-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
#lolNorf
- Thread starter Nico
- Start date
We should use that pick and next yrs to get Green
Cj and a first rounder for Green.
That's what I'm talking about!!
Loved watching Cholly and disappointed when he left. Thought he might be getting it together. But yesterday was possibly the worst game I have ever seen him play.
Dropped marks ran to the wrong position; walked to the wrong position..
Lucky if he holds his place.
So losing Mabs & CJ not the disaster it seemed last November.
Losing Chol & Coleman Jones was never going to be a disaster. One proved over a long time he was never going to be best 22 unless we became a bottom 4 side and with Coleman Jones I never saw anything that made me think he was nothing more then a average footballer.
90% of us were only worried about what compo we would get in return.
Anything under 50 for Chol and pick 19 for Coleman Jones we all should be singing.
90% of us were only worried about what compo we would get in return.
Anything under 50 for Chol and pick 19 for Coleman Jones we all should be singing.
Those frees were two of the worst decisions you would ever hope to see! The second one was a real head scratcher.
Nice finishing though I must say.
Yes charity frees plucked out of the ruck, but sorry T, but I can't see or abide any positives. 30 out slight angle? Regulation finish, and they were junk time, and he missed a soda before the game was gone and they really needed it. I was a bit shocked by how bad he was actually. Dropped easy marks, ran to the wrong spots, looked lost often, no urgency. Worse than he ever played for us by far. Putting all the trade machinations aside, I was on the fence with him as a player. I didn't think he'd ever be a star but thought he might build an OK career, played a few decent games for us when we needed him to. Wrong. I also thought it would have been dumb to match the money so was OK with losing him, but just didn't think he would be that bad for GC. Disaster written all over it.
The one argument against this is whether a new Tassie team wants to be anchored to North Melbourne's history or they want to create their own.
Clearly Tassie should have got a team before Gold Coast.
DS
Absolutely they should.
And the Giants should be relocated to Canberra where they will at least get good crowds to every game.
They can call them the Canberra Charletans in line with the Political vibe
.I like to look at the psychology behind post-game interviews. I'm going to break down the North coach's post-game comments.
Background: he's a 55yo traditional coach who resembles an older style of thinking about the game. In this post-game following the 108-point loss, he triggers psychological alarm bells that tell me North are screwed.
Look at this:
"The midfield got out-worked, the defenders were poor, they let their man lead them to the ball, and our forwards didn't play in front," Noble said.
- He's blaming the players
- He's not holding himself accountable
- Attributes midfield's performance to lack of effort ("out-worked") which is a negative internal attribution to the character of his players and will fracture his relationship with them if they feel like they worked hard which they probably did
- His explanation for defenders and forwards takes an overly individualistic philosophy on each player's performance, instead of correctly viewing them as part of an integrated system that covers for each other (eg Dimma says our midfielders' pressure slows the ball movement to help the defenders stop the ball, and he talks about our defenders' ability to cover for each other, whereas North's bloke attributes poor defence to "not being in front", which ignores the role of midfielders or the other teammates around them).
The opposition kicked 50% of their winning margin in the last 25% of the game, therefore it's likely North's coach lost the players at 3/4 time and made things worse with his poor attitude that blames the players as individuals and ignore all the system-based stuff that truly explains what Brisbane was doing, so the players would've thought he's being unfair and basically didn't want to go after that, or if they did accept his mindset then their communication necessarily would've broken down between teammates as they became more like untrusting individuals blaming each other in line with the coach's perspective. You either accept or reject the coach's mindset, and both reactions are damaging.
"There's got to be consequences around training, there's got to be consequences around skill errors," he said.
- Again makes negative attributions to player's internal character for lack of effort at training (very damaging type of psychology associated with depression and anxiety)
- Threatens to punish players for making skill errors. No analysis needed. Just think about how Dimma talks about making mistakes, especially back in 2010-2013.
