Coach Michael Voss

Remove this Banner Ad

We got a new coach in Voss. He replaced Teague who tried gamely but was hard pressed by circumstance and neither had the list or the fitness to work with. He had replaced Bolton who was not fully an AFL coach but the idea of an untried enthusiast had merit. Reminded me of Brittain.

With Voss instantly the organization he has learned over decades as captain, coach and assistant showed its worth.
Our best team was good enough then injury came with a vengeance. There was a lot to learn but players still weren't sure of themselves and the list too inexperienced.

Year two of Voss and they start nervously but well enough to be up the top for a month. A couple of losses and they lost their way in the midst of trying so hard to prove something. As a result they become unsure and start missing the goals consistently which only made them even more unsure all over the ground. 4 games of struggling losses later Cook releases the pressure and says not playing finals won't change the long term strategies and the list isn't finished. They start to play better but still lose the next two after poor kicking for goal.

At that point the players gather of their own volition and something happened.
What was said?
Maybe that careers were on the line and what have we got to lose and all for one and one for all.
They throw the millstone of caution to the wind and run like hell and everything falls into place.


They have grown up and stared down a challenge in that process. All the things that werent working begin to work and the goals follow.
When they kick goals they win.

You want to call that a gameplan change or a gradual change of skills fitness and culture?

I know what I call it and have said so all along. As JAB says this gameplan theory is mostly hogwash and Vossy has coached pretty much the same from day one notwithstanding the natural changes and improvements every coach needs to find in themselves and the staff each week and over time.

His team has got better. Better at what they do and better in availability and fitness. A big part of that has been patience for the unfit to get properly fit before being picked. That's new and is a key to our current form. Very few teams in any sport can win without their best team on the ground regardless of system or motivation or desire. Takes time for a coach to work out his best combination too.

I say he can coach and thank goodness the club knows it too. Its been a long time since Parkin. I dont think we have had a proper Carlton type disciplined demanding coach ever since. Bit of luck and he takes us all the way in September.
 
Good post above. I think Voss can coach too.

Can i ask this on gameplan being nonsense?

When you see a stoppage and you see one side's midfielders all line up in a row on the defensive side of the stoppage and then as the ball is thrown up, 1/2 go for the ball and 1-2 hang back for the recieive...is that a trained gameplan initiative from the training track or just the players being good individually all at the same time?

I call that part of the overall gameplan. A stoppage is repeatable so you can practice it. Same for kicking out of defence and trying to go coast to coast. Going coast to coast is one great indicator of good planning/gameplanning.

I think every club is trying to plan these repeatable plays and it is a collection of these things that make up a gameplan.

Plus what about our defensive zones we play all over the ground as the opponent attacks. This player positioning either pressing or further back is a trained gameplan to throttle the opposition. How good this positioning is versus an opponent can really impact the outcome of the game!

I dont count all of the above as 'individual player ability' or player form.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Beyond me that you have been here 5 minutes and you can get away with this type of targeting

I've been here since 2007. Justnetime was my last account but i forgot the login details. I can't remember my previous account 2007-2019 as i left it inactive for 2 years and posted elsewhere.

I agree i targeted a bit hard. When the mods see it I will take heed.

Aside from a bit of rudeness, I'm just happy to differ and im not trying to change your opinion (not for a moment). I'm responding to the points to make alternative views known for others to consider.
 
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'?
There is no debate in my mind about Voss being able to coach or not.
You can believe in 'game plans' and Santa Clause and the tooth fairy that is fine - all people need to accept is that other's may believe that game plan is a furfy.

If coaches were responsible for game plans that worked or didnt - explain how well Coach of the century Clarkson did in the last 7 years, or Simpson over at West Coast is doing, or Hardwick the other coach of the century was doing before he pulled the plug, or Lyon is not dong any better than Ratten did with St Kilda etc etc..

Maybe just accept the fact that all a coach can do is limited by the players and competencies they have in executing their skill sets - and that is it.

Coaches are like CEO's appointed to be the fall guys only in the job for as long as is convenient and performing well enough to keep the stakeholders happy. Easy targets to dump if the list is just not good enough or 'underperforming to its 'potential'...

Carlton actualy sacked Ratten for the crime of getting a serial wooden spooner to finals and a free kick not given away from a prelim - with less than a quarter of the resources the Club has today. Carlton is expert at sacking coaches - in fact Carlton has won the sack the coach competition for two decades because coaches have not been able to get the list to perform to its 'potential'..

none of the people posting game plan and sackVosS have ever bothered to adress the substantive argument regarding player availability and actual player levels of experience, injury , continuity all I hear is game plan this and game plan that


laughable.
 
There is no debate in my mind about Voss being able to coach or not.
You can believe in 'game plans' and Santa Clause and the tooth fairy that is fine - all people need to accept is that other's may believe that game plan is a furfy.

If coaches were responsible for game plans that worked or didnt - explain how well Coach of the century Clarkson did in the last 7 years, or Simpson over at West Coast is doing, or Hardwick the other coach of the century was doing before he pulled the plug, or Lyon is not dong any better than Ratten did with St Kilda etc etc..

