 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
He's had 7 years in the job and like anyone, you would think you would learn. Throw in the assistants that have come in, are listened too. The Coach and the Department deserve all the accolades on the Season thus far. In saying that, they deserved all the attacks from the previous years. Let's see if many of us have to eat a massive slice of Humble Pie today. A week at a time.
No expectations this year means every win is enjoyable. |
|
|
|
 |
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Hm wrote: | | 2018 fixture review "The Pies will face five of this year's finalists in the first eight rounds, repeating the nightmare that was served to them 2017 when they played each of last year's top-four sides in that same period." Finishing 13th gives us like the Tigers last year and bulldogs the previous year a softer draw. Yet we have already played 2 teams who finished in the top 1-6 and 3 who were finalists. Given that tough start and we are sitting 5th I think is an even bigger plus |
Playing the filth and Brisy twice is very nice too 
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | There were 10 personnel changes between the team that played on Anzac Day 2017 and the one that played yesterday. Out: Adams (Thomas), Broomhead (Stephenson), Elliott (De Goey), Fasolo (Crocker), Goldsack (Murray), Greenwood (Brown), Moore (Scharenberg), Schade (Dunn), Wells (Aish) and Ramsay (Langdon).
Although I've tried to nominate a "replacement" for each of the players that didn't play, it's not that simple because a number of the players who played in both games played in a different spot (eg, Reid).
Of the players who did not play yesterday, at least 5 would have been expected to play if they'd been fit and in form (Adams, Elliott, Fasolo, Moore and Wells) and 2 of the others would also be best 22 or close to it (Goldsack, Fasolo).
Accordingly, I don't think the names "on paper" yesterday were clearly "better" than the 2017 Anzac Day team, so on that measure it looks like the coaching is better now than 12 months ago.
It's easy to see why the backline had less than half as many goals kicked against it (15 last year, 7 yesterday) - Goldsack was playing back pocket because someone had to whereas Murray is there by deliberate recruitment choice, Schade was a one-year insurance policy and Langdon and Scharenberg replaced Ramsay and allowed Reid to go forward. Also, although I am not interested in Essendon's team changes, Fantasia did some damage last year (4 goals) but was missing yesterday and Green kicked 3 goals last year and did a hammy yesterday.
It's harder to see why the forward line was more effective (14.17 to 11.16) with yesterday's personnel than the 2017 edition - especially when you factor in that 7 of last year's 11 Anzac Day goals were kicked by 3 missing players that would be preferred starters (Moore 2, Wells 2, Elliott 3). The answer seems to be that the present mix of players is performing more effectively within a better structure. Of the "ins", Stephenson is obviously important to that - his pace unsettles defenders more than many "defensive" forwards because he is also very dangerous with ball in hand but I think Crocker's role in locking down defensively and punishing physically has probably been important, too. We'd still obviously all want a fit Elliott back in the team in an instant but the present forward line output does seem to be a case of the coaching staff making the best of a relatively "weak" hand.
The other substantial change is the disposal efficiency of the team as a whole. We were just under 80% yesterday (as were Essendon - but a lot of theirs came from the "padding" kicks sideways and back in defence). To put some flesh on that, everyone except Varcoe, Thomas, Stephenson, WHE and Reid went at 75% or better. Down back, three of the inclusions (Scharenberg 100%, Murray, 86% and Langdon 84%) were in our top 4 (only Pendlebury at 93% split them). Special mention needs to be made of Maynard's improvement in the second half yesterday. His DE was poor to half time (7 kicks, 4 clangers) but he finished up with 80% for the day. I don't have the quarter by quarter breakdown but he must have been nearly perfect after halftime. That's encouraging.
So, certainly the team is working better, as a whole, despite the relatively weak-looking forward lineup on paper. |
Good post P4S... speaking of posts, did anyone notice we hit the woodwork on 5 occasions on ANZAC day?
