I agree that our boys melt whenever challenged. That was evident under Ratten and still continues to this day under Malthouse. However I see the workrate thing as a separate issue. And both I think are related more to on-field leadership than off.
Really, we melted under Ratten, are you sure?
As I recall we made the 2011 SF only to lose by 3 points in a Perth SF against West Coast. No doubt we were inconsistent, but melting, hardly!
Furthermore, we had the odds against us in that game with some heavily "influenced" umpiring going down! The ideal circumstances for a meltdown team to meltdown, but we came back!
It appears back then we were a hell of a lot closer to success than we are now!
And all that with a list that was apparently NFG and perhaps even inexperienced at the time!
I think our problems remain because our club behavior isn't changing, we still appear too tricky for our own good.
I want less effort of subterfuge and more effort on results.
I don't think Murphy is a bad leader, he has done well in the past but I doubt he is fit and ready to play. Don't be surprised if we hear at the end of this season that he has been struggling with an injury all season.
Last year 1AW limped through a season, Armfield, Jammo and Hendo as well, we are our own worst enemies in this regard. We claim to be playing the long term game, but we make short term decisions. This affects on field results and has nothing to do with our captain, it's a symptom of a club that has a bunch of players in survival mode!
Clubs like the Dawks or Geelong would have wrapped the better players in cotton wool ready for the next year and played the season out with the juniors to give them some experience. Instead we delay, delay, delay!
When it comes to decision making, we have the putting yips!
Bulldogs players have come out and said the same thing this morning, they are enjoying football under the new coach and they win despite having 3 or 4 of their expected starting lineup on the sidelines.
OK, I think I have a good grasp on where we are going now, and I think the game plan is flawed.
I wondered why we are so focused on moving the ball around the boundary line, why stoppages are a key part of the game plan, and what benefit doing so can have?
I suspect the "sales pitch" for the game plan is that it is designed to get the team late into the season with the most amount of "run in their legs" left to compete in the finals. Almost like planning to run a marathon with a limited resource that you cannot waste too early, so you minimise the waste early by doing lots of stop / start ground work and preparation "around the boundaries."
But I think it is flawed, I think the problem with the plan is that it ignores fatigue caused by other aspects of play, mental fatigue, stress, collisions and frustration. Your legs might be fine but that doesn't mean you aren't physically and mentally shattered. It's not a natural way to play football, it is more like a rugby scrum, wrestle or tug-of-war!
The apparent game plan never gives players a break, they usually teeter between a couple of goals down and a couple of goals up. It's like getting to the lead in the race then deliberately slowing to keep your opponent at your shoulder. You just won't ever see that cruise mode that Adelaide or Hawthorn experience. In my opinion those cruise moments give players a mental break as much as a physical break. Our game plan appears to be relentless burden, a wrestling or boxing match without a bell, just a non-stop slog.
It must be so draining on the players, like flagellation, you bash yourself towards the finals and are relieved if you actually get there!
I think a further flaw in the plan is if you make every contest an arm wrestle, you basically leave your fate to the toss of a coin late in a game. You are hardly ever going to be comfortable because your game plan doesn't allow you to escape the opponent. The opponents are nearly always in the zone with a genuine shot at beating you.
I think our opponents know this, the MM plan is well understood, and all those close loses are an indicator that it is doomed to fail.
Port, Dawks, Adelaide, all appear to do the complete opposite. They do their very best to put the opponents down early, remove the opponents motivation and brace against a potential second wave. If they get that break on a club with a game plan like ours, we have no hope of closing the gap, our plan gains ground one step at a time while the others sprint ahead in leaps and bounds!
We are the Tortoise in "The Tortoise and the Hare", our wins rely on the Hare being a complete idiot!
Finally,the area we lack the most, the creative area of the game, the forward line. How does it flourish under this regime? It must surely wither, is that what we are seeing now?
You still need forwards to capitalise on the huge amount of work done up the ground. I wonder if stay at home types might have some value... Mark and kick isnt glamourous but it works.
Let blokes like Jamison and Watson unload longs kicks off the HBF / Wing to one out power forwards and it works.
But if you spend 5 minutes getting the ball from the back pocket around the boundary line to the wing first it doesn't!
There is a bloke called Patrick Dangerfield effectively on the market this year, no brainer for me throw everything at him, including Bryce and Kreuser at Adelaide......
If they have a big year he would be crazy to leave!
Buckley can't get a game, how is he going to be given the captaincy? Murphy is going to keep it until he's 30 or perhaps if we swap coaches.
At VFL games it's obvious who talks and who listens, Rowe got the captaincy earlier but I can tell you at VFL games he's a church mouse!
We have very few voices in the huddles, lots of listeners. Judd was a church mouse who turned into Hercules at the bounce, but few have that capability.
The blokes I listed above, they have the attitude to step forward, and doing so may actually help their game. Not unlike Richie Vandenberg!
How did the Hawks handle the Mitchell to Hodge transfer? That would seem to me a good case study. Mitchell is an excellent player but it was said at the time that Hodge was the spiritual leader of the team and seemed to get the captaincy via force of popular sentiment.
Subjectively I'd say Carrazzo is our spiritual leader, but he makes too many mistakes and like Simpson he is too old to get the job now!
Next in line if they can make him accountable, Buckley maybe or perhaps even Yarran!
If he could get a regular game Armfield would be right at the top of the list, he reminds me of Scotland in the 1/4 time huddles.
Down the track, Cripps looks another likely type.
I think it is a bonus if you can have a Captain who is also a General, but it is not a requirement that the Captain is both!
The club awarded him the captaincy after Judd as he was the next in line as vice-captain. Many would argue that there wasn't a long list of captaincy options and it would of been a tough gig to take especially when you had to play in the team with Judd still there.
I think the club wanted to find a new captain so that Judd could / would extend his career, Malthouse said as much even before his first day on the job!
I think one of the better things our club could do is get a spread of players through the captains / leadership roles.
What other clubs have changed captain in recent years while the old captain plays on, Hawthorn, Swans, Brisbane anybody else?
