Bravo Mr Saladin on BB

[tom9779]

He aint turning to JJ and Pev because blind freddy can see they are finished.

decisions on who and who he doesn't play aside.

How about suitable matchups? Game Plan? Motivation?

I am looking to give Knighta a break.

However Anzac Day was an absolute disgrace, Port we laid down.

I thought he did a decent job against the dogs, who are running hot. Geelong well they are in another league aren't they.

I didn't expect a massive improvement on last year, given its his first year in the job. But if we drop off considerably from where Sheedy had the team in the last year of his contract....you have got to wonder.

He has hardly set the world on fire and we havent really dropped any games you would expect to win.

But he has allowed the team to get flogged. 70+ points on anzac day for example. it was an embarrassment. 99 points against anyone even the best side in the comp ditto. For that simple reason I could hardly call him outstanding.

regardless of the cattle he has to work with. (its the cattle he coaches and trains after all)

I am not in support in bagging him, you won't see me initating threads bagging him.

But I would hardly be congratulating him despite of the circumstances.

[BenDoolan]

He aint turning to JJ and Pev because blind freddy can see they are finished.

decisions on who and who he doesn't play aside.

How about suitable matchups? Game Plan? Motivation?

I am looking to give Knighta a break.

However Anzac Day was an absolute disgrace, Port we laid down.

I thought he did a decent job against the dogs, who are running hot. Geelong well they are in another league aren't they.

I didn't expect a massive improvement on last year, given its his first year in the job. But if we drop off considerably from where Sheedy had the team in the last year of his contract....you have got to wonder.

He has hardly set the world on fire and we havent really dropped any games you would expect to win.

But he has allowed the team to get flogged. 70+ points on anzac day for example. it was an embarrassment. 99 points against anyone even the best side in the comp ditto. For that simple reason I could hardly call him outstanding.

regardless of the cattle he has to work with. (its the cattle he coaches and trains after all)

I am not in support in bagging him, you won't see me initating threads bagging him.

But I would hardly be congratulating him despite of the circumstances.

I think you're missing the point on the whole message. He is not being congratulated for the "results". What is being pointed out is that he has never complained about the injury situation nor has he used it as an excuse. He doesn't revert to "saving face" by selecting teams or implementing tactics that may result in smaller losses, but instead presses on with his ideas on the bigger picture. He does that at a cost of constant criticism from the media and talk back radio. He takes it in his stride and does not complain. That is what he is being applauded for. Knight's acknowledges the team's problems - and states that he is working on rectifying them. What else can you ask for? You want him to kidnap Jonathon Brown, Lance Franklin, Gary Ablett, Dean Cox and Chris Judd?

[tom9779]

He doesn't revert to "saving face" by selecting teams or implementing tactics that may result in smaller losses, but instead presses on with his ideas on the bigger picture

well thats it isn't it.

How healthy is building a team which gets thumped week in week out and plays one tempo?

I dunno, but when I hear the excuse that we are building a team in the face of 10 goal + thumpings and hence shouldn't play a defensive style.
I tend to think that is just a bit convenient. I mean is this evidence that knights can't coach a defensive style of footy when required?

the old adage defense wins premierships seems to have gone out the window...we absolutely heamoragge(sp?) goals.
And our delivery into our forward line hasn't exactly come along in leaps and bounds.

All I can see is more of a focus on run and carry and thats it.

Mind you I watch from the TV....will be good to get to a game this weekend.

Continual talk of big picture stuff tends to test fans patience, I agree, it tests mine.

I remember an Essendon that fought TOOTH AND NAIL to avoid back to back defeats.

after 4 straight losses the coach first year or not deserves to cop a bit of flack.

sheedy's problem was that he went soft after 2001. where is the evidence Knights has been tough on the players and demanded more? where is the evidence of him rethinking his style based on the cattle he has available?

the evidence I can tell you is in the pudding so to speak, by watching a dead set determined, physical team run out, trying their all to win and a team which is obviously playing with its head...switched on mentally.

i hope thats what I see on Sunday.

