It's interesting, this idea of the psychology of the sporting mind. It's something of a dilemma, because you can't tell the players that our best team is not on the park, we have a few players out, therefore just try your best etc. But on the other hand, that's precisely what we, the coaches and the players are know perfectly well. There are very good reasons why clubs chase the top draft picks, why Cripps gets paid way more than Lewis Young. You can't tell the players injuries to A grade team mates are an excuse, but we all know those players are first choice for a reason. You can't keep winning with too many stars out. I didn't see our players lack effort last night. But they looked disorganized and tired, and you end up with an untenable situation where the B and C graders are not quite up to the mark, and the A graders try to overcompensate. At least that's how I see it.
Totally understand, Pauly. That's why game day mindset (and training) is so critical - to condition our mind to step over those life realities and focus relentlessly on excellence, and all it asks, for two hours. And as you rightly point out, some do it better than others - enter the Vossy's, Crippa's, Jezza's... sheesh, any star you can think of... they have the natural talent combined with a mindset of ruthless persistence toward excellence. But there are many players not blessed with sublime natural talent who developed a mindset of sustained excellence... to get the very best out of themselves and do succeed at the highest level, although only a B or C grader, talent wise. That's what we need, especially, from our 'bottom 6-8' on game day.
A reasonable example would be Young. He has a degree of natural talent but appears not to have the mental discipline. And boy doesn't it show when the heat comes. Kade Simpson might be an example of the opposite, capable skills but boy what mental discipline and application. I'm sure most of us could come up with a huge list of blokes who weren't blessed with talent to burn or a huge, strong body yet they were so mentally tough that they shrugged aside any limitations.
isn't that the whole point of saying we can't have it our way all the time?
To keep you fighting when it isn't?
It's a paradox, eh 3 Leos. I get it. But this mindset thing is a slippery customer and humans being what they are, some will see a lapse as 'just the way things are' therefore okay. For context, I get that my missive above might seem idealistic, even unrealistic. And perhaps my military training, especially in the branch I was in where the pass marks were nothing less than 80%, often over 95%, colours my view and expectations. Understand. But I saw how such a mindset benefitted us under duress and pressure. Perfection is unrealistic but sustained excellence isn't.
So... never offer any statement that could confuse or even weaken resolve and expectation. For two hours on the paddock, it is combat, so you'd better have your mind fixed on sustained excellence.
At the start of the season my greatest concern was expectation. And how we would deal with it and rise above it.
So let's distill and keep it simple. Here's the boring repetitious stuff that I've being banging on about for months (that erases nervous expectation delivery)... be the hunters. Live it and breath it.
A cliche that p1sses me off is... 'we know we can't have it all our way all the time...' what a ridiculous obvious reality to put in the player's heads and hearts - it opens a back door. It's a lapse excuse. It's a lapse justification. That's human nature, don't feed it with comments that give a lapse a justification or excuse.
Hunters crack the sh*ts with lapses. Hunters are intolerant of lapses and letting other sides in. Being the hunter should be and must be the default and the ruthlessly persistent position. And if someone hunts us... fckn great... 'now I'm going to hunt you harder than you hunt me, and for longer'. Hunters inspire and lift team mates. Hunters create an energy and spirit that is contagious & omnipotent... and a great single focus, provided, in our game, you have the blokes who can deliver. In the main, we have those blokes. A hunter culture weeds out non-hackers real quick. Examples? Newman is a hunter, so is Weiters, so is Acres, so is Crippa, so is Charles, so is TDK. I'm sure you can think of examples of blokes who once hunted, succumb. They're not hunters. Above the shoulders stuff, again.
This is a combative sport. Keep it simple. Be the hunters for 120 minutes. Every single minute.
Facts: 1st, 3rd and 4th qtrs yielded 2 goals. Once the inevitable happened - Port increasing pressure, yes we were able to absorb it but lost boldness, creativity and offensive bite/too many blokes went into their shells and became reactive and safe, Ollie was and is a good example of this, under serious pressure, too many mistakes, fumbles and panicky disposals. Hamstrung by the realities of injuries to key personnel - H/TDK/Blacres in particular.
