Coach Michael Voss

[HarryBeef]

Thats the crux of our difference of opinion I suppose - I don't doubt at all that the latter is a substantial part along with the improved intent from the players, again just going by what we're seeing on field vs earlier in the year.

Stripping back the gameplan (simplifying) is exactly what I would describe it as.

Can you explain what of the game plan has been stripped back though? What are you seeing related to the game plan that's different? Are we structuring up differently? Are our forwards running different patterns? Are we handing off and zoning up in ways that we weren't before? Etc.

 

[Stamos]

Can you explain what of the game plan has been stripped back though? What are you seeing related to the game plan that's different? Are we structuring up differently? Are our forwards running different patterns? Are we handing off and zoning up in ways that we weren't before? Etc.

One difference mentioned by Montagna (can't remember if it was First Crack or 360) was that our backs are playing more man-on-man rather than zone, which means our wings and half forwards haven't had to work back as much, which means we've got more and better options going forward.

 

[bourbons]

Can you explain what of the game plan has been stripped back though? What are you seeing related to the game plan that's different? Are we structuring up differently? Are our forwards running different patterns? Are we handing off and zoning up in ways that we weren't before? Etc.

IMO the biggest change has been quicker ball movement to obvious options - stuff like handballing to the guy running past even though you have no idea what he's going to do with it once he gets it, looking for (and even going to when you're not 100% sure the kick will get there in time) options in corridor. In short we seem more willing to take some risks in order to move the ball quickly, risks we weren't willing to take previously, just look at the number of easy over-the-back type goals we've gotten the last month, struggling to think of a single one of those from earlier in the year. Tweaking the personel has also had an impact here in providing some of those options to be potentially used in the first place - Kemp, Cincotta and Boyd as mentioned previously, no Young, basically just going a bit smaller and more mobile in the backline.

There appears to me to be a real focus on this aspect currently which just wasn't there earlier, we seemed to be locked into a very slow, methodical, unimaginitive style. Don't give to anyone running past if you weren't 100% sure, retain possession, look for an obvious hit up kick, if nothing on just bomb long down the line and hope for a contested mark. It even kinda worked imo - we were playing terrible footy, yet still weren't getting blown out in any of our losses, from a defensive standpoint it was ok. Problem obviously being that we couldn't kick a winning score ourselves playing that way.

Personally I think its pretty obvious this style was employed as a response to the way we lost some important games last year (and even those in which we won but gave up big leads). The focus was just too heavy, a better balance appears to be in place now.

 

[Blue1980]

This has been done to death re coaches or players.

The instructions were never to play that way. The players were not implementing what they were instructed to do, and whatever they were doing they were doing it with poor intensity. They lost a heap of games and realised the season was being wasted. Called a meeting where apparently a lot of home truths were delivered. This is in the public domain as fact.

Lo and behold we see a different team from then on. WTF has that got to do with strategy or game plan? Other than the inability to extract that level of intent earlier, which I admit, is on Voss.

I’m pretty sure the meeting of home truths was before the Essendon game.

So was a bit of a lag time on things turning around, first quarter v GC was more of the same too.

It’s nowhere near as simplistic and clear cut as what some would like to believe.

 

[Blue1980]

They were instructed to play that way to shut down periods of opposition momentum. Half the team seemed to think they should play that way when the game situation didn't call for it.

Trying to - with poor intensity. You don't get to the right spots to apply pressure defensively, nor to provide attacking options, if you are doing it at half rat-power.

True.

Re the edit: The meeting was the catalyst to shift the mindset to enable the blueprint to flourish.

Problem was we were playing that way for the majority of the game, and occasionally tried to take more risks and run and gun.

Was like a flip side of how it should be, and how we have been playing last 5 weeks.

I think it’s largely a confidence thing, and we probably over cooked the defensive game style and some underdone players as well.

 

[JustaBattler]

I’m pretty sure the meeting of home truths was before the Essendon game.

So was a bit of a lag time on things turning around, first quarter v GC was more of the same too.

It’s nowhere near as simplistic and clear cut as what some would like to believe.

People 'see' what they are inclned to 'see' .

All I saw when we were losing was missed tackles, and missed set shots and no defensive pressure or team running.