[BenDoolan]

How healthy is building a team which gets thumped week in week out and plays one tempo?

Ask the Hawthorn players.

I dunno, but when I hear the excuse that we are building a team in the face of 10 goal + thumpings and hence shouldn't play a defensive style.
I tend to think that is just a bit convenient. I mean is this evidence that knights can't coach a defensive style of footy when required?

Do you not listen to his press conferences or interviews? He has always stated that the defensive actions have been extremely poor lately and they are working hard at rectifying them. What's Gary O'Donnell there for??? At the start of the season everyone was praising G'OD because we looked so damn good in the NAB Cup, particularly, our defensive pressure.

the old adage defense wins premierships seems to have gone out the window...we absolutely heamoragge(sp?) goals.
And our delivery into our forward line hasn't exactly come along in leaps and bounds.

And where has he said "let's throw defence out the window" or "we don't need to worry about defensive pressure"? How about the players take some F****** responsibilty to actually DO these things!!!

I remember an Essendon that fought TOOTH AND NAIL to avoid back to back defeats.

Except for 1987, 1992, 1997, 2006. Remember when the club was labelled "soft" in 1998?

after 4 straight losses the coach first year or not deserves to cop a bit of flack.

And you would have been one of those that wanted Sheedy sacked after R6 in 1981.

where is the evidence Knights has been tough on the players and demanded more? where is the evidence of him rethinking his style based on the cattle he has available?

This is a bit ridiculous. From the outset, he has implemented a far stricter training regimen. He has demanded the whole playing group to improve their skill and fitness levels. He suspended Andrew Lovett and Tom Hislop for breaking team rules. Everyone here expected a guy like Angus Monfries to be an automatic selection in R1, but Knights demanded more and selected guys like Ricky Dyson and Sam Lonergan who clearly showed better form on the training track and in the NAB Cup. He has just omitted Jay Nash (who was probably better than most) because he DEMANDS MORE from him. He has, over the 7 week period, dropped the likes of Jason Johnson, Damien Peverill, Jason Laycock and Nathan Lovett-Murray because he expect or demands more from them. All this despite the obvious limitations of the players to choose from due to the longest injury list in the league.

Yes, he hasn't adjusted the game plan to suit the players at his disposal. It may be a mistake (and I think it is), but if he wants the entire list to learn the new way, then so be it.

the evidence I can tell you is in the pudding so to speak, by watching a dead set determined, physical team run out, trying their all to win and a team which is obviously playing with its head...switched on mentally.

And I agree with that. But is it all Knights' fault if Laycock is a lazy fker? Is it all his fault Stanton ducks his head and dodges contests? Is it all his fault players decide to handball back into trouble? The players have to take ownership and responsibility for their actions on the field. Players are often forgiven for making simple mistakes because "they are young". But Knights is also young in coaching terms and is making mistakes along the way. Just as we give a young player time to mature, the same should be given to a young coach.

[j-mac31]

He is not being congratulated for the "results". What is being pointed out is that he has never complained about the injury situation nor has he used it as an excuse. He doesn't revert to "saving face" by selecting teams or implementing tactics that may result in smaller losses, but instead presses on with his ideas on the bigger picture.

Good point.
But how does Michael fit into the bigger picture?

[BenDoolan]

He is not being congratulated for the "results". What is being pointed out is that he has never complained about the injury situation nor has he used it as an excuse. He doesn't revert to "saving face" by selecting teams or implementing tactics that may result in smaller losses, but instead presses on with his ideas on the bigger picture.

Good point.
But how does Michael fit into the bigger picture?

By providing guidance / leadership to the likes of Ryder, Myers, Pears and Daniher on how to use your body in one on one contests / when to punch the ball / when to back your judgement / how to position yourself in defence. Mal Michael has been one of the best defenders this decade, so why not utilise him to educate our budding young defenders? He, along with Fletcher ,can provide invaluable lessons to the group.

