Injuries under Sando

[Slippery Pete]

Oddly enough, he seems to have turned into a pretty damn good player, indicating that his development period was spectacularly well managed.

It indicates nothing of the sort.

Has anyone got the stats on Danger's uncontested possession rate in 2012 as opposed to the preceding years?

For Craig's entire tenure, Dangerfield was seemingly unable to win outside ball. Sure, we still had Instinct Patrick, and that alone is pretty bloody good. The grunt, the leadership, the in and under, the spectacular goals.....All great on their own. But we didn't have a refined footballer. He was absolutely primed for someone with a clue to come and in just teach him what the game was all about. Under Craig, he was an uncut diamond and not once was there any evidence of an improvement made in his ability to win that outside ball. He was regularly having 14, 15 possession games, which for a player of his ilk is criminal.

Now we've got "Instinct Patrick", as well as, "I'll Pick Up 35 Possessions And 3 Votes Thanks for Coming" Patrick. It's like night and day.

 

[Slippery Pete]

You've got to be joking!.

Oh dear, we have a newcomer.....

 

[Allefgib]

Just to follow up on Pete's train of thought.

PDange
2011
DPG: 17
CP: 10.2
% contested is approx 60%

2012
DPG: 26.7
CP: 16.1
% contested is approx 60%

Now there's a little bit of flex in the disposals to possession stats.. and he doesn't rate high enough in his uncontested average for me to pull this from footywire in a hurry

So not much difference there sorry Pete - but I'll take the +10 possessions per game ANY day.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

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.

I think you might be right

 

[maxlilly]

Its nice to see Crouch getting a run in the centre square early on in his career. Also Lyon & Kerridge getting a run in there.
I reckon it's hard enough for the young guys to come into AFL, let alone play out of position.
After two good pre-seasons now, I think it looks pretty clear that the training change has had a positive effect on our injuries throughout the season. Lets hope it continues.

 

[AFC979810]

This notion that Craigy did not develop talent is absolute bullshit.

Over his tenure he took over an older squad that finished 14th in 2004. Took us to 2 prelims and to the finals 5 out of 7 years. During this time Craig had to deal with losing Roo, McLeod, Goodwin, Edwards and during his entire regime only having two top 10 drafts (both #10 picks).

Only 3 players who were best 22 under Ayres played in our 2011 prelim under Sando (I didn't count Rutten as he played 3 games under Ayres and blossomed under Craig). Those 3 players were Doughty/Reilly/Stiffy. This means that the 19 players of a team that was one kick away from a prelim were all developed by Craig.

I think our list is in pretty good shape and lots of the thanks needs to go to Craig.

 

[Geoffa32]

This notion that Craigy did not develop talent is absolute bullshit.

Over his tenure he took over an older squad that finished 14th in 2004. Took us to 2 prelims and to the finals 5 out of 7 years. During this time Craig had to deal with losing Roo, McLeod, Goodwin, Edwards and during his entire regime only having two top 10 drafts (both #10 picks).

Only 3 players who were best 22 under Ayres played in our 2011 prelim under Sando (I didn't count Rutten as he played 3 games under Ayres and blossomed under Craig). Those 3 players were Doughty/Reilly/Stiffy. This means that the 19 players of a team that was one kick away from a prelim were all developed by Craig.

I think our list is in pretty good shape and lots of the thanks needs to go to Craig.

Craigy left at the right time. Another season at the helm and any good work he put into our players would be lost.

Sando acknowledged the work Craigy had done and the list he had to work with was in good shape due to Craigy.



I reckon Craigy is big on fundamentals. He shares this philosophy with Coach Popovich ( a friend of his) of the San Antonio spurs. The first few years of any kid on our list under Craigy were about learning the fundamentals. For Patty that meant sitting in the pocket where he could still contribute, but learn the game. For Tex it meant some time at Norwood where he could learn to dominate games and the fundamentals of being a more complete player.

And yes Craigy's game demanded these fundamentals were second nature to implement. Hence we struggled as our older guys retired. As well as his inability (or want) to change his gameplan as the rest of the AFL moved on.


On the Bay there is a thread about how Melbourne have not developed a player of note for over ten years. I believe that when you throw kids to the wolves they learn to survive and not thrive. This is a big issue for the bottom clubs, and a reason why clubs that spend a long time at the bottom do so. As their kids are exposed to the game too much too early and merely learn to survive in the game, and in doing so bad habits creep in. Whereas kids at clubs with good players/coaching around them learn to thrive in the game as they get a chance to learn the basic fundamentals of the game before taking on more responsibility.

 

[Team DJ]

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

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe one day itll come true.

Spoiler Alert: It wont

 

[Team DJ]

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.

Kinda missed his point there didnt you?

I do like that last sentence though. Spot on

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

This notion that Craigy did not develop talent is absolute bullshit.

Assistant coaches develop talent, head coaches develop match day and training strategies.

