Innovative coaching

[PendlesIsAStar]

Mick Malthouse took tactics to a new level by employing one of our players to run parallel to Buddy Franklin when he ran in for goal! Wow, if Mick didn't get our boys to do that then Buddy may well have kicked 15!

Wouldn't it have been more prudent to advise our players to get the clearances, use the ball effectively, not turn it over and kick straight for goal? Or even implore the guys to throw themselves into the contest and not serve up the crap we saw from the likes of Fraser, and Bryan?

Maybe I just know nothing about football??

 

[Rohan25]

It was worth a shot. It didn't work on the scoreboard, but it did seem to distract him occasionally. Don't bag them for trying it.

 

[HFF]

What would have been real innovative coaching was to block the space of Buddy to help Maxy who was murdered tonight, take some risks through the middle of the ground, do like all teams do and look to hit the lead-up target-anywhere on the ground and link up with creative handball and footskills.

Perhaps that 'cattle' is lacking.....

 

[Art Corvelay]

More concerning was rather then drop a man in front, give Buddy the entire forward line

 

[ShepBoy]

Yeah, I am sure Clarkson was speechless with such innovative coaching.

Malty really stuck it Walls!

 

[Jabso]

I don't understand what you mean by the parallel thing.

Either way I think this summarises the game well in a few dot points.

- We lost it in the first quarter.
- Everyone went into their shell and played selfish footy as soon as we were 5 goals down. Especially the defenders and forwards. No risk taking whatsoever.
- No one played well.
- We are shocking at covering the handball receivers out of the clearance situation. A lot of the players are sheepish and will rely on others players reactions when they should judge who will win the ball and whether to go back or forward themselves.

 

[PendlesIsAStar]

It was worth a shot. It didn't work on the scoreboard, but it did seem to distract him occasionally. Don't bag them for trying it.

No it wasn't worth a shot! The tactic assumed Buddy was going to get it a shit load of times - wouldn't you try to prevent Buddy getting it in the first place? If anything said to the opposition "hey, we're beaten already", it was that! Clarkson would have had a quiet chuckle when he saw that on the telly before the start of the game.

How about getting first use of the ball out of the centre? Now that would be worth a shot!

 

[Art Corvelay]

No it wasn't worth a shot! The tactic assumed Buddy was going to get it a shit load of times - wouldn't you try to prevent Buddy getting it in the first place? If anything said to the opposition "hey, we're beaten already", it was that! Clarkson would have had a quiet chuckle when he saw that on the telly before the start of the game.

How about getting first use of the ball out of the centre? Now that would be worth a shot!

In case you missed it Buddy averages 10 shots at goal every round against all opposition... not rocket science to assume that it would continue against us.

 

[PendlesIsAStar]

In case you missed it Buddy averages 10 shots at goal every round against all opposition... not rocket science to assume that it would continue against us.

Sorry, you're right. Malthouse is a genius, and I'm an F***wit for even commenting.

 

[Rohan25]

No it wasn't worth a shot! The tactic assumed Buddy was going to get it a shit load of times - wouldn't you try to prevent Buddy getting it in the first place? If anything said to the opposition "hey, we're beaten already", it was that! Clarkson would have had a quiet chuckle when he saw that on the telly before the start of the game.

How about getting first use of the ball out of the centre? Now that would be worth a shot!

Calm down mate, I'm as upset as you are. I was just saying that there's no harm in trying to exploit a weakness. We could have done something different, but to assume that Franklin will have several shots at goal either way is not unreasonable.

 

[Art Corvelay]

Sorry, you're right. Malthouse is a genius, and I'm an F***wit for even commenting.

Settle pettle. Yes, we should have worked on our clearances, but you can bank on Buddy getting 10 shots on goal. Anything you can do to disturb him is a good idea imo.

 

[PendlesIsAStar]

Calm down mate, I'm as upset as you are. I was just saying that there's no harm in trying to exploit a weakness. We could have done something different, but to assume that Franklin will have several shots at goal either way is not unreasonable.