[dom_105]

He is not being congratulated for the "results". What is being pointed out is that he has never complained about the injury situation nor has he used it as an excuse. He doesn't revert to "saving face" by selecting teams or implementing tactics that may result in smaller losses, but instead presses on with his ideas on the bigger picture.

Good point.
But how does Michael fit into the bigger picture?

By providing guidance / leadership to the likes of Ryder, Myers, Pears and Daniher on how to use your body in one on one contests / when to punch the ball / when to back your judgement / how to position yourself in defence. Mal Michael has been one of the best defenders this decade, so why not utilise him to educate our budding young defenders? He, along with Fletcher ,can provide invaluable lessons to the group.

Spot on.

It was the same idea with Salmon. Even in 2002, he probably was one of the best tap ruckmen in the competition. I guess it was a bit different because Sheeds was giving the finals a red hot go that year, but the experience that Salmon could pass on to Hille and Henno would be stuff you couldn't learn in a book. And his recruitment had the added benefit of mending some old wounds.

Sheeds has made some pretty questionable recruiting decisions since 2000, but I'll back his decision on Michael and Salmon to the very end.

[hop]

Anyone who completes a sentence with "to be sure" is alright by me.

As for Knights - it is f***ing refreshing to listen to a coach who clearly knows what he is doing and has faith in where he is taking his players. That's not to say he will succeed, however it beats the alternative - (Mic Malthouse, whining and bitching).

I can remember the first 5 or 6 games of 1981. After we came off two seasons where it was apparent our coach was not committed and the team was marking time - it was refreshing then to hear a new coach believe in what he was doing and back his players (and coincidently talk about the privilege and honour it was to coach such a club). A Richmond mate of mine at the time kept saying "don't worry you'll come good" - "you've got Sheedy, listen to what he is saying and look at what he is trying to do" He is still filthy the tiges let him slip. Sheedy may have stayed a little too long - however with 4 Premierships in the bank and a rebuilt football club that IS the envy of the competition we could afford to cut him a little slack.

Nah...I'm sticking with Knighta.

[tom9779]

How healthy is building a team which gets thumped week in week out and plays one tempo?

Ask the Hawthorn players.

I dunno, but when I hear the excuse that we are building a team in the face of 10 goal + thumpings and hence shouldn't play a defensive style.
I tend to think that is just a bit convenient. I mean is this evidence that knights can't coach a defensive style of footy when required?

Do you not listen to his press conferences or interviews? He has always stated that the defensive actions have been extremely poor lately and they are working hard at rectifying them. What's Gary O'Donnell there for??? At the start of the season everyone was praising G'OD because we looked so damn good in the NAB Cup, particularly, our defensive pressure.

the old adage defense wins premierships seems to have gone out the window...we absolutely heamoragge(sp?) goals.
And our delivery into our forward line hasn't exactly come along in leaps and bounds.

And where has he said "let's throw defence out the window" or "we don't need to worry about defensive pressure"? How about the players take some F****** responsibilty to actually DO these things!!!

I remember an Essendon that fought TOOTH AND NAIL to avoid back to back defeats.

Except for 1987, 1992, 1997, 2006. Remember when the club was labelled "soft" in 1998? yup.


and the footy team responded.

after 4 straight losses the coach first year or not deserves to cop a bit of flack.

And you would have been one of those that wanted Sheedy sacked after R6 in 1981.

BIG DIFFERENCE between calling for a coaches head and stating that a coach should cop some blame for 4 straight losses and a 10 goal average losing margin. FFS it wouldn't matter if the entire team was made up of 1st and 2nd year players. Still not on. You keep losing and you end up with a losing record like carlton/richmond/melbourne...

where is the evidence Knights has been tough on the players and demanded more? where is the evidence of him rethinking his style based on the cattle he has available?

