Because your season is stuffed either way. A win this week will only buy you a reprieve.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
North vs Collingwood - Season defining match?
- Thread starter TassieSaint
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Because your season is stuffed either way. A win this week will only buy you a reprieve.
- Banned
- #77
Stuffed in what way? We are not going to win the flag? because neither are you.
If north re-discover the intensity and confidence required to win on Friday night and then maintain it over the next month, it would set us up for a crack at finals, which would classify a win on Friday night as season defining.
Fair enough.
Heres hoping I dont have to have this conversation on Monday morning. Needless to say, Collingwood will get all the press if we lose, while North's win will be an afterthought!!!!!
Heres hoping I dont have to have this conversation on Monday morning. Needless to say, Collingwood will get all the press if we lose, while North's win will be an afterthought!!!!!
The sooner we string together a number of losses the sooner Laidley will be replaced.
There are obvious similarities between Malthouse and Laidley, both thought/think that Leigh Brown could be a useful player.
Dont be surprised when we delist Sam Power, that if Malthouse is still coach he will pick him up.
The game plan is the same crap.
Chip, pass, loose possession, avoid the corridor because your players lack confidence to back themselves or you've got hacks turning it over at crucial moments.
I dont want Laidley destroying the confidence of Zeibel, Hansen and Urquhart, (i think its a bit late for Urquhart).
He's already done it to Wells, Harris, McIntosh, Corey Jones, Harding.
There are obvious similarities between Malthouse and Laidley, both thought/think that Leigh Brown could be a useful player.
Dont be surprised when we delist Sam Power, that if Malthouse is still coach he will pick him up.
The game plan is the same crap.
Chip, pass, loose possession, avoid the corridor because your players lack confidence to back themselves or you've got hacks turning it over at crucial moments.
I dont want Laidley destroying the confidence of Zeibel, Hansen and Urquhart, (i think its a bit late for Urquhart).
He's already done it to Wells, Harris, McIntosh, Corey Jones, Harding.
Hearts to hearts
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 16, 2001
- 24,971
- 61,711
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Wales, Eastwood, West Ham
This isn't a discussion for the main board, but I can't let this rubbish stand. Laidley made Corey Jones as a player in the first place, ditto with Hamish (who is still playing well, btw) and he saved and resurrected Harding's career when it had been limited and going nowhere. Wells and Harris have their own, different, issues but I don't see how you could blame Laildey for them all.
The stuff you say about Laidley and Malthouse sharing the same frustrating, defensive gameplan seems to be right.
But if you are hoping we lose more games to put more pressure on Laidley - like our board and admin couldn't look past the W:L to make a decision on what's best medium to long term - I think that's a disgraceful position for a supporter to take.
What ever it takes for a new coach to come in and give us hope for the future.
I strongly believe that some of our players are playing well below their potential. I am 100% certain that Wells would be the player we all believe he can be under a different coach as an example.
Pie 4 Life
Hall of Famer
Maybe they should set up a few stands in the centre of the ground since the players won't be using it
Sorry Galactico, Sooky Malthouse agrees with me.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/afl/story/0,26576,25409176-19742,00.html
Galactico
All Australian
Malthouse has pretty much lost the plot in regards to our football team. I don't believe anything he says and put no importance or relevance on his comments regarding our club and players and anything else. He believes in what he does and that's the end of it. Don't have the personel to use the corridor? What a load of shit.....
His comment earlier in the year about our midfielders and why he implements the style he does was the last straw. When you have quality established and young playmakers of the like of Pendlebury, Thomas, Davis, Swan, Shaw, Beams......you don't make them play stop/start chip around boundary bullshit. Problem is, its the only way he knows. When they actually use the corridor and break the lines, they actually look rather slick.
I think the club is finally waking up to it. Buckley acknowledged as much a while back in his commentary duties. Of course Mick has to stand by what he does, his main rival for the coaching position knocked it at the start of the year.....
So agree with him all you like but it just makes you senile and stubborn also.
Galactico
All Australian
Well the likes of Buckley think its the gameplan and not the list.
Shall I listen to Buckley or you? ****, tough choice.
How long you been watching football for? No matter the list or quality or club, this is how Malthouse coaches his teams. It's now outdated and flawed. Don't agree?
