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

Remove this Banner Ad

HFF_07 said:
Really?

Who does the buck stop with for us having a 1 - 9 win/loss record over the past 9 weeks?

Pretty sure it has to be the guy in charge of everything, that is Matthew Knights?
Click to expand...

Firstly, it's impossible to have a 1-9 record across 9 rounds.

But anyway,

Melbourne
Adelaide
Hawthorn
Geelong
Sydney
Western Bulldogs
Richmond
St Kilda
Port Adelaide
Hawthorn

Not sure what you're talking about.:confused:
 
Re: OUT: Knights IN: Chocco

HFF_07 said:
Keep Maddern?

Yes.

Keep Hickmont?


No, he couldnt speak to a school clinic and keep them involved for more than 10 mins..

Brenton Sanderson? Gary Ayres (Port Melbourne Coach), Dean Laidley?.
Click to expand...

Gary Ayres has had his chance at Essendon and he was crap.

Does anyone know if there is a actual skills coach of because I realised
not only can we not kick the ball our players could not hit a handball target at all.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The people in charge of this club have made 3 bad mistakes in last couple of years:
1. Sacked Sheedy,
2. Appointed Knights,
3. Extended Kinights' contract.

Time to make amends NOW - don't make it 4 in a row. Get rid of him and look at someone else (eg Choco Williams).

...And before all the anti-Sheedy lot jump at point 1, tell me why Knights should stay when we are headed for a worse finish than Sheedy EVER achieved-LAST!!! If he had to go, why shouldn't Knights?

We'll be struggling to beat West Coast next week with this game plan :(
 
It's in the best interest of the club to honour the contract. Let it be known that there will be no extension if we are in the same position this time next year.

Then Knights can walk if he wants to.

If Hardwick gets Richmond a to be a better team than us, it is going to be clear that wrong coach was chosen at the end of 2007.

But no point in not honouring the contract. To much danger of entering long term instability.

Just got to suck it in for a little while.
 
lemon chicken said:
In the first qtr today i think it was Bruce that just about ran the length of the ground and kicked a goal, Stanton had a chance to block him after he gave of a handball but put in same half arsed effort and let him keep running. Stanton wasnt dragged, the runner didnt go anywhere near him and qtr time Knights spoke to him briefly after speaking with NLM. It wasnt a spray, it ddint even look to be agressive in any way, what does the player learn? Often i put the binoculars on players and the bench when guys go off for rotations or whatever else, rarely do any of them get spoken to on the phone. Its pathetic.
Click to expand...

The player didn't learn anything because he already understands the rules.

If you block a player off the ball from being involved in the next passage of player it is an automatic free kick and 50m penalty. Stanton did all that he could and he had done what you suggested Melbourne would've had 8 goals from 50m penalties instead of 7.


As a side note I lost my **** in the first half with our forward structure. I'm never bagged the coaching staff but you would have to be completely moranic to think that bringing in Lonergan for Gumbleton and PLAYING HIM AS A STAY AT HOME FULL FORWARD was a good move.

Combine that with the fact that we DROPPED another KPP in Tyson Slattery and we essentially shot ourselves in the foot. Then Lonergan goes into the middle after half time and surprise surprise he wins the next 3 centre clearances (an area we were being monstored in) and we kick 3 in a a row.

It's not ****en rocket science; it's not even Grade 3 maths. It's basic and it pisses me off that the coaching staff think that they are above everyone else in their knowledge of the game. The same happened with the non-selection of T-Bell in the Elimination Final.

STOP BEING ARROGANT ****S AND DO THE BASICS RIGHT FIRST. Because when you do we win games and you keep your job.

Apart from that our effort was insipid. Maybe it is part of our long term play to relocate from Windy Hill that we are throwing matches so that the natives will burn the place down as they won't sack Knights?
 
Re: OUT: Knights IN: Chocco

Call Me Cake said:
Why stop at 9? Oh wait, to suit your argument. Obviously.

C'mon man. Overall, there's a lot more to it. We actually had the opportunity to take this game and turn it all around, innaccuracy and poor decision making by the players themselves (frees given away, clashing in the air, ect) cost us. It wasn't Knights' fault. He picked the right players many times this season, and they had the chance to win, time and time again... V Port, V Sydney, V Hawks and even V Geelong in the first round of the season, all ending in a hair, but only due to a good performance by the team overall for 3 and a half quarters...

I'm not making excuses for the losses, I'm making a clear point about the blame. To say it's Knights' fault and no one elses is in my opinion a cheap cop-out and a lazy solution. We could have been 8-6 heading into the Melbourne game, but when you're inexperienced, and leak in defense, you're going to have fatigue when it comes to that last 5-10 minutes of the game. It's little wonder why we were able to hone in on Bulldogs and St Kilda when we've got something to work with on the ground.

Just because someone's in charge, doesn't mean the ones he/she is in charge of will always comply, or execute what is asked of them.
Click to expand...

I hear you cake and as much as I've really believed that the board must have made the right decision with Knights and as much as I've backed the decisions Knight's had made and the game plan his has tired to implement, the cracks are starting to show.

