Roos latest - gameplan wont change

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by Diego
I just don't think Paul Roos has the capcity in his character to drop pet players.

Look at Bevan and LRT.

Oops. Maybe he read this one post of yours, and decided that bandwagon supporters like you should be listened to to keep you happy.

Or maybe he knows what he is doing and thankfully you are not the Coach. Sure he makes mistakes, but the "pet players" comment is ridiculous.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
But I think so many here have been hooked by the Melbourne Media and are wrong in their assessment. It isn't the GAMEPLAN that sucks, its our skill level and effort.

Many of us can make up our own minds without needing comments from the media and have had these views long before it was popular in the media.

And Roos' "plan" has more than half its current run to go!!

It better get a move on because it's not really heading in the right direction.

I just hope all you bandwagoners have time to jump back on just before we reach the holy grail!

Just because you question a team's performance doesn't make you a "bandwagoner" so cut the crap.

the "pet players" comment is ridiculous.

No it's not - plenty of coaches have favourites.

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
It isn't the GAMEPLAN that sucks, its our skill level and effort.

This is where the two are so deeply intertwined. The gameplan relies on skilful players being able to hit targets and play uncontested footy. Our players are poorly skilled. So while the gameplan per se may not suck, it is totally inappropriate for our team because it relies on skills alot of our players don't have.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
It better get a move on because it's not really heading in the right direction.

Really? What did the plan say as to where we would be in Round 11 of Year 3?

Just because you question a team's performance doesn't make you a "bandwagoner" so cut the crap.

No but jumping off at the first bump in the road does. We lose one game and BANG all of asudden Roos needs to be sacked and replaced with Blight, and we need to cull 11 or 13 players. We need to trade MOL or Goodes or Barry. We suddenly cant let our recent new stock of youngsters mature any more over a few years, because they have to be ready NOW. And people who have in the past been up-beat about our chances are predicting we'll never win a premiership. There are even comments like "if.... then I'll go support another team" floating around. Pathetic!

True supporters live through the bumps and ride it out. Its Round 11 this weekend, and we are only out of the eight on percentage. Whilst the bandwagoners are starting to panic and predicting gloom and doom for the next century, I'd prefer to sit and watch. I have faith we made the right choice in Paul Roos, and a few dips in performance wont make me knee-jerk into a rash decision.

No it's not - plenty of coaches have favourites.

So? How is that gross generalisation at all relevant to LRT and the (now dropped) Bevan? This comment is distinctly unlike you NMW.

[Tooth Fairy]

Schneiderman is right you know. It is pathetic.

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by Mike_B
So while the gameplan per se may not suck, it is totally inappropriate for our team because it relies on skills alot of our players don't have.

So what GAMEPLAN magically makes a crap side win a premiership??

"Kick it long!" "Give Barry Hall a marking opportunity!"

Except what if you cant?? Dont bother to answer that one Mr Sheehan. If you could you'd be a successful AFL Coach. Instead you get paid to criticise. "Those who can coach, those who cant work in the media"

My opinion is that we have improved our skills from 2003 as a general rule. B1 and Kirk are twice the midfielders they were then. Leo has improved into much more than just a running flanker. Barry Hall is a new man, and may well be Captain. Goodes fluked it then but is probably mentally tougher after 2004.

The difference is a combination of the changes coaches have made in their tactics since then, and the inexplicable drop in confidence in the team. But these things are cyclical. And even the Brisbane game showed that.

My hope is that (soon) we will get it all together. We will put together three or four quarters of the tactics and skills that we have shown is there. It will improve our confidence and momentum will again be with us.

Unlike so many here though, I am happy to wait for another two years under Paul Roos for it to happen. It will hurt and I will be pissed off on game day each week, but I believe the journey is worth it. Besides... I have my 2003 highlights DVD to watch in the meantime.

[Tooth Fairy]

oh oh. You lost me when u mentioned the word "journey"

[Schneiderman]

Originally posted by Tooth Fairy
oh oh. You lost me when u mentioned the word "journey"

Yeah I certainly went too far. That makes me sound like a Freo supporter

Maybe "the ride" instead?

[ScottH]

We're not ugly, just bad, says Hall

"If we fix the skill errors, everything will look after itself."

You won't want to get a raz from the captain this week!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
Really? What did the plan say as to where we would be in Round 11 of Year 3?

No idea. Perhaps it said nothing specifically. However, I've already commented, prior to the season, on what I expected this year and last, and I don't think that is happening.

No but jumping off at the first bump in the road does.

Complaining is not jumping off.

We lose one game and BANG all of asudden Roos needs to be sacked and replaced with Blight, and we need to cull 11 or 13 players. We need to trade MOL or Goodes or Barry. We suddenly cant let our recent new stock of youngsters mature any more over a few years, because they have to be ready NOW. And people who have in the past been up-beat about our chances are predicting we'll never win a premiership. There are even comments like "if.... then I'll go support another team" floating around. Pathetic!

