The 'John Barker Can Coach (Somewhere Else Now)' Thread

dannyboy · **Posted:** Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:20 pm

forget the 'as yets'...it's what could have happened that matters!

Actually that's wrong...it's what could have happened to the best advantage to them that matters!

Truth bah I spit in your face truth...Give me headspace any day of the week.

Braithy · **Joined:** Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:42 pm **Posts:** 7164

Barker was on a hiding to nothing on saturday night.

having to play the blaines, whiley, tutt and holman who can maybe be covered individually, but collectively in the same team are calamitous

... also missing rowe who would have eaten up that redpath gumby, and to think we only lost due to inaccurate kicking and armfield, wood and casboult messing up certain goals due to excessive incompetence.

Adam Chatfield · **Posted:** Mon Jul 06, 2015 12:58 pm

I do think the effort was there on Sat night, nothing wrong with the coaching, would of been super impressive to pull it off with the amount of guys we had in the team who either aren't up to it yet or will never be up to it (Blaines, Whiley, Tutt and Holman).

jimmae · **Posted:** Mon Jul 06, 2015 3:17 pm

moshe25 wrote:

And yet..... we lost by only 2 goals.

I suppose you're looking for me to blame Armfield or someone else for a missed chance?

When individuals make mistakes, that's just the run of luck sometimes. When you leave the gate open, that's poor selection and use of players on game day. We had the to cattle to counter their structure better, we just didn't bother to and it gave them enough opportunities to win the game.

Have any of you been paying attention to the tackle count in each team's 50? I don't think we've hit double digits for a while, and towards the end of the game I think it was 20-8 in the favour of the Dogs.

cecil89 · **Joined:** Fri Dec 29, 2006 2:54 pm **Posts:** 2521

Henderson had a game high number of marks inside 50. In a low scoring game I like to have that kind of weaponry up forward.
If they are trying to stretch us with Redpath and Grant up forward I also like to see us stretch them defensively, especially considering how inexperienced their key defenders are, with Henderson, Casboult and Kreuzer. I have no problem with the decision to play Henderson forward.

club29 · **Posted:** Mon Jul 06, 2015 4:17 pm

cimm1979 wrote:

jimmae wrote:

cimm1979 wrote:

jimmae wrote:

What don't you understand about 3 critical defensive mismatches?

I
Not sure I do.

Just find it a giggle that you reject what actually happened for a result that you made up in your head.

...

We lost those matchups comprehensively.

Backlines work as a team.

Keeping the opposition to 64 points means, no matter the "match-ups", the backline was sufficiently well organised. Considering it was perfect conditions and we gave the ball back a hell of a lot, it was a good result.

Don't see ANYTHING comprehensive about your argument.

Defensively I thought we were good. Only until the young blokes got out of shape in the third did we look like we didn't know what we were doing. Putting it down to one on one match ups is a bit old school. Also part of team defence is the way we attack. Need targets. Need to hold onto the ball and control the tempo and angles at which we move the ball. Scoreboard pressure.

To me Barker looked like he summed it up pretty well and did a great job balancing it all to put us in a situation where with better skills could have won the game. All with a far inferior line up.

Blue Vain · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am **Posts:** 17998

jimmae wrote:

cecil89 wrote:

jimmae wrote:

We were always going to get stretched by their forward/midfield structure with just one genuine tall defender, so why didn't we drop Henderson back until late in the third quarter?.

We held them to 64 points, I'm not sure they had us that stretched defensively.

On an average day in front of goal, and all else being equal, that scoreline is 13.6.84 - 11.7.73, but I suspect they would have torched us in the third quarter if they'd kicked straight.

We were never competitive against the height of Grant (remember him) and Bontempelli as well as the trickery of Stringer. Even Redpath was looking imposing just for being tall. With Rowe out, we didn't respond to this at all.

I'm not following.
Are you suggesting the Stringer match up in defence was a "critical defensive mismatch"?

Blueboy74 · **Posted:** Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:08 am

Grant was good early, Bont didn't appear until junk time, and Stringer was destroyed by Tuohy.

Stringer kicked a couple but from just 6 kicks and 2 marks. Zac had 25 touches, 14 marks, and 9 of the 10 coaches votes.

Even taking into account whatever other stats jimmaes pulling out I'm not sure how you could say we lost that one comprehensively....

cimm1979 · **Posted:** Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:44 am

Beveridge reads more gooder

emtwenty · **Joined:** Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:29 pm **Posts:** 7074

Tuohy destroyed.......yet got 9 coaches votes. Go figure.

dane · **Joined:** Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:14 am **Posts:** 22357

Charity votes.

Blues Clues · **Joined:** Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:01 pm **Posts:** 2099

Blueboy74 wrote:

Grant was good early, Bont didn't appear until junk time, and Stringer was destroyed by Tuohy.

Stringer kicked a couple but from just 6 kicks and 2 marks. Zac had 25 touches, 14 marks, and 9 of the 10 coaches votes.

Even taking into account whatever other stats jimmaes pulling out I'm not sure how you could say we lost that one comprehensively....

Zach was great, but the so called "package" still kicked 3 of their 9 goals - in a low scoring game that was pretty much the difference. Though, maybe White stood him for at least one of those goals?

Stringer is very dangerous, especially with his ability to boot them off one step outside 50!

moshe25 · **Joined:** Wed May 11, 2005 1:23 am **Posts:** 11671

Blues Clues wrote:

Blueboy74 wrote:

Grant was good early, Bont didn't appear until junk time, and Stringer was destroyed by Tuohy.