Want to put these basics on a any coach - sure why not...easy enough to do

so the story in here by the loud and angry was:

Vossy woke up and finally asked the players to lay tackles and not miss so many set shots and support each other around the field - ie get to contests in numbers...

like that isnt coaching 101 at kiddy level.

the facts are that too many on here were willing ot knife the coach for his "lack of game plan and lack of selection integrity" - instead of looking at who was playing or not and how they were performing - sacK vOsS.

 

[bigblueboy]

One difference mentioned by Montagna (can't remember if it was First Crack or 360) was that our backs are playing more man-on-man rather than zone, which means our wings and half forwards haven't had to work back as much, which means we've got more and better options going forward.

Was fantastic footage showing the significant change in our approach from earlier in the year.
Backing our defenders and reducing requirements on wings/half forwards to fill the holes. More attacking oriented.

 

[JustaBattler]

Was fantastic footage showing the significant change in our approach from earlier in the year.
Backing our defenders and reducing requirements on wings/half forwards to fill the holes. More attacking oriented.

montagna and his other dumb mate Kingy. - pick footage and make stories to suit themselves. The analysis was dne much better by some on here and on youtube weeks before...was obvious to people who watch games rather than score boards.

 

[bigblueboy]

montagna and his other dumb mate Kingy. - pick footage and make stories to suit themselves. The analysis was dne much better by some on here and on youtube weeks before...was obvious to people who watch games rather than score boards.

I don’t rate King but Montagna has a very good record of picking tag up on trends before the rest of the pack.
I’ve not seen commentary on the changes in our game style distilled like it was last night - was outstanding analysis.

 

[The Blue Weirdo]

Our goal kicking accuracy is still very poor, we have just dramatically increased the shots at goal(attacking gameplan) and passed to players in better positions to score.

 

[JustaBattler]

I don’t rate King but Montagna has a very good record of picking tag up on trends before the rest of the pack.
I’ve not seen commentary on the changes in our game style distilled like it was last night - was outstanding analysis.

The reason the deefnsive mix got some run its lgs was pretty simple.

Young got dropped, Boyd came in Kemp and Cincotta got a few games under their belts ie the backs had some run to run with

but

more importantly

Cuningham/Martin gave the team targets at the top opf the arc that were likely to a) mark the ball an not turn it over, b) do somethign like kick to advantage and c) actually lay a tackle.

change the whole dynamic of the game for Carlton having two proper HFF and rotations - gave every player behind and ahead of them somethign to work with.

but even more importantly

blokes were sticking tackles between teh arcs and causingh turnvoers- coincided with a fitter Cripps/Kennedy and Walsh - Hewett is just getting back to fitness whilst unfortunately Kennedy is now out. and teh better defensive mix allowed the luxury of Docherty doing mid rotations and wing- huge difference as well as Cottrells run back in teh side.

Montagna pointing to one thing as if it is game plan and ignoring all the stuff that actually allows for good things to happen - pedestrian analysis in my book.

 

[JustOneTime]

That script never mentioned gameplan, so it comes back to how people want to interpret Voss's response

Exactly right and this is important. You post like it's black and white. You are personally (by holding that view) rejecting any perspective/inference/context, whatever you want to call it. You are allowed to do this of course and I know your circular argument response will be that that is your inference because most on here know, you love doing this. What you are really doing is taking the position of 'literal' words at face value then turning your back on inference.

What is important here is you take that view, and in your posts defend it as sacrosanct from your perspective which is ok, and then that can form the basis of other linked posts like, 'here we go, where are all those posters who said Voss cant coach', or words to that effect, similar to the line I quoted in my previous post.

Those posts only engender and inflame posters over that debate when it is all based on such a flimsy perspective in the first place that even surely you couldn't be sure you are right.

Personally, i don't rate that type of posting.

 

[Arr0w]

Exactly right and this is important. You post like it's black and white. You are personally (by holding that view) rejecting any perspective/inference/context, whatever you want to call it. You are allowed to do this of course and I know your circular argument response will be that that is your inference because most on here know, you love doing this. What you are really doing is taking the position of 'literal' words at face value then turning your back on inference.

What is important here is you take that view, and in your posts defend it as sacrosanct from your perspective which is ok, and then that can form the basis of other linked posts like, 'here we go, where are all those posters who said Voss cant coach', or words to that effect, similar to the line I quoted in my previous post.

Those posts only engender and inflame posters over that debate when it is all based on such a flimsy perspective in the first place that even surely you couldn't be sure you are right.

So either you know this and do it on purpose, or you are oblivious to it.

