bondiblue wrote:
Braithy wrote:
GWS wrote:
I can’t quantify it, but it seems to me that teams that win flags take more risks than we do.
my biggest grip is how risk adverse voss and Co are ... no dare. and when have done so (mostly forced upon bcos of injuries or chasing a game) we've looked good (that 9 game win streak last season, the last two games of this season).
Theres 2 sides of this argument. Which one do you agree with?
1. Continuity: Players playing with each other (same positions) on a regular basis (preferable weekly) to gain familiarity and synergy. Injury affects continuity.
2. Move the Magnets: Keep changing up the team in the hope it comes off. When it comes off...keep moving the magnets?
i don't know about any of that broader stuff.
what i see that's risk adverse is:
us using the boundary lines, long bombs to contests and slowing the play down (while all the other successful teams are speeding it up). i see us with a 25 pt lead, and go into our shells, slow playing the wings, rather then the run and dash and taking on the corridor that got us the lead in the first place. i see us having wild momentum shifts where we lost 30pts, 40pts (port and gws games) leads after the 1st qtr and watch them slowly erode for the other 3 qtrs not moving any magnets, not trying any other way of playing and reluctant to pull the trigger and try something. just anything.
for some reason, right or wrong, every time i watch these things within a season, it always reminds of that old saying. i'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.
in 25 years of bland, terrible CFC football; poor development and drafting, and woeful injury management, risk adverse coaching - many times losing the unloseable, or turning up thinking the win is already in the bag etc ... cfc are most definitely living on their knees, old bean.
it'd be great if that could change ... the signs were looking good after the prelim run last season. i guess, we're about to find out who we really are.