Hardwick outcoaches again

[_RT_]

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.

Was listening to MMM Rush Hour on Thursday afternoon and they were speaking to Boak and he mentioned that key parts of their game plan were getting out and using their skills and fitness to maintain possession of the ball and that against North they weren't able to do it and were hoping to get back to it against us.

Thanks, appreciate it.

Never been afraid to admit a mistake.

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.

I understand that it's the unforgivable that you've taken him to task about, it's just that when it's presented without seemingly acknowledging any of the good that he has done that it gets others backs up. Your analysis of games is among the best on the board, it would be great to read more about the positive stuff more often.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Was listening to MMM Rush Hour on Thursday afternoon and they were speaking to Boak and he mentioned that key parts of their game plan were getting out and using their skills and fitness to maintain possession of the ball and that against North they weren't able to do it and were hoping to get back to it against us.

Sure, they lost the same spread they had in earlier games, everybody spreads well against the new sides and Melbourne and it's spread alone which allows for easier, uncontested possession, but I'm sure if you watch Port regularly for the rest of the year, you'll see them trying to emulate the Geelong mode of ball movement, which as I've said, it would be wrong to classify as 'easy'; it's the toughest style there is to master and execute in a manner where you're not hurting your chances to win more than you're helping them.

I greatly admire the confidence playing that way builds in a player and in a playing group, especially when I see the young Cats positively infected with that style and all it brings, right from their debuts. That's how you build a dynasty that doesn't collapse after a few years near the top.

I understand that it's the unforgivable that you've taken him to task about, it's just that when it's presented without seemingly acknowledging any of the good that he has done that it gets others backs up.

I've given Hardwick a lot of credit on several fronts, it's all there in the archives, it's just glossed over because it's far easier to paint me as some sort of 'bitter aggressor' or whatever.

 

[theflea]

Sure, they lost the same spread they had in earlier games, everybody spreads well against the new sides and Melbourne and it's spread alone which allows for easier, uncontested possession, but I'm sure if you watch Port regularly for the rest of the year, you'll see them trying to emulate the Geelong mode of ball movement, which as I've said, it would be wrong to classify as 'easy'; it's the toughest style there is to master and execute in a manner where you're not hurting your chances to win more than you're helping them.

I greatly admire the confidence playing that way builds in a player and in a playing group, especially when I see the young Cats positively infected with that style and all it brings, right from their debuts. That's how you build a dynasty that doesn't collapse after a few years near the top.



I've given Hardwick a lot of credit on several fronts, it's all there in the archives, it's just glossed over because it's far easier to paint me as some sort of 'bitter aggressor' or whatever.

Razor what do you mean here? Are you saying its a hard way to get right as it leaves little leeway for error which can hurt you the other way? I'm not sure what your trying to say here but i reckon we are this way a little too much and would prefer a little more balance.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Razor what do you mean here? Are you saying its a hard way to get right as it leaves little leeway for error which can hurt you the other way? I'm not sure what your trying to say here but i reckon we are this way a little too much and would prefer a little more balance.

Well, flea, just the simple acts of always trying to steer the ball back into the corridor and progress quickly through it contains a stack of risks that you'll get opened right up on the turnover. As you'll note, Port turned the ball over numerous times to us for very easy goals while trying to head back into the corridor.

Hinkley won't mind, he'll only get furious and cut blokes when they stop backing themselves to head back into the corridor, moving the ball quickly and determinedly. By year three or so he'll be nearly finished weeding out the blokes whose actual disposal isn't reliable enough to pull off that kind of ball movement consistently enough.

 

[Harmichael]

Razor what do you mean here? Are you saying its a hard way to get right as it leaves little leeway for error which can hurt you the other way? I'm not sure what your trying to say here but i reckon we are this way a little too much and would prefer a little more balance.

I agree. Said many times that Hardwick seems content sometimes to just sit back and let us live and die by the gameplan -or "plan A" as it were. The question is whether he's stubborn, stupid, both or there's some kind of method to his madness. Reckon 3 and a bit years is more than enough time for the results to start revealing what the method is and if it stands up.

So far I'm not entirely sure it has.

