Injuries under Sando

[Allefgib]

To be fair to Craigy - he did have MUCH higher expectations of the required fitness to play his game plan....

 

[Slippery Pete]

I still think the first week of training Mark Bickley took as caretaker coach is under-rated in our history.

That was where Dangerfield gained the fitness to allow him to play as a more permanent midfielder. The week before he didn't have the tank.

I don't what Bicks did in those 3-4 sessions but he deserves a massive 'pat' on the back.

That's good.

 

[Team DJ]

I still think the first week of training Mark Bickley took as caretaker coach is under-rated in our history.

That was where Dangerfield gained the fitness to allow him to play as a more permanent midfielder. The week before he didn't have the tank.

I don't what Bicks did in those 3-4 sessions but he deserves a massive 'pat' on the back.

Agreed!!!!!!!

Vader Thoughts, on you being wrong again?

 

[Vader]

Agreed!!!!!!!

Vader Thoughts, on you being wrong again?

I think Allefgib summed it up nicely:

To be fair to Craigy - he did have MUCH higher expectations of the required fitness to play his game plan....

Whether Dangerfield was ready for a greater midfield role by late 2011 is immaterial. He clearly wasn't in 2008, 2009 or 2010.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I still think the first week of training Mark Bickley took as caretaker coach is under-rated in our history.

That was where Dangerfield gained the fitness to allow him to play as a more permanent midfielder. The week before he didn't have the tank.

I don't what Bicks did in those 3-4 sessions but he deserves a massive 'pat' on the back.

Peptides.











Too soon?

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I think Allefgib summed it up nicely:

Whether Dangerfield was ready for a greater midfield role by late 2011 is immaterial. He clearly wasn't in 2008, 2009 or 2010.

Well he was but he wasn't given the oppertunity.

His fitness in 2008, 09 and 2010 would have been very different from Joel Selwood, Scott Pendlebery, Dale Thomas, Rhyc Palmer, Steven Hill, Daniel Rich and Tom Scully and Dustin Martin in more resent years who all played midfield in their second and third years as AFL players.

Let's not try and confuse "not being ready" and "not being given an opportunity" please. Neil Craig didn't give him that opportunity and it had nothing to do with his fitness levels.

Yes they have improved but he would have had enough fitness to play as a full time midfielder by the end of 2009.

 

[jenny61_99]

Well he was but he wasn't given the oppertunity.

His fitness in 2008, 09 and 2010 would have been very different from Joel Selwood, Scott Pendlebery, Dale Thomas, Rhyc Palmer, Steven Hill, Daniel Rich and Tom Scully and Dustin Martin in more resent years who all played midfield in their second and third years as AFL players.

Let's not try and confuse "not being ready" and "not being given an opportunity" please. Neil Craig didn't give him that opportunity and it had nothing to do with his fitness levels.

Yes they have improved but he would have had enough fitness to play as a full time midfielder by the end of 2009.

Question. How do YOU KNOW he was? Seriously, how can you make these claims when you don't have a bloody clue? By the time Bickley took over, Danger had had however many pre-seasons and AFL seasons under his belt. He was in a far better position physically by that stage to cope with the demands of full time mid-field wouldn't you say? Bickley decided to give him a run in the mid-field and it worked. It wasn't anything he had done, rather the preparation Craig had put into Dangerfield. Maybe Craig was too slow in making the move, but there is absolutely no proof that Danger would have made it in the midfield had he have been moved earlier, only supposition on your part.

 

[Vader]

Well he was but he wasn't given the oppertunity.

His fitness in 2008, 09 and 2010 would have been very different from Joel Selwood, Scott Pendlebery, Dale Thomas, Rhyc Palmer, Steven Hill, Daniel Rich and Tom Scully and Dustin Martin in more resent years who all played midfield in their second and third years as AFL players.

Let's not try and confuse "not being ready" and "not being given an opportunity" please. Neil Craig didn't give him that opportunity and it had nothing to do with his fitness levels.

Yes they have improved but he would have had enough fitness to play as a full time midfielder by the end of 2009.

He had plenty of opportunities. The bolded bit is actually a typo on your behalf (I assume you meant to say that it "wouldn't have been"). Turns out that you were unintentionally right.

Danger definitely wasn't fit enough in 2008, which is the year he spent at home doing Year 12. He was given a dressing down for not training properly when he arrived at the club at for the 2009 pre-season.

