My advice to Ratts....

Sydney Blue · **Posted:** Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:22 pm

Ratts has done an OK job nothing flash but not exactly terrible when you look at whats been missing

Houlihan 3 from 20
Hadley 5 from 20
Bannister 5 from 20
Walker 5 from 20
and Bower 10 from 20

Thats a significant part of the middle tear of players with more devolped bodies missing for most of the season _ All sides have to manage injuries but when you lose your middle 5 or 6 then your bottom 5 or 6 have to step up and fringe players then get promoted . I think a few players have played a lot more footy this year than what would have been expected of them at the beginning of the year

I bet when Ratts was planning his year in March those 5 would have been significant in his make up .

He has acheived a pass mark and that's about it - But he is not dud material just yet

Blue Vain · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am **Posts:** 18035

TianaCon wrote:

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/how-the-cunning-cats-turn-defence-into-lethal-attack/2008/08/18/1218911570683.html?page=2

Interesting article by Wallsy.

Don't know if this has already been posted & apologise if so, but I believe it has reference in this thread, especially when talking about the "loose man" issue in defence. Have a look at the 2nd page. Waitey is 2nd in the league behind Harley.

As I've stated before, JW is our "Harley" if you will. The problem is, we currently don't have the additional cattle that Geelong have (experience wise) to allow JW to play the role entirely, without having to revert back to "normal" defence when things go wrong.

Oh & my 2 cents on the Fev issue as mentioned above, one of the reasons alot of entries go to Fev, is because he IS a very, very good forward who, as Ratts has said before, knows how to present himself & does it so well, it is very difficult for players to ignore him. When the other fwds around him get better, or we get better fwds, the amount of times we go to Fev will lessen.

When JW can get through the season without being cleaned up by opposition forwards on a reasonably regular basis, I'd start making comparisons with Tom Harley.

They are totally different players. Waite has success when he plays as a loose man. (see Jason Cloke)
Harley has the skill to successfully mark whilst playing on an opponent. The difference is when required, he also has the ability to shut down key forwards on a regular basis.

woof · **Joined:** Thu Mar 02, 2006 9:51 am **Posts:** 4919

Blue Vain wrote:

When JW can get through the season without being cleaned up by opposition forwards on a reasonably regular basis, I'd start making comparisons with Tom Harley.

They are totally different players. Waite has success when he plays as a loose man. (see Jason Cloke)
Harley has the skill to successfully mark whilst playing on an opponent. The difference is when required, he also has the ability to shut down key forwards on a regular basis.

There is another difference and that is Harley plays with Scarlett.

budzy · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:17 am **Posts:** 8128

Molly wrote:

It's a good question Tianacon!

And with the exception of a few players (Russell and Stevens), every time we lose it isn't because they played badly... it was because we were outcoached.

The Adelaide game is a shining example. I like Murph... but he had an absolute stinker! He couldn't get the ball, he couldn't control the ball, he couldn't pass the ball to our blokes, he got run down, I think he even missed a goal (might be wrong on that though). Anyway, come in here on Monday, and it was all Ratten's fault as he was comprehensively outcoached! Yet he had a gun midfielder who couldn't do anything right on the day. Means you're coaching with a hand behind your back.

So Murph gets absolved for a stinker (rare admittedly), and Ratts gets bashed because (in effect) guys like Murph didn't play well enough.

I thought the weekend's game was a perfect example of guys like Grigg, Browne, Kreuzer, Jamison, Hampson (to a lesser extent), and Armfield coming to the end of their first full seasons of playing football. They looked tired and worn out. Their bodies have copped a lot, and they just seemed stuffed. Remember too that this is only Gibbs' second season, and Murph has only played 1.5 seasons. That's not necessarily being outcoached, that's simply our players being tired and worn out.

In the end, yeah Ratts has made mistakes, and I am sure he made some on Sunday. But too many people absolve the players (with JR being a notable exception) and that is being disingenuous to our situation here.

Cut out the spin Molly. Plenty of different 'cons' put up after the Adelaide game and Murph was repeatedly mentioned.

Collectively scapegoating the young guys is pretty 'easy' too. You can do better than that.

Blue Vain · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am **Posts:** 18035

Synbad wrote:

That might be because he is staring at backsides all day long

I used to do the same when I was his age. :-D

TianaCon · **Joined:** Fri May 23, 2008 11:47 am **Posts:** 651

Sorry BV, not exactly sure what you are talking about.

I know JW & Harley are two different players. All players differ from one another.

If you are saying JW only has success when he plays as a loose man, imo, you are wrong. I have seen him do very well one on one against his opponents, should he have one.

I would have thought the key issue is that JW is 1) not as experienced as Harley 2) maybe he's not as good as Harley too, but we can't have Harley as Gee have him

, & 3) JW & CFC doesn't have the luxury that Harley or Gee have (yet), in that they also have the likes of Milburn, Scarlett, Mackie, Hunt, Enright (etc) to assist. Put those players in the same team as JW & I think he would do a similar job to what Harley offers & does for Gee.

