Coach Michael Voss

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

gab213 said:
Have a listen to Voss' post-match conference and I think you will get some clues as to what was instrumental in turning our season around.

He said that there were tough conversations held among the coaching group, also between the leaders and the playing group, as well as between the coaches and the team leaders.

There would be nobody more qualified than him to be able to address issues in leadership and let them know what is required. He has walked the walk and the players know that, makes a difference when a coach has that experience.

It helps also to have somebody like Cook to oversee what's happening, he's been there before and would be a strong guiding hand in times of trouble.

I think that we are better set in terms of coaching, players and administration than we have been in decades. The future looks good as long as everybody continues to work together as they obviously are now. No discernible factions within the club, we are seeing unity for the first time in a very long time.
Click to expand...

There would have had to be. To take the game plan you believed in so hard last season, practice it all preseason and then to get half way through the season and completely dump that, there definitely would have been. Would have taken a lot of pride swallowing.

Cook is the elite puzzle piece in the Carlton makeup.

Winning footy is good footy and everyone's happy when you're winning. Just need to sustain it.
 
The Old Game Plan
  • Low Scoring
  • Extremely Defensive
  • Slow play, slow players
  • low pressure
  • very taxing on players energy/bodies
  • Out dated, does not work with the new rules.
  • Possession footy, switch the ball which is ok but then hold it up which is not
  • Slow to get it from one end to the other
  • Players not moving at stoppages (stand and wrestle)
  • No players running through stoppages, very stationary
  • Not getting the ball into the hands of runners, no run and carry, lots of pressured blind bombing forward making it hard for forwards and easy for intercept defenders, throws our forwards under the bus.
  • Slow ball movement making it easy for defensive team to run ahead of the ball, means they don't spend much energy means they always have numbers ahead of the ball, throws our forwards under the bus
  • Go around the boundary and enter the forward line from the boundary and flanks meaning the kicker hasn't got the space to go to and the forwards don't have the full forward 50 to work in meaning a tight zone can be created and no space.
  • Slow backline, lacked ability to defend one on one and run off opponents to create a run and carry rebound game and hurt us at ground level.
  • Slow midfield. Means our closing speed on opposition and lose balls was not good enough which allowed the opposition to clear the ball and generate run. Meant we could not get forward run and carry and set up our forwards.
  • no forward/mids and very few rotations. Very few players being used in their second position and excelling in second position. Not enough rotations.
  • Too many players who don't chase, tackle or compete in the contest well. Too many slow players in the one spot or in positions you can't have slow players.
  • Low rick ball movement. Easy to defend against.
  • Players not positioned well or at all forward of the ball so we have to go slow after the turnover.
  • Really hard to impact the game as a forward, no space, often have the full opposition team defence to deal with.

The new game plan
  • Move the ball from one end to the other quickly by direct ball movement, long risk taking kicking and direct play. This means the defending team has to run really hard to defend which burns them out, stops them having momentum swings and come backs, allows us to roll teams late in the game/quarters. Stops defensive team getting numbers ahead of the ball (ball goes past the defending players) which means there are less defenders zoned off in our forward line which creates more one on ones and more
  • Players stay on the move at stoppages. Makes our mids harder to stop, harder to defend against and block our mids. Moving feet get going quickly which means we close in on lose ball and opposition quicker, we break more tackles, we break away from stoppage better. Makes things less predictable in there.
  • Runners through the stoppage. Guys like Walsh hanging out the back running through the stoppage, it's unstoppable. Pressures opposition into holding free kicks, creates run and carry forward which breaks down oppositions team defence and generates space and one on ones up forward. Mids running forward makes defenders panic, forces collapse of team defence, generates free kicks for forwards.
  • More leg speed, pressure tackling.
  • Game is easier on players bodies, a lot less fighting for the ball in congestion, we run out games better.
  • Higher scoring due to better ball movement.
  • Ball goes forward quicker, beats team defence, ball beats players into our forward 50.
  • More direct forward 50 entries means forwards have the whole forward 50 to use, not half or a third of it as is the case when entering from out wide. Spreads the zone, gives forwards a chance. Generates more one on one's. Creates more leading lanes and more leading lanes for lose defenders to cover.
  • faster players better suited to one on one defending in the backline and capable of running off their man and generating rebound. We run from behind very well.
  • Spread the midfield zone far better with our kicking out. We are less predictable, we spread the opposition more evenly over the field with our kickouts and that gives us space in the midfield to move the ball through to our forwards.
  • Better speed over the field particularly in the middle and defence.
  • Good speed and intent to tackle and chase up forward.
  • Riskier ball movement, harder to defend against.
  • Keeping more players forward of the ball so we can go quicker from the rebound. Keeping positioning and space forward of the ball as well. More of a positive team layout, less about defending but when we run defensively we run hard and quick.
  • Game supports our forwards really well. Ball often beats the team defence inside 50, forwards often have the full forward 50 to work in and we generate a lot of one on ones or lose players inside 50.