Yes there are some comments like this, but not everyone is. I've tended to read your bandwagoning comments as referring to anyone who has been negative. You've lumped in both types before and this is what I object to.

True supporters live through the bumps and ride it out.

I find comments about "true supporters" to be rather holier than thou type of comments.

Its Round 11 this weekend, and we are only out of the eight on percentage. Whilst the bandwagoners are starting to panic and predicting gloom and doom for the next century, I'd prefer to sit and watch. I have faith we made the right choice in Paul Roos, and a few dips in performance wont make me knee-jerk into a rash decision.

But you assume that anyone who is making negative comments is panicking and a bandwagoner.

So? How is that gross generalisation at all relevant to LRT and the (now dropped) Bevan? This comment is distinctly unlike you NMW.

I wasn't commenting on these two - I simply thought you meant that coaches having pet players was ridiculous and it's not.

[sharpie]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I find comments about "true supporters" to be rather holier than thou type of comments.

leave me out of it!

[Mike_B]

Originally posted by Schneiderman
So what GAMEPLAN magically makes a crap side win a premiership??

"Kick it long!" "Give Barry Hall a marking opportunity!"

My opinion is that we have improved our skills from 2003 as a general rule. B1 and Kirk are twice the midfielders they were then. Leo has improved into much more than just a running flanker. Barry Hall is a new man, and may well be Captain. Goodes fluked it then but is probably mentally tougher after 2004.

If we have players with poor skills, don't rely so much on a style of game that requires good skills. If that means kicking it long instead of 2 or 3 short passes, it means you are eliminating 1 or 2 potential turnover opportunities while still having the ball reach a contest further up the ground.

Some of our players have improved their skills in an overall sense (such as durability, being able to get hands on the ball), I will give you that much, so let me clarify my earlier comment and state that our disposal skills are still terrible.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Mike_B
If that means kicking it long instead of 2 or 3 short passes, it means you are eliminating 1 or 2 potential turnover opportunities while still having the ball reach a contest further up the ground.

If you can't hit a target the ball won't reach a contest up the ground. Remember when we did kick long on Saturday and the ball went sailing over the heads of our forwards? Against teams that flood or play loose men in defence, poor long kicking will just see the ball come flying back a couple of seconds later.

Kicking long is not an easier option for unskilled teams. It's much harder to hit a target 50 metres away than one 20 metres away. Kicking to a contest is still hitting a target. The most talented teams in the AFL play a long kicking game - Melbourne, Geelong, Brisbane in the past. The least talented teams play a short game - Hawthorn, Bulldogs, etc. BTW, like with us, it's not intentional for Hawthorn to do it either.

We try to play a long game where possible but the players are constantly looking for easy options due to their lack of belief in their own ability or the ability of their target to take a mark. I'd say that we would be close to the weakest team in the AFL when it comes to pack marks.

IMHO, if teams all used a very simple gameplan of kicking the ball long, the most skillful teams would win - that's not us. What Roos has tried to do is change the game so it favours what we are good at - that is a coaches job. Looking at our skills this season, we would probably come last with a more basic plan.

That's my theory anyway .

[NMWBloods]

If they want to play the ugly stoppage-riddle game, then a long-kicking game might work better, but they need to be prepared for it.

Kick long to a pack. Lock the ball up in the pack. Get clearance, kick long to a pack again. In this way the ball is worked 40m downfield rather than 15m sideways.

[Sean]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
If they want to play the ugly stoppage-riddle game, then a long-kicking game might work better, but they need to be prepared for it.

Kick long to a pack. Lock the ball up in the pack. Get clearance, kick long to a pack again. In this way the ball is worked 40m downfield rather than 15m sideways.

What I'd like to see us do possibly relates to what you have said. I keep complaining about the structure of the side rather than the gameplan so here is what I'd like to see.

I don't like having MOL at FF - he's our best crumber. Also, if a midfielder has the ball 60 out and sees him standing in the goal square with 3 guys standing around him they will look for other options. Therefore, stick either Vogels or Saddington at FF. Probably Vogels at this stage because Saddo doesn't yet have the confidence to leap for a mark. MOL just plays in the pocket.

The midfilders than have a tall target in the goal square for the whole match. Even if they don't take the mark it will be difficult for their opponent to take it - then MOL comes into play.

Then, tell a crumber (Schneider?) to follow Hall around all day. Hall seldom takes a pack mark but he seldom lets anyone else take one either.

When we do kick long it always seems to be to a one on two or three. With an extra option they can crumb or at least help us out when the expected poor kick arrives.

Obviously this takes numbers out of the midfield but we can still flood the midfield to an extent if we want to.

BTW NMW, you may have said something like this in another post - sorry if I've pagiarised.