Ratten wanted to be friends with everyone and couldn't make the tough calls.*
Not sure Thornton, Russell and Bower are on his Christmas card list
History showed that none of them had any success at other clubs and that we basically held onto them for too long. If they cracked it with Ratts its because they overrated themselves and didn't like hearing the truth.
B Andrew Walker, Michael Jamison, Zach Tuohy HB Dale Thomas, Sam Rowe, Kade Simpson C Kane Lucas, Marc Murphy,Bryce Gibbs HF Heath Scotland, Lachie Henderson,Jeff Garlett F Chris Yarran, Jarrad Waite, Levi Casboult Fol Robert Warnock,Brock McLean,Mitch Robinson I/C Andrejs Everitt, David Ellard, Andrew Carrazzo, Simon White
A spinning ball, due to the gyroscopic effect, will be more stable in its trajectory and less liable to wobble or tumbling (end over end) leading to it going further, straighter and faster as you say. I think there is an optimum rate of spin in fact, faster is better is only true up to a point?
For optimal length the line of strike vector must be directed through the center of the ball, spin will be a result of torque that develops when the force is not directed through the ball mid point in conjunction with any asymmetry in the ball and the balls deformation.
For 1AW to have faster than normal spin he must be kicking close to the point and the force vector of his strike must be on a line significantly mis-aligned to the center of the ball.
The elliptical ball does not behave like a round ball, (soccer, golf, volleyball, etc., etc..) Round balls can develop lift as a result of spin. Footballs only develop lift when the angle of the torpedo punt is correct to allow the ball profile to act like a wing cross section. A drop punt spinning correctly develops no lift.
If you really wanted to you can use a free software package called Tracker Video Analysis to do a serious study. You would need some good quality video of a football, make a great high school project for kids.
I'm not sure i can agree with you on this point.
I'm willing to accept your point on NOT creating lift, but i believe there is a similar benefit which you may argue is called something else.
I believe the drop punt (if it does not CREATE lift) at least minimizes the effect of wind resistance on it (some may argue its the same thing) by comparison to any other random spinning it may encounter otherwise.
How do you explain a banana kick? Its the same principal, just sidewards instead of upwards. Clearly curves. How do you explain the tumble punt kick? Same again, except it turns down.
But... Do we want to molly coddle them like under Ratts and become an ok team without really taking it to the top 4 teams? or
Explain to me where this comes from, I haven't heard this one before?
Ratten wanted to be friends with everyone and couldn't make the tough calls.* We held onto average players too long, didn't drop players for discipline reasons and was generally very 'vanilla'. Why that is usually god for team harmony, it doesn't do much to increase drive and motivate to the next level.
*Fev was traded as a club decision headed by the board and Swann
Well I guess it depends on what your definition of over is.
It's alive in terms of getting games into kids but that's about it but hope springs eternal and if you're a "while it's mathematically possible" type guy then I don't see an issue but we won't get there without someone shooting themselves in the foot.
If we win 2 out of every 3 games from here, we make finals. I don't think that is completely out of the realm of possibility.
It actually concerns me a bit (a lot) if we didn't do anything radically different
It means that a lapse in concentration and intensity and we're back to the Melbourne and Essendon results.
Whilst it is worrying that we could slip back without keeping up the intensity, i think it is encouraging to know that a) The game plan works when the players follow it b) The focus is put squarely on the players and those who don't put in, will be exposed. Thus, it should discourage lazy efforts.
If we can continue with the effort, we can clearly see which areas we need to target come trade/draft time. With a bit of luck, we won't have to go through rebuild mode and start again.
It would appear then that this is a game plan that requires a physically and mentally demanding effort. Full effort..... it succeeds A less than full effort and..... it comes unstuck. No in-between. We'll certainly find out about the character of our list...those that are left standing.
That in itself presents a problem for the coaching group, and those concerned with list management, because maintaining that type of intensity will put stress on the dynamics of the team as players drop off the pace. There will be some that won't make it........ either through injury or mental fatigue. On the days when we don't come to play we will be punished. ....and it's perfectly valid reasoning to suggest that this is exactly what we need to know so that we can make decisions on players. Where it might become a problem is if some of our more skilful players don't handle that pressure, while some of our less skilful prove themselves the best at playing the 'hard' game.
I agree that it will stress the players and the team. We might lose some players because of it.
