Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Why So Different?? (Read 35521 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Why So Different??

Reply #105 –
LOL "designed". The old man had run out of ideas and was just using what he knew and comfortable with - minus the Nafan additions which made it so successful at Collingwood.

Re: Why So Different??

Reply #106 –
No, it is not simplistic thinking.

In 2010 Malthouse had a team that had been built around his gameplan and could execute it to perfection.  Even so, opposition coaches had developed tactics to counter the Collingwood style.

Five years later and the game has changed dramatically and Malthouse is trying to mould a team to a gameplan that has been left behind.

Broadly speaking, there are three factors that will determine the effectiveness of a gameplan; predictability, execution and probability of scoring.  The Malthouse gameplan was too predictable (and therefore easy to counter), was poorly executed (creating scoring opportunities for the opposition) and resulted in low percentage scoring opportunities for us.  It also created a culture of helplessness among the playing group who must have felt that they were being asked to play with one hand tied behind their back.

I haven't seen the team play under Barker but it seems that one of the main differences is tackling with intent, a facet of the game that was sadly lacking under Malthouse.

I suspect that Barker, now that he has freed the shackles, will tailor the gameplan to counter and exploit opposition strengths and weaknesses.  It will be interesting and informative to see how we go about it today.
“Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don’t you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?”  Oddball

Re: Why So Different??

Reply #107 –
Under Ratten we had the reputation of being "down hill skiers". I would have got Roos, but he was not interested or available so I think Malthouse was brought in to provide a more defensive mindset. Clearly this didn't work. I think the club misunderstood the problem which is and was that the playing group believed they could pick and choose when they would try and when they would go thru the motions. This was Malthouse's failure just as it was Ratten's, Pagen's and Brittain's failure. The tackling pressure is an indication the players are choosing to have a go at the moment. The real challenge for the next coach is to make this a part of the culture of the team and the club.

Re: Why So Different??

Reply #108 –
Clearly every style of play will have its downside.

Going around the boundary would also involve less manic running than the "take the game on" style of play. It is difficult, as we have seen, for any club to continue with that style of play, week after week, season after season.  OTOH, going around the boundary also slows down the play, making it easier for the opposition to structure their defence, flood etc.

If you have the right personnel, the around the boundary plan is a very reasonable option. If we had one forward, a ruck man, a defender, and possibly a wingman with elite contested marking like Levi, we'd be unbeatable. Clearly, this is the stuff of fantasy, but the logic behind it is sound.

Now, we don't have such a team, so we need to try something different. And fair enough too.

Re: Why So Different??

Reply #109 –
Probably belongs in the 'What Does Johnny Have To Do' thread but I thought to myself just a little while ago that if nothing else we need to thank JB for giving us back our football club. Yes, long way to go and much to do, but it sure does seem that the club is once again owned by the players, supporters and all those behind the scenes.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: Why So Different??

Reply #110 –
Quote from: DJC on
No, it is not simplistic thinking.

In 2010 Malthouse had a team that had been built around his gameplan and could execute it to perfection.  Even so, opposition coaches had developed tactics to counter the Collingwood style.

Five years later and the game has changed dramatically and Malthouse is trying to mould a team to a gameplan that has been left behind.

Broadly speaking, there are three factors that will determine the effectiveness of a gameplan; predictability, execution and probability of scoring.  The Malthouse gameplan was too predictable (and therefore easy to counter), was poorly executed (creating scoring opportunities for the opposition) and resulted in low percentage scoring opportunities for us.  It also created a culture of helplessness among the playing group who must have felt that they were being asked to play with one hand tied behind their back.

I haven't seen the team play under Barker but it seems that one of the main differences is tackling with intent, a facet of the game that was sadly lacking under Malthouse.

I suspect that Barker, now that he has freed the shackles, will tailor the gameplan to counter and exploit opposition strengths and weaknesses.  It will be interesting and informative to see how we go about it today.

Was lacking under Ratten too.

This hard hitting business is new as far as I am concerned

Re: Why So Different??

Reply #111 –
Maintain the Rage  ;D

Good month ahead for us as we'll suffer losses and probably get beat up a bit. If the players continue playing hard footy during and beyond that, it will make a strong case for Barks.

Such a shame we don't have Judd attacking those stoppages as well...

Re: Why So Different??

Reply #112 –
I'm pretty sure that between now and the end of the year we'll get beat up once or twice, possibly in a bad way.

The main thing is that we learn a little from these results and they serve as a bit of a reality check to not get too far ahead of ourselves....and importantly we bounce back from them.
That's when you know you're on the right track.

Much like Barker says.... he doesn't mind mistakes as long as the second and third efforts are there.