Knight's is closing in on his third year now. I think three years is the minimum amount of years a coach should get to get a team into shape. I don;t necessarily think a team needs to make the finals after 3 years but they have to be looking like they are coming.

We have gone backwards. Make no mistake about it.

Our injuries this year have been minor compared to alot of other teams.

We have lost now to 4 of the bottom 6 teams WC, Port , Adelaide and now Melbourne.

Our game plan forces us to reply on too few.

We are in trouble. How many excuses can we keep making???
 
Boucks09 said:
The player didn't learn anything because he already understands the rules.

If you block a player off the ball from being involved in the next passage of player it is an automatic free kick and 50m penalty. Stanton did all that he could and he had done what you suggested Melbourne would've had 8 goals from 50m penalties instead of 7.
Click to expand...

He had just handballed over. Its common practice to stop the player from running on and recieving it again, happens every week. Instead he put in a half arsed effort exactly the same as the missed block that Lonergan did against Hawthorn and was criticised heavily for. Different rules for different players i get it now, how dare i say anything negative about Stanton.
 
There were some really baffling decisions today.

Why was our third best midfielder played as a full-back?
Why was our fourth best midfielder played at Bendigo?
Why were our centre half forwards played at full-back and not at all?

On the other hand, I was pleased with Zaharakis on the wing, Dempsey on the back flank (although he was very poor) and Lonergan into the middle.
 
lemon chicken said:
He had just handballed over. Its common practice to stop the player from running on and recieving it again, happens every week. Instead he put in a half arsed effort exactly the same as the missed block that Lonergan did against Hawthorn and was criticised heavily for. Different rules for different players i get it now, how dare i say anything negative about Stanton.
Click to expand...

Got nothing to do with different rules for different players. I call a spade a spade.

The guy who Bruce handballed to was Stanton's man. You are not allowed to block a player from running on and becoming involved in the play unless he virtually runs into you. If Stanton goes off his line and bumps Bruce, that is illegal under the laws of the game. Given our luck today there is no doubt it would've been paid. It's a similar rule to what we see in soccer. There wasn't much he could do.

I would be more concerned with Bruce's opponent who let him run the length of the wing at an amble.

In regards to Lonergan. Make no mistake, he played the ENTIRE FIRST HALF 25m out from goal and was often the only player inside our forward 50m. It's lucky that the likes of Cheney are key rebounding players for Melbourne and Sammy took them out of the game, ala Campbell Brown and Scarlett yesterday.:rolleyes:
 
I have been a knights backer. However, with each passing week, it seems that he is
losing the players. I don't think that we are playing for him like the tigers
play for hardwick, hawks play for clarkson, saints play for Lyon. I think you get my drift.

I think that he has a couple of weeks to save his job.

I think it's now his job to win back, not his job to keep.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

table tennis said:
I have been a knights backer. However, with each passing week, it seems that he is
losing the players. I don't think that we are playing for him like the tigers
play for hardwick, hawks play for clarkson, saints play for Lyon. I think you get my drift.

I think that he has a couple of weeks to save his job
Click to expand...

I'm starting to think something similar to this, which is a real shame because I really like Knights and I'm very much in tune with how he's handled the rebuild.
 
table tennis said:
I have been a knights backer. However, with each passing week, it seems that he is
losing the players. I don't think that we are playing for him like the tigers
play for hardwick, hawks play for clarkson, saints play for Lyon. I think you get my drift.

I think that he has a couple of weeks to save his job.

I think it's now his job to win back, not his job to keep.
Click to expand...

Surely the players have a responsibility to play for themselves and the jumper.

I do agree with the sentiments of this post though.
 
Re: OUT: Knights IN: Chocco

Call Me Cake said:
Just because someone's in charge, doesn't mean the ones he/she is in charge of will always comply, or execute what is asked of them.
Click to expand...

And that's few people blame a coach for an individual loss, but come on, we've been awful for most of this season and we seem to be getting worse. Collingwood, Adelaide, and now this loss to MELBOURNE.

We've gone backwards while teams like Melbourne and Richmond have improved. This season is gone and I don't want Knights there next season, so sack him now, appoint a caretaker, and start looking for a new coach.

We're a wealthy club and we can afford to pay him out.
 
Duckworth said:
I do agree with the sentiments of this post though.
Click to expand...


Playing for the jumper went out in the 70 's pal.


Mark Williams getting sacked is our call. Throw the kitchen sink at him his record is superb and after so many years still had the players playing for him as we say.

Knights got the job based on a 130 page resume and the fact he knew the players, what crap. He was crap with Bendigo and crap with the interstate side he coached. There is a coach out there available that is a gun time to show some balls and make the move.
 
~RFM~ said:
OH please not CHOCO! FFS why would anyone want a coach who's been given the arse?
Click to expand...
Knights got the arse from a club in a 2nd rate league and we hired him for the top gig in one of the biggest clubs in Australia!!!. FFS. Port supporters just piss themselves about the fact that we hired him. One day the idiots who hired him will just say 'what the hell were we thinking?'. Choco's coached a premiership, has an overall great coaching record and has an Essendon connection. He just stayed at Port too long. Anyone would be preferrable right now though.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top