Player changes
IN: Faster players who chase, tackle and pressure really well. Cincotta, Kemp, Cuningham, Fogarty, Cottrell, Dow, Boyd.
OUT: Slower players and players who don't tackle and chase well. O'Brien, Fisher, Plowman, Young, Ed Curnow. Sticking to either Hewett or Kennedy not both.


Key points
I think the biggest things are what we do at stoppage. We are quicker but we are on the move and we have guys moving forwards and bursting away from stoppages. In the past opposition teams have just wrestled us and pressured us to death. Remember last year, about round 3 GCS doing it to us and then all teams did it to us. Now teams attempt it and we just start moving around.

Not afraid to turn it over in the middle of the ground. Under the old rules you'd get shot for turning a ball over in the middle of the ground, no matter who you played for. Collingwood changed that last year and it worked. Brad Scott's rule changes intended for the game to be played that way. Now other teams like us are embracing this.

What it means though is that we will turn it over in the middle of the ground and we do and that means defenders can't be slow and rely on team defence and the ball coming in from the boundary and their opponents having no space. Defenders have to be able to defend one on one again, it's like we have gone back to the 90s. We have embraced that and all of a sudden we have this quick and strong defence which can do that. It's means guys like Young and Plowman will probably never play again. It does mean we lack a key position size second tall defender though but what we lack there we make up with run.

The high pressure has become infectious. This is what I have meant when I talk about leadership and culture. Players follow and copy each other and drive things out there. It's come from changes in personnel and tactics but also from leadership and culture. This is what we do and this is how we play and if you don't then you should be worried because you will be dropped and the leaders of the team will come down on you like a tonne of bricks. Standards are set and are being driven which is good. This is what gives you the extra 10% out of players and why good clubs can get that bit extra out of players. No one is going to set a bad standard in this team.

Hated the old game plan. Hated our team selection. Both were outdated. We have a new game plan, a modern one. We select players who suite modern footy. Players who can run and who will compete hard and who will chase and tackle.

I hope we haven't made the change too late, but better late than never. Been saying all alone that we have the players, the game plan is stuffed and it was and that's proven now. What ever happened mid season and whoever drove it, good on them.
 
Sqotty from office works said:
1/We still turn it over instead of dead balling.
2/Paddy Dow has never touched another person ever in his life, just talented but scarred of his own shadow.
3/ Pies were terrible in front of goal
4/Love the club, but am realistic.
5/And yes, still think we are a chance, pre season picked a Carlton/Port gf.
Click to expand...
No, they had the wrong game plan and Mcrae cant coach............
 
btdg said:
I thought last night was one of the best-coached games from a Carlton coach in a long time.

To start with, the structure and system held up incredibly well against top of the ladder despite 6 changes for the match. Not easy, but how good was our defence - both the individual players and the way the team ran back to support. Acres and Hollands may need the full 9 days to recover...

