Poor Coaching

**barry** · 24 June 2007, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Captain

Yes we were terrible, but I think a lot of blame is on Roos. My thoughts on the negative aspect of his coaching last night:

- Took him way too long to get Leo off Rocca and put Bolton on him

There was good chance Rocca would play well after the grilling he got over the 2 weeks prior. Roos should have had a back up plan in hand to quickly execute.

- Eski was taken to the last line and needed to be moved up the ground more. He is not a defensive player and was caught out one on one in the most dangerous part of the ground

Match winning move by Malthouse was to put Thomas on Eski....but its the defense who chooses what the match ups are, so Eski should have been moved much much earlier. Malthouse couldnt beleive his luck that matchup stayed for so long.

- Hall played the entire game at FF/CHF. Why wasn't he played in the ruck or on the ball for a quarter ala Plugga on a bad night or J Brown?

Because our game plan is so Hall focussed. Every forward entry must be through Hall. Commentators were saying this last year, everyones on to it now. Time to change things. It would be good if we had the flexibility to move Hall. I guess with the pies such inaccurate kicking we were still some flicker of chance right up until 3/4 time, so radical moves were really on the agenda. Might have done us the world of good if the pies were 10 goals up at half time.

- Spida/Jolly hardly got any time up forward to stretch the Pies defence

Stupidity, but the ball hardly got to our FF line, so the move wouldnt have done much anyway.

**CureTheSane** · 25 June 2007, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by barry

Stupidity, but the ball hardly got to our FF line, so the move wouldnt have done much anyway.

It's either stupid or its not

Like you said, there's no point using a ruckman in our forward line when the ball isn't getting anywhere near it.

Also, with regard to Hall in the ruck....

anyone remember seeing him play there before?
I do.
And it was painful.
If Hall is to be played in the middle of the ground, he needs to be trained.
Hell, he gives away enough free kicks (rightly or wrongly) in the forward line.
when I saw him play in the ruck he was throwing players around, and hitting hard and giving away frees everywhere.
Add to that the rule changes and he would,'t be able to move in the centre.
It's not just about a ruck contest (which is a highly skilled job in itself) but also about grabbing the ball and doing something with it with extremely fast reflexes.
I would suggest that he's not up to or trained for) anything that would be required of him.

Also, the only times he would be thrown into the middle of the ground would be if he was not getting any touches, and he'd be frustrated as hell, and MORE prone to stuffing up.

a better option would be the wing, as it a more generic position to play.
Down back may be an option, be he needs to be trained for that too.
He USED to be very fast off the mark, but I don't think this is the case any more.
He needs to rely on his strength more than before.

In fact the more I think about it, the wing might just be the place for him to be able to find some space and MAYBE mark a few balls.
At least if he drops them he may have time to pick them back up.

Roos definitely needs a plan B for Hall.

I don't accept that the double teaming is so effective.
Especially with a has been like Wakelin playing on him.
It won't be long before Hall is credited with just one opponent, as coaches see him as not being as potent as he used to be.

**Gary** · 25 June 2007, 02:29 PM

Let's face it...Roos (2007) hasn't got a clue. The failure to move players / try something a bit radical, was woeful.
Plus we have an ex FF coaching the mid field (admittedly not a lot to work with) & a journeyman coaching (not sure if its back or forward) who can lay claim to longevity & toughness, but no great skills.

**giant** · 25 June 2007, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by barry

Match winning move by Malthouse was to put Thomas on Eski....but its the defense who chooses what the match ups are, so Eski should have been moved much much earlier. Malthouse couldnt beleive his luck that matchup stayed for so long.

One quarter by my reckoning during which Malceski had 9 disposals & a number of inside 50s.

**liz** · 25 June 2007, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Gary

Let's face it...Roos (2007) hasn't got a clue. The failure to move players / try something a bit radical, was woeful.

The backline players were rotated fairly frequently during the game in an effort to find match-ups that might work. Richards and Bolton took their turns on Cloke. Bolton was on Didak for other parts of the game but I think he had a short stint on Rocca too. And of course Richards was on Thomas towards the end of the game.

**Gary** · 25 June 2007, 03:09 PM

Liz...I don't think any of that qualifies as radical...Hall in the ruck...Grundy in defence...Leo at FF (remember those early days)...Goodes at CHB...that's I what I call radical...the things we(he) did were basically rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
I appreciate that the real issue is the lack of quality / young cattle...but a coach has to be more ruthless than Roos has ever shown himself capable of (OK...apart from Davis...which perhaps we didn't agree with anyway) as both coach & prime selector.

**Captain** · 25 June 2007, 04:44 PM

Roos seems to have one game plan and it either works brilliantly or falls apart and he refuses to change it.

Having Hall in the ruck for a 10min period would be interesting and something to briefly unsettle the opposition. He has a good engine, rucks well in the forward 50 and could get a few touches.

There are plenty of radical moves that we could all name, it's the slight tweaking that's the problem. Roos doesn't even do that. His main coaching strategy on Saturday was to move Bolton onto Rocca after he tore Leo apart.

Roos is a fine motivator of men, one of the best. He is a useless strategist.

***goswannie14*** · 25 June 2007, 05:00 PM

Realistically we were so bad in the first half that Roos should have drawn the positions and players names out of a hat for the second half. When you're playing that bad, as Blighty would say, you have to do something different, it doesn't matter what, and you never know, it might actually work.

**reigning premier** · 25 June 2007, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by goswannie14

Realistically we were so bad in the first half that Roos should have drawn the positions and players names out of a hat for the second half. When you're playing that bad, as Blighty would say, you have to do something different, it doesn't matter what, and you never know, it might actually work.

Spot on....

Roos should have just wrote their numbers on a packet of cards and thrown them at the white board... Where they stuck, that's where they played.... Wouldn't have made one iota of difference....

**TheHood** · 25 June 2007, 08:32 PM

The thought of Hall in the ruck is desperate in the extreme and if I was Malthouse and I saw that, I would have licked my chops at the consequence. Hall worries coaches at CHF, hence the triple teaming. I remember when Plugger went to ruck and it was the most pathetic thing I ever saw on a footy field.

Roosy is not to blame for the loss really. The players are taking the blame and they should. The plan was not to fumble, the plan was not to play lazy or within. The plan was desperation in the middle, fast accurate entry into the F50. That's all onfield execution and not something the coaches box can control.

If there is a coaching problem, it would be associated with the message getting stale. If that is the case, then Roos needs an alternative tactic here. Sydney at all levels are not answering the questions asked of them in 2007, Roos needs to find out where the problems are and fix them.

**DST** · 25 June 2007, 08:46 PM

Interesting that most of these comments re moves and game style are coming from people at the ground.

It was noticable on TV (the commentators pointed it out a number of times) that Roos shuffled his back six many a time in the first half to get the right match up and release Malceski to be more creative but with the amount of the ball coming it's way we were not able to cope. While LRT is not a superstar, it does show that we need him back badly as we miss his flexibility in his height and pace that he adds to the back 6.

As for game style, it was noticable (once again TV and to the commentators) that we did try and move the ball quicker and longer in the second half so the coaching staff did try and adjust how we were playing.

As per the Hood above, the loss lands squarely at the feet of the players in this one as they were not able to cope with Collingswood intensity or sufficently execute the game plan demanded of them.

DST