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
Joined: 26 Sep 2013
Location: We prefer free speech - you know it's right
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Damien wrote: | | Cam wrote: | | No matter what happens against the Tigers I don't think any rationally minded person would begrudge the coaching panel a loss after a 4 day break against the reigning premiers after two sterling wins and one sensational one. See what happens the month after. |
Cam you’ve been around here long enough to know that anything less than a win today will bring out the critics of Bucks and co in their droves. You did say ‘rationally minded’ though. |
Honestly, it'll depend on how we play - if we're thrashed, and murder the ball that may exactly be the case - if we are beaten in a tough contest playing the brand of football we have seen so far in this season, then the howls may not quite be so loud this time - as I've said before, what we need to see is consistency. Losses are always unacceptable, but we need to be realistic and from where we have been over the last 6 or so seasons as long as we are competitive and consistent - it will be enough, at least for today. Its a long season to go yet.
_________________
All Aboard!! Choo Choo!!! |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | There were 10 personnel changes between the team that played on Anzac Day 2017 and the one that played yesterday. Out: Adams (Thomas), Broomhead (Stephenson), Elliott (De Goey), Fasolo (Crocker), Goldsack (Murray), Greenwood (Brown), Moore (Scharenberg), Schade (Dunn), Wells (Aish) and Ramsay (Langdon).
Although I've tried to nominate a "replacement" for each of the players that didn't play, it's not that simple because a number of the players who played in both games played in a different spot (eg, Reid).
Of the players who did not play yesterday, at least 5 would have been expected to play if they'd been fit and in form (Adams, Elliott, Fasolo, Moore and Wells) and 2 of the others would also be best 22 or close to it (Goldsack, Fasolo).
Accordingly, I don't think the names "on paper" yesterday were clearly "better" than the 2017 Anzac Day team, so on that measure it looks like the coaching is better now than 12 months ago.
It's easy to see why the backline had less than half as many goals kicked against it (15 last year, 7 yesterday) - Goldsack was playing back pocket because someone had to whereas Murray is there by deliberate recruitment choice, Schade was a one-year insurance policy and Langdon and Scharenberg replaced Ramsay and allowed Reid to go forward. Also, although I am not interested in Essendon's team changes, Fantasia did some damage last year (4 goals) but was missing yesterday and Green kicked 3 goals last year and did a hammy yesterday.
It's harder to see why the forward line was more effective (14.17 to 11.16) with yesterday's personnel than the 2017 edition - especially when you factor in that 7 of last year's 11 Anzac Day goals were kicked by 3 missing players that would be preferred starters (Moore 2, Wells 2, Elliott 3). The answer seems to be that the present mix of players is performing more effectively within a better structure. Of the "ins", Stephenson is obviously important to that - his pace unsettles defenders more than many "defensive" forwards because he is also very dangerous with ball in hand but I think Crocker's role in locking down defensively and punishing physically has probably been important, too. We'd still obviously all want a fit Elliott back in the team in an instant but the present forward line output does seem to be a case of the coaching staff making the best of a relatively "weak" hand.
The other substantial change is the disposal efficiency of the team as a whole. We were just under 80% yesterday (as were Essendon - but a lot of theirs came from the "padding" kicks sideways and back in defence). To put some flesh on that, everyone except Varcoe, Thomas, Stephenson, WHE and Reid went at 75% or better. Down back, three of the inclusions (Scharenberg 100%, Murray, 86% and Langdon 84%) were in our top 4 (only Pendlebury at 93% split them). Special mention needs to be made of Maynard's improvement in the second half yesterday. His DE was poor to half time (7 kicks, 4 clangers) but he finished up with 80% for the day. I don't have the quarter by quarter breakdown but he must have been nearly perfect after halftime. That's encouraging.
So, certainly the team is working better, as a whole, despite the relatively weak-looking forward lineup on paper. |
A good analysis P4S. I guess my only difference, is that I don't see this year's improvement as proof of better coaching in 2018, but rather as evidence that the team is more settled and they are more confident, they trust each other better, and they are all more in tune with the game plan Bucks has been drilling into them over the last couple of years. Despite the frustration of fans, sometimes, it just takes time for it all to gel. Let's hope we continue to improve. |
|
|
|
|
masoncox
masoncox
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The inclusion of Blair and Mayne is a return to the safe policies of the past 6 years. The difference this year is that we have run the ball forward with quick handball instead of the handball backwards of past years.
Buckley has made the team take more risks.
The inclusion of Faz and Wells would have continued the high risk high reward strategy.
