand that we won against Hawthorn and Sydney. I'm not potting Hardwick's coaching entirely. He has good days, and good decisions, but I don't think he's a master tactician.

At any rate, he's in charge of a very talented squad that I expect to be capable of beating quality sides on its day. Now, increasingly, I expect it to beat good sides consistently. We certainly have the cattle to do it. Do we have the tactician?

I follow but you're trying to get me to say what you want me to when I don't agree. We could have the best coach in the entire comp but sometimes it doesn't mean you'll win.

Sydney beat Hawthorn in the Grand Final last year yet this week they lost by a considerable margin, coaching hasn't changed, venue hasn't changed, the majority of the players participating haven't changed.

 

[TFLUA-Tiger]

I follow but you're trying to get me to say what you want me to when I don't agree. We could have the best coach in the entire comp but sometimes it doesn't mean you'll win.

Sydney beat Hawthorn in the Grand Final last year yet this week they lost by a considerable margin, coaching hasn't changed, venue hasn't changed, the majority of the players participating haven't changed.

I'm not trying to get you to say anything. I'm just putting my point of view across.

I don't think Sydney have rescinded. They won the one that matters last year, and lost a game in May that leaves them at 5-2. Premierships are won much later.

I sort of get where you're going by saying that even the best teams have off days. Is that what you believe it is when we get outclassed? We have an off day at the same time as them having a good day?

In my opinion, that's not at all correct. To be outclassed, the other team has to be better than you. Richmond won't be up against too many teams more talented than them this year.

 

[rfctiger90]

I think you'll find the choice to get back on the ground was Tucks, not Hardwicks.

Whoops. Sarcasm.

 

[DrMike]

I'm not trying to get you to say anything. I'm just putting my point of view across.

I don't think Sydney have rescinded. They won the one that matters last year, and lost a game in May that leaves them at 5-2. Premierships are won much later.

I sort of get where you're going by saying that even the best teams have off days. Is that what you believe it is when we get outclassed? We have an off day at the same time as them having a good day?

In my opinion, that's not at all correct. To be outclassed, the other team has to be better than you. Richmond won't be up against too many teams more talented than them this year.

How about Cloke taking every single mark against us, regardless of how contested it was, then doing the complete opposite in the games since?

Sydney won the Grand Final last year and are sitting at 5-2, we came 12th and are sitting at 4-3 and were literally 1 mark away in the Freo game from now being 5-2. If it's ok for Sydney to be in the position they're in, then why is it not ok for us?

I think you're severely overrating our list, it sounds like you think we should be 7-0.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Sorry Razor, it was meant as a gag, and I suppose at your expense, so for that I apologise.

I've been called a flog, *******, fool, pissant etc in the last 48 hours, so I know how you feel. It should never get personal.

No problem, Liv.

So at least I have explained my reasons why he coached well.

And did a fine job too, tug.

I guess where we differ is that I see the above moves as straight out of the Coaching 101 handbook.

I also question whether we'd have been able to dominate the centre so convincingly early on (the only time we created genuine scoreboard pressure) without Tuck on board. It's hardly the first time Tuck: IN has made Hardwick look a better coach straight away. Edwards and Deledio had total stand-out games in terms of midfield output, Vlastuin was incredible for a kid his age, I'm not sure we can count on these things being regular occurrences against better opposition. What Tuck gave he can always give consistently, the others not so likely.

I think Hardwick's decision to often use Jackson as a tagger this year has improved our midfield bite significantly. He's a first-class tagger and it's becoming a victory we can often mark down the way Freo does with Crowley.

I assume you're tying to say Port's own game plan attributed to their downfall?

Certainly was, turtle.

Ports disposal efficiency is tracking at 71.4% so far this year with an average of 48.6 Clangers. On Saturday the DE was down to 70.4% and Clangers at 47, ie really no different to the rest of the year. We were able to take advantage of it a hell of a lot better than the other clubs they've played this year, as did North Melbourne.

It's not the stats per se, more the critical parts of the ground and stages of the game where the turnovers occurred.

And what is Hardwick's plan for when we play good teams who don't allow us to do this?

