Was reflecting on this game and found that it was probabably the best indicator to analyse the coaching / List / ability of how we could play against what i consider to be a very balanced side in the crows and one of the benchmarks of the competition.

This game gave an insight on how we performed when we flooded back with a 1-2 player forward line against how we performed when we had a 4-5 player forward line. And the results showed we had targets to kick to there where options forward of the ball carrier and in that period we managed to kick 5 quick goals and should have kicked another and the crows one less due to lazy attempt by Fev late in the 2nd.
The skills werent an issue in that 10-15 minute period and all we did was put the pressure on the Crows coaching to counter us. After Half time we reverted back to the defensive mindset and went back to our 1-2 player forward line which of course played back into the crows hands ... allowed them to rebound easily forced us to go more defensive ... turn overs happened and the result is history.

What i did see is the players tried ... even players i had written off played well >> Magrath / Prender / Wiggins all player okay got the ball and contested. Kids like Murphy / Bentick / Simmo all got the ball and in tackles we where equal in clearance we had more ... Stats similar but prob crows dominated last quarter when we had given up effectively.

We analyse the Strength of the Blues has been what we can put in the forward line ... we have lost Fisher and Waite... but still can put a strong forward option in especially when DP put Prender in the side to play CHB freed up Whitnell and for 10-15 minutes it proved a great move so why for the other 105 - 110 Minutes didnt we use this Structure @#$%&! is it that hard to see.

The key issue and am sure in most games this year we allow the other coach / Team to dictate the terms has happened in other games but this match was one that showed it so clearly. For us to comment on the players properly we have to give them a chance to show what they can do.. I was very critical of our skills but after yesterdays game i believe it wasnt so much skills but lack of any targets forward of the ball. if you rebound out of defence and see 8 crows and 3 Blues players you are going to turn over the ball 8 out of 11 times as an example. If we have 5-6 forward players to target and the crows have 6-7 players back the odds will be more 50/50 which i can accept also means that having more players forward we have more chance of retaining the ball in the forward line.. Maybe there will be times when for 5 mins we have to hold up play and slow the game down but that should be for limited times and not for 90% of the game.

I have belief that with the right mix of mid fielders - bentick / Simmo / Murphy / Stevo / Houla and others they can get the ball but they have to know that up the ground there is going to be better than 50/50 contest not fev vs 3 and an occasional showing from Kenedy and wiggins with 3-4 other free crows.

PLay to our strength DP put Fev / Whitnell (as Waite and Fisher are out) Lappin / Kouta / Maybe be Betts and Kenedy and you will then have the oposition coach worrying about our forward line and not comfortable in knowing that only Fev will be there by himself and they can freely run the ball un opposed out of the Backline. Play with some structure with 5-6 forwards and we dictate play ... our midfielders will have targets up the ground .. ultimately the backline will hopefully be under less pressure also with options forward of the ball and with that we will get more confidence in the players on the field. Its not rocket science and i have come to conclusion we have nothing to loose. At the moment when we play the way we are we are the other coach has won half the battle knowing that if he has 6 defenders down back and we have 1-2 forwards the ball is going to rebound more often that not. Our biggest issue has been clangers / turnovers but after watching yesterdays game when we tried to go forward in most contests we where out numbered thats why we have big problems in clangers and turnovers.

So where to now .... i actually cant give proper opinions on a lot of players on our list because if they played attacking game play and had options up forward we would be seeing less errors and more scoring and hopefully less turnovers.

How does our list stack up, yep needs further influx of talent which i dont think we will have problems of getting as we will be bottom 4 again. I believe in some ways it better than Kangaroos ( they have big problems) Bombers ... port and more even with hawks and tigers.

Anyway everyone should look at that match as it showed and enabled us to clearly see how we can play postively and how we can play negatively and if we could play the positive style for more than 60 - 90 minutes we may actually win games ... that unless we ar playing to win less than 4 games thats the only reason we play the way we are

_________________
CFC TAC Squad everyone over 25 must be traded sounds like Loguns Run

the adelaide game helped me realise the dud kids i nominated back in 2002 are now legitimate middle-aged (in football terms) duds.
the underlying point. they're still duds.

Great post and one of the most constructive put forward for a long time - thankyou. Sadly I'm not sure that this will be heeded by those in the coaching box! We are going to take time but we will get there and sadly there is more pain to come.

Have you heard our new club theme song?