I'm just steamed because I've watched us turn from a top 4 hopeful to a team that should miss the eight in the space of a month, and I'm amazed how people can watch what I watch and think everything is honkey dory down at the Lexus Centre.

When Malthouse gets praise for what was the most useless tactic I've ever seen (doesn't Buddy already kick badly for goal, what were we hoping for, a 12 point game out of him?), I get a bit miffed.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

It was clearly worth a go, and was perhaps one tactic that appeared to work. He said himself it annoyed him. Unfortunately, the other measures we put in place were ineffectual, doesn't make that particular tactic a waste of time.

 

[Shellz]

When Malthouse gets praise for what was the most useless tactic I've ever seen (doesn't Buddy already kick badly for goal, what were we hoping for, a 12 point game out of him?), I get a bit miffed.

It certainly would have changed the game if he kicked that instead of the eight goals he did!

 

[Pie eyed]

I don't understand what you mean by the parallel thing.

Either way I think this summarises the game well in a few dot points.

- We lost it in the first quarter.
- Everyone went into their shell and played selfish footy as soon as we were 5 goals down. Especially the defenders and forwards. No risk taking whatsoever.
- No one played well.
- We are shocking at covering the handball receivers out of the clearance situation. A lot of the players are sheepish and will rely on others players reactions when they should judge who will win the ball and whether to go back or forward themselves.

I agree with that list 100%.
I would also add that our younger, less physically developed list also had a lot of trouble stopping Hawthorn more experienced, physically developed, hardened players (basically the entire side) with many tackles ineffectual and players seemingly handpassing out of tackles at will.
When Hawthorn even had a sniff at getting the ball out of a tight situation they had 3-4 players running past outside, back and front of the packs to accept the eventual hand pass and another 3-4 outside them in space to
cooly pick an option further afield. We however had a brigade of flat footed ditherers unsure of what to do with the ball once hey got it and quite often simply giving it up.

Our last three losses have been largely due to our pathetic starts.

 

[jenny61_99]

I agree with that list 100%.
I would also add that our younger, less physically developed list also had a lot of trouble stopping Hawthorn more experienced, physically developed, hardened players (basically the entire side) with many tackles ineffectual and players seemingly handpassing out of tackles at will.
When Hawthorn even had a sniff at getting the ball out of a tight situation they had 3-4 players running past outside, back and front of the packs to accept the eventual hand pass and another 3-4 outside them in space to
cooly pick an option further afield. We however had a brigade of flat footed ditherers unsure of what to do with the ball once hey got it and quite often simply giving it up.

Our last three losses have been largely due to our pathetic starts.

Yet you were able to do this against the physically superior side in Geelong, and not just do it, but do it to great effect. Do you think MM might have the boys on a harder training routine (ala Neil Craig in years gone by in Adelaide) which is why the team appears to have gone flat? FWIW, I thought the blocking of Buddy's goal kicking WAS innovative... however too hard to tell if it worked because he often kicks a truck load of points. I wasn't sure about the paddock MM created for Buddy though. Didn't make sense when you know the best way to effectively shut him down is to cut off his supply. A loose man in defence dropping in front of him isn't fool proof but it generally works.

 

[Billy Picken]

MM sole tactic failed yet again........how about smash the clearances and limit that damn supply to Buddy! It's not rocket science Mick

 

[Leather Poisoning]

I saw footage of that before the game and thought to myself, geez, if Malthouse is putting time into that he's really not putting his effort to what really matters.

Interestingly, Buddy's kicking from the boundary (where he couldn't have someone running on his left) was ****ing amazing. I think he kicked 2 or 3 like that, and 3 from the snap. Maybe Malthouse's tactics had some effect? Personally I don't think so as Buddy returned similar accuracy to what he's dished up all year.

Must be disappointing for you guys. Commiserations. FWIW I think you guys will finish about where you did last year, and might even have Sydney again in the first week of the finals. So don't be too disheartened!