This is the question, TFL. Not likely to be answered.

 

[DrMike]

It's hardly the first time Tuck: IN has made Hardwick look a better coach straight away. Edwards and Deledio had total stand-out games in terms of midfield output, Vlastuin was incredible for a kid his age, I'm not sure we can count on these things being regular occurrences against better opposition. What Tuck gave he can always give consistently, the others not so likely.

I'll just be going over something that has already been said in another thread but Tucks performance prior to this game was less than a pass mark. He was down on tackles, clearances, disposals and general pressure. That is not a consistent performance. What he gave on the weekend was back to his best and it's devastating that he's out.

 

[turtle27]

It's not the stats per se, more the critical parts of the ground and stages of the game where the turnovers occurred.

Agree, would love to know the Forward half turn overs we created. We pushed up well on their midfield and denied them space.

 

[tugga]

And did a fine job too, tug.

I guess where we differ is that I see the above moves as straight out of the Coaching 101 handbook.

I also question whether we'd have been able to dominate the centre so convincingly early on (the only time we created genuine scoreboard pressure) without Tuck on board. It's hardly the first time Tuck: IN has made Hardwick look a better coach straight away. Edwards and Deledio had total stand-out games in terms of midfield output, Vlastuin was incredible for a kid his age, I'm not sure we can count on these things being regular occurrences against better opposition. What Tuck gave he can always give consistently, the others not so likely.

I think Hardwick's decision to often use Jackson as a tagger this year has improved our midfield bite significantly. He's a first-class tagger and it's becoming a victory we can often mark down the way Freo does with Crowley.

That's fair enough. I don't think Dimma is a particularly brilliant match day coach at all. I thought he had a win in that regard on the weekend and I wanted to acknowledge it in a thread, just as others have done so when they didn't think he had a good game. Not that I mind people making criticising threads either.
Dimma had a good win on the weekend although admittedly it was against first-year coach, but credit where it's due.

 

[Bojangles17]

You don't quite follow my arguments do you?

I argued that it's not only about a confidence in a gameplan, but about having a gameplan (sometimes multiple) that is capable of allowing us to win CONSISTENTLY against good opposition.

It's also about having a tactician who is able to pull the trigger and implement these differing game plans and try other options if games aren't going our way.

I understand that we won against Hawthorn and Sydney. I'm not potting Hardwick's coaching entirely. He has good days, and good decisions, but I don't think he's a master tactician.

At any rate, he's in charge of a very talented squad that I expect to be capable of beating quality sides on its day. Now, increasingly, I expect it to beat good sides consistently. We certainly have the cattle to do it. Do we have the tactician?

Out of interest who do you regard as a master tactician?

 

[_RT_]

As I said above, Port's game plan is built around the opposite of easy disposal, it's designed to make a side confident under any level of pressure - they dispose on instinct (both the movement of the ball itself and the target's location at time of disposal) developed through sheer repetition. Turns flankers like Johnson and Stokes into on-ball weapons after enough years in the system. Port don't have the running brigade nor the possession accumulators to play 'easy disposal' football, so they set out very deliberately to run the ball the way Geelong does - fast and bold with plenty of risk involved. You wouldn't expect Hinkley to implement any other brand of football and I for one prefer it over the style we play.

After 7 rounds Port are ranked 4th in the comp for uncontested possession, 16th for contested possession and 7th for disposal efficiency. That would suggest that Port does in fact play easy disposal footy, and given that they rank 4th in the comp for disposals and 3rd in the comp for handballs it would also suggest that Port does have decent enough running brigade which allows them to play the Geelong style of footy that you suggest but not to the same level that Geelong does.

On Saturday we stopped them from playing that style of game as we kept Port to 44 fewer kicks, 43 fewer disposals, 17 fewer contested and 20 fewer uncontested possessions & 13 fewer marks than their averages for the season. Along the way we had 37 more kicks, 23 fewer handballs, 14 more disposals, 14 fewer contested and 32 more uncontested possessions & 52 more marks than our averages for the season. That to me is a sign of a coach and his assistants working out the Port game plan and devising a game plan to counter it, which was then carried out superbly by the playing group.