And then to stare down Collingwood's last quarter surge so decisively. Tactically, we made a clear change and went heavily man on man. That meant backing the players in: backing Hollands against Sidebottom on the wing (he held up), backing Dow against Taylor Adams at center bounces (he trounced him), backing the mobile defence to cover the ground needed against their runners. It was ballsy, but also exactly how to beat Collingwood (

it just highlighted that the recipe to defeating a team that relies on coming from behind in the last quarter is just to beat them for contested footy in the last quarter, but no-one else has been able to do it for 12 months). After the first bounce of the last quarter we had 3 straight where we just won the footy, moved it forward and quashed their win. Cripps bulldozed his way to the first one, but it was Dow on the second and third that got to the ball and that was really important.
Click to expand...
As another example of how tactically we’ve improved, take a look at how Cottrell has been deployed in recent weeks - his run and pressure in the forward half disrupts rebounding defenders.
Never more important than when playing the team which scores more from the back half than any any other.
 
gbatman said:
The Old Game Plan
  • Low Scoring
  • Extremely Defensive
  • Slow play, slow players
  • low pressure
  • very taxing on players energy/bodies
  • Out dated, does not work with the new rules.
  • Possession footy, switch the ball which is ok but then hold it up which is not
  • Slow to get it from one end to the other
  • Players not moving at stoppages (stand and wrestle)
  • No players running through stoppages, very stationary
  • Not getting the ball into the hands of runners, no run and carry, lots of pressured blind bombing forward making it hard for forwards and easy for intercept defenders, throws our forwards under the bus.
  • Slow ball movement making it easy for defensive team to run ahead of the ball, means they don't spend much energy means they always have numbers ahead of the ball, throws our forwards under the bus
  • Go around the boundary and enter the forward line from the boundary and flanks meaning the kicker hasn't got the space to go to and the forwards don't have the full forward 50 to work in meaning a tight zone can be created and no space.
  • Slow backline, lacked ability to defend one on one and run off opponents to create a run and carry rebound game and hurt us at ground level.
  • Slow midfield. Means our closing speed on opposition and lose balls was not good enough which allowed the opposition to clear the ball and generate run. Meant we could not get forward run and carry and set up our forwards.
  • no forward/mids and very few rotations. Very few players being used in their second position and excelling in second position. Not enough rotations.
  • Too many players who don't chase, tackle or compete in the contest well. Too many slow players in the one spot or in positions you can't have slow players.
  • Low rick ball movement. Easy to defend against.
  • Players not positioned well or at all forward of the ball so we have to go slow after the turnover.
  • Really hard to impact the game as a forward, no space, often have the full opposition team defence to deal with.

The new game plan
  • Move the ball from one end to the other quickly by direct ball movement, long risk taking kicking and direct play. This means the defending team has to run really hard to defend which burns them out, stops them having momentum swings and come backs, allows us to roll teams late in the game/quarters. Stops defensive team getting numbers ahead of the ball (ball goes past the defending players) which means there are less defenders zoned off in our forward line which creates more one on ones and more
  • Players stay on the move at stoppages. Makes our mids harder to stop, harder to defend against and block our mids. Moving feet get going quickly which means we close in on lose ball and opposition quicker, we break more tackles, we break away from stoppage better. Makes things less predictable in there.
  • Runners through the stoppage. Guys like Walsh hanging out the back running through the stoppage, it's unstoppable. Pressures opposition into holding free kicks, creates run and carry forward which breaks down oppositions team defence and generates space and one on ones up forward. Mids running forward makes defenders panic, forces collapse of team defence, generates free kicks for forwards.
  • More leg speed, pressure tackling.
  • Game is easier on players bodies, a lot less fighting for the ball in congestion, we run out games better.
  • Higher scoring due to better ball movement.
  • Ball goes forward quicker, beats team defence, ball beats players into our forward 50.
  • More direct forward 50 entries means forwards have the whole forward 50 to use, not half or a third of it as is the case when entering from out wide. Spreads the zone, gives forwards a chance. Generates more one on one's. Creates more leading lanes and more leading lanes for lose defenders to cover.
  • faster players better suited to one on one defending in the backline and capable of running off their man and generating rebound. We run from behind very well.
  • Spread the midfield zone far better with our kicking out. We are less predictable, we spread the opposition more evenly over the field with our kickouts and that gives us space in the midfield to move the ball through to our forwards.
  • Better speed over the field particularly in the middle and defence.
  • Good speed and intent to tackle and chase up forward.
  • Riskier ball movement, harder to defend against.
  • Keeping more players forward of the ball so we can go quicker from the rebound. Keeping positioning and space forward of the ball as well. More of a positive team layout, less about defending but when we run defensively we run hard and quick.
  • Game supports our forwards really well. Ball often beats the team defence inside 50, forwards often have the full forward 50 to work in and we generate a lot of one on ones or lose players inside 50.


