On The Couch

[arrowman]

Loved how Reidy got stuck into Cornes. Classic Reidy Gold

I was in the car on the way back but that segment kept me awake!

Cornes just badly wants to blame Craig for the loss. His determination to bag Craig is overriding any pretence of objective analysis and it's getting painful.
(I wish someone would ask him on air if he still thinks the club should have begged Terry Wallace to be our coach )

Time to go, Graham. You're ten years younger than KG but you're sounding just as old.

Reidy basically let it hang out with how ticked off he is with people in the media wanting to "blame the coach".

Rowey pretty much sided with Reid and (along with Reid) wanted to know (a) what was the magic coaching rabbit that Malthouse pulled out of his hat and (b) what is this mysterious and magical "Plan B" that people keep saying we're missing.

I used to think Rowey was a clown - OK, he still is - but since he's been in the chair with Cornes I've been pretty impressed with the amount of common sense he talks (in a roundabout, Rowey sort of way )

When R Walls came on, the first thing that Cornes wanted to know was if Malthouse had outcoached Craig. When Walls basically said "no", Cornes persisted and finally got Walls to admit that, well, given that Collingwood won the game then maybe, I guess, you could say that Malthouse sort of, just by a whisker, was, I suppose, the better coach on the day, even if only just.

Which probably pleased Cornes greatly.

Anyway, all up one of the more interesting pieces of 5AA radio in recent times.

To Rowe, Reid and Walls

To Cornes.

 

[WALL-e]

Cornes is just upset that his sons still sleep together.

 

[Punchy Bassett]

Cornes can't let go of the fact Craigy stood up to him as Norwood coach back in the early days of the Crows.

 

[birdmanptr]

Cornes can't let go of the fact Craigy stood up to him as Norwood coach back in the early days of the Crows.

Thats right i wondered why cornes has the irits with Craigy

 

[smoovy]

Let's not forget when it came to deciding who would coach the side in 2005 Cornes was fairly and squarely in the Terry Wallet camp. Was really critical of the way the club handles the selection process.

 

[twentydollarnote]

Loved how Reidy got stuck into Cornes. Classic Reidy Gold

I thought cornesy showed reidy up a bit, first reidy was saying the result wasnt the coaches fault then cornsey pointed out it all comes back to the coach and malthouse had changed the game with his moves, reidy said 'i dont agree'. Next reidy was saying we didnt need a plan B and collingwood didnt have one, when cornsey pointed out they did he just stumbled and basically said plan B's were overrated.

 

[magtrev]

Cornes was talking out his arse and JR rightly got fed up with him.

'Malthouse was fantastic pre-game and won the game by deciding to do more rotations'.

I'm sorry, but thats absolute horseshit and he has no idea what he's talking about. Anyone with half a clue about football would've told you that Collingwood would rotate more than us, because they rotate more than the other team in every game of football they play. Melbourne also rotate a lot so why do they suck (except when they went in to tank mode at the end and stopped rotating completely).

Rotations only help to a certain point after which the amount of energy you gain from the extra rotations is lost in the effort of running on and off the ground. In any event even if you believe his cocamaney theory it didn't help that Knights was injured for the best part of three quarters, a point that Cornes completely glossed over whenever it was put to him because it didn't fit in with his anti-Craig agenda. He also didn't have a response as to why his theory held any water at all when we finished the game stronger than Collingwood.

He is going senile and should've been sacked along with KG for his disgraceful Kevin Rudd soapboxing during his wifes hilarious election campaign.

 

[King Elvis]

I thought cornesy showed reidy up a bit, first reidy was saying the result wasnt the coaches fault then cornsey pointed out it all comes back to the coach and malthouse had changed the game with his moves, reidy said 'i dont agree'. Next reidy was saying we didnt need a plan B and collingwood didnt have one, when cornsey pointed out they did he just stumbled and basically said plan B's were overrated.

The main plank of Cornes argument seem to be that we underused our bench, and that Collingwoods use of the interchange and their massive interchange rate was the deciding factor.

Rowey argued it, but he didn't really state the one simple fact that explained it - we were a player down; of course we had less interchanges!


PS - SOMEBODY EMAILED THEM TONIGHT ASKING THEM PRETTY CLEARLY ABOUT THE RUMOURS REGARDING THE CORNES/BURGOYNE SPLIT BEING A MASSIVE ISSUE AT THE POWER; Cornes basically ignored it.

He's useless; don't have discussions, just lectures, and he's not as knowledgable as he thinks he is.

 

[WhySoSerious]

Cornes can't let go of the fact Craigy stood up to him as Norwood coach back in the early days of the Crows.

Cant remember this...What happened?

As for 5aa, Cornes annoys me as much as the next guy but it can get irratating how everything turns into an argument (also can be quite entertaining!). It seems that people always want to argue with him regardless what he says. I really like Rowey, and you cant fault his passion but he doesnt help matters. Always sides with the callers and some of his comments are just as bizarre as Cornesy's.

 

[King Elvis]

Cant remember this...What happened?