 

[theflea]

Well, flea, just the simple acts of always trying to steer the ball back into the corridor and progress quickly through it contains a stack of risks that you'll get opened right up on the turnover. As you'll note, Port turned the ball over numerous times to us for very easy goals while trying to head back into the corridor.

Hinkley won't mind, he'll only get furious and cut blokes when they stop backing themselves to head back into the corridor, moving the ball quickly and determinedly. By year three or so he'll be nearly finished weeding out the blokes whose actual disposal isn't reliable enough to pull off that kind of ball movement consistently enough.

Yep thought that was what you meant. This style is very risk/reward slanted and of late only the cats have been able to pull it off. It will be interesting in how it works out, as unless you have the cattle you get opened up far too much. It's not a unheard of style( knights/ess) but as you saw there if your getting chopped off you get slammed on the rebound. Its also predicated at being 'a' class around the ball.

 

[theflea]

I agree. Said many times that Hardwick seems content sometimes to just sit back and let us live and die by the gameplan -or "plan A" as it were. The question is whether he's stubborn, stupid, both or there's some kind of method to his madness. Reckon 3 and a bit years is more than enough time for the results to start revealing what the method is and if it stands up.

So far I'm not entirely sure it has.

I think the method is generally ok, but its our players ability to adhere to this by a) fitness and b) our uncanny knack of making dumb mistakes that nearly always cost us goals. When i said i wanted a little more balance with spread v 1on1, i dont think we are that far away from it but we still need to weed out players that stop us going to the upper echelon of the league and bc of this i want a little more balance for cover. I dont think it's about not trying different approaches by the coaching staff( we have a premiership coach there and if something was glaringly obvious, i cant see choco not sharing it) its more about what the players can handle. I remember that game v ess in the preseason where the coaches tried a different fwd setup( i think a leading more traditional leading chf style) yet DH stated it cost us goals from direct turnovers. Either way we will find out i guess.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Yep thought that was what you meant. This style is very risk/reward slanted and of late only the cats have been able to pull it off. It will be interesting in how it works out, as unless you have the cattle you get opened up far too much. It's not a unheard of style( knights/ess) but as you saw there if your getting chopped off you get slammed on the rebound. Its also predicated at being 'a' class around the ball.

I'm not so sure it's about the players, flea, nor their innate disposal skills.

It's a confidence thing. What you will see, even when Geelong play well, is them quite literally 'get out of jail' on at least one link in their disposal chains, if not several. If you look at the players involved, there will be a Corey, or a Stokes, or a Lonergan, or a green kid these days, these guys aren't 'a' class disposers of the footy.

What Geelong do have is players who win contests and they move the ball downright arrogantly by choice. If instinct leads them into trouble, they'll win it back in the contest. If that fails, move the ball better next time, or win the next contest.

Rinse and Repeat. Footy is a pretty simple game when you boil it all down.

 

[MightyTiger]

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.



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



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.



Thanks, appreciate it.



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.



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.



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

I think even you can agree that there is a massive difference between telling the boys to slow it down and use the ball smarter and having these fairy land stuff of thinking coaches have these different game plans written up for different teams.

Each game I've watched us play we play the exact same way each and every week, some weeks we implement them better then others, of course it also comes down to the opposition, a team such as Melbourne or Port aren't able to sustain the required pressure that the top teams do to win.

 

[Harmichael]

I think even you can agree that there is a massive difference between telling the boys to slow it down and use the ball smarter and having these fairy land stuff of thinking coaches have these different game plans written up for different teams.

Each game I've watched us play we play the exact same way each and every week, some weeks we implement them better then others, of course it also comes down to the opposition, a team such as Melbourne or Port aren't able to sustain the required pressure that the top teams do to win.

You may not have different gameplans but you need to be able to adjust & adapt to different sides, conditions and situations. Gameplans are merely a foundation that should be flexible. Very occasionally you might have abandon them completely - which is why you have plan B's, C's & D's - though these alternative "plans" are usually just tweaks of the main one.

Then there's 1-on-1, which should at the least be pretty much the default setting of every side, and the things you often have to do in the dying minutes of games depending on whether you're protecting a lead (e.g. keepings off) or a kick behind (e.g. forward at all costs, preferably long down the middle) - I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new that you wouldn't already know here.

