Coaching Staff Past Coach: Matthew Knights - Finally gets his second shot - 5/5

[Valve Bounce]

After losing to Collingwood, I was one of the guys who (rightly or wrongly) blamed Knights. But after the Port debacle, our players have to shoulder the blame 100%. Their poor disposal and brain fades cost them the game, and they have no one but themselves to blame.

If they can't see that, and try to improve their own basic game: kicking and handball, then this will happen again.

 

[Puddy]

Mate, Essendon didnt lose the game, Port Adelaide won it.

 

[TheDon35]

Another rediculous thread...

I'm on record at not being a fan of Knights but as with the Collingwood debacle, the players need to take ownership of allowing an ordinary side to run over them when the game was on the line.

Whatever Knights gameplan is (i still don't really understand it), it is not being implemented properly. That's obvious. That doesn't mean you don't try your hardest and execute basic skills everytime you're on the park.

As for Hille in the ruck... Who did you want to give Ryder a chop out with? Playing 2 rucks is hardly bad coaching.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

If we lose.. KNIGHTS FAULT! SACK HIM! If we win... The players played really well, nothing to do with Knights.

yep, if we win it seems to be in spite of Knights. Muppetry.

This may sound like a harsh comment, but I reckon that unintelligent football followers blame coaches. It's such an easy cop-out.

yep, this

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Another rediculous thread...

I'm on record at not being a fan of Knights but as with the Collingwood debacle, the players need to take ownership of allowing an ordinary side to run over them when the game was on the line.

Whatever Knights gameplan is (i still don't really understand it), it is not being implemented properly. That's obvious. That doesn't mean you don't try your hardest and execute basic skills everytime you're on the park.

As for Hille in the ruck... Who did you want to give Ryder a chop out with? Playing 2 rucks is hardly bad coaching.

nice post

 

[lamaros]

Another rediculous thread...

I'm on record at not being a fan of Knights but as with the Collingwood debacle, the players need to take ownership of allowing an ordinary side to run over them when the game was on the line.

Whatever Knights gameplan is (i still don't really understand it), it is not being implemented properly. That's obvious. That doesn't mean you don't try your hardest and execute basic skills everytime you're on the park.

As for Hille in the ruck... Who did you want to give Ryder a chop out with? Playing 2 rucks is hardly bad coaching.

Did you read my post? It's about Ryder not playing in the ruck when the game was on the line and in the last quarter, and wasting him in the forward line. Not about Hille giving him a chop out.

Hille rucked the first 20 min on the last quarter. Not Ryder rucked mostly and Hille gave him a chop out, Ryder was thrown forward and didn't see the ball for 20 mins at the key stages of the final term.

 

[OB1]

Originally Posted by Dan26
This may sound like a harsh comment, but I reckon that unintelligent football followers blame coaches. It's such an easy cop-out.

If you believe that then why did the club sack Sheedy?

Nobody is saying that coaches are totally to blame for everything but when we keep losing because of the same fundamental flaws in the coaches gameplan then yes the coach has to bear the brunt of responsibility.

 

[yaco55]

Its pretty straight forward. Knights' gameplan encourages extra handballing & so when in trouble the players fall back to their core instructions. The problem with this is that the vast majority of teams who overuse handballs fail & the only teams who can pull off that style are far more skilled through the midfield (Geelong for example can win with more handball). In fact since Knights has been coach we have not won any games when we have had more handballs than kicks. Against Hawthorn we kicked more & won, against Carlton we kicked more & won. Against Port, WC & Collingwood we handballed more than we kicked & we lost all those games.

Handball is a very important part of the modern game but its obvious that our players are instructed to handball 1st & this brings us undone. FFS we actually handball to contests - thats just totally against all football logic. We have Gumby getting better by the second, Hurley although injured still danderous & some dangerous smalls in Gus, Zaka & Davey so why don't we give these guys every possible opportunity? Why are we sooooooo scared of kicking the ball long at the 1st opportunity. Why do we see every other clubs snap goals when they get the chance but our guys look to handball (Winders refuses to have a shot). Why when we have the ball 70m from goal do we think kicking accross groung to a contest 50m from our goal is a better option than kicking to a contest 20m from goal where we have numbers.

All these things are killing us & they are all attributes of the gameplan that Knights is instilling into the players.

Haven't you answered your own question in your post.

I doubt that Knights would be instructing the players to have more handballs than kicks - When Essendon only win when they have more kicks than handballs.