"(We conceded) Close to 80 points on turnovers is just unacceptable.
- Turnovers lead to scoring due to the time and space made available in the absence of a system being ready in that moment. That's on the coach, who takes a traditional approach to the game, and therefore isn't training the players to work as a fast-responding integrates network of teammates moving up and down like a school of fish.
- The word "unacceptable" condemns the players and effectively suggests that internally in his mind he's distancing himself from the problem. Taken along with other comments and views he's expressed in this post-game, I think he's embarrassed and trying to absolve himself from responsibility of the outcome, so he's allowing himself to think within a factually incorrect paradigm that makes it possible to view himself as a good coach. Tempting psychology, but doesn't match the reality, so it doesn't match the player's experience of the world - so it will lead to fractured relationships.
"We gave the ball up on simple turnovers. It's been a little bit of our MO so far this year. It wasn't due to high pressure.
- Again blames the players with a condescending tone "a little bit of our MO this year" which implies negative attributions to player character and effort
- Major negative attributes to the character of his players by saying all of this happens without pressure being a factor, which implies it's their internal character and nature, which they can never change, so it will fracture relationships or lead to divisions as players turn on each other. Why highlight lack of "high pressure"? It's not an explanation for the performance, and it doesn't help them improve in the next performance. It's only purpose is to influence public opinion so they share his desires thinking of blaming the players instead of him.
"It's just some poor decision-making out there at times. It's not how we trained, it's certainly not how we want to play.
- More negative internal attributions by explaining the performance as a result of poor decision making.
- Distances himself from accepting responsibility by saying it's not how he trained them to play, so don't blame him, blame the players
"If you don't bring your energy, you get that result.
- And yet again, he makes negative internal attributions linking the player's perceived "lack of energy" (or effort) with the result.
- He's linking the uncontrollables to outcome, compared to Dimma who links the controllables to process. So important.
"We thought and we felt we'd had enough of that experience last year to not dip into that position again and disappointingly we did today."
- And yet AGAIN, he's making negative internal attributions to the players' character (effort).
He's clearly embarrassed and has used his opportunity in the post-game press conference to try and influence public opinion to twist it against the players and to protect his image.
This is dumb, selfish, inaccurate, and is backed up by traditional thinking that tells me he's probably not coaching his team for the modern game, which means all of his personal criticism of the players are not fair because they're not true - it's all in his head to help him cope with his failure to do his job.
In contrast, Fagan's post-game was excellent. He started by portraying his players as being even better than he anticipated, and doesn't try to take credit for it. This builds confidence. He ended by putting over his opposition next week. This keeps his team level-headed and prepared to work hard for their next challenge.
I'm so, so happy we've had Dimma leading the way over the past decade. A lot of his philosophies are second nature to our club now, so seeing North's coach talk like this in his post-game was jarring and eye-opening. It kind of makes me want to laugh out loud at North... but I'll bite my tongue. They do have CJ in the reserves waiting to get a game, so there's hope.
Background: he's a 55yo traditional coach who resembles an older style of thinking about the game. In this post-game following the 108-point loss, he triggers psychological alarm bells that tell me North are screwed.
Look at this:
"The midfield got out-worked, the defenders were poor, they let their man lead them to the ball, and our forwards didn't play in front," Noble said.
- He's blaming the players
- He's not holding himself accountable
- Attributes midfield's performance to lack of effort ("out-worked") which is a negative internal attribution to the character of his players and will fracture his relationship with them if they feel like they worked hard which they probably did
- His explanation for defenders and forwards takes an overly individualistic philosophy on each player's performance, instead of correctly viewing them as part of an integrated system that covers for each other (eg Dimma says our midfielders' pressure slows the ball movement to help the defenders stop the ball, and he talks about our defenders' ability to cover for each other, whereas North's bloke attributes poor defence to "not being in front", which ignores the role of midfielders or the other teammates around them).