This is a bit ridiculous. From the outset, he has implemented a far stricter training regimen. He has demanded the whole playing group to improve their skill and fitness levels. He suspended Andrew Lovett and Tom Hislop for breaking team rules. Everyone here expected a guy like Angus Monfries to be an automatic selection in R1, but Knights demanded more and selected guys like Ricky Dyson and Sam Lonergan who clearly showed better form on the training track and in the NAB Cup. He has just omitted Jay Nash (who was probably better than most) because he DEMANDS MORE from him. He has, over the 7 week period, dropped the likes of Jason Johnson, Damien Peverill, Jason Laycock and Nathan Lovett-Murray because he expect or demands more from them. All this despite the obvious limitations of the players to choose from due to the longest injury list in the league.

Yes, he hasn't adjusted the game plan to suit the players at his disposal. It may be a mistake (and I think it is), but if he wants the entire list to learn the new way, then so be it.

the evidence I can tell you is in the pudding so to speak, by watching a dead set determined, physical team run out, trying their all to win and a team which is obviously playing with its head...switched on mentally.

And I agree with that. But is it all Knights' fault if Laycock is a lazy fker? Is it all his fault Stanton ducks his head and dodges contests? Is it all his fault players decide to handball back into trouble? The players have to take ownership and responsibility for their actions on the field. Players are often forgiven for making simple mistakes because "they are young". But Knights is also young in coaching terms and is making mistakes along the way. Just as we give a young player time to mature, the same should be given to a young coach.

not calling for him to be sacked, but:

* 4 straight losses.
* 10 goal losing margins.
* some shocking match ups game day.
* the Pev/JJ debacle with the board.(i reckon he will have prob taken a call from sheedy advising him what he says and doesn't say to the board re running the team now).

You can hardly slap the guy on the back and say well done for performance up until now.

I'll be the first to give Knighta a big thumbs up if at the end of the season, I can see we have won a few games people thought we wouldn't, we have developed our list and increased our depth, we have found another 1 or 2 regular senior players, and we have improved on some of our well documented weaknesses under sheedy.(namely skills particularly into the forward 50, midfield defensive pressure)

[Boyler_Room]

Given the early stage of the season I'm reserving judgement, however, I can understand where Tom is coming from.

If I recall correctly, Knights won the job over Hardwick because he stated that the club would be competitive with the list we currently have. He knew full well, more so than most being the Bendigo coach, what the depth of the list was walking into the job. He still said we would be competitive and challenge for finals footy this season. Hardwick, on the other hand, wanted to clean out the list and said we'd need at least 3 years before we'd be challenging. Knights got the job.

We've got a mountain of injuries. It does make it tough when you don't have the cattle, but the argument I'm seeing is that our list, fully fit or not, is rubbish. If that's the case, why would Knights say we had a competitive list? To win the job? To tell the board what they wanted to hear? Clearly it worked. Whether it is true or not, remains to be seen.

As I said, given the early stages of the season I'm reserving my judgement, but I do understand where the people who aren't happy with Knights are coming from.

[BenDoolan]

Given the early stage of the season I'm reserving judgement, however, I can understand where Tom is coming from.

If I recall correctly, Knights won the job over Hardwick because he stated that the club would be competitive with the list we currently have. He knew full well, more so than most being the Bendigo coach, what the depth of the list was walking into the job. He still said we would be competitive and challenge for finals footy this season. Hardwick, on the other hand, wanted to clean out the list and said we'd need at least 3 years before we'd be challenging. Knights got the job.

We've got a mountain of injuries. It does make it tough when you don't have the cattle, but the argument I'm seeing is that our list, fully fit or not, is rubbish. If that's the case, why would Knights say we had a competitive list? To win the job? To tell the board what they wanted to hear? Clearly it worked. Whether it is true or not, remains to be seen.

As I said, given the early stages of the season I'm reserving my judgement, but I do understand where the people who aren't happy with Knights are coming from.

Why? Well if you watched the NAB Cup and the Roos game before the BS injury curse struck our KEY players, you would have to say we were quite competitive!