Every aspect playing the poster again, rather than debating content

But apparently you are looking for balance

Let me reiterate it for you

People wanted Voss sacked because apparently he couldn't coach and wouldn't be able to drive change

Perhaps you should debate with those posters, rather than targeting one poster

 

[JustaBattler]

Exactly right and this is important. You post like it's black and white. You are personally (by holding that view) rejecting any perspective/inference/context, whatever you want to call it. You are allowed to do this of course and I know your circular argument response will be that that is your inference because most on here know, you love doing this. What you are really doing is taking the position of 'literal' words at face value then turning your back on inference.

What is important here is you take that view, and in your posts defend it as sacrosanct from your perspective which is ok, and then that can form the basis of other linked posts like, 'here we go, where are all those posters who said Voss cant coach', or words to that effect, similar to the line I quoted in my previous post.

Those posts only engender and inflame posters over that debate when it is all based on such a flimsy perspective in the first place that even surely you couldn't be sure you are right.

Personally, i don't rate that type of posting.

What are you doing by trying to go the man ?

Fact is that a few posters on here mde their POV transparent and rational - whilst a whole barrage of doomsday posters went overboard with all the wailing and gnashing of teeth - and then decided to back peddle their views by suggesting Voss changed his 'game plan' ... whilst at the same time choosing to ignore what players have stated about their own performances ( or lack of) well as the coach's own words.

 

[JustOneTime]

What are you doing by trying to go the man ?

Fact is that a few posters on here mde their POV transparent and rational - whilst a whole barrage of doomsday posters went overboard with all the wailing and gnashing of teeth - and then decided to back peddle their views by suggesting Voss changed his 'game plan' ... whilst at the same time choosing to ignore what players have stated about their own performances ( or lack of) well as the coach's own words.

Sorry Battler. I know you are a VERY strong advocate that it was only about the players and nothing about the gameplan. You are hard coded to Arrow's position so i understand.

I don't for a minute believe it is so simple.

I don't mind if the mods remove the post if it is too aggressive - but it is my view on this topic. I like Arrows other threads if that helps a bit.

 

[JustOneTime]

Every aspect playing the poster again, rather than debating content

But apparently you are looking for balance

Let me reiterate it for you

People wanted Voss sacked because apparently he couldn't coach and wouldn't be able to drive change

Perhaps you should debate with those posters, rather than targeting one poster

It does look harsh.

 

[bigblueboy]

The reason the deefnsive mix got some run its lgs was pretty simple.

Young got dropped, Boyd came in Kemp and Cincotta got a few games under their belts ie the backs had some run to run with

but

more importantly

Cuningham/Martin gave the team targets at the top opf the arc that were likely to a) mark the ball an not turn it over, b) do somethign like kick to advantage and c) actually lay a tackle.

change the whole dynamic of the game for Carlton having two proper HFF and rotations - gave every player behind and ahead of them somethign to work with.

but even more importantly

blokes were sticking tackles between teh arcs and causingh turnvoers- coincided with a fitter Cripps/Kennedy and Walsh - Hewett is just getting back to fitness whilst unfortunately Kennedy is now out. and teh better defensive mix allowed the luxury of Docherty doing mid rotations and wing- huge difference as well as Cottrells run back in teh side.

Montagna pointing to one thing as if it is game plan and ignoring all the stuff that actually allows for good things to happen - pedestrian analysis in my book.

He made it clear he was talking about one aspect - an important piece of change.
Preferable to the incoherent “analysis” I’ve seen here …

 

[JustaBattler]

Sorry Battler. I know you are a VERY strong advocate that it was only about the players and nothing about the gameplan. You are hard coded to Arrow's position so i understand.

I don't for a minute believe it is so simple.

I don't mind if the mods remove the post if it is too aggressive - but it is my view on this topic. I like Arrows other threads if that helps a bit.

Firstly - I think I have been the most ardent against teh bnoition of a changed game plan I dont need to 'follow' anyonme's thinking..

As for game plan ( or is that lack of game plkan BCDEF&G) game plans AS WITNESSED BY VIEWERS change every week according to how the opposiiton lines up against the team and who is available to play - but I dont beleive in 'game plans' because I see no difference between any team and their game plan - all I =see is better teams and not as good teams - in their ability to execute.