Here we go again, another strawman argument wasting pixels, no dealing with the content.

Above you say there was a bunch of 'Hardwick bashers' who said 'Port had gone past us.' I challenged you to find me all these people who actually said 'Port had gone past us', you decide to start waffling on about what YOU said on the thread, instead of answering the question honestly.

I was wrong to suggest that plenty had said Port had gone by us but I was not wrong in my original point, which was that anyone could look good when playing last year bottom 3 clubs and 2 teams struggling to reach the form of 2012 and that people need to wait until they play some quality sides before getting carried away.

 

[_RT_]

And did a fine job too, tug.

I guess where we differ is that I see the above moves as straight out of the Coaching 101 handbook.

I also question whether we'd have been able to dominate the centre so convincingly early on (the only time we created genuine scoreboard pressure) without Tuck on board. It's hardly the first time Tuck: IN has made Hardwick look a better coach straight away. Edwards and Deledio had total stand-out games in terms of midfield output, Vlastuin was incredible for a kid his age, I'm not sure we can count on these things being regular occurrences against better opposition. What Tuck gave he can always give consistently, the others not so likely.

I think Hardwick's decision to often use Jackson as a tagger this year has improved our midfield bite significantly. He's a first-class tagger and it's becoming a victory we can often mark down the way Freo does with Crowley.

Wish you would post like this more often, there is some criticism(justified) as well as some praise. Makes for much better reading.

 

[Bojangles17]

I don't consider your opinion unfair Rayz. I am always interested in anyone's opinion especially yours as you always provide reasons for your views, whiuch I always appreciate.
I do think Dimma coached well on Saturday. I had the luxury of being there and being in the SANFL members with a seat right on the wing on the 2nd level and also didn't have my first beer until 6pm, which was a good two hours after the game .
We dominated the first half by using our run and carry style to good effect and by getting the ball into the hands of our good ball users coming from defence. Ellis and Houli in particular. This put the acid on Prt from the beginning.
What I noticed in the thiurd quarter, Port actually starting their own forward line to stufle our run and carry as that's where we were killing them (and in the centre clearances). Dimma's reaction to that was to play Chaplin and Rance very deep and bring the likes of Ellis and Houli further up the ground and also he brought our forwards cirtually to the centre. This meant that Hinkley had to adjust because he couldn't leave our forward 50m empty. So he had to abandon his own crowded forward line and crowd ours. So the 2nd half of the 3rd quarter was played back on our terms and 50-point three-quarter time lead was the result.
The first 8 mins of the 4th quarter was Hinkley actually abandoning any game plan and telling his players just to take risks. Keep in mind they needed 9 goals to win and to keep us goalless. This worked for a while, but then the message was sent to play tempo footy and work the ball forward the safe way. So in other words, Hinkley wanted risk taking and Hardwick counteracted and decided to take no risks. When Port kicked the first three, we started playing possession footy and knowing full well, that one goal at that stage from us would end the contest, we scored it and then another and it was game over. It was game over anyway, but I will credit to Dimma when I think he deserves it and I thought he deserved it on the weekend.
So at least I have explained my reasons why he coached well. Rather than others (not you by the way) saying he coached poorly but then when questioned why, can't back up their thoughts.
Do I think Dimma is a great match day coach? No, I don't. But he is clearly no idiot either.

Good insight tugg i think its nigh impossible to understand structure and game plan from TV view alone. I think dimma gets undersold in this area, with folks looking for that rabbit out of the hat rather than the discipline to execute the plan effectively enough to win the game. Dimma has notched enough scalps against reputed peers to underline his ability

 

[theflea]

Sorry? I don't understand this.

We had two fit on the bench instead of three. How are we then two down?

Ok using the 'down' has confused the issue. Yes we were only 'down' 1 player as we then used the sub. But then tuck goes off early in the last(after trying to play) makes us 2 'down'(tuck/knights) collectively . It means bc we have used our sub early we lose the tactical advantage of applying the sub when it suits us(like port did with mitchell) and again lose some run bc of it( a fit player later) which was my reference to the 2 'down'. Its not nearly as bad before the sub rule however it still has an effect.