Stringer kicked a couple but from just 6 kicks and 2 marks. Zac had 25 touches, 14 marks, and 9 of the 10 coaches votes.

Even taking into account whatever other stats jimmaes pulling out I'm not sure how you could say we lost that one comprehensively....

Zach was great, but the so called "package" still kicked 3 of their 9 goals - in a low scoring game that was pretty much the difference. Though, maybe White stood him for at least one of those goals?

Stringer is very dangerous, especially with his ability to boot them off one step outside 50!

So, what you're saying then is that the Package can go the journey, from the paint, off a step? Wowee!!

club29 · **Posted:** Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:59 pm

moshe25 wrote:

Blues Clues wrote:

Blueboy74 wrote:

Grant was good early, Bont didn't appear until junk time, and Stringer was destroyed by Tuohy.

Stringer kicked a couple but from just 6 kicks and 2 marks. Zac had 25 touches, 14 marks, and 9 of the 10 coaches votes.

Even taking into account whatever other stats jimmaes pulling out I'm not sure how you could say we lost that one comprehensively....

Zach was great, but the so called "package" still kicked 3 of their 9 goals - in a low scoring game that was pretty much the difference. Though, maybe White stood him for at least one of those goals?

Stringer is very dangerous, especially with his ability to boot them off one step outside 50!

So, what you're saying then is that the Package can go the journey, from the paint, off a step? Wowee!!

That post is as good as it gets.

jimmae · **Posted:** Tue Jul 07, 2015 3:11 pm

Blue Vain wrote:

jimmae wrote:

cecil89 wrote:

jimmae wrote:

We were always going to get stretched by their forward/midfield structure with just one genuine tall defender, so why didn't we drop Henderson back until late in the third quarter?.

We held them to 64 points, I'm not sure they had us that stretched defensively.

On an average day in front of goal, and all else being equal, that scoreline is 13.6.84 - 11.7.73, but I suspect they would have torched us in the third quarter if they'd kicked straight.

We were never competitive against the height of Grant (remember him) and Bontempelli as well as the trickery of Stringer. Even Redpath was looking imposing just for being tall. With Rowe out, we didn't respond to this at all.

I'm not following.
Are you suggesting the Stringer match up in defence was a "critical defensive mismatch"?

Heading into the game I would have liked:

Rowe/Henderson on Redpath, working off him to assist elsewhere
Jamison on Stringer
White on whichever of Grant and Bontempelli had pushed forward.

Stringer didn't seem to have anyone in the immediate vicinity to tackle when he received outside 50 in the counter attack movement that created his first shot and goal (Tuohy was on Wallis at FF), was 20 metres on his own for goal #2 (albeit after a turnover), and easily lost White at a stoppage for his third.

cecil89 wrote:

Henderson had a game high number of marks inside 50. In a low scoring game I like to have that kind of weaponry up forward.
If they are trying to stretch us with Redpath and Grant up forward I also like to see us stretch them defensively, especially considering how inexperienced their key defenders are, with Henderson, Casboult and Kreuzer. I have no problem with the decision to play Henderson forward.

Equal game high of 2, with 3 other players on the field. I thought I was the propaganda machine?

Blueboy74 · **Posted:** Tue Jul 07, 2015 3:18 pm

club29 wrote:

moshe25 wrote:

Blues Clues wrote:

Blueboy74 wrote:

Grant was good early, Bont didn't appear until junk time, and Stringer was destroyed by Tuohy.

Stringer kicked a couple but from just 6 kicks and 2 marks. Zac had 25 touches, 14 marks, and 9 of the 10 coaches votes.

Even taking into account whatever other stats jimmaes pulling out I'm not sure how you could say we lost that one comprehensively....

Zach was great, but the so called "package" still kicked 3 of their 9 goals - in a low scoring game that was pretty much the difference. Though, maybe White stood him for at least one of those goals?

Stringer is very dangerous, especially with his ability to boot them off one step outside 50!

So, what you're saying then is that the Package can go the journey, from the paint, off a step? Wowee!!

That post is as good as it gets.

Loving what Moshe brings to the table, and how he goes about it.....

cimm1979 · **Posted:** Tue Jul 07, 2015 3:20 pm

.....crazy good............ :mad:

camel · **Posted:** Tue Jul 07, 2015 3:23 pm

BIG TIME!

The Normal One · **Joined:** Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:35 pm **Posts:** 20076

Did Grant play?

Michael Jezz · **Joined:** Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:52 pm **Posts:** 2044

Blues Clues wrote:

Blueboy74 wrote:

Grant was good early, Bont didn't appear until junk time, and Stringer was destroyed by Tuohy.

Stringer kicked a couple but from just 6 kicks and 2 marks. Zac had 25 touches, 14 marks, and 9 of the 10 coaches votes.

Even taking into account whatever other stats jimmaes pulling out I'm not sure how you could say we lost that one comprehensively....

Zach was great, but the so called "package" still kicked 3 of their 9 goals - in a low scoring game that was pretty much the difference. Though, maybe White stood him for at least one of those goals?

Stringer is very dangerous, especially with his ability to boot them off one step outside 50!

One goal on Thouy in the first half and 2 goals on someonelse in the second half

The 'John Barker Can Coach (Somewhere Else Now)' Thread

Who is online