Terry........Intricate game plans are over rated!

[Streak]

love the pressure that forward line will give.
whos gonna ruck?

Ottens and Blake, we don't have one.

 

[Willo]

Our players skills are poor because they are always disposing of the ball under pressure. They are always under pressure because they don't do the team thing - block, shepherd, tackle, do dummy leads to create space for someone else. Gut run to back a team mate or create an extra option even when there's no hope of getting the ball.

They simply don't work hard enough. And when the opposition has the ball, they don't work at all. With no depth, mediocrity has been acceptable for a very long time. I'm hoping that starts to change now.

I'm no longer a Terry fan but i don't think the problem is about game plans. When we're on, we look good. we run in packs, down the centre, breaking the lines. I'm no longer a Terry fan because he hasn't instilled the passion to play for the club, to bleed for the jumper, to back up your team mates and to never say die.

I'm with you Grumpyarse

 

[IanG]

I'm no longer a Terry fan but i don't think the problem is about game plans. When we're on, we look good. we run in packs, down the centre, breaking the lines. I'm no longer a Terry fan because he hasn't instilled the passion to play for the club, to bleed for the jumper, to back up your team mates and to never say die.

Well said, you've articulated exactly the way I feel about Wallace.

 

[Dyer Disciple]

Lets get all our gun players on the ball and tall players up forward.

On the ball: Delidio, Foley, Tambling, Tuck, Jackson, Brown, Richardson, Johnson, Newman

I see only 5 gun players on that list and only 3 midfielders.

If Terry was to depart he will leave this team in a worst position than Frawley when he was given the chop.

Agree with Pharlap, enjoy your posts generally but that's being a bit overdramatic, not to mention simplistic.

The title of this thread casts my mind back to an after match press conference (early 2005). The Tigers were starting to settle for the first time under TW and had recorded some early wins against the likes of Hawthorn & Fremantle. "The Intrinsic Mechanisms of our game plan...you work them out" Wallace responded to the media. There was plenty to like about this moment. In a significant twist to the previous year, the football world were starting to quiz our new coach and game plan. More pleasing was the fact, Wallace was beginning to add value to our game - something Frawely had struggled with since 2001.

If you do a search of the articles posted under 'What the Journo's Say", you will find an interesting account how Wallace has changed his game plan in the years after 2005. There is emphasis with taller backmen to freeze high scores being kicked against Richmond, running half backs to set-up attacks, rotation of midfielders and taggers and extra fire power up forward to kick winning scores. We have tried to "mimic" successful game plans implemented by Sydney and recently Hawthorn and Geelong. Perhaps those game plans were "overated" and too "intrinsic" at first, but the results speak for themselves.

A deeper search of the "Journo" board reveals the extent of changes made to our playing personnel and on field structure in order to successfully implement these game plans. One point that cannot be discounted is the disapointment of losing crucial players during the development life-cylce of an evolving game plan. Players such as Brown, Simmonds, Coughlan and Newman - all of whom are required to execute important deliverables - were missing for extended periods of time. Then ofcourse, there is our well documented portfolio of football skills which can only be traced back to the real ability of each player.

Our game plan is not "intrinsic" nor should it being considered "over-rated". There are a number of important mechanisms that must operate simultaneously: execution of skills, a balanced list of players on the park and the correct mindset when performing on the centre stage. The wheel must continue to spin for the developement and synergy of these important mechanisms. Perhaps Wallace may never discover the solution at Richmond, but I'm certain our next coach will aim to improve a similar design strategy.

Great post, don't agree with it all, but very interesting and well put.

Personally I think Wallace has lost his edge as an innovater on a strategic level on game day. He was at the front of the pack once upon a time but footy has changed a lot in the last 7 years and he hasn't grown with the game as much as he is more becoming a victim of paralysis by analysis. Being a thinker of the game he is absorbing too much info and trying to stay cutting edge at the cost of loosing consistency and development (ie mimicing styles of other clubs, the amount of time we have spent on the rolling zone this off season has been ridiculous for the list we have).