Player changes
IN: Faster players who chase, tackle and pressure really well. Cincotta, Kemp, Cuningham, Fogarty, Cottrell, Dow, Boyd.
OUT: Slower players and players who don't tackle and chase well. O'Brien, Fisher, Plowman, Young, Ed Curnow. Sticking to either Hewett or Kennedy not both.


Key points
I think the biggest things are what we do at stoppage. We are quicker but we are on the move and we have guys moving forwards and bursting away from stoppages. In the past opposition teams have just wrestled us and pressured us to death. Remember last year, about round 3 GCS doing it to us and then all teams did it to us. Now teams attempt it and we just start moving around.

Not afraid to turn it over in the middle of the ground. Under the old rules you'd get shot for turning a ball over in the middle of the ground, no matter who you played for. Collingwood changed that last year and it worked. Brad Scott's rule changes intended for the game to be played that way. Now other teams like us are embracing this.

What it means though is that we will turn it over in the middle of the ground and we do and that means defenders can't be slow and rely on team defence and the ball coming in from the boundary and their opponents having no space. Defenders have to be able to defend one on one again, it's like we have gone back to the 90s. We have embraced that and all of a sudden we have this quick and strong defence which can do that. It's means guys like Young and Plowman will probably never play again. It does mean we lack a key position size second tall defender though but what we lack there we make up with run.

The high pressure has become infectious. This is what I have meant when I talk about leadership and culture. Players follow and copy each other and drive things out there. It's come from changes in personnel and tactics but also from leadership and culture. This is what we do and this is how we play and if you don't then you should be worried because you will be dropped and the leaders of the team will come down on you like a tonne of bricks. Standards are set and are being driven which is good. This is what gives you the extra 10% out of players and why good clubs can get that bit extra out of players. No one is going to set a bad standard in this team.

Hated the old game plan. Hated our team selection. Both were outdated. We have a new game plan, a modern one. We select players who suite modern footy. Players who can run and who will compete hard and who will chase and tackle.

I hope we haven't made the change too late, but better late than never. Been saying all alone that we have the players, the game plan is stuffed and it was and that's proven now. What ever happened mid season and whoever drove it, good on them.
Click to expand...
I still think that this 'game plan' thing is a bit of a mythical creature. It's all between the ears when it comes to winning. We have better players at our disposal who are able to execute at a higher level, everybody seemed to be playing for their own survival, and that changed to playing a more team oriented game. It's pretty simple, there was no major adjustment to anything other than attitude from everyone involved.
 
JustaBattler said:
Yep - ultimately it is the players that win or lose games - it is the coach's job to show the players how to win games and why they lost games.
Click to expand...
And to know what makes each player on the list tick.
Who to yell at and who to cuddle to get the best performance.
 
JustaBattler said:
So Voss had a chat to underpeforming leaders and players did he? Did Weitering just admit to the shortcomings of the polayers peformance did he? ANy mention of lack of game plan or lack of selection integrity? How about a too complicated game plan or lack of game plan ABCDE&G?