I'll hazzard a guess that all good teams are well drilled in a myriad of different tactics, plans & possible scenarios. Even Geelong.

 

[Madison]

Valuable Richmond veteran, Chris Newman, believes meticulous preparation was the key to the team’s convincing victory over Port Adelaide at AAMI Stadium last Saturday.

The Tigers bounced back in emphatic style, following three consecutive losses, with a 41-point win against the Power, and Newman paid tribute to the Club’s coaching group post-match.

“Credit goes to the coaches this week. They prepared us really well for Port Adelaide and I think you see, by the way we went about it, we had a real focus on trying to control the tempo of the footy, and that paid off,” he said on “Roar Vision”.

http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/2013-05-13/tigers-precise-planning

 

[Madison]

I think people are selling Hardwick a bit short just cos we didn't win by 100. This Port team has over run every team they have played. Even in the loss to North they managed to come back from about 5 goals to 8 points or something in the last quarter.

So yeah we didn't extend the gap, but hey, WC were up by the same amount at the end of the third quarter and LOST.

 

[theflea]

I'm not so sure it's about the players, flea, nor their innate disposal skills.

It's a confidence thing. What you will see, even when Geelong play well, is them quite literally 'get out of jail' on at least one link in their disposal chains, if not several. If you look at the players involved, there will be a Corey, or a Stokes, or a Lonergan, or a green kid these days, these guys aren't 'a' class disposers of the footy.

What Geelong do have is players who win contests and they move the ball downright arrogantly by choice. If instinct leads them into trouble, they'll win it back in the contest. If that fails, move the ball better next time, or win the next contest.

Rinse and Repeat. Footy is a pretty simple game when you boil it all down.

Exactly. Like i said the cats players always seem to do the right thing at the right time and if they dont they're good enough to win it back and go fwd again. If that is not an indication of player talent then i've never watched any footy. The abilty to pick the right option most of the time is an intangible that cant be coached. The cats have been able to do this far too often over the last 7 years to disregard this. Skill level is not just disposal, its vision, composure,assessment under pressure etc to go with the right play at the right time imo. The cats have this in spades the we simply dont have.

 

[theflea]

You may not have different gameplans but you need to be able to adjust & adapt to different sides, conditions and situations. Gameplans are merely a foundation that should be flexible. Very occasionally you might have abandon them completely - which is why you have plan B's, C's & D's - though these alternative "plans" are usually just tweaks of the main one.

Then there's 1-on-1, which should at the least be pretty much the default setting of every side, and the things you often have to do in the dying minutes of games depending on whether you're protecting a lead (e.g. keepings off) or a kick behind (e.g. forward at all costs, preferably long down the middle) - I'm sure I'm not telling you anything new that you wouldn't already know here.

I'll hazzard a guess that all good teams are well drilled in a myriad of different tactics, plans & possible scenarios. Even Geelong.

I do think we have these alternate plans, but they are more subtle then in previous era's. We went man on man v freo after half time to try to get back into the game and nearly won it. It still comes down to players adhering to structures but ultimately it comes down to players being good enough. Also remember the other team is trying to win and trying ways to get around systems in place to stop them winning. i also believe that those alternate(and main) plans are all still predicated on winning the ball first and foremost and if you cant do that your stuffed. In every situation when we go quiet and get a run on against us you will notice our CP's plummet. This is where we need to get better and its as simple as that.

 

[WATIGE]

.....
I've given Hardwick a lot of credit on several fronts, it's all there in the archives, it's just glossed over because it's far easier to paint me as some sort of 'bitter aggressor' or whatever.

It's a volume and repetative thing Rayzor - very little volume and few repeats on the good and repeated tomes on the bad - thats what gets to those of us hanging around here to see balanced arguments etc. (you supply the paint, we just apply the brush strokes ) - just trying to get you to undertand how others see it.

 

[wallacekilledus]

good young coach, needs to work on tactics, playing the game out.