The game plan nonsense and that is what it was, was a weak attempt to igniore the fundamental statistics that remain true all the time and blame the coach for - 'reasons' mainly ommitting Dow and (apparently) on confusing the poor players addle brained players with a complicated game plan - both makey uppy conjectures repeated ad inifinitum day after day week after week in every thread on the forum - Dow this but Dow that Dow the other thing sacK VosS

here is just ONE fact

Carlton players managed to score the AFL' s HISTORICAL low conversion ratio over six consecutive rounds ( the horror period) - we are talking never seen before in the history of the game a covnerison ratio 33% - just a getting to high 30's would have won three of those games lost and high 30's is diabolically bad. I wont go into the rest of the stats that tell a similar story NOR will I repeat the massive change in players that has occured partly through availability and partly by weeding out the flakey types etc etc and partly through the regaining of fitness of the key midfielders - Walsh/Kenned/Hewett and Cripps

Sorry mate- I'm the first to challenge a poor coach, I hated every single day Malthouse was at Carlton but Vossy is trying to remake Carltomn into a finals quality team week in week out and that is what he is accomplishing and it starts with defensive excellence all over the ground. Players can fit in or F*** off as far as I am concerned= we've had vaunrted players - the tails wagging the dog at carlton for over a decade now - and they delviered NOTHING to supporters.

That is why I am passionate about not sascking a coach every two years- the Carlton way - instead building the right playing group around a solid philosophy - it is what you with 99% of the time you dont have the ball in hand that matters.

 

[JustaBattler]

He made it clear he was talking about one aspect - an important piece of change.
Preferable to the incoherent “analysis” I’ve seen here …

I'm glad you learned something from him - or think you did.

 

[HarryBeef]

IMO the biggest change has been quicker ball movement to obvious options - stuff like handballing to the guy running past even though you have no idea what he's going to do with it once he gets it, looking for (and even going to when you're not 100% sure the kick will get there in time) options in corridor. In short we seem more willing to take some risks in order to move the ball quickly, risks we weren't willing to take previously, just look at the number of easy over-the-back type goals we've gotten the last month, struggling to think of a single one of those from earlier in the year. Tweaking the personel has also had an impact here in providing some of those options to be potentially used in the first place - Kemp, Cincotta and Boyd as mentioned previously, no Young, basically just going a bit smaller and more mobile in the backline.

There appears to me to be a real focus on this aspect currently which just wasn't there earlier, we seemed to be locked into a very slow, methodical, unimaginitive style. Don't give to anyone running past if you weren't 100% sure, retain possession, look for an obvious hit up kick, if nothing on just bomb long down the line and hope for a contested mark. It even kinda worked imo - we were playing terrible footy, yet still weren't getting blown out in any of our losses, from a defensive standpoint it was ok. Problem obviously being that we couldn't kick a winning score ourselves playing that way.

Personally I think its pretty obvious this style was employed as a response to the way we lost some important games last year (and even those in which we won but gave up big leads). The focus was just too heavy, a better balance appears to be in place now.

Appreciate the response, however I don't really believe any of that has anything to do with modern football strategy, that's more about mindset and confidence. They clearly were afraid of making mistakes, but that's not a game plan.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Firstly - I think I have been the most ardent against teh bnoition of a changed game plan I dont need to 'follow' anyonme's thinking..

As for game plan ( or is that lack of game plkan BCDEF&G) game plans AS WITNESSED BY VIEWERS change every week according to how the opposiiton lines up against the team and who is available to play - but I dont beleive in 'game plans' because I see no difference between any team and their game plan - all I =see is better teams and not as good teams - in their ability to execute.

The game plan nonsense and that is what it was, was a weak attempt to igniore the fundamental statistics that remain true all the time and blame the coach for - 'reasons' mainly ommitting Dow and (apparently) on confusing the poor players addle brained players with a complicated game plan - both makey uppy conjectures repeated ad inifinitum day after day week after week in every thread on the forum - Dow this but Dow that Dow the other thing sacK VosS

here is just ONE fact

Carlton players managed to score the AFL' s HISTORICAL low conversion ratio over six consecutive rounds ( the horror period) - we are talking never seen before in the history of the game a covnerison ratio 33% - just a getting to high 30's would have won three of those games lost and high 30's is diabolically bad. I wont go into the rest of the stats that tell a similar story NOR will I repeat the massive change in players that has occured partly through availability and partly by weeding out the flakey types etc etc and partly through the regaining of fitness of the key midfielders - Walsh/Kenned/Hewett and Cripps

Sorry mate- I'm the first to challenge a poor coach, I hated every single day Malthouse was at Carlton but Vossy is trying to remake Carltomn into a finals quality team week in week out and that is what he is accomplishing and it starts with defensive excellence all over the ground. Players can fit in or F*** off as far as I am concerned= we've had vaunrted players - the tails wagging the dog at carlton for over a decade now - and they delviered NOTHING to supporters.