But I have noticed this continually with Bux. After some risks he goes straight back to the safe zone. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
That doesn't make sense. We were already playing Crocker, so were already taking the supposedly "safe" option.
What we're doing is continuing with the same mix we've had this year. Continuing what has been successful rather than bringing in a different type of player and going in a different direction.
Wells isn't fit enough to play.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
Cam 
Nick's BB Member #166
Joined: 10 May 2002
Location: Springvale
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Damien wrote: | | Cam wrote: | | No matter what happens against the Tigers I don't think any rationally minded person would begrudge the coaching panel a loss after a 4 day break against the reigning premiers after two sterling wins and one sensational one. See what happens the month after. |
Cam you’ve been around here long enough to know that anything less than a win today will bring out the critics of Bucks and co in their droves. You did say ‘rationally minded’ though. |
I'm glad you did notice my disclaimer Damien 
_________________
Get back on top. |
|
|
|
|
masoncox
masoncox
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | That doesn't make sense. We were already playing Crocker, so were already taking the supposedly "safe" option.
What we're doing is continuing with the same mix we've had this year. Continuing what has been successful rather than bringing in a different type of player and going in a different direction.
Wells isn't fit enough to play. |
Wells is never ever going to be fully fit.
He is such an elite player that a half fit Wells is twice the
player that Blair will ever be!
Taylor Adams just said on channel 9 that the quick transition from defence to attack
was a result of a change in game plan.
We need to take risks. Pointless plodding down the same failed path of playing Safe Blair and safe Mayne! |
|
|
|
|
Damien 
Me Noah & Flynn @ the G
Joined: 21 Jan 1999
Location: Croydon Vic
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| masoncox wrote: | The inclusion of Blair and Mayne is a return to the safe policies of the past 6 years. The difference this year is that we have run the ball forward with quick handball instead of the handball backwards of past years.
Buckley has made the team take more risks.
The inclusion of Faz and Wells would have continued the high risk high reward strategy.
But I have noticed this continually with Bux. After some risks he goes straight back to the safe zone. |
That’s just rubbish mate. Blair and Mayne have obviously been picked based on what’s best for this opponent and clearly will be expected to play to the same game plan as everyone else. The coach has been saying from round 1 that he wants the team to take risks more and that’s what these two will be asked to do to.
_________________
'Collingwood are the Bradmans of Football'
The Herald - 1930 |
|
|
|
|
Adam Treloar 3 Votes
Joined: 09 May 2017
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ Mason cox, The game has evolved, Richmond’s success last year has meant all clubs have looked at the Richmond game plan and tried to copy areas. Forward pressure is now a requirement, something Fasolo is not great at but Mayne and Blair are. That is why they are in the side. I expect Fasolo to be traded end of year. He is a good player but there just isn’t a spot for him with Elliott above him in pecking order.
_________________
People forget that our last premiership was only 2010 and rebuilds take some time. 2018 we play finals again. |
|
|
|
|
masoncox
masoncox
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Adam Treloar 3 Votes wrote: | | ^ Mason cox, The game has evolved, Richmond’s success last year has meant all clubs have looked at the Richmond game plan and tried to copy areas. Forward pressure is now a requirement, something Fasolo is not great at but Mayne and Blair are. That is why they are in the side. I expect Fasolo to be traded end of year. He is a good player but there just isn’t a spot for him with Elliott above him in pecking order. |
Both Mayne and Blair are good inboard but as soon as the ball goes outboard they are useless because they are so slow.
The idea that both can lock it in is a furphy. In close they can but once outside they are useless. Bit like Mason, but he plays a different role. |
|
|
|
|
masoncox
masoncox
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Lost that game at the selection table.
The playing it safe meant picking two plodders.
Plodders don't win matches.
Crap effort Buckley! |
|
|
|
|
piedys 
Heeeeeeere's Dyso!!!
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Location: Resident Forum Psychopath since 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| masoncox wrote: | Lost that game at the selection table.
The playing it safe meant picking two plodders.
Plodders don't win matches.
Crap effort Buckley! |
Exactly; Wells says Hi! 
_________________
M I L L A N E 4 2 forever |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Is it known who exactly has direct selection input? The senior coach and all of the assistant coaches (only)? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