 

[theflea]

And what is Hardwick's plan for when we play good teams who don't allow us to do this?

The plan still is the same but we need to learn to execute under more pressure and it appears to happen when we are tiring. we still dont have enough cover in the midfield and we lapse for 5 or 10 minutes a game. I think also we need to have a bit more run and overlap from behind than just spreading up field and would like to tweek our play a bit to do this.

 

[theflea]

You don't quite follow my arguments do you?

I argued that it's not only about a confidence in a gameplan, but about having a gameplan (sometimes multiple) that is capable of allowing us to win CONSISTENTLY against good opposition.

It's also about having a tactician who is able to pull the trigger and implement these differing game plans and try other options if games aren't going our way.

I understand that we won against Hawthorn and Sydney. I'm not potting Hardwick's coaching entirely. He has good days, and good decisions, but I don't think he's a master tactician.

At any rate, he's in charge of a very talented squad that I expect to be capable of beating quality sides on its day. Now, increasingly, I expect it to beat good sides consistently. We certainly have the cattle to do it. Do we have the tactician?

Imo the days of a master tactician coach are fading a little as arresting run ons are really about winning the ball back and stopping the other team doing so. I've seen premiership coaches unable to stop this over the last few years and in nearly all of our fade outs its bc we simply get smashed in the contested ball and cant get our hands on the pill. I do understand your point and by no means do i suggest DH is in this category but i simply believe our players become very insular, dont be proactive, become reactive and simply become a little timid at the ball. After a break we seem to get back on track which to me is a little fitness as well. While we have a talented best 22 i still think we have a way to go to weed out those players that simply make mistakes all the time and until we eradicate these we cant get to the top end of the ladder.

 

[MightyTiger]

You don't quite follow my arguments do you?

I argued that it's not only about a confidence in a gameplan, but about having a gameplan (sometimes multiple) that is capable of allowing us to win CONSISTENTLY against good opposition.

It's also about having a tactician who is able to pull the trigger and implement these differing game plans and try other options if games aren't going our way.

I understand that we won against Hawthorn and Sydney. I'm not potting Hardwick's coaching entirely. He has good days, and good decisions, but I don't think he's a master tactician.

At any rate, he's in charge of a very talented squad that I expect to be capable of beating quality sides on its day. Now, increasingly, I expect it to beat good sides consistently. We certainly have the cattle to do it. Do we have the tactician?

Name me one team who had more then one game plan?

Malthouse had his boundary line at all costs plan with Collingwood.

Thompson had his run and handball through the corridor game plan.

Roos had his congestion chip chip boring as shit game plan.

Clarkson invented the 'cluster' as they called it, with a large emphasis on skills, especially by foot.

This notion that a team has multiple game plans is fairy land shit, which ever team can implement there game plan better while also doing the basics very well ie tackling, disposal by hand and foot and goal kicking is the team that will the majority of the times come out on top.

If things are going our way then we stick to our kamikaze quick ball movement run and carry, when the opposition start blocking our outside options and clogging our f50 Dimma has always told the boys to start using the ball by foot more and slowing it down.

What we saw on the weekend is a team implement our game plan perfectly, we constantly had one free in the back half allowing 3rd man up, we switched the ball well, had over lap run especially through the middle, and always had an outside option to release to, when Port got a run on we slowed it down and used it by foot, Port aren't at the level of the mid tier and top teams, they had no idea in how to force us into a turn over, we constantly had a lead up player to pass to who had free space in front of him, our f50 was a free for all for our forwards who had space for days.

 

[Bojangles17]

Well said MT, the nay Sayers would have us believe some coaches are like illusionists with their ability to change the pattern of play. Successful teams are simply better for a whole lot of reasons at being able to apply their plan for the duration or longer than the other team..RE Fremantle game

 

[AstroboyUK]

To be honest I don't think there were any great moves or tactics from the coaches box yesterday, I just think we have more talent than Port across the board and it showed.

we played the best tempo football we have managed all year... we werent helter skelter until tiredness forced us to slow things down. We completely controlled the pace of the game, and ran it out very well.