But... Do we want to molly coddle them like under Ratts and become an ok team without really taking it to the top 4 teams? or Do we want to create a group of battle hardened players that are capable of carrying out a game plan that is capable of winning you a flag?
Mick breeds a culture that performs in big games. Something that we have lacked in the last decade. Honourable losses can only take you so far. What we see from teams like the Cats and Hawks are players who put in each and every week...and they get results. The kids come into that culture and don't know any other way.
This game plan, despite supporter backlash, is capable of winning you a flag. We need to ensure we have the list (players with desire) to carry it out and get us that flag.
It actually concerns me a bit (a lot) if we didn't do anything radically different
It means that a lapse in concentration and intensity and we're back to the Melbourne and Essendon results.
Whilst it is worrying that we could slip back without keeping up the intensity, i think it is encouraging to know that a) The game plan works when the players follow it b) The focus is put squarely on the players and those who don't put in, will be exposed. Thus, it should discourage lazy efforts.
If we can continue with the effort, we can clearly see which areas we need to target come trade/draft time. With a bit of luck, we won't have to go through rebuild mode and start again.
@ Krudd RE Cause and Effect But Krudd don't you think some of that was also caused by our increased run and spread this week? I felt we definitely ran a lot harder this week and created our own opportunities.
Watching the first 4 weeks of football this year, one thing has stood out to me and it has driven me mad. Disposal. I have flashbacks from the first 4 weeks of us, usually Walker but sometimes Yarran, streaming through the middle of the ground (much like yesterday) and instead of hitting up a target, they kick directly to the opposition, who kick it back over our heads and usually goal from it.
Some of our kicks inboard to the centre in previous weeks have not hit their target, same result. Others have hit their target, but have made us stop and go back to get the kick, and thus lost our opportunity to continue with the thrust down the centre.
So to answer your question, i think we did run harder this week...i think we did everything harder this week. I think some of the players we had in the side allowed us to, veterans Carrazzo and Scotland didn't tire like kids such as Menzel and Buckley may have previously.
I also think, as mentioned above, that our kicking was much better this week. We kicked 7.16 last week. 23 scoring shots to get 7 goals. Yesterday it took us 10 scoring shots to kick 7 goals....we had 7.3 at 1/4 time.
I do think that we ran the bulldogs off their legs and they were unable to clog up the middle of the ground as much as they would've liked....and generally keep track of us. - How many times did Murphy simply run away from a stoppage with Wallis struggling behind him? - Why did the keep Wallis on him when he was obviously struggling to stay with him? - Why did wallis continue to stay boundary side of him and allow him to run through to the centre of the ground? - Why did they not clog up the centre corridor of the stoppages to help out Wallis and stop Murphy from running through there unopposed?
So...IMO the reasons we won this week as opposed to previously. 1. Overall, a fitter group of players out there. 2. Much better use of the ball all over the ground and in front of goal. 3. Dogs failing to stop us from using the corridor 4. An increased hunger across the players, a lift of 5% from each became infectious. So much so that it enabled us to withstand a last quarter without having much of a bench to play with.
During the post-match press conference, Malthouse was asked about the gameplan at 4:57 :
Reporter : "Did you tinker with the gameplan at all during the week or were you guys .... ? "
MM : "NO (talking over the reporter), not one inch".
Surely the players went into a different flight-plan for this match, it was way different to anything else we've seen this year ??
Cause and effect.
As i said before. Did we play differently because the game plan changed or did we play differently because the bulldogs forced us too.
A simplistic version of the game plan is as follows.... Unless there is someone clear by themselves in the centre of the ground, always go along the boundary to 50-50 contests.
Now up until now, the centre has been rarely free. So we follow the boundary line. Bulldogs may have over compensated and tried to cut us off along leaving the centre open which we took advantage of.
Just because we played a little different doesn't mean the gameplan actually changed.
Reckon we can bring Buckley back in, knowing he'll have the same determination of the 22 that ran out yesterday. Ditto Armfield, reckon we've missed him this year. Hopefully McLean has recaptured the form he had lost and comes back in to the engine room as well.
If Cripps needs a rest, swap him with Graham. If Docherty is ready, bring him in, i think another week might be in order though. Garlett should be dominating the VFL, but he is not. One more week.
Did we move through the middle more because we looked to go through the middle more?
OR
Did we move through the middle more because the dogs allowed us to go through the middle more? Perhaps they were so focussed on stopping us going down the line, that they forgot to plug up the middle of the ground?