As for 5aa, Cornes annoys me as much as the next guy but it can get irratating how everything turns into an argument (also can be quite entertaining!). It seems that people always want to argue with him regardless what he says. I really like Rowey, and you cant fault his passion but he doesnt help matters. Always sides with the callers and some of his comments are just as bizarre as Cornesy's.

I think when Craigy coached Norwood, he basically told the Crows to get ****ed, and wouldn't manage his/their players in the manner they requested.

Rowey - I thought it was a joke when they put him on to start with, but he's getting better, and yes, his passion and sincerity are pretty endearing

 

[WhySoSerious]

I thought cornesy showed reidy up a bit, first reidy was saying the result wasnt the coaches fault then cornsey pointed out it all comes back to the coach and malthouse had changed the game with his moves, reidy said 'i dont agree'. Next reidy was saying we didnt need a plan B and collingwood didnt have one, when cornsey pointed out they did he just stumbled and basically said plan B's were overrated.

Yeah, Reidy did get a bit confused with the question. He pretty much ended up agreeing with Cornes (after arguing with him about it) then spun the same question back to Cornes

 

[WhySoSerious]

I think when Craigy coached Norwood, he basically told the Crows to get ****ed, and wouldn't manage his/their players in the manner they requested.

Rowey - I thought it was a joke when they put him on to start with, but he's getting better, and yes, his passion and sincerity are pretty endearing

Ahk, thanks for that!!

Sounds typical Craigy fassion and good on him. Was really peeved earlier on in the year when Power stuffed Norwood around with Rodan! Mind you being the power doesnt help

 

[arrowman]

Yeah, Reidy did get a bit confused with the question. He pretty much ended up agreeing with Cornes (after arguing with him about it) then spun the same question back to Cornes

No, he didn't get "confused", he was just blindsided by the agressive nature of Cornes' questioning and didn't deal with it well.

And he didn't say " plan B's were overrated", he wanted to know what is this magical plan B that everyone goes on about, while noting basic tactics such as going man on man.

He didn't express himself very well, but he wasn't "confused" and he didn't say "plan Bs are overrated".

Cornes is a very difficult man to deal with - he controls the mike, he talks over you, he forces you to answer his questions and doesn't allow you to ask your own. It's almost impossible to have a reasonable debate with him when he's got an agenda.

 

[Vader]

The main plank of Cornes argument seem to be that we underused our bench, and that Collingwoods use of the interchange and their massive interchange rate was the deciding factor.

Rowey argued it, but he didn't really state the one simple fact that explained it - we were a player down; of course we had less interchanges!

It's worth noting that we had a lot less interchanges (about 40% less) than they did even before Knights' injury.

MM is a big fan of the interchange. Craig is not so much.

Our players ran the game out just fine, other than Burton who just wasn't fit enough to begin with. Have a look at that last quarter and tell me that we were overrun. You can't.

The greater importance in the loss of Knights was the effect it had on our forward structure. It had a marginal impact on our bench rotations - and hence a marginal impact on our fatigue levels late in the game, but I believe our players were fit enough to compensate for this anyway.

 

[twentydollarnote]

he didnt talk over him and he wasnt aggressive, have you been burnt by him on air or something AM? Reidy was unable to answer simple as that, the best he could manage was 'i dont agree' when cornesy was putting facts to him.

 

[Tex200]

As always Cornes is simply pushing his own agenda and ego.

Prio rto the game he made a huge fuss about the fact the crows should win but his only concerns was what magic MM could conjure on the night. He wrote an article in the Tiser to this effect as well.

Having gone out on that limb and the crows having lost, he must now justify his own prophecy by inventing ways MM won the game.

So predictable and sad really

 

[arrowman]

he didnt talk over him and he wasnt aggressive, have you been burnt by him on air or something AM? Reidy was unable to answer simple as that, the best he could manage was 'i dont agree' when cornesy was putting facts to him.

Of course he was aggressive. He wanted to push a particular point. He didn't ask reasonable questions and let Reidy give his point of view in a calm manner, he was argumentative. He wasn't interested in letting Reidy put his point of view, only in pushing his own POV.

Reidy wasn't "unable to answer". He was emotionally out of sorts (naturally), he was ticked off with the constant "blame the coach" mentality and he let it show. He didn't handle the situation well, but he wasn't "unable to answer". And he did manage more than "I don't agree" - whether you agree with what he said or not. And Cornes did not answer the points that Reidy made. Which is typical, Cornes is never interested in letting the opposing point of view go to air unhindered.

The trouble is, Cornes' technique works. If the victim doesn't cope with the aggression, then he comes across as "unable to answer the questions" and what he does say gets misinterpreted.

As demonstrated by your post.

Yes, I have experienced Cornes on air and I relied on advice from others on how to deal with him (and how not to let him get to you and drive the agenda).

I called in last year about the Port Adelaide "drug test leak" to challenge Cornes: that he had passed the leak on to the club via his sons and that that was not appropriate.

