Our skills are terrible

[Handyandy]

I have watched port's ball handling skills deteriorate for a number of seasons now and I heard russel ebert say something interesting on the radio on the weekend. He said he couldnt believe how bad ports skills were, how they had afl listed kids who couldnt kick properly and hadnt learnt how to kick on both feet (brett?) and how he would be willing, but has never been asked, to help out with the skills down there. He also said "tonight we will see just how bad thier skills are" (referring to the dogs game) and he was absoloutely right.
In 2002-2004 we set the standard in the afl for kicking now we are one of the worst and least professional in that area. I went to training a few times in 2007, 2008, 2009 and the intensity and the standard of skills on the track were rubbish. I saw the boys doing circle work under no pressure and they were hitting chests no more than 50% of the time. At the time I thought it was of only a marginally higher standard than my safa team.

Im sure others see them more often at training than me but I was very unimpressed by what I saw, you play like you train, if you cant hit a chest on the training track with no pressure how can you do it in a big game?.

 

[snap-shot]

Many players are also flat footed, standing there handballing to each other with no run. The game on the weekend many players stood around werent giving any targets to hit, and we werent any where near our 50metre line.

Kicking with left or right foot and not hitting - skills are way down compared to the years you stated -2002-2004, we're no where near it at all.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

The commentary box nearly burst into gales of laughter at grew's horrible left foot shank that turned the ball over. Trying not to single him out, but that example is seared into my retina, especially when they replayed it from behind the player.

 

[wapower]

What hurts us the most is that we turn the ball over in horrible positions, our defenders and midfielders run forwards trying to create options, get caught out of position when the ball is turned over and we conceed the easiest of goals.

This has punctuated our play in recent years.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Toby's handball running out of defence to the doggie heading towards goal. That one burns too.

 

[Macca19]

The commentary box nearly burst into gales of laughter at grew's horrible left foot shank that turned the ball over. Trying not to single him out, but that example is seared into my retina, especially when they replayed it from behind the player.

So a good follow up to his kick against Sydney a couple weeks back which had Pickering, Russell and co laughing and claiming it to be the worst kick theyd ever seen in football?

Theres a number of serious issues with our team at the moment and skills certainly is one of them. When you're playing the style of game we do, skills are important. We always hear from players that when we get our running high skilled game going then we are hard to beat. Pity it only happens 2-3 times a year.

 

[Handyandy]

Our game plan is a paradox, we play a possesion style game based on skill and pace but our skills arent good enough to maintain possesion and we dont have genuinely pacey midfielders.
According to the paper 9 goals for the dogs were directly from turnovers, and according to cassisi it was 13 of the dogs 21 from "repetitive skill errors". Thats alot of mistakes.
Why has their kicking gone off so badly? I think it is a professionalism issue, the club is lazy and has reeked of arrogance and medriocrity since 2004 and I think we have drafted too many one paced, low skilled players, or very fast skillfull outside players who are easily tagged out of the game. I think opposition teams know that if they tag pearce, burgoynes, salopek, krakouer (our only skillful ball users) out of the game there is no one else in the team that can really hurt them. Dom, kane, carr, brogan, thomas, logan, pettigrew, surjan, chaplin, carlile etc are all below average ball users.

I noted too that russel seemed to be a bit miffed by the fact that he has not been asked to have any input at the power, obviously a bit of politics. I cant understand why you wouldnt want the great man to have some input down there, god knows they need all the help they can get, surely it couldnt do any harm?.

 

[Handyandy]

So a good follow up to his kick against Sydney a couple weeks back which had Pickering, Russell and co laughing and claiming it to be the worst kick theyd ever seen in football?

Theres a number of serious issues with our team at the moment and skills certainly is one of them. When you're playing the style of game we do, skills are important. We always hear from players that when we get our running high skilled game going then we are hard to beat. Pity it only happens 2-3 times a year.

Pettigrew's kicking out of defence and general disposal is bomb scare material. He uses the chaos theory with his kick ins. Chaplin, thirsty and surjan are only slightly better. Its no accident that chocco has sent salo and krakouer to defence, he knows that the other defenders cant kick to save their life.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Our skills are not terrible, our game plan is terrible.

We handball backwards to guy who are flat footed or do ridiculous 1 foot handballs to a guy who is under just as much pressure the first guy and we keep doing it til we are completely under the pump.

Then we expect a guy who is under the pump, often off balance, often on his wrong side to perfect teh cm perfect pass that our game plan demands.

If we can,

1. Move the ball forwards with purpose
2. Have a decent forward set up to reward this positive movement, including a long strong big bodied target as a get out clause.
3. Aply shepherds and blocks

we will find that our disposal improves remarkably.