The opposition kicked 50% of their winning margin in the last 25% of the game, therefore it's likely North's coach lost the players at 3/4 time and made things worse with his poor attitude that blames the players as individuals and ignore all the system-based stuff that truly explains what Brisbane was doing, so the players would've thought he's being unfair and basically didn't want to go after that, or if they did accept his mindset then their communication necessarily would've broken down between teammates as they became more like untrusting individuals blaming each other in line with the coach's perspective. You either accept or reject the coach's mindset, and both reactions are damaging.
"There's got to be consequences around training, there's got to be consequences around skill errors," he said.
- Again makes negative attributions to player's internal character for lack of effort at training (very damaging type of psychology associated with depression and anxiety)
- Threatens to punish players for making skill errors. No analysis needed. Just think about how Dimma talks about making mistakes, especially back in 2010-2013.
"(We conceded) Close to 80 points on turnovers is just unacceptable.
- Turnovers lead to scoring due to the time and space made available in the absence of a system being ready in that moment. That's on the coach, who takes a traditional approach to the game, and therefore isn't training the players to work as a fast-responding integrates network of teammates moving up and down like a school of fish.
- The word "unacceptable" condemns the players and effectively suggests that internally in his mind he's distancing himself from the problem. Taken along with other comments and views he's expressed in this post-game, I think he's embarrassed and trying to absolve himself from responsibility of the outcome, so he's allowing himself to think within a factually incorrect paradigm that makes it possible to view himself as a good coach. Tempting psychology, but doesn't match the reality, so it doesn't match the player's experience of the world - so it will lead to fractured relationships.
"We gave the ball up on simple turnovers. It's been a little bit of our MO so far this year. It wasn't due to high pressure.
- Again blames the players with a condescending tone "a little bit of our MO this year" which implies negative attributions to player character and effort
- Major negative attributes to the character of his players by saying all of this happens without pressure being a factor, which implies it's their internal character and nature, which they can never change, so it will fracture relationships or lead to divisions as players turn on each other. Why highlight lack of "high pressure"? It's not an explanation for the performance, and it doesn't help them improve in the next performance. It's only purpose is to influence public opinion so they share his desires thinking of blaming the players instead of him.
"It's just some poor decision-making out there at times. It's not how we trained, it's certainly not how we want to play.
- More negative internal attributions by explaining the performance as a result of poor decision making.
- Distances himself from accepting responsibility by saying it's not how he trained them to play, so don't blame him, blame the players
"If you don't bring your energy, you get that result.
- And yet again, he makes negative internal attributions linking the player's perceived "lack of energy" (or effort) with the result.
- He's linking the uncontrollables to outcome, compared to Dimma who links the controllables to process. So important.
"We thought and we felt we'd had enough of that experience last year to not dip into that position again and disappointingly we did today."
- And yet AGAIN, he's making negative internal attributions to the players' character (effort).
He's clearly embarrassed and has used his opportunity in the post-game press conference to try and influence public opinion to twist it against the players and to protect his image.
This is dumb, selfish, inaccurate, and is backed up by traditional thinking that tells me he's probably not coaching his team for the modern game, which means all of his personal criticism of the players are not fair because they're not true - it's all in his head to help him cope with his failure to do his job.
In contrast, Fagan's post-game was excellent. He started by portraying his players as being even better than he anticipated, and doesn't try to take credit for it. This builds confidence. He ended by putting over his opposition next week. This keeps his team level-headed and prepared to work hard for their next challenge.
I'm so, so happy we've had Dimma leading the way over the past decade. A lot of his philosophies are second nature to our club now, so seeing North's coach talk like this in his post-game was jarring and eye-opening. It kind of makes me want to laugh out loud at North... but I'll bite my tongue. They do have CJ in the reserves waiting to get a game, so there's hope.
Last edited:
Coaches that use "we" to describe players and coaches as a collective are great. Coaches that use "they" or "them" to distance the players and coaches apart invariably fail.
