The Tyrant wrote:
The Duke wrote:
Any comparisons between us and Adelaide are crazy. Sure there are differences between the coaching staff and the way they go about it, but the biggest difference is in the playing list. Just to start, they comapare to us in the folowing way;
players that have played;
100+
AC - 12
CB - 8
200+
AC - 5
CB - 2
300+
AC - 1
CB - 0
Doesn't sound like much, but take a 10 game player off our team and replace him with a Roo or McLeod

? That's what I was thinking.
Add to that that these players have all grown up together at this team and know how eachother operates.
Let's not divert from the biggest issue here, which is our list. It was crap 3 years ago and still is. It can't be turned around quickly under this system.
It will slowly happen - it's inevitable, and when it does Pagan will be loved as the saviour rather than the villain.
No, the issue in this thread is the coaching staff and their practices. The topic, as AGRO pointed out, is now not that we are similarly placed lists, but that the method of Craig and his cohort is fresh and visionary, whereas ours are laboured and archaic..... No one has suggested that a Craig-like approach will automatically put us in the top 4.... but it will stiffen the launching pad from which to build the list.
The example of the crows is actually a very good one if the example is specific only to the activities of our respective coaching staff
....and I say you're barking up the wrong tree. You can talk all you like about whether Craigs methods are better than DPs, but ever since the game began there's been more than one way to skin a cat.
Just because Craig is having success with a certain game style, doesn't mean it will work for all creatures.
As you well know, our list is far inferior to the Crows, they could play ring-a-ring-a-rosie and still kick our arse - regardless of their new-age styles.
The Crows opportunity is very small - lots of their players are approaching their used-by date. If they haven't won a flag this year or next, they'll need to re-build to replace McLeod, Roo and so-on. They may do this successfully but it'll be a real tough task.
You talk as if the new style is the ONLY way to go and I say taht's yet to be proven.
Remember when the Blues loaded the coaches box with assistants in the mid to late 90s - everyone said that was the only way to go. Why? 'cause we were winning - fact was we would have won regardless of how many coaches we had (Sticks, SOS and Diesel might have had something to do with that). Now we see every team with 50 coaches in the box and yet we still have teams like ours who are shite

.