Neil Craig or Brenton Sanderson or any other head coach in the AFL would not have enough time to improve a players kicking, marking handball or goal kicking technique. That's why every club had a vast array of assistant coaches.

 

[Vader]

Assistant coaches develop talent, head coaches develop match day and training strategies.

Neil Craig or Brenton Sanderson or any other head coach in the AFL would not have enough time to improve a players kicking, marking handball or goal kicking technique. That's why every club had a vast array of assistant coaches.

True.. to a point. The assistant coaches are all operating under the direction of the head coach.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Neil Craig or Brenton Sanderson or any other head coach in the AFL would not have enough time to improve a players kicking, marking handball or goal kicking technique.

They might not be able to sit with them for hours on end, but they can (and do) help.

I reckon if you were a mercurial player, you're more likely to be able to make an impact with little tidbits too. Little golden nuggets that people like Blight and Matthews come up with, like, just turn the ball slightly before you kick a torp....... And "kick up" when you're taking a set shot at goal......

Sadly, neither Neil or Brenton were mercurial players. Doesn't mean you can't be a good coach, though. But I think coaches who were just good ordinary footballers do lack something in that department.

 

[DangerSloane]

Just to follow up on Pete's train of thought.

PDange
2011
DPG: 17
CP: 10.2
% contested is approx 60%

2012
DPG: 26.7
CP: 16.1
% contested is approx 60%

Now there's a little bit of flex in the disposals to possession stats.. and he doesn't rate high enough in his uncontested average for me to pull this from footywire in a hurry

So not much difference there sorry Pete - but I'll take the +10 possessions per game ANY day.

Also just to add to that

Dayne Beams: Patrick Dangerfield:

2011: 22.8 dpg 17.0 dpg
2012: 30.9 dpg 26.7 dpg

Same age, essentially started the same year (not counting Dangers 2 games in 2008).
Malthouse must be an awful coach and was stifling his development right? While Craig was unable to change his gameplan (and this is why he got the sack), he was right in that Dangerfield would not have been ready up until the 2nd half of 2011 to run out a large proportion of the game in the midfield. To say that he is not at least substantially responsible for Pattys development is just plain ignorant. So what you guys are saying that Sando developed Patty in the 5 months of preseason that they spent together? The updated game plan suits him more, he is a year fitter and a year wiser. Dont play down Craigs role in developing a lot of the young players we have running around now (and dont forget Davis/Gunston too!)

 

[cmndstab]

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.

I think he would be the same player he is today, yes - but perhaps not at our club. Personally I had always heard that Walker and Craig got on very well, but there are enough conflicting stories on that front that it makes me question what I've heard.

That doesn't make Craig a poor developer - hell, if anything, his flaws were on the other end of the scale. Craig was always good at making a very strong start to things. His problem was he never seemed to able to quite finish the job. People look at the likes of Dangerfield and Walker and say that Craig was a poor developer because they improved after he left. Personally, I always had a problem at the other end of the scale; under Craig we had a large number of players who developed very nicely, but then when they were in what should be the peak of their careers, they suddenly stagnated.

 

[Team DJ]

I think he would be the same player he is today, yes - but perhaps not at our club. Personally I had always heard that Walker and Craig got on very well, but there are enough conflicting stories on that front that it makes me question what I've heard.

That doesn't make Craig a poor developer - hell, if anything, his flaws were on the other end of the scale. Craig was always good at making a very strong start to things. His problem was he never seemed to able to quite finish the job. People look at the likes of Dangerfield and Walker and say that Craig was a poor developer because they improved after he left. Personally, I always had a problem at the other end of the scale; under Craig we had a large number of players who developed very nicely, but then when they were in what should be the peak of their careers, they suddenly stagnated.

If so, then going back to my orignal point that started this whole argument.

Robert Shaw and Neil Craig are on par with each other as coaches.

 

[AFC979810]

If so, then going back to my orignal point that started this whole argument.

Robert Shaw and Neil Craig are on par with each other as coaches.

What an absolutely idiotic statement.

Robert Shaw - 2 seasons. Won 17 lost 27. Did not make finals.
Neil Craig - 7 seasons. Won 92 lost 74. Finals in 5 of 7 years including 2 prelims. His winning percentage was the highest of all the coaches at the AFC.

 

[Team DJ]

What an absolutely idiotic statement.

Robert Shaw - 2 seasons. Won 17 lost 27. Did not make finals.
Neil Craig - 7 seasons. Won 92 lost 74. Finals in 5 of 7 years including 2 prelims. His winning percentage was the highest of all the coaches at the AFC.

Great.

The club moved forward under Robert Shaw. He inherited crap, and old crap at that from Graham Cornes, and developed the team into a premiership one for Blighty.

Craig, inhertited a team that wasnt to far off it from Ayresy, hence why we then made some finals with him. He then lost all his guns, couldnt really develop his youngsters, made Football unwatchable, lowered crowds and Cash Flows, and the handed over some Talented youngsters, who had not been made the most of to Sando who showed what those guys were capable of when played in the right positions, and given responsibility.