Maybe just accept the fact that all a coach can do is limited by the players and competencies they have in executing their skill sets - and that is it.

Coaches are like CEO's appointed to be the fall guys only in the job for as long as is convenient and performing well enough to keep the stakeholders happy. Easy targets to dump if the list is just not good enough or 'underperforming to its 'potential'...

Carlton actualy sacked Ratten for the crime of getting a serial wooden spooner to finals and a free kick not given away from a prelim - with less than a quarter of the resources the Club has today. Carlton is expert at sacking coaches - in fact Carlton has won the sack the coach competition for two decades because coaches have not been able to get the list to perform to its 'potential'..

none of the people posting game plan and sackVosS have ever bothered to adress the substantive argument regarding player availability and actual player levels of experience, injury , continuity all I hear is game plan this and game plan that


laughable.

Can this be one of those topics we just let go and agree to disagree? I respect your explanations. One could definitely point out that I kicked it all off again but I would reply in an endlessly new debate that Arrow's sarcastic Voss sackers reference kicked it off again. No need to reply to this point as we can agree to disagree on this as well :).

I tend to agree with most of your posting JAB as you tend to explain things well from your perspective. I'm just on the other side of the fence on this particular issue.

I don't tend to see your viewpoint as laughable in return. I get where you are coming from but this topic is all about a spectrum or range of right and wrong.
 
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.
It possibly was. Doc referred to "about 6 weeks ago" the other day.

That game highlighted JaB's point of goal kicking inaccuracy. If we were diabolically bad with 33% over the 6 week period, then what word do you use for the 23% in the first half of that game? 3.10 and probably a couple of complete shanked misses as well, meant that we blew the chance to be 5 goals up.

Essendon then kicked 7.1 in the third and we responded with 1.6 in the last. We really were our own worst enemy for a while there.
 
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.
Agree with this. Can't stand Kingy, he's one of the guys I mentioned earlier that declared us locks for finals after about round 4 this year and last, bloke never learns lol. But Montangna I find better, less reactive.
 
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's not saying its one thing, THE reason - moreso just identifying a part of the game we are doing substantially better than previous.
 
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
Just on this one aspect, I'm still of the mind that where we were getting shots from contributed to this along with skills/execution/confidence - just look at the number of easy over-the-back type goals we've gotten in the last month as I've mentioned, along with set shots from 20-30 out vaguely in front, compared with earlier in the year. Chalk and cheese imo, and a product of quicker ball movement.

Someone posted that 'expected score' thing a while back that analyses difficulty of shots and what the scores 'should' have been for both teams - unsure how reliable it is but fwiw that data had us still losing every one of those games except vs St Kilda during the loss streak.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Just on this one aspect, I'm still of the mind that where we were getting shots from contributed to this along with skills/execution/confidence - just look at the number of easy over-the-back type goals we've gotten in the last month as I've mentioned, along with set shots from 20-30 out vaguely in front, compared with earlier in the year. Chalk and cheese imo, and a product of quicker ball movement.

Someone posted that 'expected score' thing a while back that analyses difficulty of shots and what the scores 'should' have been for both teams - unsure how reliable it is but fwiw that data had us still losing every one of those games except vs St Kilda during the loss streak.
I'll say it again - since it seems a really difficult concept for people to get their minds around.

Carlton made history by managing to have the lowest-ever recorded conversion ratio for a 5 game consecutive period - ever.

To simplify

bad kicking is bad football

to simplify further

that level of awfulness has NOTHING to do with coaching - nothing.

that one statistic is enough for any rational analysis to suggest that coaching inability argument is a nonsense.

I don't understand why people struggle with this I really don't.

My whole anatagonistic and I admit my repetitive dismissal of criticisms may be seen to be antagonistic was all about challenging the point the finger at Voss and sack Voss hysteria that was going on. A hysteria that if followed would see the club go down the same losing route of sacking another coach - when the evidence pointed much more at players basic failures.

To me the whole period was a line in the sand moment for the Club and supporters.

The fact that some of these overpaid underperforming players decided to take responsibility for the absolute crap they were dishing out is a good thing. The good thing is that maybe just maybe they have figured out that if they tackle as a collective and defend territory everywhere they have a better chance of winning - than leaving the hard running and contested work for the defenders to worry about.
 
I'll say it again - since it seems a really difficult concept for people to get their minds around.

Carlton made history by managing to have the lowest-ever recorded conversion ratio for a 5 game consecutive period - ever.

To simplify

bad kicking is bad football

to simplify further

that level of awfulness has NOTHING to do with coaching - nothing.

that one statistic is enough for any rational analysis to suggest that coaching inability argument is a nonsense.

I don't understand why people struggle with this I really don't.

My whole anatagonistic and I admit my repetitive dismissal of criticisms may be seen to be antagonistic was all about challenging the point the finger at Voss and sack Voss hysteria that was going on. A hysteria that if followed would see the club go down the same losing route of sacking another coach - when the evidence pointed much more at players basic failures.