The Pettigrew one was a perfect example. He was under the pump, on his left foot and there was no option for him to kick to long down the line. Instead he had to try and hook it back with his left foot, into the corridor to a guy in between several bulldoegs. Are we really surprised he cant do this 100% of the time?

 

[Port01]

The commentary box nearly burst into gales of laughter at grew's horrible left foot shank that turned the ball over. Trying not to single him out, but that example is seared into my retina, especially when they replayed it from behind the player.

Not to mention I think it was pearce running with the ball onto his left foot, yet handballed wider to grew running onto his left foot.

Stupid decision, terrible execution. Sums up our year.

 

[Handyandy]

Our skills are not terrible, our game plan is terrible.

We handball backwards to guy who are flat footed or do ridiculous 1 foot handballs to a guy who is under just as much pressure the first guy and we keep doing it til we are completely under the pump.

Then we expect a guy who is under the pump, often off balance, often on his wrong side to perfect teh cm perfect pass that our game plan demands.

If we can,

1. Move the ball forwards with purpose
2. Have a decent forward set up to reward this positive movement, including a long strong big bodied target as a get out clause.
3. Aply shepherds and blocks

we will find that our disposal improves remarkably.

Thats a chicken and egg argument, but I agree that our gameplan is rubbish. Alot of times you look at the players and they look confused, as if they are being coached to do things that go against thier natural instincts. eg you should never run the ball up the guts and kick it long to tredders in a one on one, you should run around in a circle and handpass it backwards to kane instead.

 

[Phhht]

Our skills are not terrible, our game plan is terrible.

We handball backwards to guy who are flat footed or do ridiculous 1 foot handballs to a guy who is under just as much pressure the first guy and we keep doing it til we are completely under the pump.

Then we expect a guy who is under the pump, often off balance, often on his wrong side to perfect teh cm perfect pass that our game plan demands.

If we can,

1. Move the ball forwards with purpose
2. Have a decent forward set up to reward this positive movement, including a long strong big bodied target as a get out clause.
3. Aply shepherds and blocks

we will find that our disposal improves remarkably.

The Pettigrew one was a perfect example. He was under the pump, on his left foot and there was no option for him to kick to long down the line. Instead he had to try and hook it back with his left foot, into the corridor to a guy in between several bulldoegs. Are we really surprised he cant do this 100% of the time?

I actually dont think the game plan is terrible . Not the greatest but not as bad as it is being played at the moment.

Problem is the players aren't convinced its the real deal. Hence the hesitation/lack of confidence. It then spreads like a disease and affects our workrate and commitment which in turn affects our skills/decision making. Vicious cycle and its probably a bigger pandemic that the swine flu.

Don't think choco has the antidote.

 

[kaysee]

I actually dont think the game plan is terrible . Not the greatest but not as bad as it is being played at the moment.

Problem is the players aren't convinced its the real deal. Hence the hesitation/lack of confidence. It then spreads like a disease and affects our workrate and commitment which in turn affects our skills/decision making. Vicious cycle and its probably a bigger pandemic that the swine flu.

Don't think choco has the antidote.

I think the point is Choco wont change the gameplan.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I think the point is Choco wont change the gameplan.

It's funny because I think the problem is he changes the gameplan every week and it messes with the players confidence and assuredness in what they are doing. I'm sure he tinkers with it depending on who we play, where, day, night, wet, dry, whether he thinks it's better to go tall or small with focal points in attack etc etc etc. He is the tinkerman.

After the Collingwood game, Surjan was saying how he felt the players had let the coaches down by not executing the gameplan they had come up with to beat Collingwood. Was that the gameplan that ensured Warren Tredrea took the exquisitely skilled Simon Prestiagacomo away from the play by positioning him in the level 2 cafeteria? That worked a treat. Why do we need a special gameplan to beat Collingwood? Or any side? Sure you might change up elements of what you do - say match ups - to counter an opponent's strength, but the basic structure of how you play should remain constant.

And really, what you are telling the players is that what they do is not good enough to win, they need the coach's special tactics to overcome any side.

Our forward structure changes from week to week, we go long to 178cm forwards, our 195+cm forwards lead to the wings, we handball round and round, we run off to receive and don't shepherd. And our skills under pressure fall apart. I don't think it's a chicken and egg argument, just that that really there are elements of everything people are proposing coming into play.

 

[Relativity]

I actually dont think the game plan is terrible . Not the greatest but not as bad as it is being played at the moment.

Problem is the players aren't convinced its the real deal. Hence the hesitation/lack of confidence. It then spreads like a disease and affects our workrate and commitment which in turn affects our skills/decision making. Vicious cycle and its probably a bigger pandemic that the swine flu.

Don't think choco has the antidote.