Oh none of the stuff being posted on here by people who listen to 'radio' for 'expert' commentary?

hmm amazing.
Click to expand...
What baffles me about your posting about this issue is it continually undermines your own credibility.
By constantly attacking other posters all it shows is that you are completely blind to any alternative evidence which might enlighten the debate.
I wonder if it has ever dawned on you that there might be a combination of factors which has led to our very welcome return to form?
That it might be all of leadership focus, player availability, changes in the game plan, simpler messaging?
When you seek to demonise and sarcastically respond constantly where posters are attempting to add context and value to the debate only serves to eliminate any final thread of credibility you might have had on the issue.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

gab213 said:
I still think that this 'game plan' thing is a bit of a mythical creature. It's all between the ears when it comes to winning. We have better players at our disposal who are able to execute at a higher level, everybody seemed to be playing for their own survival, and that changed to playing a more team oriented game. It's pretty simple, there was no major adjustment to anything other than attitude from everyone involved.
Click to expand...
You're partly right, but it's 100% game plan driven as well. I think the between the ears bit comes after winning. You change a few things, a change can get players motivated, you win a game or two and all of a sudden attitude, belief and motivation come. A can guarantee you it's definitely game plan driven.

The adjustments to game plan that I can see have been massive, huge turn around. Very much trying to play the old style of footy which the new rules that came in were designed to break up. Credit to Brad Scott, it worked. The game teams play now is completely different to the game played in 2019 and very different to what was played round 1 last season.

What is has brought is a change in fundamentals. Teams would win by having a better defence and better defensive structure and better ability to attack in the environment that created.

What was that? Very heavily congested around the ball which meant players didn't run away from stoppage like they do now. They bomb it forward and that is why intercept defenders became such a big deal. Now You don't have that outer ring of players at the stoppage, you have to have even numbers behind and ahead of the ball because the new rules open up angles and if there are too many players at the stoppage and not enough behind the ball teams will open you up.

This congestion meant that having big slow heavy bodies at stoppages was the go. You didn't have 666 so could part extra numbers behind the ball so losing a stoppage didn't mean much. Had to bash and crash. Needed to be big and strong and didn't matter if you were a little slow. Now it's about running through the contest and leaving the stoppage on the run. Which breaks up team defence. We had been playing a big heavy slow onball brigade, not good at running from the stoppage but more to the point applying pressure in a game style where that matters now.

Here's where game plan comes into it. Our mids would stand and wrestle. Now they move. Our onballers get on the walk at stoppages and that changes everything. We have also opted for more leg speed in there.

What about ball movement. This is the big one. Old ball movement was very wide. We held the ball up after an intercept. Team rule was not to turn the ball over in the middle as it was under the old AFL game style. Now it's ok to turn it over in the middle. This to me was one of the biggest changes of game plan.

We don't hold the ball up very long, we go into the middle. That's a game plan change and a massive one.

The other one is how we setup forward of the ball when we don't have the ball. It has been crap all year. We'd turn it over and have no space and nowhere to go. We have kept more numbers forward of the ball, we have opened the space up in the middle of the ground more and we have spread the opposition defence more. Again, game plan.

I have to say the stoppage game plan is the biggest. We have a runner now. Which was not the case before. We can actually hurt teams by carrying the ball forward of the stoppage.

It doesn't sound like much but it is. It's a revamp of how you play and IMO that is a huge motivating factor for the players. Motivation inspires effort and that's the chasing and tackling we are seeing.

This is not one of those things where we sit down and own up to playing poorly and just run out and play with more effort. Sure that's part of it. But IMO this is all about changing the game plan to suite modern footy, to be in line with the better sides who have done the same and that's sparked the players up. It's created wins which has created motivation which has created a really good brand of footy.

Team selection is also a big part of it as well. Picking defenders who can defend one on one and generate run as well as forwards who will run and tackle.
Moving the ball quicker and more direct which has allowed us to score heavily. That's game plan.

Moving the ball slow, playing possession footy, going around the boundary and entering forward 50 all the time from the boundary was game plan too. So was us standing still at stoppages engaging in a wrestle as opposed to getting on the move at stoppages. So was holding the ball up after we intercept instead of intercept then go quickly. Not having runners at stoppages was game plan as opposed to having a runner. Not being allowed to turn the ball over in the middle was game plan as opposed to it doesn't matter. Half backs running hard forward as opposed to hanging back is game plan.