It goes:

"...Dud, d'Dud, d'Dud...Dud, d'Dud, d'Dud...We Are The Navy Blues...!!"

_________________
"...that's the thing about opinion - you don't have to know anything to have one..." Andre Agassi commenting on Pat Cash 2004
"...the less you know - the more you believe..." - Bono 2006

I agree i still have reservations on players wich i belive have been highlighted enough on many different topics. But i also believe that with a lot of the turnovers and clangers come from how we play the game if Adelaide or Westcoast played the style we played and tried to kick the ball forward to a 3 on 1 contest they would turn over the ball to, but of course they dont and perhaps if we had more players even the normal 5 or 6 in the forward half of the ground i am sure we would turn over the ball less.

_________________
CFC TAC Squad everyone over 25 must be traded sounds like Loguns Run

All i want to see is that what ever players we put on the park are given every chance to play a game with targets in front of them. There will be times that the other team gets a run and yes maybe for a 5-10 minute period we have to play a holding / slowing game so that we stop the opposition run but untimately i want to see 5-6 players in the forward 50 and i want our running backline players to see options forward to pass to and in turn the midfielders to be able to target multiple options in the forward 50... no more Fev vs 3-4 Defenders. just usesless

THe Adelaide game showed our midfiled got the ball and even won the clearances all useless if there isnt anybody to clear the ball to up the ground.

_________________
CFC TAC Squad everyone over 25 must be traded sounds like Loguns Run

As I was not able to watch any of the game - what was it about that 10 minute 5 goal period that made it so different to the rest of the game? I do know we look much more threatening when we have Lance up forward!

In that 10 - 15 minute period we had a forward group of players including Fev / Whits / Lappin / Kouta and i think one other. In that period crows where under pressure as when we went forward we where able to get marks put pressure on keeping the ball in the forward line and most importantly limit the quick backline run that Adelaide did for 80% of the day. basically for 10 - 15 minutes we semi dictated play and forced the crows to counter us. Alas that all lasted until half time and then after half time we reverted back to a defensive game with only 2 key players in the forward line even at some stages only one (fev) Whits went to the back line and Kouta back in the middle. Fev went back to contesting 3-4 players ... Game over

_________________
CFC TAC Squad everyone over 25 must be traded sounds like Loguns Run

I know that this has been said before but.. why does Pagan continue to do that? Does he want to lose? I get the feeling this might be about preserving a coaching reputation (i.e no blow outs) but that reputation is rapidly descending into mediocrity. WTF to we do now? Who asks Pagan the big questions? Sticks? Or is he also part of the problem?

i am sure we have been playing this style most of season maybe with exception of Melbourne as that was the first round and against the Bombers which we felt we had a good chance of winning but in most of the games we have played with this negative defensive structure and no forward targets and also and few option forward of the centre line. cant blame players everytime for trying to kick forward and finding no one home or our player outnumbered 3-1

As i said i am sure this has happened in many of our games this year just the Adelaide game exposed this so much so and was also good to analyse considering the crows are a even balanced and well drilled team.
I cant analyse as much against the tigers or hawks as they play the same game we do and seem to show the same skill level but i am guessing again they suffer from not have targets forward of centre to pass to. I dont give a stuff how they play but all i can say is if we play positive attacking football have 5-6 forward targets we will win more games than we are at present

_________________
CFC TAC Squad everyone over 25 must be traded sounds like Loguns Run

I think in that 10-15 minute period we actually stopped rushing our kicks and used the ball properly. For more than half the game our midfielders and backmen rushed their kicks and handpasses and couldn't hit targets. The number of clangers was again very high and against a good side you just can't do that. The Crows kicked long and deep and put us under pressure and on the way out of the back half we turned the ball over.

IMO the Crows relaxed a bit or got too over confident in the second quarter and over used their handball. This gave us more chances to get possesion and with their players running ahead of the ball we were able to steady and use the ball better and have time to kick to position.

It may have also helped that during this time I think Andrew McLeod was kept out of the game (not sure if this was because he was being rested on the bench or up forward rather than on ball) because he seemed to be able to step around our tackles and players with ease during the rest of the game.

After half time and I would say a roast from their coach the Crows came out and won the ball out of the centre and kicked long into the forward line. We won the ball and started to bring it out of defence but then turned it over with poor kicking and decision making and paid the price on the rebound.