Lets look at the reality of things for a minute;

New Coaches for 2008 : -
Dean Bailey - team currently on the bottom
Mark Harvey - team currently 14th (after EXPERTS reckon they would be in the top 8, if not, top 4)
Matthew Knights - currently 13th
Brett Ratten - the real "performer" with his team currently 11th

Now what are Bailey's, Harvey's & Ratten's excuses? Injuries? Crap lists?

f***, Ratten has been handed 3 No.1 draft picks, a No.2 draft pick and a priority pick from the past 5 years! Plus CHRIS JUDD. So what the f*** is going on there?

Dean Bailey.....gotta feel sorry for him, he's simply got a junkyard to work with. Imagine if Sheedy got that job. What a F****** disaster that would have been for him.

Harvey. Where's his injury list? His team is BELOW ours!

While we still have some obvious defects on our list, we also have some quality that just can't get onto the paddock. Had they ALL been available through to R8, who knows how we'd look. Certainly far more competitive than we do at the minute.

[Boyler_Room]

Why? Well if you watched the NAB Cup and the Roos game before the BS injury curse struck our KEY players, you would have to say we were quite competitive!
Lets look at the reality of things for a minute;

New Coaches for 2008 : -
Dean Bailey - team currently on the bottom
Mark Harvey - team currently 14th (after EXPERTS reckon they would be in the top 8, if not, top 4)
Matthew Knights - currently 13th
Brett Ratten - the real "performer" with his team currently 11th

Now what are Bailey's, Harvey's & Ratten's excuses? Injuries? Crap lists?

f***, Ratten has been handed 3 No.1 draft picks, a No.2 draft pick and a priority pick from the past 5 years! Plus CHRIS JUDD. So what the f*** is going on there?

Dean Bailey.....gotta feel sorry for him, he's simply got a junkyard to work with. Imagine if Sheedy got that job. What a F****** disaster that would have been for him.

Harvey. Where's his injury list? His team is BELOW ours!

While we still have some obvious defects on our list, we also have some quality that just can't get onto the paddock. Had they ALL been available through to R8, who knows how we'd look. Certainly far more competitive than we do at the minute.

BD, I have to agree with you. What I'm suggesting is some kind of logical reasoning for the grumblings. As I said, a lot of the posts on here of late seem to suggest that a fully fit EFC of 2008 is utter rubbish. Not sure I agree with that but, as I said, if that is in fact the case, why would Knights say we had a competitive list?

I'm waiting to see what the rest of the season holds before I make my judgement on Knight's' performance in 2008.

[j-mac31]

He is not being congratulated for the "results". What is being pointed out is that he has never complained about the injury situation nor has he used it as an excuse. He doesn't revert to "saving face" by selecting teams or implementing tactics that may result in smaller losses, but instead presses on with his ideas on the bigger picture.

Good point.
But how does Michael fit into the bigger picture?

By providing guidance / leadership to the likes of Ryder, Myers, Pears and Daniher on how to use your body in one on one contests / when to punch the ball / when to back your judgement / how to position yourself in defence. Mal Michael has been one of the best defenders this decade, so why not utilise him to educate our budding young defenders? He, along with Fletcher ,can provide invaluable lessons to the group.

Which he couldn't do at training?
Christ he was hopeless this week. Although so was everyone, but is it really worth having him in the side now?

[BenDoolan]

Which he couldn't do at training?
Christ he was hopeless this week. Although so was everyone, but is it really worth having him in the side now?

Training is completely different to being involved in combat on match day. I know you've been gunning for Mal all season, but what is the alternative? Playing Daniher, Pears & Myers in defence (all 7 games experience amongst them) against the opposition's best forwards? With our forward line dysfunctional and our midfield as brittle as salada biscuits, and having all those pretzel sized kids in defence (on their own) will result in our club challenging to have our greatest losing margin (163 points) under serious threat.

I maintain he still has a purpose in the team. And you'll maintain that he hasn't. Are you also suggesting that Fletcher shouldn't be in the side also?

[Brumaz]

A great piece of logic indeed, and certainly needed aroudn here as well.