 

[Livonski]

People do realise that Port were 2/1 on to beat us? I.e $1.50.
We blew out to more than $2.60 pre game.
Tipsters I read seemed to be overwhelmingly on Ports side ie The Age was 15-9 Ports way and our 9 included Richo, Caro and the village idiot ( not Walls).
So when the discussion tomorrow invariably turns to "ports shithouse anyway" just remember that the Friday consensus was anything but that.
In fact we were the whingeing sooks and were going to get belted over there.
In fact in think Maclure called it a certainty. Please let them replay that one.

I didn't see it but did Maclure get completely let off his rant against Richmond pre Port?

 

[Ralll]

Hey Razor Im interested to know.
If u had to make a decision on Hardwicks future right now(if his contracted ended this year), would you sack him or give him another season or 3.
If the answer is sack him, who would you replace him with?

 

[Harmichael]

I didn't see it but did Maclure get completely let off his rant against Richmond pre Port?

King said something right at the end of the segment and Maclure basically just said "yeah well" and rubbed his chest and that was it. So yeah, pretty much.

 

[Livonski]

King said something right at the end of the segment and Maclure basically just said "yeah well" and rubbed his chest and that was it. So yeah, pretty much.

If they had KPIs to hit to keep their jobs the TV screens would be blank.

 

[Rayzorwire]

I think even you can agree that there is a massive difference between telling the boys to slow it down and use the ball smarter and having these fairy land stuff of thinking coaches have these different game plans written up for different teams.

Why do we pay big money for a specialist 'opposition analyst', MT2, if we just go and do the same thing, every week, regardless of who the opposition is?

You're really selling the coaching staff short...



...that's my job!

Exactly. Like i said the cats players always seem to do the right thing at the right time and if they dont they're good enough to win it back and go fwd again. If that is not an indication of player talent then i've never watched any footy. The abilty to pick the right option most of the time is an intangible that cant be coached.

Of course it can, flea, Geelong didn't develop that game plan purely by accident.

If we look at the career of a bloke like Stokes, we have had and do have plenty of players on that line of raw talent, he's just progressed in a better environment to learn how to dominate a football field.

...just trying to get you to undertand how others see it.

Try your heart out, as I've told you umpteen times before, you won't get anywhere.

I'd become a journalist if I wanted to have my thoughts funneled through the pipeline of what 'others' want me to write.

They day you personally offer to pay me to be here, you can commence presuming that you can dictate what I do or say.

Until then, how about just being glad you get something (*anything*) for nothing?

Hey Razor Im interested to know.
If u had to make a decision on Hardwicks future right now(if his contracted ended this year), would you sack him or give him another season or 3.
If the answer is sack him, who would you replace him with?

I did partly deal with this question a while back, Ralll:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/why-we-cant-make-the-8.994725/page-7#post-27506006

I don't believe any coach should be sacked mid-season, as I said in the above linked post, it's pretty impossible to make a call on a 'best' replacement when you don't have the requisite info.

One thing I didn't mention in that post is my great and ongoing respect for Andrew Collins, currently coaching with West Adelaide, once upon a time with Coburg. I think he'd make an excellent senior AFL coach, but like many others, lacks the public profile and past playing career to get his foot in the door in the big league.

He's a tremendous teaching coach and a real mentor to his players who can draw the best out of a diverse range of individuals. Sad loss for us when he departed in less than ideal circumstances. We really should have backed in a bloke like him. I should quit there.

 

[Harmichael]

Anyone who can get a team with Oakley-Nicholls in it to a Grand Final is fair dinkum ****ing coaching genius!

 

[_Wang_]

Just wasted 3 minutes of my life scanning page 5 of this thread...

 

[WATIGE]

Just wasted 3 minutes of my life scanning page 5 of this thread...

Just discovered the ignore option - I wont be tempted to add to the waste of space now wang!!

 

[carn tigez]

I think even you can agree that there is a massive difference between telling the boys to slow it down and use the ball smarter and having these fairy land stuff of thinking coaches have these different game plans written up for different teams.
.

The bulk of the gameplan stays the same, but there are a lot of subtle defensive changes we'd be unaware of. Things like preventing certain players from doing certain things. But offensively, other than a few minor changes week-to-week it'd be pretty similar every game.