The Crows on the other hand seemed to win the ball across half back go back to a free defender closer to goal and then switch across ground then back to the corridor as they came through the centre and then kicked long down forward.

Sometimes I thought that rather than hold onto the ball or look for an option we seemed to panic and simply kicked long instead of using the players streaming through the midfield from defence.

All that hard work in defending and winning the ball was wasted with poor execution either in decision making or skills and it spread throughout the team. On the other hand the Crows had a lot more players that used the ball well and made the right decision under pressure tending to use either Goodwin or McLeod when in trouble.

Perhaps that is one of our weaknesses that we just don't have that extra one or two players who can win the ball sometimes against the odds and then deliver it cleanly to a team mate. By the way our clanger count for the match was 54 with most of our what you may say our better skilled players featuring - Fevola 7 Scotland Walker 5 Koutifides Simpson 4 Murphy Lappin Stevens Houlihan Wiggins Teague Whitnall 3

I think one of the most interesting stats I noticed from the Adelaide was that at the end of the first quarter when we were 40-odd points down we had had the same number of possessions as Adelaide (around 90).

At the end of the second quarter we kicked outscored Adelaide by 3-4 goals, we had 20 LESS possessions than Adelaide.

IMHO, the setup at the start of the 3rd quarter was the biggest indictment on the whole match committee. We actually had the Crows on the run and you could see they were getting worried yet we just surrendered - NOT from a commitment point of view - but we handed over any initiative we had by trying to protect the losing margin.

From this point on the game was lost as every foray forward ended with 1 or 2 forward struggling with 5 or 6 Crow defenders.

Many generals in many wars have proven that the best form of defence is to attack. Unfortunately our MC have not been particularly good students of history - even when that history is only 15 minutes old.

_________________
Carlton - Nothing's changed
I still love you, oh, I still love you
Only slightly, only slightly less
Than I used to, my love

Agreed unfortunately godisnavyblue the way we are being coached is putting up many question marks

Reading comments that players like lappin and Whitnell have said also questions that perhaps the players are getting pissed out this defensive play as we cant keep going into matches with only 1-2 forward players

Yep we get called for poor disposal for continual ball turnover but oly reason this happens is that players have no options to pass forward of the play. Either we adopt a play in the backline style kick to kick or we play players forward of the play back our midfield to win the ball back our half back to run out of the backline and see a even or more blue jumpers ahead of them ad maybe we will turn the ball over less and hit more targets.

I have no doubt that the players confidence goes up when they have presentable options up forward

Back the players make the other coach worry about how we set up and make them have to counter us... all we do these days is go into games and we have already shown our cards that we wont attack them ... means they win half the battle before the ball is bounced

_________________
CFC TAC Squad everyone over 25 must be traded sounds like Loguns Run

What i can gather from the weekend is last weeks coach/players meeting has me concerned.

Firstly, is it the players or coach who want to be more attacking? Based on Lappin and Whitnall comments recently then it's the players.

Secondly why would the players want Bentick and Houlihan two of our best ball winners starting on the bench?

Thirdly, if the players wanted the attacking game style, has Pagan totally ignored the second quarter results and implemented his own will upon the game plan after half time?

_________________
Mjonc signing off at 8888

Thats why the Adelaide Game was a great game to study the coaching tactics ...no where to hide in if you attacked and it worked it would show if you played defensively and allowed Adelaide to control the game is showed ...

Adelaide was the perfect team to highlight the way we played the game... We played a good team ..p layed a team that is balanced across the team and of course had superior skills and where far more drilled and disciplined so could highlight how we performed

Well the Blues put in and tried ... some of the goals we scored where from the guys working hard.. they did try. They won the clearances .. chased .. put in but if you are positioned like we where for most of the game to a plan of expect the ball in your backline and if you get the ball kick forward even if your option is outnumbered 3 or 4 to one several times there was a crows player chasing down a blues player and all he had in front was open space and no one to kick it to

This game was able to show up how poorly our game plan was... except for 15 minutes when we attacked we had players forward of the ball and our players could see targets and option forward of the play... and even more so go in the forward line 3-4 forward options.

i have no issue with the players yesterday and even Fev when he made some mistakes because got to be hard when you eing triple teamed so often in a game.

As i have said i am sure we adopt similar tactics and game plans in previous games it was just the Adelaide game really highlighted and was so obvious in how poor our game plan is.

_________________
CFC TAC Squad everyone over 25 must be traded sounds like Loguns Run