Tackling, pressure and effort is team selection and motivation. It's hard to motivate players and get them hungry to apply effort when losing. We were losing because of game plan. We changed that and the taste of winning and winning big, that motivates players and gets them hungry.
 
bigblueboy said:
What baffles me about your posting about this issue is it continually undermines your own credibility.
By constantly attacking other posters all it shows is that you are completely blind to any alternative evidence which might enlighten the debate.
I wonder if it has ever dawned on you that there might be a combination of factors which has led to our very welcome return to form?
That it might be all of leadership focus, player availability, changes in the game plan, simpler messaging?
When you seek to demonise and sarcastically respond constantly where posters are attempting to add context and value to the debate only serves to eliminate any final thread of credibility you might have had on the issue.
Click to expand...

No mate I'm not as smart as the sack Voss brigade.
 
gbatman said:
The Old Game Plan
  • Low Scoring
  • Extremely Defensive
  • Slow play, slow players
  • low pressure
  • very taxing on players energy/bodies
  • Out dated, does not work with the new rules.
  • Possession footy, switch the ball which is ok but then hold it up which is not
  • Slow to get it from one end to the other
  • Players not moving at stoppages (stand and wrestle)
  • No players running through stoppages, very stationary
  • Not getting the ball into the hands of runners, no run and carry, lots of pressured blind bombing forward making it hard for forwards and easy for intercept defenders, throws our forwards under the bus.
  • Slow ball movement making it easy for defensive team to run ahead of the ball, means they don't spend much energy means they always have numbers ahead of the ball, throws our forwards under the bus
  • Go around the boundary and enter the forward line from the boundary and flanks meaning the kicker hasn't got the space to go to and the forwards don't have the full forward 50 to work in meaning a tight zone can be created and no space.
  • Slow backline, lacked ability to defend one on one and run off opponents to create a run and carry rebound game and hurt us at ground level.
  • Slow midfield. Means our closing speed on opposition and lose balls was not good enough which allowed the opposition to clear the ball and generate run. Meant we could not get forward run and carry and set up our forwards.
  • no forward/mids and very few rotations. Very few players being used in their second position and excelling in second position. Not enough rotations.
  • Too many players who don't chase, tackle or compete in the contest well. Too many slow players in the one spot or in positions you can't have slow players.
  • Low rick ball movement. Easy to defend against.
  • Players not positioned well or at all forward of the ball so we have to go slow after the turnover.
  • Really hard to impact the game as a forward, no space, often have the full opposition team defence to deal with.

The new game plan
  • Move the ball from one end to the other quickly by direct ball movement, long risk taking kicking and direct play. This means the defending team has to run really hard to defend which burns them out, stops them having momentum swings and come backs, allows us to roll teams late in the game/quarters. Stops defensive team getting numbers ahead of the ball (ball goes past the defending players) which means there are less defenders zoned off in our forward line which creates more one on ones and more
  • Players stay on the move at stoppages. Makes our mids harder to stop, harder to defend against and block our mids. Moving feet get going quickly which means we close in on lose ball and opposition quicker, we break more tackles, we break away from stoppage better. Makes things less predictable in there.
  • Runners through the stoppage. Guys like Walsh hanging out the back running through the stoppage, it's unstoppable. Pressures opposition into holding free kicks, creates run and carry forward which breaks down oppositions team defence and generates space and one on ones up forward. Mids running forward makes defenders panic, forces collapse of team defence, generates free kicks for forwards.
  • More leg speed, pressure tackling.
  • Game is easier on players bodies, a lot less fighting for the ball in congestion, we run out games better.
  • Higher scoring due to better ball movement.
  • Ball goes forward quicker, beats team defence, ball beats players into our forward 50.
  • More direct forward 50 entries means forwards have the whole forward 50 to use, not half or a third of it as is the case when entering from out wide. Spreads the zone, gives forwards a chance. Generates more one on one's. Creates more leading lanes and more leading lanes for lose defenders to cover.
  • faster players better suited to one on one defending in the backline and capable of running off their man and generating rebound. We run from behind very well.
  • Spread the midfield zone far better with our kicking out. We are less predictable, we spread the opposition more evenly over the field with our kickouts and that gives us space in the midfield to move the ball through to our forwards.
  • Better speed over the field particularly in the middle and defence.
  • Good speed and intent to tackle and chase up forward.
  • Riskier ball movement, harder to defend against.
  • Keeping more players forward of the ball so we can go quicker from the rebound. Keeping positioning and space forward of the ball as well. More of a positive team layout, less about defending but when we run defensively we run hard and quick.
  • Game supports our forwards really well. Ball often beats the team defence inside 50, forwards often have the full forward 50 to work in and we generate a lot of one on ones or lose players inside 50.


