| TalkingCarlton http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/ |
|
| 33% Chance - why do we like these odds? http://talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9609 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Lanky Larry [ Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 33% Chance - why do we like these odds? |
I have a problem with two fundamental parts of our game plan... The first is the fact that we are so slow at moving the ball or choose to move the ball backwards instead of forwards. I assume this is a lack of confidence and prowess in our players or simply poor coaching. We have to hurry the ball out of kickouts, free kicks, and defensive marks. We slow the play down and allow the opposition to man up. It's so frustrating - the opposition always kick to free players and we kick to contests! Secondly (and relating to the subject), why do we always CHOOSE to kick to contests where we are outnumbered 1 on 2. I don't understand it. I'm no genius, nor do I possess half a football brain, but a 5yr old's common sense would work out that its best not to kick to a contest where your man is outnumbered. We constantly do it! I'll praise Denis when things go well, but at the moment we lack structure, we have poor decision making, our players lack confidence with the ball, and our players are obviously given poor instructions. "My diagnosis...bad babysitting!" (or coaching in this case!) I don't think the players are to blame. They're out on the field because they've been drafted and selected that week by the football management. That management must take full responsibility for those players performance, and at the moment, I don't see why there shouldn't be pressure on those jobs. |
|
| Author: | dannyboy [ Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
we lack structure - well try FF and CHF both out! gee there's a bit of structure hey. |
|
| Author: | TheGame [ Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
dannyboy wrote: we lack structure - well try FF and CHF both out! gee there's a bit of structure hey.
Spot on Danny I'm no Pagan hugger but the importance of those two to our attacking structure cannot be denied. |
|
| Author: | Barnesy [ Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
dannyboy wrote: we lack structure - well try FF and CHF both out! gee there's a bit of structure hey.
So why not start Lance at CHF then. We needed too kick a decent score too win. I mean Fisher doesn't just play forward, he ends up often at the other end of the ground, and Sentanta wasn't necessarily going too be the one off answer. 
|
|
| Author: | azzablue [ Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Barnesy wrote: dannyboy wrote: we lack structure - well try FF and CHF both out! gee there's a bit of structure hey. So why not start Lance at CHF then. We needed too kick a decent score too win. I mean Fisher doesn't just play forward, he ends up often at the other end of the ground, and Sentanta wasn't necessarily going too be the one off answer. Yeah that would be the obvious move...but clearly people who get paid extemely well too coach who have more experience than you and I put together and he also has 2 premierships to boot...clearly doesnt agree with you....ummmm i guess he knows best 
|
|
| Author: | dannyboy [ Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
why? Why not try Santy, see if it worked, how good would that be? |
|
| Author: | Barnesy [ Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
dannyboy wrote: why?
Why not try Santy, see if it worked, how good would that be? Look, I haven't watched Sentanta play, but listening too reports over recent weeks I personally( now only my opinion) thought that we were putting him too the wolves without Lance around. Sure, would have loved for him too kink 3 goals. Lance not only brings a certain skill set, but we recognise his leadership. Who was our leader forward ?? We needed that balance, and with Santy being directed by a more experienced head we may have developed him for the better tonight. For those that went, I wonder what was his body language like etc at times, because I think he would have been hard for the bloke given the game flow, and the result in the end. 
|
|
| Author: | azzablue [ Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Barnesy wrote: dannyboy wrote: why? Why not try Santy, see if it worked, how good would that be? Look, I haven't watched Sentanta play, but listening too reports over recent weeks I personally( now only my opinion) thought that we were putting him too the wolves without Lance around. Sure, would have loved for him too kink 3 goals. Lance not only brings a certain skill set, but we recognise his leadership. Who was our leader forward ?? We needed that balance, and with Santy being directed by a more experienced head we may have developed him for the better tonight. For those that went, I wonder what was his body language like etc at times, because I think he would have been hard for the bloke given the game flow, and the result in the end. Couldnt agree more about lance being down there in 1st qtr near sentanta...ease he presure off him...just look at the nab game aginst geelong what sentanta was like when fevola was next to him ....he was everywhere...but the irishaman cofidence was shot by half time today!! |
|
| Author: | Ponkstar [ Sat Apr 22, 2006 1:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think part of the problem is that our less confident players have a "when in doubt kick it to..." mentality. Kouta's not going to take too many of those 1 on 3 grabs any more - so let's just wait for another option! I agree - why not look for O'hAilpin or Murphy or McLaren or Carrazzo - you never know unless you kick it to them. The other way is a 99% chance of turnover - the other way may be only 50-50. I see Simmo regularly pull down strong contested marks these days. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC + 10 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|