Thanks for the effort.

In a nutshell. Great analysis and comparison.
Yep you can make headlines with made up stats anyday of the week.

I've got my fingers crossed and hope yesterday was the wake up call.... and maybe we dont lose a game for the rest of the year....do a smell a flag? .....hush

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

if we win the next two games and then win the first final, the tone of this thread changes completely

for me, nothing will have changed

I'll reserve my judgement until MM's third year (unless we win a premiership in the next two years, which I doubt)

Essentially what I would like to see by his third year is consistency in good performance, balance and depth on our list, less reliance on key players and a game plan which will hold up in September. If we are at least heading in that direction and it takes us another 3-5 years to get there, then I will happily accept this

Rather than simply being middle tier without being a real contender (like we were under Ratten)

Nobody thinks MM will be sacked. This is just a place to rant. Shut it down and prevent people venting their opinions? Right. Where are we? North Korea?

Nice post BB74.
The most telling bit was the wait and see conclusion.
In a couple of years we will know.

I still reckon MMs game plan is outdated and that great win yesterday wasn't his game plan in action. On one occasion after a goal, the cross to MM showed he was unhappy with the lead up where there was a risky cross into the corridor. The bottle bashing on the table was because Simmo made a mistake IIR by kicking into the corridor. Simmo. Our spiritual leader.

All the really good teams run and carry and open their opponents up down the middle and MM still likes to play the wings and keep the footy on one side of the ground. Even if you run you're supposed to run down the same side. That's history. When we turn over the footy there are players loose in the middle because the zone doesn't spread wide enough. IIR three of Richmond's first quarter goals were from running the lines. During the game thread I was counting them and at one stage they had 3 from that style plus three missed shots. That's poor defence of the most important part of the ground, the direct route to goal. The Tigers stopped running when we came back and then we got on top. Then we started using the corridor more. They lost confidence and started to go longer to Reiwoldt and Vickery. Reiwoldt was held so we won.

Here's a stat for those that like them. I read somewhere that we went from 17th last year to 2nd this year in long kicks. Kick it long to a contest on the boundary. MM's mantra. It's passe. Sydney like stoppage-based games and we are playing into their hands.

MM is a defensive coach? Our average points against have got worse even though he said it was his priority. Sort out the defence and then look after the rest, he said. Well, he hasn't sorted out his top priority in the first season. It's bullshit. If defence were his first priority, he'd have left Hendo down back. Or put Waite there. He did put Walker there, that's true but Walker played his best ever football as a third forward and even though he has had a good season, he hasn't improved the defence. So we robbed Peter but weren't able to pay Paul. I won't talk about Laidler because I don't know why he isn't playing. I'm sure there is a good reason.

This thread isn't about emotion or Ratts. It's about opinions. Some of us don't think MM has done what he might have done with the same list we had two years ago that achieved more. This list was stacked with quicks to play a hard running, open game. OK, it's light on for hard nuts but that can be rectified if we are going to play hard running open footy like the best teams. Sydney is an exception, in part because they have a small ground and they have a style that reflects the lack of space at their home ground and they can crowd the footy. It works for them and they are well drilled at it, enough so that they can take it elsewhere. We play better at the MCG where it is harder to crowd the footy. We play well against Sydney and have beaten them in recent times but we have never played them at the MCG. I'd like to see how they stack up there against a team that likes to use the space and outside runners. We'll see Hawthorn shred them this year if they both make the GF. And I reckon we could beat them there.

What worries me and some others, is that MM will turn over the list as is his right at the end of the year, selecting players to reflect his desire for strict adherence to his old game plan. If it works, none of the people who are unhappy with him will complain. After all, our opinions don't count for much. But if it doesn't work, we will be consigned to the also-rans for years until someone else can turn the list over again to reflect a new style of footy. I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned about that. Or to have an opinion on it.

But if you disgree, just stifle opinion by stopping people from having one. Shut the thread. Stop those fuquits disagreeing with you. That's going to make TC a better place. A place where Synbad can rant for years about sacking everyone from the president down but nobody else is allowed to have a counter opinion to the majority.

Synbad goes on about players who can play finals footy and he's right but let's not forget that the GF is played on the MCG and trying to play an outdated game plan that worked and then was worked out, isn't going to be the way to do it.

Adapt or die. MM is saying that to the list. Fair enough, he's the coach and it's his call but I might well say it to him. He and the other coaches have to adapt to and counter the Hawthorn game plan or die. They mostly run the ball from half back through the corridor and then kick it long to a three tall forward setup. If teams don't defend the corridor (us) and counter the three talls, we can just watch them win multiple flags. I hate Clarkson but he was the one who created the rolling zone and then when it started to fail, he went and did something else to combat the other teams who copied it or countered it (MM). Time for someone to invent a game plan to counter a team that runs hard through the middle and kicks it long to Buddy/Roughy/Hale/Gunston. Or die.

_________________
Let slip the Blues of war (with apologies to William Shakespeare) (and Sir Francis Bacon, just in case)

Explain his game plan then BS? I'm interested.

If your talking about playing the boundaries, that is a rule but it is not his game plan.

Even the players have admitted he has changed it since the start of the season.

Some of you critics may be surprised at what his "game plan" entails.

_________________
#NewBlues beginning 25th August 2015

Why would they be surprised, they know our game plan better than mm does apparently.

