So tell me Melvey, when was the last team meeting you sat in on at Carlton to determine whether Ratten is consistant with his message.

And when was the last team meeting you sat in on with Knights to see that his is?

And who was the player who last informed you that Ratten has lost the confidence of the players?

And just as an aside when in the team meeting did you determine that his message is simple or not?

We seem a little too concerned why Ratts isn't the right person to coach this footy club, why not list reason why he should! And why are so many people keen to have anybody else but Ratts??

What makes Voss a better choice? He has waked into a club already established, has arguable two of the best forwards in the comp, seasoned midfielders, high draft picks obtained by good list management headed by Leigh Matthews. All the hard work and decisions were made, What has he done?? Developed a game plan? changed the forward structure?

What makes Knights a better choice? What game structures has he implemented, other than incorporating an under 12 footy philosphy of attack at all costs! What changes has he made, he has seasoned players throughout his team in Lloyd, Lucas, McVeigh Fletcher Stanton Watson Hill McPhee amungst others, players like Dyson Winderlich Welsh have been around for some time, and are at best good players. If you take Sheedy's view on board, he should be congratulated for the new look dons, not Knights!

Under the Knights program, you don't need to think just run. You dont need to kick accurately just run! Will see how Knights pulls up, once his strategy runs out of gas.

Why would Hardwick be a better choice, or Longmier or any one else for that matter. We speculate and presume that one individual would be better than another.

Now why Ratts is a good choice. He has played in a successful club, he himself is a very decorated player. A player who had to learn the game and work extremely hard to gain the respect of his team mates and coaches. He is viewed as a very good thinker of the game by three coaches two of which have were multiply premiership coaches. He accepted the position risking his impressive reputation within the club, the club he loves. Failure is no option!!

We all know, he has made some mistakes, and importantly he has raised his hand and acceppted responsibility for them. He will grow into this position, with confidence at the same rate as the current group of players. What I do believe is that Ratten will teach this group all aspects of the game, not just your simple run at all costs (what do I next plan).

Go Blues !!!

For the sake of this club and not wanting to feed desperate journo's who sniff around sites like these for info, i won't reveal how i've come to saying what i said.

So in other words you know SFA....Thought so

Seek and you shall find bax!

We seem a little too concerned why Ratts isn't the right person to coach this footy club, why not list reason why he should! And why are so many people keen to have anybody else but Ratts??

What makes Voss a better choice? He has waked into a club already established, has arguable two of the best forwards in the comp, seasoned midfielders, high draft picks obtained by good list management headed by Leigh Matthews. All the hard work and decisions were made, What has he done?? Developed a game plan? changed the forward structure?

What makes Knights a better choice? What game structures has he implemented, other than incorporating an under 12 footy philosphy of attack at all costs! What changes has he made, he has seasoned players throughout his team in Lloyd, Lucas, McVeigh Fletcher Stanton Watson Hill McPhee amungst others, players like Dyson Winderlich Welsh have been around for some time, and are at best good players. If you take Sheedy's view on board, he should be congratulated for the new look dons, not Knights!

Under the Knights program, you don't need to think just run. You dont need to kick accurately just run! Will see how Knights pulls up, once his strategy runs out of gas.

Why would Hardwick be a better choice, or Longmier or any one else for that matter. We speculate and presume that one individual would be better than another.

Now why Ratts is a good choice. He has played in a successful club, he himself is a very decorated player. A player who had to learn the game and work extremely hard to gain the respect of his team mates and coaches. He is viewed as a very good thinker of the game by three coaches two of which have were multiply premiership coaches. He accepted the position risking his impressive reputation within the club, the club he loves. Failure is no option!!

We all know, he has made some mistakes, and importantly he has raised his hand and acceppted responsibility for them. He will grow into this position, with confidence at the same rate as the current group of players. What I do believe is that Ratten will teach this group all aspects of the game, not just your simple run at all costs (what do I next plan).

Go Blues !!!

Badbuzz,i would love nothing more than Ratts to lead us to a premiership but my problem was with the selection process. Why not interview Hardwick, Longmire and Knights as well as well? If Ratts interviewed the best,great.

No...I think your missing the point.

Articulate for me clearly what the gameplan is. You see herein lies the problem, It is very easy to throw barbs at Ratten for what your perception of what you think the gameplan is. I am simply asking you to tell me what the gameplan is. Either told to you by the coaches, players or officials of the club.

If you cant then how can you say that it is crap?

At last. A good question posted. I don't really know personally but it is a great question

No youre missing the pointy point... Ratts has ideas... and when you watch us play.. its a dogs breakfast.
For instance can you tell me why we zone off and play with 5 odd stoppers???
How do you zone and also have a chunk of your players play man on man at the same ?

I dont understand it but maybe you can shed some light???

No youre missing the pointy point... Ratts has ideas... and when you watch us play.. its a dogs breakfast.
For instance can you tell me why we zone off and play with 5 odd stoppers???
How do you zone and also have a chunk of your players play man on man at the same ?

I dont understand it but maybe you can shed some light???

There are three basic situations in football 1. We have it 2. They have it 3. The ball is n dispute

It is not a game plan to be offensive when we have it. Nor is it a game plan to be defensive when they have. It is a basic of football. When the ball is in dispute see ball get ball. Of course team play (not game plan) is to shepard, block, chase and all the basics of football (Thats right basics)

Now as for game plan this relates to the way you play football in terms of postions, zones, plays ect.

As for your proposition as how can we zone off and still play man on man football, look at what I just wrote. The basics of football apply when you play the game regardless of team plans.

Got it...I hope so

All that other stuff like shepherd, block chase, etc is assumed knowledge. Yes, sometimes players need to be reprogrammed when they develpo bad habits, but in today's football, it will not get you to the upper echelon.

You'd make a great coach bb.....of the local under 12's. Unfortunately, just like Ratten, you may be out of your depth as well.
Well drilled and structured teams are the 5% difference that separate teams at the elite level. Collingwood would be shithouse without Mick. His identifiable characteristics are what get the Maggies over the line much of the time. FFS, Clarko won a lucky flag last year on the back of a well drilled (albeit fad) gameplan. The gameplan placed enough perceived pressure on the Cats that they fell apart in the 2nd half.
Remember round 21 or 22 2000. The Bombers should have gone through the season undefeated but Terry Wallace was able to sell the Bulldogs his vision for how to beat the Dons. The players bought the vision and had confidence in the fact that if they followed the tactics they'd have a great chance of winning. They did, and inflicted the Bombers only loss for the season. All that other stuff like shepherd, block chase, etc is assumed knowledge. Yes, sometimes players need to be reprogrammed when they develpo bad habits, but in today's football, it will not get you to the upper echelon.

..sure, i'll agree with that to a certain extent, but this year some teams have been forced to play their lesser rucks and have still beaten us in the middle..

There are three basic situations in football 1. We have it 2. They have it 3. The ball is n dispute

It is not a game plan to be offensive when we have it. Nor is it a game plan to be defensive when they have. It is a basic of football. When the ball is in dispute see ball get ball. Of course team play (not game plan) is to shepard, block, chase and all the basics of football (Thats right basics)

Now as for game plan this relates to the way you play football in terms of postions, zones, plays ect.

As for your proposition as how can we zone off and still play man on man football, look at what I just wrote. The basics of football apply when you play the game regardless of team plans.

Got it...I hope so

So basically what happened last friday night is that Carlton did not do the basics.

Absolutely....Nothing to do with game plans as mentioned in this thread. Its about players prepared to play for each other. Its team ethic. Thats where we are failing IMO

Simple isn't it?

Then there is the skill thing ........