Well you don't watch much other than Hawthorn.
I named the players who would benefit most from a more direct, running gameplan at Collingwood and they are all either young guns with plenty of talent or they are established players (Swan, Davis) who have their own strengths. Swan can run hard and rack the ball up, Davis is quick and has one of the best skill sets in the league, his disposal is A Grade.....
they should all be honing a different brand of football. So that when Pendlebury, Thomas, Beams etc are all hitting their prime years, we will have a slick onball unit.
I watch them week in, week out. They are being stifled.
Well, let's see:
Mick's the coach and he devises the game plan.
When asked about the game plan, he basically says it's because the list is not up to playing a more attacking and contested brand of football.
I've been saying pretty much the same thing, so I've noted that Mick agrees with me (or I agree with Mick, or whatever).
Now you think Mick's wrong about the list because you think it is up to playing a more attacking, contested and direct brand of football. Furthermore, you think that I'm senile and stubborn because what I'm saying is different from what you're saying.
Good on ya champ. Good luck with that.
Mick's the coach and he devises the game plan.
When asked about the game plan, he basically says it's because the list is not up to playing a more attacking and contested brand of football.
I've been saying pretty much the same thing, so I've noted that Mick agrees with me (or I agree with Mick, or whatever).
Now you think Mick's wrong about the list because you think it is up to playing a more attacking, contested and direct brand of football. Furthermore, you think that I'm senile and stubborn because what I'm saying is different from what you're saying.
Good on ya champ. Good luck with that.
Yet Mick also thinks it's a premiership list and he picks the players each week despite some of them not even making the VFL bests meanwhile others cant buy a game despite their great VFL form.
The guy is a stooge what he is doing is covering his arse to make sure another team takes him on next year, MM: My gameplan is great, I am Great but my players a shit!
10 years at collingwood and he has said the same thing for the entire 10 years, we play the way we do because I don't have the cattle.
Even said it when we had Buckley , Burns and Clement in the side.
Galactico
All Australian
He said they were aiming to win the flag.
If you can't see that that was a ploy to A) Put pressure on Mick and B) Pave the way for a change of coach, then you really are blind Freddie.
They didn't extend Mick's contract as they have in previous years. Piece it all together.....its utterly obvious what McGuire was doing.
Galactico
All Australian
and you clearly don't read other people's posts properly. Nice work.
Mick's the coach. However that does not make him 110% right. He's always coached one way.....other professionals in the business (who don't agree with you or Mick) think otherwise of the way this young squad play.
All you are doing is following Micks lead to play down the talent in our young players. You have one reason for saying it, Malthouse has other reasons. Like he knows no other way and won't adapt.
You just want to have a crack at our team. Have fun.
Galactico
All Australian
Exactly right. We had a tough, talented midfield in Buckley, Burns, Licuria and Holland as a tagger and had Clement at one end and Rocca/Tarrant (who was AA in 03) at the other. Yes, Brisbane were superior but our team was talented and unlucky to meet such a force for those 2 years. No other team (apart from Port perhaps) was close.
Yet Mick made it out like we were utterely mediocre and battled at every opportunity. He hasn't changed.
So Mick's so powerful they need to play a game of chess to manouver him out of the club ?
If the president thinks the coach is not up to it, it's his duty to sack him and appoint someone who is.
I agree with you.
I think Malthouse has let the club and the player group down in a number of ways. I'm on record with these here and other places so I won't bore you with what I believe his failings are.
What I will do is repeat the point I'm making ... Malthouse directs a gameplan based on his belief that the list isn't up to something better.
You might think he's wrong in his assessment of the list, but that's a different conversation. Collingwood's game plan is implemented because of perceived list deficiencies, not because the coach doesn't know that there's other game plans around. I don't recall mobs of West Coast Eagles running the boundary line when they won flags. Do you ?
- Banned
- #99
Interesting that Dids won't play. That's good for us. And Harro is in, always carves up Collingwood and will be looking to kill it.
Could be telling.
Could be telling.
JohnD, tell me why you believe our players are more suited to our current gameplan than one that goes down the corridor.
Thanks.
P.S. Answer cannot include 'coz Mick said so'.
Thanks.
P.S. Answer cannot include 'coz Mick said so'.
Similar threads