Most of the guys you've listed there are endurance athletes, which is why they were able to step in and make an impact fairly quickly. Dangerfield isn't - or at least he wasn't. His greatest strength was his explosive burst of pace. He was a sprinter, not a long distance runner. This is why it took him so long to build his tank.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

And we're back to defending the stupidity of Neil Craig......great.

 

[Team DJ]

He had plenty of opportunities. The bolded bit is actually a typo on your behalf (I assume you meant to say that it "wouldn't have been"). Turns out that you were unintentionally right.

Danger definitely wasn't fit enough in 2008, which is the year he spent at home doing Year 12. He was given a dressing down for not training properly when he arrived at the club at for the 2009 pre-season.

Most of the guys you've listed there are endurance athletes, which is why they were able to step in and make an impact fairly quickly. Dangerfield isn't - or at least he wasn't. His greatest strength was his explosive burst of pace. He was a sprinter, not a long distance runner. This is why it took him so long to build his tank.

Rightio,

Difference between opportunity and ability

 

[Vader]

And we're back to defending the stupidity of Neil Craig......great.

No.. we're back to having you and Team DJ making assertions based on nothing more than your gut feel, when people who were in a significantly better position to make decisions thought otherwise.. yet you and DJ seem to think that you know better!

 

[Team DJ]

And we're back to defending the stupidity of Neil Craig......great.

Like for this word.

 

[Team DJ]

No.. we're back to having you and Team DJ making assertions based on nothing more than your gut feel, when people who were in a significantly better position to make decisions thought otherwise.. yet you and DJ seem to think that you know better!

And you blokes are in the right position.
Get off ya high horse.
Fact is within a week of Bickley taking over he was a number one mid. Yet under Craig, Forward Pocket specialist.....

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

No.. we're back to having you and Team DJ making assertions based on nothing more than your gut feel, when people who were in a significantly better position to make decisions thought otherwise.. yet you and DJ seem to think that you know better!

Oh really?

Lets put your qualifications on the table to make that judgement call and the only relevant one would be....Neil Craig supporter.

Patrick Dangerfield would have had an ample fitness base to play as an AFL midfielder by midway through his second AFL season and that would be on par with the players I mentioned.

It has nothing to do with fitness but more to do with coaching philosophies and player direction by the end of Neil Craig tenure as coach, he had lost direction and site of where that team had to go.

 

[cmndstab]

Danger and Walker go alright for players whose development was apparently ruined by Craig.

Like it or not, Walker transitioned from a flashy but inconsistent player into a dominant key forward. I think it's a mile too simplistic to just lay the credit for that onto Sanderson.

The fact is Walker had flaws in his game which, for the most part, have now been ironed out. Many here are keen to say "see, he didn't need to be demoted to the SANFL - we kept playing him and now the flaws are gone!" I think it's much more realistic to view things in the opposite direction. We keep playing him because those flaws have been worked out of his game, and what's left over is a brilliant player.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Question - would he be the same player today, had Neil Craig stayed as coach?

Would he even be at the club is a very different question.

 

[Allefgib]

Vader you've missed, or ignored skillfully, my implication that I think Craigy's view of the fitness required, driven by his ridiculous gameplan, were inappropraite.

But play on

 

[Allefgib]

Danger and Walker go alright for players whose development was apparently ruined by Craig.

Like it or not, Walker transitioned from a flashy but inconsistent player into a dominant key forward. I think it's a mile too simplistic to just lay the credit for that onto Sanderson.

The fact is Walker had flaws in his game which, for the most part, have now been ironed out. Many here are keen to say "see, he didn't need to be demoted to the SANFL - we kept playing him and now the flaws are gone!" I think it's much more realistic to view things in the opposite direction. We keep playing him because those flaws have been worked out of his game, and what's left over is a brilliant player.

Simplistic, yeah hard to argue with that.

But the words from Sando himself, "he now has a coach who believes in him" are critical to the whole argument IMO.

I want to avoid rehashing the craigy stuff - as alex alluded to its just been done to death - BUT I do think in a thread about injuries under Sando we need to consider these big differences.

Craig pushed the players to the limit, mentally and physically, and expected more of them than they could possibly give at times.
Sando has attempted to build their confidence and simplified things alot for the squad - and seems to have gotten a year full of very different results to what Craigy had been getting the previous few years.

From tex's point of view - tacckle at times, keep boundary side, don't overcommit and give away frees and get suspended. That was under Craigy.

Under Sando - you're a gun, do what you do best - attack the ball carrier at all times. Bury them. And then he appeared to deal with the over zealous tackling technique once he had converted him from a hesitant 'bump instead of tackle' gorilla of a bloke; into a KPF who can wreck havoc and needs to be careful he doesn't get suspended.