 

[theflea]

Name me one team who had more then one game plan?

Malthouse had his boundary line at all costs plan with Collingwood.

Thompson had his run and handball through the corridor game plan.

Roos had his congestion chip chip boring as shit game plan.

Clarkson invented the 'cluster' as they called it, with a large emphasis on skills, especially by foot.

This notion that a team has multiple game plans is fairy land shit, which ever team can implement there game plan better while also doing the basics very well ie tackling, disposal by hand and foot and goal kicking is the team that will the majority of the times come out on top.

If things are going our way then we stick to our kamikaze quick ball movement run and carry, when the opposition start blocking our outside options and clogging our f50 Dimma has always told the boys to start using the ball by foot more and slowing it down.

What we saw on the weekend is a team implement our game plan perfectly, we constantly had one free in the back half allowing 3rd man up, we switched the ball well, had over lap run especially through the middle, and always had an outside option to release to, when Port got a run on we slowed it down and used it by foot, Port aren't at the level of the mid tier and top teams, they had no idea in how to force us into a turn over, we constantly had a lead up player to pass to who had free space in front of him, our f50 was a free for all for our forwards who had space for days.

This is why,IMO, in the modern era of tactics, that the days of the coach swinging positional changes to effect matches is mostly a thing of the past(not saying it cant have an effect but mostly not these days). Its why the 'master tactician/gameday genius' type of coach is no longer applicable in this context. I've seen MM,JL,JW,CS,KS all suffer run on's in the game and unable to arrest momentum so there were no miracle moves to be made this year. What is up to the coach is enabling the players to re-assert themselves to again follow the game plan that has broken down for a period of time(for us its contested ball/run).

 

[Bojangles17]

I dont think theres been any miracle moves since sheeds switched Paul Weston from FB to FF in the 84 GF

 

[Rayzorwire]

I'll just be going over something that has already been said in another thread but Tucks performance prior to this game was less than a pass mark. He was down on tackles, clearances, disposals and general pressure.

Because Conca had usurped his role while Tuck was chasing Harry O'Brien up and down the wing...and other brilliant coaching moves.

Back in the position he belongs, the performance instantly returns.

Saturday was the first game all year we'd played Tuck like we did last year - he was straight back to his ever-consistent best, our midfield - sans Cotchin which is a massive loss - hadn't looked better all year.

Dimma had a good win on the weekend although admittedly it was against first-year coach, but credit where it's due.

Yeah mate, as the old saying goes, there's always credit due when you get the four points.

After 7 rounds Port are ranked 4th in the comp for uncontested possession, 16th for contested possession and 7th for disposal efficiency. That would suggest that Port does in fact play easy disposal footy,

Except for the fact that if you were presented with the opportunity to argue the opposite case, you'd no doubt very soon be insisting that they have those stats largely because of the sides they've played.

I was wrong to suggest that plenty had said Port had gone by us...

Thanks, appreciate it.

Wish you would post like this more often, there is some criticism(justified) as well as some praise. Makes for much better reading.

I've been much fairer on Hardwick over the years than people give me credit for. It's really only the unforgivable that I've taken him seriously to task about.

Name me one team who had more then one game plan?

What TFL is saying, is that ALL sides have multiple ways to play for multiple different scenarios. Whether people suggest that these multiple ways to play are nested within the one game plan, or call them separate 'game plans' as TFL has (which is legitimate IMO), we're talking about a linguistic difference.

This notion that a team has multiple game plans is fairy land shit, which ever team can implement there game plan better while also doing the basics very well ie tackling, disposal by hand and foot and goal kicking is the team that will the majority of the times come out on top.

If things are going our way then we stick to our kamikaze quick ball movement run and carry, when the opposition start blocking our outside options and clogging our f50 Dimma has always told the boys to start using the ball by foot more and slowing it down.

You seem to be very confused and contradicting yourself, you're confusing me trying to work out just how confused you are, MT2.