His game plan does not win finals footy, he chops and changes things too much and he's not the best coach to develop a young side. I think Wallace could possibly be a great coach if he was given a mature and fairly well developed side, one of his weakneses in my eyes is developing players for roles and creating "units" out on the footy field. There is not enough consistency and development for players and areas on the field and too much concentration on running patterns and link plays with important fundamentals getting over looked or assumed will come in as players develop bodies, experience etc.

There are pros and cons to everything, but the greats learn how to compensate for their weaknesses, Wallace could do this in a few ways but seems reticent to do so. It's for this sole reason he will live or die by the sword this year, rightfully so.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Personally I think Wallace has lost his edge as an innovater on a strategic level on game day. He was at the front of the pack once upon a time but footy has changed a lot in the last 7 years and he hasn't grown with the game as much as is more becoming a victim of paralysis by analysis. Being a thinker of the game he is abosrbing to much info and trying t stay cutting edge at the cost of loosing consistency and development (ie mimicing styles of other clubs, the amount of time we have spent on the rilling zone this off season has been ridiculous for the list we have).

His game plan does not win finals footy, he chops and changes things too much and his not the best coach to develop a young side. I think Wallace could possibly be a great coach if he was given a mature and fairly well developed side, one of his weakneses in my eyes is developing players for roles and creating "units" out on the footy field. There is not enough consistency and development for players and areas on the field and too much concentration on running patterns and link plays with important fundamentals getting over looked or assumed will come in as players develop bodies, experience etc.

There are pros and cons to everything, but the greats learn how to compensate for their weaknesses, Wallace could do this in a few ways but seems reticent to do so. It's for this sole reason he will live or die by the sword this year, rightfully so.

Great post DD.

 

[geoffryprettyboy]

Agree with Pharlap, enjoy your posts generally but that's being a bit overdramatic, not to mention simplistic.

Yeah I know I am drawing a very long bow here, but obvioulsy a better picture of where we are at with our player stocks would be better analysed at the end of the season. Simplistic it is because I can't be stuffed drawing up the player list at the end of Frawley's tenure and the current player list and make a comparison and no doubt will also cause a great debate, but who cares. Maybe someone who has plenty of time on their hands can do this, but I have made the comment and if Wallace was to be sacked no doubt a Robinson, Barret or Wilson will be rubbing their hands in glee analysing what Terry had done in the 5 year period and provide us the final conclusion. I really don't think I'll be too far from my call.

 

[Dyer Disciple]

Yeah I know I am drawing a very long bow here, but obvioulsy a better picture of where we are at with our player stocks would be better analysed at the end of the season. Simplistic it is because I can't be stuffed drawing up the player list at the end of Frawley's tenure and the current player list and make a comparison and no doubt will also cause a great debate, but who cares. Maybe someone who has plenty of time on their hands can do this, but I have made the comment and if Wallace was to be sacked no doubt a Robinson, Barret or Wilson will be rubbing their hands in glee analysing what Terry had done in the 5 year period and provide us the final conclusion. I really don't think I'll be too far from my call.

It's an interesting thought GPB, but I struggle to see it. When i was saying simplistic I was also referring to the fact Wallace inherited a decent mess also. So it's a bit simplistic to entirely attribute it to Wallace, not to mention the hand previous recruiters/football managers have played in it of late.

That aside, I will argue vehemently our list would have more to work with at the end of 2009 than 2004. A smart new coach and/or recruiting team with full power could really make a big advancement on our list in the 2009 trade/cut period. We were so stuffed in 2004 it's not funny.

As I said in a earlier post i liken it to Ratten taking over at Carlton, not the same thing by any means, but a lot healthier club/list to take over than our list/club in 2004.

 

[mld]

Dudes, this is a kick-it-up-the-guts thread. There are plenty of other threads to over-analyse on.