 

[AFC979810]

Great.

The club moved forward under Robert Shaw. He inherited crap, and old crap at that from Graham Cornes, and developed the team into a premiership one for Blighty.

Craig, inhertited a team that wasnt to far off it from Ayresy, hence why we then made some finals with him. He then lost all his guns, couldnt really develop his youngsters, made Football unwatchable, lowered crowds and Cash Flows, and the handed over some Talented youngsters, who had not been made the most of to Sando who showed what those guys were capable of when played in the right positions, and given responsibility.

The crap that Shaw inherited was close to a Grand Final the year before he inherited it. It was Blight who made the tough decisions (getting rid of McDermott / McGuiness / A Jarman).

What is even better is that you are crediting the success of our 1997 - 1998 years to Robert Shaw's ability to get our list together. Yet at the same time are giving Craig no credit (even though he completely turned over our list in his 7 years) and saying that all of our 2012 is attributed to Sando.

Judging from your posts I think it is now quite clear that you weren't old enough to watch the games or didn't follow the Crows from 1995-1996. They were woeful under Shaw. We lost 9 games in 1995 by 30 points or more and lost 11 games in 1996 by 30 points or more.

It is also painfully clear that your hatred of Craig clouds your judgement relating to facts and that he actually did a hell of alot of positive things for our club.

 

[Skippy231]

Robert Shaw is in the running for worst coach of all time alongside Gerard Neesham and Chris Connolly. Craigy wasn't a great strategic coach and his downfall was that he was too stubborn. Craigy should never be included in the same sentence as Robert Shaw. But as far as recruitment and our playing list it all changed when Rendell joined the crows, James Fantasia was the reason for the stagnation in the early to mid 2000s and since we started recruiting genuine footballers we have become more competitive. Neil Craig also had a knack of selecting elite athletes over elite footballers which has also hindered us

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

But their is more to coaching than just winning and losing.

Coaches are like administrators, simply custodians of the club who are supposed to leave the club in better shape than what they found (or inherited) it.

That's not to say Craig was or wasn't a better coach than Cornes or Shaw but had different assets to work with at the time. as a club, I feel we are really lukcy that every coach can be seen in some positive, either premierships, development, transitional period or simply being Neil Craig

As a coach, Robert Shaw on field and match day coaching was a joke but his player development and player promotions were spot on and helped the 1997 and 1998 premierships.

 

[Vader]

Robert Shaw is in the running for worst coach of all time alongside Gerard Neesham and Chris Connolly. Craigy wasn't a great strategic coach and his downfall was that he was too stubborn. Craigy should never be included in the same sentence as Robert Shaw. But as far as recruitment and our playing list it all changed when Rendell joined the crows, James Fantasia was the reason for the stagnation in the early to mid 2000s and since we started recruiting genuine footballers we have become more competitive. Neil Craig also had a knack of selecting elite athletes over elite footballers which has also hindered us

I blame a combination of Fantasia and Uncle Gary. Ayres had far too much say in our recruitment while he was in charge - and his instructions to the recruitment team rarely worked out to the benefit of the club. Think Angwin vs Kornes.

 

[cmndstab]

If so, then going back to my orignal point that started this whole argument.

Robert Shaw and Neil Craig are on par with each other as coaches.

I'm not really sure how this follows on from what I posted. Or are you just saying that you agree that Craig was not our worst coach since he wasn't actually a bad developer of talent?


There were some positives, but many negatives, to Shaw's reign. Craig had some negatives, but many positives (but not quite enough) to his reign. He was a considerably better coach than Shaw, despite being flawed himself.

 

[crowman_23]

I think everyone knows Craigy probably stayed a little longer than he should have, but boy do a few people on this board just blame him for everything. Anyone who claims that he didn't help develop Danger in to what he is today is purely holding grudges against Craig. A few injuries less in 05/06 and people would be speaking about him in the same sentence as Blight, instead we drop short and he is now level pegging with the worst coach we've had? Got to be joking.

 

[AFC979810]

I'm not really sure how this follows on from what I posted. Or are you just saying that you agree that Craig was not our worst coach since he wasn't actually a bad developer of talent?


There were some positives, but many negatives, to Shaw's reign. Craig had some negatives, but many positives (but not quite enough) to his reign. He was a considerably better coach than Shaw, despite being flawed himself.

Every coach has positives and negatives... They go through high's and lows.

Robert Shaw had nothing but lows.

Craigy had many many positives - however many of these posters would only be reflecting on 2010 / 2011.

What many don't realise is that AFL is a game of highs and lows.... Mick Malthouse has had 3 seasons where the teams he coached finished 2nd bottom.

 

[cmndstab]

Shaw had some positives. Some of our best players were recruited, and enjoyed their formative years, under his watch.

The side he put on the field went on to win premierships in the following two years after his departure. As much as it's nice to hand all the credit to Blight, the fact is he inherited a team that Shaw had left behind.

He wasn't a good coach, but he wasn't useless.