MM says regularly that most opposition goal scoring opportunities come from turnovers and if you are going to turn the footy over, the best place to do it is where it won't hurt you as much. In other words, don't turn it over inside 50 or in the corridor. There are 4 ways to turn the ball over. Poor kicking/skills, poor decision making, poor positioning and opposition pressure (my paraphrasing).

Tag multiple players. (This is different. At Collingwood he didn't tag as much)
Zone defence drifting to the side most likely to be used. Allow the ball to be passed to outriders from the kickout and defend the second kick.
Push to the defensive flanks and wings. Once the footy has passed a certain point, the key fporwards get defended one on one. No sweeper.
Transfer to a player free in space down the line. If there isn't one, kick long to a contest down the line and have players at the fall of the footy to kill the probability of a turnover.
If tackled, take the tackle and have a third man in to kill the contest. Win the contested stuff and don't allow the opposition to pay uncontested footy. pressure a the ball carrier.
Play one side of the ground.
Don't kick into the corridor or across the ground unless we go backwards because turnovers there hurt the most.
Cross to the centre once the footy is close to the F50.
Kick long into the F50 to a contest close to goal if possible. Have players at the fall of the footy to crumb or lock the footy inside the F50 until a turnover can be achieved through pressure or a free.
At centre bounces, set up on the defensive side of your opponent. Have the ruck drop the ball at his feet and try for a quick handball or multiple handballs out to a runner. Kick long to a contest or a player leading to the pockets in case of a turnover at half back.
Don't run and carry the footy through the middle of the ground because the players downfield have to keep readjusting their positions waiting for the delivery and the defence has longer to set up. (unless you are Zac or someone else who can kick them from 50, in which case the forwards become redundant). PLUS if you cock it up by a poor handball or getting tackled from behind, the ball will be turned over in the corridor and be returned to an open forward line for a probable opposition goal.


The changes since he's been at Carlton?

More tagging.
Concessions to the fact we have three small forwards and a few times he has allowed the torp to carry the zone and the footrace in our half.
Likewise the kick to space in the F50 when we go coast to coast to create the footrace.
Realizing we don't have Cloke down forward and tightening up the contest at the fall of the ball.
Not as much running the ball from HB (Shaw/O'Brien)
Fewer backwards kicks.
Hendo change of role and change in the delivery to reflect the fact he leads more to the ball carrier as distinct from Waite, who leads to the point post.
The apparent realization that he has to loosen up a bit so the group can play to its strengths a bit more, i.e. play more open footy, although his outbursts in the box belie that.

That's my take on it.

_________________
Let slip the Blues of war (with apologies to William Shakespeare) (and Sir Francis Bacon, just in case)

OK, You explain it.

_________________
Let slip the Blues of war (with apologies to William Shakespeare) (and Sir Francis Bacon, just in case)

By winning yesterday most are celebrating Micky’s success.
Do you realize that it was the same list as the last 20weeks?

I hate to rain on your parade but let’s try and realize why we won?

Less tagging meaning we could attack the ball and run and spread (were our strength lays). Less chip and stop start.
More attack through the corridor
Better balanced forward line and an attacking midfield including Gibbs
Henderson as a lead up CHF and Casboult FF meaning we didn’t break down at hf and we went deeper. This was a pivotal selection with both in their right position, for now.
Better balanced MC selections for the game.
Richmond playing slow and a lethargic style game (but their defence was forced on by our pressure) after quarter time.
Mick did to his credit moved Jamison and Waite on their KF, but then again I thought that was a given.

Now is that Mick’s good coaching or his disastrous coaching we haven’t played to this standard for the previous 20 weeks?

Mick has put himself ahead of our ability and restricted our chances to reach the lists potential this year but in some sort of fraudulent way we may just fall into the finals.

I love these arguments (apart from a small few who actually try and discuss the pros and cons and thus spoil everything )

they go like this

everything that went right is his/not his work

everything that goes wrong is/is not his work

just add fifty pages of this shit and you're about done and dusted.

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

Don't know if there was less tagging;

Gibbs - Deledio
Curnow - Cotchin
Touhy - Martin
Armfield - Ellis

That's about the same as every other game, sometimes I wonder if people actually watch the game.

Gibbs played mid/forward and exposed Deledio’s lack of accountability
Touhy ran with Martin and also exposed his lack of defence as his is also an offensive player but they tried to played him in attack as they tried to expose Touhy one on one in defence.
The other two usually have defensive roles.

We usually have up to 5 defensive tags in a game ( 2 hard midfield tags )
3 hard tags is less tagging. Gibbs and Touhy even Armfield are offensive run with players who their opponents need to be accountable.

Hardwick !@#$%^ up.

You not only have to see the game but also how it is played and by whom.

You must really dread when we actually win games-

Well ... I guess we haven't won that many ...

Its more like ... SURPRISE! ... when we do win ... especially as the team has been so poorly coached this year.

_________________
I am as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!!!

Again micky’ supporters perception isn’t all that up that it’s cracked up to be.

The more we win this year the healthier the list and the more mm is shown up for our years failings.

The more we win, the more the coach has failed?


Are you in politics?

_________________
Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!!!

After Monday and Tuesday, even the calendar says W T F .........
Visit http://fromthemoshpit.com/

Guess they will be marching on Mick's office at Princes Park demanding he be strung up if things go our way and we happen to make the finals.

Or standup comedy...Ricky Nixon style

_________________
If I want your opinion, I'll give it to you!

I think you have stumped him.