It's the year of the Dog, but 'Macca' should take a bow

[jeemak]

The gulf between the Dogs of 2015 and the Dogs of 2012-4 couldn't be greater, IMO. Likewise the gulf between what McCartney gave the team and what Bevo has bought. For the bulk of three years, football became a chore to watch, and in this short time, Bevo has shown that it doesn't have to be that way, and you can still win. McCartney didn't have what it takes to be a senior coach, Bevo most certainly does. Credit to McCartney for bringing the hard-nosed contest, but that's all he brought, IMO. It was an absolute howler to extend his contract, and absolutely the right move to show him the door. May Bevo be the one to bring us the ultimate.

So, how much value do we place on the "hard nosed contest" aspect of our current play? We are just as ruthless in the contest as we are creative.

[KT31]

I'll give Macca credit for today and Bevo weeks prior.

[AndrewP6]

So, how much value do we place on the "hard nosed contest" aspect of our current play? We are just as ruthless in the contest as we are creative.

Apart from today Sure, the ruthlessness is there, but that alone doesn't kick goals. And that alone is what McCartney brought to the table.

[The Doctor]

If Macca was still in charge we would have half the wins we have now and zero hope for the future. We did the right thing and the results are plain for all to see.

Anyway I don't know why this is being debated. Gareth Andrews who wrote the article is pro Geelong therefore pro Macca and in some way trying to credit his club for our rise whilst they are in demise.

[jeemak]

If Macca was still in charge we would have half the wins we have now and zero hope for the future. We did the right thing and the results are plain for all to see.

Anyway I don't know why this is being debated. Gareth Andrews who wrote the article is pro Geelong therefore pro Macca and in some way trying to credit his club for our rise whilst they are in demise.

That's a bit of a stretch.

Nobody's trying to say that if McCartney was still in charge we'd be better, worse or even. Some of us are trying to point out that his influence on our current output is prevalent. Nothing more, and nothing less.

[The Doctor]

That's a bit of a stretch.

Nobody's trying to say that if McCartney was still in charge we'd be better, worse or even. Some of us are trying to point out that his influence on our current output is prevalent. Nothing more, and nothing less.

and some of us are disagreeing

[jeemak]

and some of us are disagreeing

I reckon that's my biggest problem! I need to get over the fact that not everyone's into the same shit I am.

[Remi Moses]

No doubt the McCartney blueprint of hunting the player and football is all over this team .
His coaching savyness was sadly lacking however, and to be honest we were extremely fortunate to avoid some recruiting disasters .
Beveridge has added parts to the group that were vital, plus the group has " buy in" to Beveridge, where under McCartney the place was broken beyond repair . It's sad for him because I think he's a genuine nice guy, but you have to tick all the boxes,and McCartney didn't tick many .

[1eyedog]

I reckon that's my biggest problem! I need to get over the fact that not everyone's into the same shit I am.

Wow sounds like you have a lot to get over!

[Sedat]

I think Bevo would acknowledge that he inherited a team that was close to elite with the defensive efforts, stoppages and set-up.

Purely talking from a coaching and tactical perspective, I would very much question this line of thinking. The 'cracking in' mantra did not mean we were a strong team defensively at all. In fact we were laughably easy to play against with our set-ups and structure - have half a dozen mids all fight for the contested ball, one of them scrubs it out straight to a wall of opposition players strategically set-up for this, watch the ball sail over our heads, rinse and repeat. Our game style required us to have to win contested possessions and clearances by astronomical numbers just to have a sniff of being competitive.

I hated the way we played, and it cannot be solely down to the level of talent on our list because we had far more talent than the previous coach was prepared to acknowledge. And that is the biggest problem I had with the BMac years - he placed a very low ceiling on the players, both individually and as a collective group. Beveridge would kill to have the elite talent of Liberatore and Griffen at his disposal right now to compliment the burgeoning talent of our youth, and BMac had both of these players at the top of their game and without injury for much of his 3 years in charge. There was also a cookie-cutter element to how he perceived how the entire group should be taught to play, hence why a jet like Bob was turned into a dirty back pocket plumber for much of season 2012. Also for a supposedly great development coach and teacher, precious few of the players under him showed much improvement at all. Who actually raised their game to new heights that were already well entrenched in the team during the Rocket ear? I can barely think of one - possibly Roughead and his work as a key defender (and I'm being generous).

I agree with Bulldogtragic - the BMac years are akin to the Rohde years. In both cases there was a core group of talented players (young and old) not performing for a number of factors, and the new coach immediately got major improvement out of these players.