Cornes arced right up (a clear sign of discomfort with the issue) and started demanding that I answer a question of his choosing (can't recall the question exactly right now, it doesn't matter). When I said something like "well, that's not the question, the question is..." he interrupted me and told me that I had to "think carefully" and "answer the question" because "it is the last thing you are going to get to say". As soon as I started talking, but didn't immediately answer the question, he cut me off.

And that was the advice I had been given - and good advice, too - do not let Cornes deflect you and try to control the discussion in his favour, by allowing him to demand that you answer a specific question of his choosing, in a simple "yes/no" fashion. Of course it got me cut off, but answering the question would have allowed Cornes to lead the discussion and deflect it away from the part that was uncomfortable for him.

 

[arrowman]

It's worth noting that we had a lot less interchanges (about 40% less) than they did even before Knights' injury.

MM is a big fan of the interchange. Craig is not so much.

Our players ran the game out just fine, other than Burton who just wasn't fit enough to begin with. Have a look at that last quarter and tell me that we were overrun. You can't...

Exactly. And even if Malthouse had increased his rotations in an attempt to overcome the 6 day break, the question (that people like Cornes don't answer, or even pose) is: what exactly was Craig supposed to do to counteract that? Increase our rotations? What difference would that make, except to disrupt our regular approach to the game, possibly confuse our players and actually create a disadvantage.

If MM managed to overcome the 6 day break disadvantage by increasing his rotations, then good for him. That might be good coaching but that sort of good coaching doesn't mean you've "outcoached" the opposition because they didn't have a direct counter.

 

[Texas Danger]

I thought I should post these videos from Monday's On The Couch as this week's episode had added significance with the panel joined by special guest, Simon Goodwin:

Part 1 is an analysis of the Adelaide/Collingwood Semi-Final while Part 2 is the entire interview with the Crows captain:

[youtube]c5YQFGY-h30[/youtube]
[youtube]MoizvLuIEwA[/youtube]
Throughout this finals series I have stepped up my work on YouTube, editing and uploading any discussion regarding the Adelaide Crows from all three of the Monday night football discussion shows and will take this opportunity to also share these videos:

Finals - Week 1:
On The Couch - 07/09/2009
One Week At A Time - 07/09/2009
Footy Classified - 07/09/2009
The Sunday Footy Show - 06/09/2009

Round 22:
On The Couch - 31/08/2009
One Week At A Time - 31/08/2009
Footy Classified - 31/08/2009
The Sunday Footy Show - 30/08/2009

This week's Footy Classified and One Week At A Time will be available tomorrow for anyone who is interested.

 

[cmndstab]

Never stop TD

 

[Trevanian]

+Rep Texas Danger

 

[cmndstab]

Yeah, it was fantastic to watch against Collingwood, but it's hard to imagine we'll be allowed that freedom through the corridor in the future, and the lack of anything from Tippett and Henschell is a real worry.

Tippett is perhaps the biggest worry on our list at the moment.

I know a lot of people on here think he is the best thing since sliced bread. All I see is a basketballer on an AFL field who has no idea where to run to or how to get the footy. And his kicking for goal is woeful. I will be very happy if I am proved wrong because he is so athletic and can take a grab (just not enough of them) but I just don't see it.

I'm not suggesting we should be jumping out windows, but of all of the players of our list, the gap between what we need Tipp to be, what supporters think he can be and what is currently does for us is really vast.

I had totally forgotten that people were still concerned about Tippett at the start of the year until I looked back in this thread It's a credit to him that in the space of a season he's gone from someone who was still questioned as to whether he had a place in AFL to a potential superstar of the game whose re-signing made headline news.

 

[Stiffy_18]

I had totally forgotten that people were still concerned about Tippett at the start of the year until I looked back in this thread It's a credit to him that in the space of a season he's gone from someone who was still questioned as to whether he had a place in AFL to a potential superstar of the game whose re-signing made headline news.

To be fair, he did start rather slowly and build up to a gun that we all saw from about the half way mark of the season. I think his 7 goal haul against the Bombers was the breakout game that he needed to prove to himself just how good he can be. Since that point he has gone from strength to strength.

With another PS under his belt, and apermanent forward line role, I can't wait to see him give the opposition defences fits next year. He is tall, agile, great on ground level and to make it even harder he jumps straight up when he goes for marks. St. Nick does this as well which makes him tough to stop. Tippett is taller and just as mobile as St. Nick and no doubt will be a nightmare for opponents. Especially with the "hand chopping" rule in play.

 

[Brenton Davy]

I had totally forgotten that people were still concerned about Tippett at the start of the year until I looked back in this thread It's a credit to him that in the space of a season he's gone from someone who was still questioned as to whether he had a place in AFL to a potential superstar of the game whose re-signing made headline news.

Nathan Bock thread.

 

[cmndstab]

I went fishing this weekend and since nothing worthwhile was going to be on TV I packed some VCR tapes (I know, I'm way behind the times ) of matches from earlier this year and ended up watching the Hawthorn game from round 10 and the Essendon game from round 11. Man am I pumped to watch Walker and Tippett play next year now!