 

[OB1]

Haven't you answered your own question in your post.

I doubt that Knights would be instructing the players to have more handballs than kicks - When Essendon only win when they have more kicks than handballs.

Huh? Perhaps you should read it again.

Knights is clearly instructing the players to handball as a 1st option. Thats why we default to it when under pressure even when it is clearly stupid to do so. We don't kick it long & we don't kick it quick we move the ball laterally through handball. Thats a key component of Knights' gameplan & so he should take responsibility for it failing under pressure. No Knights doesn't say handball it to the opposition but he does say handball your way out of trouble which inevitably leads to us handballing into trouble. He also instructs the backs to run forward as part of this handball chain which then leaves us completely vulnerable to easy goals of the turnover.

 

[yaco55]

Huh? Perhaps you should read it again.

Knights is clearly instructing the players to handball as a 1st option. Thats why we default to it when under pressure even when it is clearly stupid to do so. We don't kick it long & we don't kick it quick we move the ball laterally through handball. Thats a key component of Knights' gameplan & so he should take responsibility for it failing under pressure. No Knights doesn't say handball it to the opposition but he does say handball your way out of trouble which inevitably leads to us handballing into trouble. He also instructs the backs to run forward as part of this handball chain which then leaves us completely vulnerable to easy goals of the turnover.

So you are saying that the players ignore the coaches instructions, when the team has more kicks than handballs.

Are you sure ?

 

[OB1]

So you are saying that the players ignore the coaches instructions, when the team has more kicks than handballs.

Are you sure ?

I'm saying that Knights instructs the players to handball when under pressure. If you can't see that then you are not paying attention. The problem comes when teams pressure our halfback line & we defult to that handball under pressure & our lack of skillfull mids means we turn it over far to often. Teams like Hawthorn & Carlton are weak defensively so we don't get caught in the handball circle trying to get out.

Having more handballs than kicks is a byproduct of the coaches gameplan.

 

[The_Young_Gun]

HOW IN GODS NAME ARE WE LOSING?

Its Because we suck....

 

[yaco55]

I'm saying that Knights instructs the players to handball when under pressure. If you can't see that then you are not paying attention. The problem comes when teams pressure our halfback line & we defult to that handball under pressure & our lack of skillfull mids means we turn it over far to often. Teams like Hawthorn & Carlton are weak defensively so we don't get caught in the handball circle trying to get out.

Having more handballs than kicks is a byproduct of the coaches gameplan.

Fine.

So it is a case of the players being unable to execute skills under pressure.

 

[OB1]

Fine.

So it is a case of the players being unable to execute skills under pressure.

Its a case of the wrong skills being encouraged under pressure. The players are drilled & programmed to handball at the 1st opportunity. We don't have highly skilled midfielders & flankers to execute that gameplan. We need to suddenly find the mids we've ignored for a decade or adapt teh gameplan to suit the players we have.

 

[Towno78]

I like to think I give credit where it is due, but there was none to be had for the coaching staff today, they flat out lost us the game.

Hille was smashed in the ruck all day, and whenever he was in there we also lost more clearances because he didn't have ANYWHERE near the pressure of Ryder. I only started counting at half time, but Port scored only 1 or two goals while Ryder was rucking.

This flat out lost us the game. Ryder was in the forward line in the last quarter away from the ball when the game was on the line. He only moved into the ruck when we were already behind.

Why?

Why would you do this? Why take your best player out of the play when the game is on the line? EVERONE at the
game could see it, why can't our coaching staff?

Also: Dempsey was shocking in defence for a while and should have been dropped. Today he starts there again, makes mistakes to give away 3 goals, clearly his fault... Why?

I don't care if he can run, if he can't man up and make a decent choice when he has the ball he shouldn't be down there.

I'm not angry, just disappointed. We should have won this by 30 points and were really let down, our players were let down, by the coaching staff.

I completely agree that Ryder should've been rucking a greater portion of the last quarter instead of Hille. Hille was being slaughtered, whereas Ryder had been very influential. I though the same thing at the time, obviously Ryder had to take a rest at some stage, but he was out of the middle for too long in that last quarter.

However, to say that Knights lost us the game is taking it well and truly too far. The players lost us this game, they did not have the killer instinct to put the game away. I'm not too worried about this, it will come with more experience/maturity.

Wasn't Watson's fault he got run down. Melksham gave him the handball and then ball watched instead of giving off a shepherd or blocking. I doubt he even warned Jobe.