Possible MC and coaching errors: Just because L Young is 200+ cms tall, it doesn't mean he's a viable or obvious replacement for H - though I do get tall for tall. I wonder how many of us thought that when we learned of H's illness that Kemp would have been the obvious replacement up forward and Young down back on the out of form Dixon to free up Weiters for a more creative role? (2nd ruck duties to mids, to simply provide a contest and get the aggott on the grass). Cerra a HBFer? Nuh. And we all know it. He's a midfielder, FFS.
Persistent issues: Inconsistency in games and week to week. Sh*t the bed when the real heat comes. MC conservative, odd and safe selections. Walsh trying to do too much, FFS Walshy use your possessions to bring team mates into the game rather than trying to do it all yourself.
So why am I still optimistic? Trust in Cook, Voss & Crippa. Imminent return of H & Blacres. Our side does have character, a strong culture and a great core group.
Tough crowd around here. Charlie regularly gets the opposition's best defender, regularly tagged and scragged, is arguably playing injured, arguably out of form, can kick goals outside 50, can kick them off the deck, is a good mark on the lead and in a pack, tries to mix up how he kicks goals (e.g out the back), gets up the ground to mark on the wing, takes game saving marks in defense, and is currently leading the Coleman, after winning the last 2.
Charlie would have to be the player opposition teams put the most effort into negating. He cops the best defender, and several assistants, every week and doesn’t always get the best delivery or chop outs from teammates. Despite that, he’s leading the Coleman with 50 goals and his efforts in defence at crucial times have been match saving.
On top of that, he is very humble person who goes out of his way to interact with supporters and lend his support to many worthy causes.
If folk feel the need to have a crack at Charlie, they’re probably better off following another team 🙄
I've been one to stick up for him and praising him for his 'unnoticed effort' each week.
I stood up for him when people were calling for his eviction from the side in favour of a 2nd ruck. (You may have been one of them). Now without wanting to go down that path, you can clearly see what he offers and how that is a benefit over another tall, specifically a ruck.
We need pressure players. Ollie is a pressure player. People forget, he is only in his 2nd year. Not many other blokes are going better than him that were taken around (or after) his pick, #11, in the draft.
Someone like Carroll has been on the list longer and shown us less. Somehow because he has played less games, he gets more chances....even though he has been around longer. Similarly Cottrell who has been around longer than both...but offers very little more than Ollie does at the moment. Even though a lot of his stuff goes unnoticed, he hasn't got back to his pre-injury form yet, far from it.
I don't think anyone questions Ollie's endeavour and ability to get to contests to effect timely spoils. His work rate is... well... first rate.
However, and yes, he's still learning, he still makes critical disposal errors, especially handing the aggott back to the opposition. One error against the Kangabies cost us momentum and very likely a shot on goal - a simple short kick to a team mate fell short and was marked by the opposition. Another where he tried to mark the ball with hands only, failing to commit his body. And due to his slight body, he's easily knocked out of contests. Does that mean we drop him? Of course not. But it does say he has important skills to work on... and he aint Robinson Crusoe in that regard.
Nutshell: great work ethic and defensive efforts. Disposal skills, still a concern. We all love Ollie and his huge ticker, but that doesn't mean we can't be objective, even critical, of his shortcomings.
The Kangabies are a much better side than many give them credit for. And we had to put our pressure rating through the roof (3rd qtr) to get over them and even then, they wouldn't go away. In the final qtr, to keep our lead was a bloody good effort considering the revolving door of injured blokes coming on and off the ground.
Failed experiments: Dropping Hewett Cincotta on Zuhaar (why the fck would you sacrifice someone so quick over the grass to the last line of defence ) ...and probably dropping Kemp. Good to see: Cottrell regaining touch, Cerra finally stepping up later in the game, Motlop back, Charles kicking well for goal, H's ruck work and work up the ground. Don't get: Weiters criticism, Tall Durds criticism. Bottom line: There's a fleas chin (cleaned that up) between 2nd and 7th on the ladder. With the exception of the Weagles, any and every other side outside the 8 is capable of knocking off a top 8 side. We are very much, still, a work in progress. Expect: Pitto in this week, along with Kemp and perhaps Binns. Outs: Injured blokes.
Cincotta on Zuhaar (why the fck would you sacrifice someone so quick over the grass to the last line of defence