I think it is a case of massive underconfidence rather than a lack of skills. The players, most of which took the club to a grand final 21 months ago, are reacting like rabbits in a spotlight. Their reactions should be automatic and aren't. Hesitation tends to point to a lack of drill with the game plan. Pass the ball to where the team mate should be, not where he is and maybe the message might catch on. Back passing says more about the receiving player than the passer.

 

[blues_gibbzy]

Choco gave them a flogging at training, just running and running they said on ten news.

 

[vasty984]

Why dont they play the kids now. A little like last year, but this time it should benefit the club in encouraging a new coach who can see some depth. Drop the likes of Rodan, Pettigrew, P Burgoyne, T Thurstans, B Ebert, B Lade, D Motlop to mention a few.
Bring in the likes of P Stewart, M Broadbent, M Banner, J Trengove, J Davenport.
Surely these kids who will try their all (and possibly aid in building the next generation of PAFC) and be better than the insipid performance of the afore mentioned SENIOR players.
Some of these guys got games last year when Choco layed down last year, but where are they now?? They havent even had a look in. Not only should some of these kids be getting games atm, but they should be getting extended runs.
Sorry but its time for changes at PAFC

 

[PowerKat]

It's funny because I think the problem is he changes the gameplan every week and it messes with the players confidence and assuredness in what they are doing. I'm sure he tinkers with it depending on who we play, where, day, night, wet, dry, whether he thinks it's better to go tall or small with focal points in attack etc etc etc. He is the tinkerman.

After the Collingwood game, Surjan was saying how he felt the players had let the coaches down by not executing the gameplan they had come up with to beat Collingwood. Was that the gameplan that ensured Warren Tredrea took the exquisitely skilled Simon Prestiagacomo away from the play by positioning him in the level 2 cafeteria? That worked a treat. Why do we need a special gameplan to beat Collingwood? Or any side? Sure you might change up elements of what you do - say match ups - to counter an opponent's strength, but the basic structure of how you play should remain constant.

And really, what you are telling the players is that what they do is not good enough to win, they need the coach's special tactics to overcome any side.

Our forward structure changes from week to week, we go long to 178cm forwards, our 195+cm forwards lead to the wings, we handball round and round, we run off to receive and don't shepherd. And our skills under pressure fall apart. I don't think it's a chicken and egg argument, just that that really there are elements of everything people are proposing coming into play.

It's not just this year either - how many times have we heard comments like 'how the opposition let you play / what the opposition let you do', and who 'we want to be like'. Can't we be 'us'? Can't we play to our own strengths, and let the opposition worry about us for a change? If the coach doesn't think we're good enough, then how will the players ever believe they are - and it's clear right now that they don't. No confidence = poor execution.

 

[Handyandy]

It's funny because I think the problem is he changes the gameplan every week and it messes with the players confidence and assuredness in what they are doing. I'm sure he tinkers with it depending on who we play, where, day, night, wet, dry, whether he thinks it's better to go tall or small with focal points in attack etc etc etc. He is the tinkerman.

After the Collingwood game, Surjan was saying how he felt the players had let the coaches down by not executing the gameplan they had come up with to beat Collingwood. Was that the gameplan that ensured Warren Tredrea took the exquisitely skilled Simon Prestiagacomo away from the play by positioning him in the level 2 cafeteria? That worked a treat. Why do we need a special gameplan to beat Collingwood? Or any side? Sure you might change up elements of what you do - say match ups - to counter an opponent's strength, but the basic structure of how you play should remain constant.

And really, what you are telling the players is that what they do is not good enough to win, they need the coach's special tactics to overcome any side.

Our forward structure changes from week to week, we go long to 178cm forwards, our 195+cm forwards lead to the wings, we handball round and round, we run off to receive and don't shepherd. And our skills under pressure fall apart. I don't think it's a chicken and egg argument, just that that really there are elements of everything people are proposing coming into play.

Good post. Ive wondered for a while if our wildly inconsistent form is due to constant changes in the structure and gameplan. I think chocco views himself as a footy visionary and port are the test bed for his theories. Sometimes they work other times not.

People say he is a great development coach too, but sorry I dont see it. I see him pushing his favourites (wade, pearce) at the teams expense and totally black balling other players (thompson lower etc). When asked in one of the pressers whether he had lost faith in senior players and would give the fringe players a go and he said something like "none of the young players were playing well in the sanfl or pushing for selection and what the juniors had to offer in no way or shape could compare with what the senior players (gold card holders) had to offer". Great vote of confidence. Ive had bosses like that before, who choose their favourites, and never give others a chance just to prove thier decisions. It makes for a very unhappy workplace. Its not suprising so many players and coaching staff have bailed in recent seasons.