I am in no way saying JW is better or even the same as Harley in skill (etc), I am merely pointing out that JW has a similar role to that that Harley plays for Gee. Whether he does it better or not is speculative.

My reason for posting that in this thread was to at least show the MC are looking at & trying to emulate some of what the "big boys" do. Was not saying we have had the same level of success in doing it either.

Melvey · **Posted:** Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:50 pm

He hasn't the cattle to work with.

Besides Fev and Betts we have bugger all up forward.

We have our 3 worse users by foot as play makers off back half in Waite, Carrazzo and Setanta.

Poor recruiting over many years with to many similar types. Kevin Sheedy would never recruit two of the same types of players in one draft. he looked for that individual flair and the x factor.

The list should be continually turned over until we have the players who will take us to our next premiership.

The likes of Fisher, Bentick, Wiggins, Banno and Cloke have nothing in them that we haven't seen and must get the chop along with Blackwell, Saddo and Ackland.

Interesting point someone made on the radio was the number 52 pick we swapped the lions for Hadley they picked up Bradd Dalziell

TianaCon · **Joined:** Fri May 23, 2008 11:47 am **Posts:** 651

budzy wrote:

Molly wrote:

It's a good question Tianacon!

And with the exception of a few players (Russell and Stevens), every time we lose it isn't because they played badly... it was because we were outcoached.

The Adelaide game is a shining example. I like Murph... but he had an absolute stinker! He couldn't get the ball, he couldn't control the ball, he couldn't pass the ball to our blokes, he got run down, I think he even missed a goal (might be wrong on that though). Anyway, come in here on Monday, and it was all Ratten's fault as he was comprehensively outcoached! Yet he had a gun midfielder who couldn't do anything right on the day. Means you're coaching with a hand behind your back.

So Murph gets absolved for a stinker (rare admittedly), and Ratts gets bashed because (in effect) guys like Murph didn't play well enough.

I thought the weekend's game was a perfect example of guys like Grigg, Browne, Kreuzer, Jamison, Hampson (to a lesser extent), and Armfield coming to the end of their first full seasons of playing football. They looked tired and worn out. Their bodies have copped a lot, and they just seemed stuffed. Remember too that this is only Gibbs' second season, and Murph has only played 1.5 seasons. That's not necessarily being outcoached, that's simply our players being tired and worn out.

In the end, yeah Ratts has made mistakes, and I am sure he made some on Sunday. But too many people absolve the players (with JR being a notable exception) and that is being disingenuous to our situation here.

Cut out the spin Molly. Plenty of different 'cons' put up after the Adelaide game and Murph was repeatedly mentioned.

Collectively scapegoating the young guys is pretty 'easy' too. You can do better than that.

But collectively scapegoating the MC is OK :roll:

budzy · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:17 am **Posts:** 8128

TianaCon wrote:

budzy wrote:

Molly wrote:

It's a good question Tianacon!

And with the exception of a few players (Russell and Stevens), every time we lose it isn't because they played badly... it was because we were outcoached.

The Adelaide game is a shining example. I like Murph... but he had an absolute stinker! He couldn't get the ball, he couldn't control the ball, he couldn't pass the ball to our blokes, he got run down, I think he even missed a goal (might be wrong on that though). Anyway, come in here on Monday, and it was all Ratten's fault as he was comprehensively outcoached! Yet he had a gun midfielder who couldn't do anything right on the day. Means you're coaching with a hand behind your back.

So Murph gets absolved for a stinker (rare admittedly), and Ratts gets bashed because (in effect) guys like Murph didn't play well enough.

I thought the weekend's game was a perfect example of guys like Grigg, Browne, Kreuzer, Jamison, Hampson (to a lesser extent), and Armfield coming to the end of their first full seasons of playing football. They looked tired and worn out. Their bodies have copped a lot, and they just seemed stuffed. Remember too that this is only Gibbs' second season, and Murph has only played 1.5 seasons. That's not necessarily being outcoached, that's simply our players being tired and worn out.

In the end, yeah Ratts has made mistakes, and I am sure he made some on Sunday. But too many people absolve the players (with JR being a notable exception) and that is being disingenuous to our situation here.

Cut out the spin Molly. Plenty of different 'cons' put up after the Adelaide game and Murph was repeatedly mentioned.

Collectively scapegoating the young guys is pretty 'easy' too. You can do better than that.

But collectively scapegoating the MC is OK :roll:

Seeing as though they're the kids' coaches and they pick the team and formulate the plans ... yeah

Melvey · **Posted:** Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:57 pm

no wonder we've had these amazing last quarter come backs, we don't run for the first 3 quarters. We would have to be the laziest team in terms of creating space or creating an option in the league or is it the direction of our coach to play this way.

we hate contested football. We were in the game when it wasn't contested and free flowing.

we need some tough nuts and not the prima donna types like Brett Thornton. Would have to be the softest player in the team but only cause houlihan is out.