Player changes
IN: Faster players who chase, tackle and pressure really well. Cincotta, Kemp, Cuningham, Fogarty, Cottrell, Dow, Boyd.
OUT: Slower players and players who don't tackle and chase well. O'Brien, Fisher, Plowman, Young, Ed Curnow. Sticking to either Hewett or Kennedy not both.


Key points
I think the biggest things are what we do at stoppage. We are quicker but we are on the move and we have guys moving forwards and bursting away from stoppages. In the past opposition teams have just wrestled us and pressured us to death. Remember last year, about round 3 GCS doing it to us and then all teams did it to us. Now teams attempt it and we just start moving around.

Not afraid to turn it over in the middle of the ground. Under the old rules you'd get shot for turning a ball over in the middle of the ground, no matter who you played for. Collingwood changed that last year and it worked. Brad Scott's rule changes intended for the game to be played that way. Now other teams like us are embracing this.

What it means though is that we will turn it over in the middle of the ground and we do and that means defenders can't be slow and rely on team defence and the ball coming in from the boundary and their opponents having no space. Defenders have to be able to defend one on one again, it's like we have gone back to the 90s. We have embraced that and all of a sudden we have this quick and strong defence which can do that. It's means guys like Young and Plowman will probably never play again. It does mean we lack a key position size second tall defender though but what we lack there we make up with run.

The high pressure has become infectious. This is what I have meant when I talk about leadership and culture. Players follow and copy each other and drive things out there. It's come from changes in personnel and tactics but also from leadership and culture. This is what we do and this is how we play and if you don't then you should be worried because you will be dropped and the leaders of the team will come down on you like a tonne of bricks. Standards are set and are being driven which is good. This is what gives you the extra 10% out of players and why good clubs can get that bit extra out of players. No one is going to set a bad standard in this team.

Hated the old game plan. Hated our team selection. Both were outdated. We have a new game plan, a modern one. We select players who suite modern footy. Players who can run and who will compete hard and who will chase and tackle.

I hope we haven't made the change too late, but better late than never. Been saying all alone that we have the players, the game plan is stuffed and it was and that's proven now. What ever happened mid season and whoever drove it, good on them.
Click to expand...

I assume you work on the premise that the more you write, the righter you are.

99% of what you have said supports the "intent, buy-in" side of the discussion. Most people seem to have come to an acceptance that there is no changing the mind of those with opposing views in the "game plan versus intent" debate. You apparently haven't, but posting willy nilly in a number of threads isn't suddenly making your opinion more valid.

The difference on Friday night compared to the first time, was simply intent and desire to a) pressure Collingwood into coughing the ball up, and b) create options for attacking forays by working hard to create space. That, and the availability of players better suited to playing the way we have always wanted to play.
 
JustaBattler said:
So Voss had a chat to underpeforming leaders and players did he? Did Weitering just admit to the shortcomings of the polayers peformance did he? ANy mention of lack of game plan or lack of selection integrity? How about a too complicated game plan or lack of game plan ABCDE&G?

Oh none of the stuff being posted on here by people who listen to 'radio' for 'expert' commentary?

hmm amazing.
Click to expand...
He would never say Voss realised some elements of the game style wasn't working. It would be a ridiculous thing to say in an interview. And by the way, I was never one who called for his sacking. I believed it was a club wide cultural issue that finally turned when Cook and Sayers put their foot down.
 