I don't for a second believe that was about Tex being scared of the physicallity it was all about second guessing himself because of how he was coached.

The same argument applies to Patty playing midfield. He does it best in bursts - but if he couldn't run flat out all quarter and cover all the holes in the zone - Craigy just wasn't interested and stuck him a forward pocket. Under bicks, then Sando, he was able to get more invovled through being a burst player as well as growing his tank on a weekly basis during the season - as well as during pre-season.

Now - all that is very simpistic - but the change of approach and attitude of the coach is the biggest different in all this. And it relates to the injuries being less as well IMO. Craigy had to push the envelope to breaking some blokes every year for him to feel everyone else was at the required level. Sando obviously coaches differently.

 

[Smoooothy]

for what it's worth, i think most of us expected to see danger in the midfield in 2010. i actually recall danger himself asking craigy on one of the telecasts (possibly against freo in rd 3?) to put him in the midfield

 

[Vader]

And you blokes are in the right position.
Get off ya high horse.
Fact is within a week of Bickley taking over he was a number one mid. Yet under Craig, Forward Pocket specialist.....

You keep obsessing about this, despite it being flat out wrong. Repetition doesn't make it any less wrong.

 

[Vader]

Vader you've missed, or ignored skillfully, my implication that I think Craigy's view of the fitness required, driven by his ridiculous gameplan, were inappropraite.

But play on

I have no problem with accepting that Craig's gameplan was ridiculous and required inordinate fitness from the midfielders - a level which Danger was unable to meet. I also have no problem with accepting that he blossomed in the middle when a different gameplan was put in place, which didn't require such a high fitness base.

If that were the basis of DJ's argument, or Alex's, then there would be no debate.

Unfortunately, it's not. Their debate is purely around whether his development was ******ed by playing him in the forward pocket, when according to them he should have been playing more time in the middle. Oddly enough, he seems to have turned into a pretty damn good player, indicating that his development period was spectacularly well managed.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I have no problem with accepting that Craig's gameplan was ridiculous and required inordinate fitness from the midfielders - a level which Danger was unable to meet. I also have no problem with accepting that he blossomed in the middle when a different gameplan was put in place, which didn't require such a high fitness base.

Now we're actually getting somewhere. If Neil Craig understood the position of his playing list, he would have lowed his match day demands (not expectations) to allow a new breed of players to develop. Just as the coaches of the players I mentioned in post 56 did.

Unfortunately, it's not. Their debate is purely around whether his development was ******ed by playing him in the forward pocket, when according to them he should have been playing more time in the middle. Oddly enough, he seems to have turned into a pretty damn good player, indicating that his development period was spectacularly well managed.

Oddly enough, if Neil Craig decreased his match day demands and therefore changing the personnel in the midfield - he may have still been coach. By lowering his match day demands, he would have won a few more matches as the players felt a bit more freedom and this would have then allowed him to maximum is expectations.

 

[Allefgib]

That was back when we were uncompromising.

That doesn't apply anymore.

 

[Allefgib]

I have no problem with accepting that Craig's gameplan was ridiculous and required inordinate fitness from the midfielders - a level which Danger was unable to meet. I also have no problem with accepting that he blossomed in the middle when a different gameplan was put in place, which didn't require such a high fitness base.

If that were the basis of DJ's argument, or Alex's, then there would be no debate.

Unfortunately, it's not. Their debate is purely around whether his development was ******ed by playing him in the forward pocket, when according to them he should have been playing more time in the middle. Oddly enough, he seems to have turned into a pretty damn good player, indicating that his development period was spectacularly well managed.

Not sure you're entirely acurate on the basis of their argument but at least we are partly past the Semantics... play on!

 

[weneverland]

I still think the first week of training Mark Bickley took as caretaker coach is under-rated in our history.

That was where Dangerfield gained the fitness to allow him to play as a more permanent midfielder. The week before he didn't have the tank.

I don't what Bicks did in those 3-4 sessions but he deserves a massive 'pat' on the back.

You've got to be joking! Are you saying that Mark Bickley increased Dangerfields fitness to elite midfield standard in one or two weeks. This near the end of the season and not the preseason when most footballers do their conditioning work. Doing something the 'fitness freak' Neil Craig could not. I would have thought any significant improvement in fitness would take months. Surely the improvement of midfield form would have more to do with Mark "releasing the shackles" that allowed the team to play. Coincidentally, Patrick was not the only one to play better footy under Mark. A coincidence? I think not.