Yes Melksham should've laid a shepherd, or at least tried to, however Watson is not free from blame. He had plenty of options in the forward line, should've been straight on to the boot in front of a leading forward... Instead he takes a bounce!? Very poor awareness (even if his teammate let him down) from the one who has the best awareness in our side.

 

[yaco55]

Its a case of the wrong skills being encouraged under pressure. The players are drilled & programmed to handball at the 1st opportunity. We don't have highly skilled midfielders & flankers to execute that gameplan. We need to suddenly find the mids we've ignored for a decade or adapt teh gameplan to suit the players we have.

Fine.

So it is a recruiting issue that needs to be addressed.

 

[Knight Ryders]

Because he tells the players to handball when in trouble & this skill is something we don't have the players to pull off. Its plain to see that Knights has us handballing at all cost. This comes undone continually & we turn it over far far far to often by hand in dangerous spots. Knights' gameplan allows oppositions easy access to their goals & we don't have anything that resembles a good defensive structure. Going forward we pull all our numbers into the overpossesing gameplan so we don't have options when we get it forward. Even when we do have forward opportunities again we have too many player unwilling to take their oportunities & we handball to often inside fwd 50. These are all areas that Knights is responsible for & he is failing.

Have you watched every team play against Collingwood since we played them? They've done exactly as we did. The pressure of the opposition causes the handball frenzy and turnovers - we had 105 tackles yesterday, but Port still had 90. This means it was a high pressure game.

I'll blame Knights where necessary, but I think he has improved our team since the Collingwood game. Also, if you win contested possessions and tackles, you'd just about assured to win games. I'll say this again, if we keep this up, we'll win more games than we will lose until the end of the year. This is a huge positive for us atm.

 

[Towno78]

Its a case of the wrong skills being encouraged under pressure. The players are drilled & programmed to handball at the 1st opportunity. We don't have highly skilled midfielders & flankers to execute that gameplan. We need to suddenly find the mids we've ignored for a decade or adapt teh gameplan to suit the players we have.

So when under extreme pressure, what would you have the players do?

If not handball to a nearby teammate, would you rather them throw it on the boot, maybe 25m up the ground, which may or may not get smothered, and may or may not go to a teammate or a contest or who knows because they haven't had the chance to look? 80s football.

 

[yaco55]

Have you watched every team play against Collingwood since we played them? They've done exactly as we did. The pressure of the opposition causes the handball frenzy and turnovers - we had 105 tackles yesterday, but Port still had 90. This means it was a high pressure game.

I'll blame Knights where necessary, but I think he has improved our team since the Collingwood game. Also, if you win contested possessions and tackles, you'd just about assured to win games. I'll say this again, if we keep this up, we'll win more games than we will lose until the end of the year. This is a huge positive for us atm.

Collingwood has won their last 4 games by 10 goals.

 

[Yoda_]

So..

Matthew Knights lost us the game?

Chad Cornes has 13 disposals in the first quarter, Knights moves Sam Lonergan onto him, who quells him in the second quarter and keeps him to zero touches.

The decision to move Nathan Lovett - Murray into the midfield, is no good?

 

[Smyth94]

So..

Matthew Knights lost us the game?

Chad Cornes has 13 disposals in the first quarter, Knights moves Sam Lonergan onto him, who quells him in the second quarter and keeps him to zero touches.

The decision to move Nathan Lovett - Murray into the midfield, is no good?

Who ever said that has no clue - he broke the game open in the third quarter

 

[Blotter]

So..

Matthew Knights lost us the game?

Chad Cornes has 13 disposals in the first quarter, Knights moves Sam Lonergan onto him, who quells him in the second quarter and keeps him to zero touches.

You're not serious, surely?

Lonergan played on Cornes in the first quarter.

 

[Yoda_]

You're not serious, surely?

Lonergan played on Cornes in the first quarter.

You my dear friend...
















ARE A JOKE.. watch the game and get back to me

 

[Yoda_]

Who ever said that has no clue - he broke the game open in the third quarter

Thats what I am saying..

People saying that Knights lost us the game is stupid..

He moved NLM into the midfield where his bigger body really helped us get the ascendancy in that 2nd/3rd quarter.

 

[Blotter]

You my dear friend...

ARE A JOKE.. watch the game and get back to me

?

I did watch the game. And enjoyed the Chad's first quarter immensely.