That is why I am passionate about not sascking a coach every two years- the Carlton way - instead building the right playing group around a solid philosophy - it is what you with 99% of the time you dont have the ball in hand that matters.

This is absolutely the most forthright, most factually based (stat wise) and downright rationale post I have ever read on this board.

Even if we miss finals this season, Vossy is clearly the coach for us going forwards, and has absolute buy in and commitment from the players.

Got nothing against Paddy Dow, but he probably doesn't buy into the defensive pressure acts and philosophy Vossy is selling our players.

I look at Lachie Fogarty and his hard work and willingness to buy into said defensive edict that Vossy has been preaching as testament to our Gaffer's measure as coach.

 

[Gointocarlton]

Firstly - I think I have been the most ardent against teh bnoition of a changed game plan I dont need to 'follow' anyonme's thinking..

As for game plan ( or is that lack of game plkan BCDEF&G) game plans AS WITNESSED BY VIEWERS change every week according to how the opposiiton lines up against the team and who is available to play - but I dont beleive in 'game plans' because I see no difference between any team and their game plan - all I =see is better teams and not as good teams - in their ability to execute.

The game plan nonsense and that is what it was, was a weak attempt to igniore the fundamental statistics that remain true all the time and blame the coach for - 'reasons' mainly ommitting Dow and (apparently) on confusing the poor players addle brained players with a complicated game plan - both makey uppy conjectures repeated ad inifinitum day after day week after week in every thread on the forum - Dow this but Dow that Dow the other thing sacK VosS

here is just ONE fact

Carlton players managed to score the AFL' s HISTORICAL low conversion ratio over six consecutive rounds ( the horror period) - we are talking never seen before in the history of the game a covnerison ratio 33% - just a getting to high 30's would have won three of those games lost and high 30's is diabolically bad. I wont go into the rest of the stats that tell a similar story NOR will I repeat the massive change in players that has occured partly through availability and partly by weeding out the flakey types etc etc and partly through the regaining of fitness of the key midfielders - Walsh/Kenned/Hewett and Cripps

Sorry mate- I'm the first to challenge a poor coach, I hated every single day Malthouse was at Carlton but Vossy is trying to remake Carltomn into a finals quality team week in week out and that is what he is accomplishing and it starts with defensive excellence all over the ground. Players can fit in or F*** off as far as I am concerned= we've had vaunrted players - the tails wagging the dog at carlton for over a decade now - and they delviered NOTHING to supporters.

That is why I am passionate about not sascking a coach every two years- the Carlton way - instead building the right playing group around a solid philosophy - it is what you with 99% of the time you dont have the ball in hand that matters.

I tips me lid too ya JAB

 

[JustOneTime]

Firstly - I think I have been the most ardent against teh bnoition of a changed game plan I dont need to 'follow' anyonme's thinking..

As for game plan ( or is that lack of game plkan BCDEF&G) game plans AS WITNESSED BY VIEWERS change every week according to how the opposiiton lines up against the team and who is available to play - but I dont beleive in 'game plans' because I see no difference between any team and their game plan - all I =see is better teams and not as good teams - in their ability to execute.

The game plan nonsense and that is what it was, was a weak attempt to igniore the fundamental statistics that remain true all the time and blame the coach for - 'reasons' mainly ommitting Dow and (apparently) on confusing the poor players addle brained players with a complicated game plan - both makey uppy conjectures repeated ad inifinitum day after day week after week in every thread on the forum - Dow this but Dow that Dow the other thing sacK VosS

here is just ONE fact

Carlton players managed to score the AFL' s HISTORICAL low conversion ratio over six consecutive rounds ( the horror period) - we are talking never seen before in the history of the game a covnerison ratio 33% - just a getting to high 30's would have won three of those games lost and high 30's is diabolically bad. I wont go into the rest of the stats that tell a similar story NOR will I repeat the massive change in players that has occured partly through availability and partly by weeding out the flakey types etc etc and partly through the regaining of fitness of the key midfielders - Walsh/Kenned/Hewett and Cripps

Sorry mate- I'm the first to challenge a poor coach, I hated every single day Malthouse was at Carlton but Vossy is trying to remake Carltomn into a finals quality team week in week out and that is what he is accomplishing and it starts with defensive excellence all over the ground. Players can fit in or F*** off as far as I am concerned= we've had vaunrted players - the tails wagging the dog at carlton for over a decade now - and they delviered NOTHING to supporters.