Is there a never-ending line of Geelong lackeys in the media that will do everything possible to talk up one of their 'own'? Can't they just acknowledge the bleeding obvious, that BMac was laughably out of his depth as a senior coach?

[Greystache]

This is probably fair enough in hindsight. The comments from previous Geelong players who spent time at the Dogs during his tenure was that he's softened up a lot, compared to how he was at Geelong.

It tells me he was a pretty good "head kicker" or "bad cop" at Geelong, which would have left Thomspon to present a more positive message.

If that's the case wouldn't it then be unlikely he'd be a much loved figure amongst the playing group? All the player's coming from Geelong seem to speak of him in glowing terms, so he couldn't have purely been the bad cop so to speak.

[Greystache]

It seems very few of our supporters fall into the middle ground of he did some good and some not so good.

He taught a young team to be competitive and be hard at the contest, and that soft outsiders weren't a key part of successful teams. He also added far more structure and strategy to our recruiting model, and developed an elite stoppage team. These things he didn't very very well, the problem was in other areas such as ball movement, team defence, and forward structure he was incompetent.

So we had a team and club that were excellent in a couple of areas and inept in some others. Beveridge has come in a rounded out our play and released some players to play a more creative game. I don't understand why many people refuse to accept BMac achieved anything when Beveridge himself has acknowledged how surprised he was at how advanced our stoppage work was, and that it made it much easier for him to advance his plans immediately.

Could BMac have taken us forward to ultimate success? No chance. Did we benefit from his time at the club? Certainly.

[Remi Moses]

I think it's a stretch to compare the talent pool Rohde had as similar to what McCartney had.
Well to begin with we lost our future captain before McCartney came in, and added to the fact the goldmine the franchise clubs were allowed .Rohde had a more mature side ready to peek, whereas McCartney had an ageing side on the wane.
The difference was the players actually had a dip until the last half of last year, whereas under Rohde they barely tried .
I think McCartney was/is a development teacher type, whereas Rohde was suited to the footy management side of things .
I think we'll all admit that coaching an AFL club is one mighty difficult job

[GVGjr]

Purely talking from a coaching and tactical perspective, I would very much question this line of thinking. The 'cracking in' mantra did not mean we were a strong team defensively at all. In fact we were laughably easy to play against with our set-ups and structure - have half a dozen mids all fight for the contested ball, one of them scrubs it out straight to a wall of opposition players strategically set-up for this, watch the ball sail over our heads, rinse and repeat. Our game style required us to have to win contested possessions and clearances by astronomical numbers just to have a sniff of being competitive.

Heard it mentioned by a member of the inner sanctum. Bevo didn't need to make a lot of adjustments on the defensive side of things.
Players like Wood had been dropped the previous season because he had become too defensive minded and wasn't advancing the ball quickly enough.

[bornadog]

Purely talking from a coaching and tactical perspective, I would very much question this line of thinking. The 'cracking in' mantra did not mean we were a strong team defensively at all. In fact we were laughably easy to play against with our set-ups and structure - have half a dozen mids all fight for the contested ball, one of them scrubs it out straight to a wall of opposition players strategically set-up for this, watch the ball sail over our heads, rinse and repeat. Our game style required us to have to win contested possessions and clearances by astronomical numbers just to have a sniff of being competitive.

I hated the way we played, and it cannot be solely down to the level of talent on our list because we had far more talent than the previous coach was prepared to acknowledge. And that is the biggest problem I had with the BMac years - he placed a very low ceiling on the players, both individually and as a collective group. Beveridge would kill to have the elite talent of Liberatore and Griffen at his disposal right now to compliment the burgeoning talent of our youth, and BMac had both of these players at the top of their game and without injury for much of his 3 years in charge. There was also a cookie-cutter element to how he perceived how the entire group should be taught to play, hence why a jet like Bob was turned into a dirty back pocket plumber for much of season 2012. Also for a supposedly great development coach and teacher, precious few of the players under him showed much improvement at all. Who actually raised their game to new heights that were already well entrenched in the team during the Rocket ear? I can barely think of one - possibly Roughead and his work as a key defender (and I'm being generous).

I agree with Bulldogtragic - the BMac years are akin to the Rohde years. In both cases there was a core group of talented players (young and old) not performing for a number of factors, and the new coach immediately got major improvement out of these players.

Is there a never-ending line of Geelong lackeys in the media that will do everything possible to talk up one of their 'own'? Can't they just acknowledge the bleeding obvious, that BMac was laughably out of his depth as a senior coach?

Post of the year.