Ezayyak said:
He would never say Voss realised some elements of the game style wasn't working. It would be a ridiculous thing to say in an interview.
Click to expand...
He also said in Friday nite presser that everyone had hard conversations, including coaches to coaches.
 
Last edited:
SkyhorseTamer said:
There's plenty of evidence about now.

Beautiful footy to watch now too.
Click to expand...
I always wanted Voss. Liked him in that old 'find a player' show that was on years ago. 'The Recruit'. Was so disappointed when we came out with that overworked disaster of a plan.
Could not be happier with the whole team buy in and endeavor we have now.
Really happy for Voss the team and us supporters.
 
Last edited:
I was solid Vossie, but faltered during the "Select Paddy" moment, and expressed my distaste to the club as well!!!!!!

But I never doubted him, nor called for his head, or doubted his intent.

But we're not really there yet are we, flogs over at the Filth's board reckon we'll cough up three losses and miss our again, because "that's what Carlton always do!!" Short memories, flogs everywhere
 
DirtyLeeds said:
I was solid Vossie, but faltered during the "Select Paddy" moment, and expressed my distaste to the club as well!!!!!!

But I never doubted him, nor called for his head, or doubted his intent.

But we're not really there yet are we, flogs over at the Filth's board reckon we'll cough up three losses and miss our again, because "that's what Carlton always do!!" Short memories, flogs everywhere
Click to expand...
In simple terms- the coaches have demonstrated that their focus on making players accountable for defensive work in all areas of the ground is starting to show dividends in terms of in game performances. the benefits of executing a rteam based whole of ground pressure game manifests itself in numerous areas - most notably confidence in a system of play and trust in teh players selected to do their jobs.

All that is well and good - however the other reality is that a team can only execute as well as the playes they have to execute - McKay/Cerra/Walsh in particular are heavy outs at the wrong time of the year.

So no guarantees. The only guarantee is that Carlton will try and implement a finals quality pressure game ( the same systems that all good Clubs play) week in week out and players who cant manage to perform under these asks - wont be selected.
 
I don't really care too much for the gameplan arguments. Although having watched replays of our early games there are constantly numerous carlton players streaming through the middle of the ground, they just get ignored.

What got to me was the attacks on Vossy as a person, claiming he lacked intelligence, spoke poorly and was awful tactically. Suddenly we're fondly quoting his words to the media.

Not once did he throw the players under the bus. He's been as committed, loyal and hard working as coach as he was as a player. He's a leader in EVERY sense.
 
95blues said:
I don't really care too much for the gameplan arguments. Although having watched replays of our early games there are constantly numerous carlton players streaming through the middle of the ground, they just get ignored.

What got to me was the attacks on Vossy as a person, claiming he lacked intelligence, spoke poorly and was awful tactically. Suddenly we're fondly quoting his words to the media.

Not once did he throw the players under the bus. He's been as committed, loyal and hard working as coach as he was as a player. He's a leader in EVERY sense.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that so much that bothered me but the unfounded gossip and rumours from several posters here that there was both pro and anti Vossy factions at the playing group during our losing streak.

All a bunch of unsubstantiated, unfounded rhubarb ...

Anyhow happy to let bygones be bygones and just enjoy our current win streak and positive energy around the club
 
JustaBattler said:
So Voss had a chat to underpeforming leaders and players did he? Did Weitering just admit to the shortcomings of the polayers peformance did he? ANy mention of lack of game plan or lack of selection integrity? How about a too complicated game plan or lack of game plan ABCDE&G?

Oh none of the stuff being posted on here by people who listen to 'radio' for 'expert' commentary?

hmm amazing.
Click to expand...

I'll play devil's advocate then. These players were out of form for half the season. Were they told this beforehand and didn't change it and if so, why weren't they made an example of at selection? If the chat wasn't had prior to the break ... why on earth not?

I'm stoked with what they are now showing, but I'm still interested in what happened prior to that.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Coach Michael Voss

Similar threads

The Toad
  • Poll
Coach So you want Voss gone? Who will replace him and why would they want to coach Carlton?
38 39 40 41 42
Replies
1K
Views
48K
JustaBattler
JustaBattler

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top