That is why I am passionate about not sascking a coach every two years- the Carlton way - instead building the right playing group around a solid philosophy - it is what you with 99% of the time you dont have the ball in hand that matters.

I do respect your views Battler but just don't agree.

I look over at Collingwood and remove Carlton from the equation to lessen the emotion on the topic. Mcreery, Ash johnson, Elliot, Mihocek, Cox, Markov were all crap players or below average players for the past couple of years. Everyone noticed their forward line on player names was crap yet here they are topping all key performance indicators.

Now some of them are a chance for the all Australian team. I know you would say 'before those players were playing average or crap' and now they are playing amazing'.

This is where I differ and i'm ok to agree to disagree with you. I think the difference in these players is they understand their roles and gameplan so much more than our players. Just my opinion really. I think the Pies players understand their 'roles' better than anyone. As an example, Cripps still doesnt really understand his role in our team. He still wanted to do a left kick for goal when he is close to our bottom 3 kicks in the team and should set the example by squaring the ball. He does it often and bites off too much. Voss and the midfield coach should correct this for the team.

Another example...I've watched Mcreery this year and so many times he gets on the far side all by himself for uncontested ball set up by the other players and then goes inside 50 with an uncontested pass or shot at goal. It is a repetitive play and I think it is rehearsed on the switch by the Daicos boys, Pendles and Sidey. I say this is an outcome of a gameplan play (and knowing your role in the team) and you would say Mcreery is now a good player...and Daicos is good and that explains it. Mcreery running like to take that position with that opportunity is implementing a certain play. Implementing repetitive plays are small components/aspects of a larger gameplan.

Repetitive plays like bombing it long to a big pack (involving Charlie/Mckay) is not a great gameplan. A better gameplan is highlighted by overlap run/kick/uncontested mark/goal. Who actually does that the most has the best gameplan. That uncontested gameplan leads to the least collision injuries and allows that particular side to not have to pay 2 power forwards 800k each and then see them go down injured destroying your season.

A good gameplan see the Pies not care whether their ruck, Degoey, Taylor, sidey goes down. It doesnt even matter who is a forward for them. Meanwhile at the blues we cry fear without Mckay and Walsh.

 

[Arr0w]

I do respect your views Battler but just don't agree.

I look over at Collingwood and remove Carlton from the equation to lessen the emotion on the topic. Mcreery, Ash johnson, Elliot, Mihocek, Cox, Markov were all crap players or below average players for the past couple of years. Everyone noticed their forward line on player names was crap yet here they are topping all key performance indicators.

Now some of them are a chance for the all Australian team. I know you would say 'before those players were playing average or crap' and now they are playing amazing'.

This is where I differ and i'm ok to agree to disagree with you. I think the difference in these players is they understand their roles and gameplan so much more than our players. Just my opinion really. I think the Pies players understand their 'roles' better than anyone. As an example, Cripps still doesnt really understand his role in our team. He still wanted to do a left kick for goal when he is close to our bottom 3 kicks in the team and should set the example by squaring the ball. He does it often and bites off too much. Voss and the midfield coach should correct this for the team.

Another example...I've watched Mcreery this year and so many times he gets on the far side all by himself for uncontested ball set up by the other players and then goes inside 50 with an uncontested pass or shot at goal. It is a repetitive play and I think it is rehearsed on the switch by the Daicos boys, Pendles and Sidey. I say this is an outcome of a gameplan play (and knowing your role in the team) and you would say Mcreery is now a good player...and Daicos is good and that explains it. Mcreery running like to take that position with that opportunity is implementing a certain play. Implementing repetitive plays are small components/aspects of a larger gameplan.

What do the Pies have to do with this thread about Voss?

 

[JustOneTime]

What do the Pies have to do with this thread about Voss?

Misdirection.

The debate is about gameplan and the coach is responsible/accountable. So it is relevant. If Battle's comments are about players being good or bad. Then lets test that theory against another club.

Has Macrae and his group of coaches solely been responsible for saying ' be confident guys and win me each match'?