Blue Vain · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am **Posts:** 18035

TianaCon wrote:

I am in no way saying JW is better or even the same as Harley in skill (etc), I am merely pointing out that JW has a similar role to that that Harley plays for Gee. Whether he does it better or not is speculative.

My reason for posting that in this thread was to at least show the MC are looking at & trying to emulate some of what the "big boys" do. Was not saying we have had the same level of success in doing it either.

No worries mate, we'll choose to disagree on Waitey.
IMO Harley plays on opponents most games. Yes Waitey has beaten some opponents and he also as been flogged by some as well.

He is playing quite well as a loose man but you also need to look at the oppositions loose man as his opponent. Is he proving to be as influential as them? Increasing moreso but he still needs to prove his worth when playing on an opponent.
For a guy who is reportedly chasing 400k+ per season, I'd like to see him offer more as a KPP instead of leaving it to Jamo to carry the load.

TianaCon · **Joined:** Fri May 23, 2008 11:47 am **Posts:** 651

Should do a poll on this.

In how many of the 20 games to date have the MC got it wrong?

Either by wrong personnel or tactics.

Steve_C7 · **Joined:** Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:39 pm **Posts:** 1002

Synbad wrote:

Steve_C7 wrote:

Synbad wrote:

Steve ... how are you?
Suprised you can smell crap - i thought youd be immune to the smell.. haveing it as a mainstay all the time.

Why did i post this week and not last week???

I dont post on practice sessions anymore...

Should i have come on and said "We were unbelievable last week"?Dont think so.. Port are not a measure....
If youre aiming at the stars you dont look for worms....

So let me get this right, you only care to post about Carlton when we lose?

Man I have met alot of downhill supporters who only show up when their team is playing well, but jeez I can't say I have met any that go the other way around like you :shock:

Are you still pissed that Carlton overlooked you for the head coach job?

I think youll find i post when we win too.... :lol:

No i dont need a job.... i have one....its time consuming as it is....

But that doesnt mean were on the right tram coaching/development wise though does it???

Like its not just me and Ratts and noone else in the whole wide world???

Is it???

I posted my thoughts earlier in the post, but just to recap because you more than likely skipped over it.

We needed to keep our list together as our number one prioritory which is why Ratts was chosen. He has fulfilled that role beter than expected.

mjonc · **Posted:** Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:29 pm

TianaCon wrote:

Should do a poll on this.

In how many of the 20 games to date have the MC got it wrong?

Either by wrong personnel or tactics.

22.

Predicting the MC get it wrong the next two weeks as well :-D

Blue Vain · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:35 am **Posts:** 18035

No club gets everything right, every week.
All I ask is to see the kids getting a fair go, to see relatively astute coaching and to see continued development collectively and individually.

I cant complain.

TianaCon · **Joined:** Fri May 23, 2008 11:47 am **Posts:** 651

mjonc wrote:

TianaCon wrote:

Should do a poll on this.

In how many of the 20 games to date have the MC got it wrong?

Either by wrong personnel or tactics.

22.

Predicting the MC get it wrong the next two weeks as well :-D

bax · **Posted:** Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:41 pm

Ratts has done a magnificent job this year, anyone that thinks otherwise has no idea. Cheers.

Humpers · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:28 pm **Posts:** 4949

Blue Vain wrote:

No club gets everything right, every week.
All I ask is to see the kids getting a fair go, to see relatively astute coaching and to see continued development collectively and individually.

I cant complain.

Summed up well BV.

My only complaint with team selections this year is that I would have liked Pfeiffer given more of a run.

scottopee · **Joined:** Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:02 am **Posts:** 1724

Bring back Pagan so then it will always be the players fault :roll:

We are 1000% better then ANY time under supercoach Pagan enough said :idea:

Molly · **Posted:** Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:52 am

Budzy said:

Quote:

Collectively scapegoating the young guys is pretty 'easy' too. You can do better than that.

I think you inadvertently make my point Budz.

We have Murph, Gibbs, Jamo, Browne, Kreuzer, Armfield, Hammer, and Grigg in the side last week. Winning a game of AFL footy is all about a team effort. At the moment, these guys are too young for us to expect a level of excellence from them week in week out. Yet for us to beat these top teams we need each of them at the top of their game. The man who really needs them at the top of their game each week is Ratts... so we judge him as inadequate on the basis that he has half a team who are too young to be competitive week in week out? The development in most of these kids has been exceptional, but the difference between their best and worst is still quite large. If it is unfair to criticise them (which in my belief... I fully agree that it is), then Ratts deserves circumspect treatment too. I am personally happy to wait until the end of 2009 before going anywhere near judging Ratts.

My advice to Ratts....

Who is online