To me the whole period was a line in the sand moment for the Club and supporters.

The fact that some of these overpaid underperforming players decided to take responsibility for the absolute crap they were dishing out is a good thing. The good thing is that maybe just maybe they have figured out that if they tackle as a collective and defend territory everywhere they have a better chance of winning - than leaving the hard running and contested work for the defenders to worry about.
So you're just dismissing out of hand the analysis that on expected score we still lose every one of those games bar St Kilda?

Seems a pretty clear indication that our shots weren't coming from great spots, no?
 
Paraphrasing mate, you know what I mean.

But apologies, I'll re-phrase the question to do you really think thats not what you did first with the "posters that have retreated to the shadows will be back with I told you so with the next loss" shtick?

All I posted was, "where is the sack Voss crew, it's very quiet in here"

You see, if you have a stance, like "sack Voss now, he can't coach, won't be able to drive positive change" etc, then you are either staunch enough to continue that belief, or you possibly reassess the situation

Some have reassessed their stance, others are in the shadows, after trying to convince everybody to get on board

All of which is their prerogative, but it dies amuse me

Now we face the Pies, but whether we win or lose, it won't define the rest of our season
 
It's possible for multiple things to be necessary, but not sufficient, for success.

Competent coaching is necessary but not sufficient.

A decent list is necessary but not sufficient.

Player buy-in is necessary but not sufficient.

Etc.

A lot of this discussion seems to have devolved to something like the following:

Poster 1: "X is necessary for success, you dummy!"

Poster 2: "No, X is not sufficient, you moron!"

Like, a lot of the time, people aren't actually disagreeing, they're just stirring the pot or being agro for the sake of it.
 
So you're just dismissing out of hand the analysis that on expected score we still lose every one of those games bar St Kilda?

Seems a pretty clear indication that our shots weren't coming from great spots, no?
yeah I am dismissing the weak notion out of hand- because at 33% CE - no team is in any game against anyone - everythign else pales into insignificance.

I wont bother with notions of 'expected score' - for two reasons

(a) it is conjecture; and
more importantly
(b) the coach doesn't determine where the entry is made or anything else about kicking accuracy

I'm pretty much done in this discussion now - but as a Carlton supporter I will never forget the aboslutly feral 'opinions' expressed in here or the posters who were front and center glorying in it all. Shameful.
 
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

People wanted Voss sacked because finals were expected and we were in the bottom four with few if any injuries. That's it in black and white and given the circumstances they (and I) were more than entitled to doubt him. Voss has since turned it around and deserves their backing moving forward. I just think there's too many posters that want to focus on what was said when we were losing as opposed to what's going on now. Which is somewhat hypocritical given they were complaining about negativity in what was probably a fair enough situation to criticise, but just want to be negative now when there's not too much to be negative over.
 
Last edited:
yeah I am dismissing the weak notion out of hand- because at 33% CE - no team is in any game against anyone - everythign else pales into insignificance.
I mean... surely a shot from 50ish near the boundary has a lower conversion percentage than 20 out directly in front across the board, all teams throughout the league. Thats just objective fact. The expected score analysis in games where we had more scoring shots but still lose kinda confirms that our shots were coming from lower percentage areas than the teams we were playing.

Kicking was bad whatever the spot no argument there, but difficulty of the shot is also a factor.

I wont bother with notions of 'expected score' - for two reasons

(a) it is conjecture; and
Its mathematical analysis

more importantly
(b) the coach doesn't determine where the entry is made or anything else about kicking accuracy

I'm pretty much done in this discussion now - but as a Carlton supporter I will never forget the aboslutly feral 'opinions' expressed in here or the posters who were front and center glorying in it all. Shameful.
How you're moving the ball and entering 50 does, or rather contributes to. I consider that 'gameplan', you don't - and thats fine.

Its a discussion forum, I fail to see why there has to be uniformity in our opinions no matter how the team is going, much less labelling people who disagree with you feral and shameful :drunk:
 
I mean... surely a shot from 50ish near the boundary has a lower conversion percentage than 20 out directly in front across the board, all teams throughout the league. Thats just objective fact. The expected score analysis in games where we had more scoring shots but still lose kinda confirms that our shots weren't coming from lower percentage areas than the teams we were playing.

Kicking was bad whatever the spot no argument there, but difficulty of the shot is also a factor.


Its mathematical analysis


How you're moving the ball and entering 50 does, or rather contributes to. I consider that 'gameplan', you don't - and thats fine.

Its a discussion forum, I fail to see why there has to be uniformity in our opinions no matter how the team is going, much less labelling people who disagree with you feral and shameful :drunk:
Yep - everyone is entitled to their opinion and (apparently to some) all opnions are equal - it has been stated in this forum that all "opinions are equal" so all opinions must be - except that isnt how the real world works so that statement might sound correct might sound all nice and cuddly and unassaliable until someone deconstructs its nonsense.

I dont go to a plumber for medical advice...or a doctor for plumbing advice and I ceertainly dont come in here reading anti Voss entitlement syndrome posters for any footy understanding what so ever.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Coach Michael Voss

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top