Dogs too cautious: Eade

[Hotdog60]

WESTERN Bulldogs coach Rodney Eade believes his players can shake off the cautious approach they are currently employing in the second half of the season.

Eade said the Dogs were too conservative against Collingwood - and Essendon last week - and it was costing them dearly.

"All year, we haven't played great footy consistently and most of that's been due to making errors and our skill level hasn't been up to what we expect," he said, after the 10-point loss.

"I really noticed tonight, more than last week, a cautious approach.

"We've got to play the way we normally play and be able take teams on and if we lose, we lose.

"To lose in a conservative fashion … you're trying not to lose rather than trying to win."

He said his players' fear of making repeated mistakes caused them to surrender a 48-point lead to the Pies in the first three terms.

"We're building our game on being able to persevere and persist, even if we do make mistakes, to keep trying and going back to the well," he said.

"We've been reinforcing it with the guys. In the end, the guys throw caution to the wind.

"It's the way we play. We play a risk-taking game at times but playing conservative hurt us early."

MORE

[Rocco Jones]

Re: Dogs too cautious: Eade

Rocket really seems to distnce himself from the tactical approach our players take out on the field.

Perhaps our chip sideways with no real purpose default and how he constantly berats players has something to do with our 'conservative' approach.

At the moment it's either a case of Eade and co. giving them overly conservative instructions, the playing group not listening/carrying out his instructions or a combination of both.

All three answers don't really paint a good picture of Eade.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Dogs too cautious: Eade

Rocket really seems to distnce himself from the tactical approach our players take out on the field.

Perhaps our chip sideways with no real purpose default and how he constantly berats players has something to do with our 'conservative' approach.

At the moment it's either a case of Eade and co. giving them overly conservative instructions, the playing group not listening/carrying out his instructions or a combination of both.

All three answers don't really paint a good picture of Eade.

This is something that needs to be looked at more closely.

It's seems as though he is constantly going off & singling players out during matches, in which he lets rip with venom. I am a believer that if you continually do this, it's more likely to go in one ear & out the other. The players would get so used to Eade doing this, that they wouldn't pay attention to it anymore.

It's very rare you see coaches lose control, Eade seems to do it more often then most.

[Mantis]

Re: Dogs too cautious: Eade

This is something that needs to be looked at more closely.

It's seems as though he is constantly going off & singling players out during matches, in which he lets rip with venom. I am a believer that if you continually do this, it's more likely to go in one ear & out the other. The players would get so used to Eade doing this, that they wouldn't pay attention to it anymore.

It's very rare you see coaches lose control, Eade seems to do it more often then most.

The most often occurence of a dressing down is due to players not following the coaches instructions. Should players be immune to 'sprays' if they do this?

I guess what happens next is the concern because as yet players don't seem to punishable by way of demotion for continual 'stuff ups'.

[lemmon]

Re: Dogs too cautious: Eade

Is Eade the head honcho and coach of this team or not? This isn't the first time he has talked about our 'cautions approach' or 'chipping the ball around', the same things were said after the
St Kilda game. Its your game plan and style of Rocket, it's either not working or your not getting your message across, surely by round 11 the players know how you want them to play and what your game plan is. These issues should have been dealt with by this point.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Dogs too cautious: Eade

Think Baz needs a break for himself and for the team. Try to regain how we used to play before Barry a little.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Dogs too cautious: Eade

Whilst Eade is pondering the cautious behaviour that cost us yesterday; I hope he reflects on his own conservative approach earlier in the week when selecting the team.

The team we took into the game was a joke and many of us on WOOF said so on Friday when the final team was announced. This issue is bigger than just Everett's baffling ommission from the seniors; it is a fundamental weakness that Eade has often displayed that allows underperfoming senior players to coast and fails to reward the strong efforts of our young players at Williamstown.

Week in and week out, our team is built around a 'cautious approach'. If Eade and the match committee had shown the same steel that Collingwood does when they select their team, then some of yesterday's worst players wouldn't have been out on the ground to stink things up.

Football players must earn their spots in the seniors; it's not a divine right. They have to know that they are playing to hold their places in the team, but far too many of our players approach the game knowing that they'll be in the side next week and the week after that no matter what. Four bad performances in a row should be sufficient to have almost anyone being sent to Williamstown, but not here.

[The Coon Dog]

Re: Dogs too cautious: Eade

Whilst Eade is pondering the cautious behaviour that cost us yesterday; I hope he reflects on his own conservative approach earlier in the week when selecting the team.

The team we took into the game was a joke and many of us on WOOF said so on Friday when the final team was announced. This issue is bigger than just Everett's baffling ommission from the seniors; it is a fundamental weakness that Eade has often displayed that allows underperfoming senior players to coast and fails to reward the strong efforts of our young players at Williamstown.

Week in and week out, our team is built around a 'cautious approach'. If Eade and the match committee had shown the same steel that Collingwood does when they select their team, then some of yesterday's worst players wouldn't have been out on the ground to stink things up.

Football players must earn their spots in the seniors; it's not a divine right. They have to know that they are playing to hold their places in the team, but far too many of our players approach the game knowing that they'll be in the side next week and the week after that no matter what. Four bad performances in a row should be sufficient to have almost anyone being sent to Williamstown, but not here.

Name names!

[Mantis]

Re: Dogs too cautious: Eade

Name names!

'The Rocket' has named them in other threads - Stack, Eagleton, Hahn, Gia & Hill are the one's he is referring too.

It is hard not to disagree with him.

[Desipura]

Re: Dogs too cautious: Eade

How many chances do players get?
I hope that Hahn and the club come to an agreement that this should be his last year. Tell all the supporters and if the opportunity presents itself, give him one more game in the seniors. Ditto for Eagleton.
Sadly the game is getting quicker whilst Hahn is getting slower. There will not be too many occasions that he can play on someone as slow as him (L Brown). His opponent still had him covered for height.

Addison - I know he is a coaches favourite due to his willingness to put his head over the ball, this is not enough when you do not have the footy smarts to get the ball or prevent your opponent from getting it. Combined with his average ball skills especially under pressure, he will not be a long term AFL player.

Stack fumbles far too much and lacks intensity. His awareness is not the best at this stage. Apparently looks great on the training track with his skills, according to Chris Grant. Unfortunately the tempo at training is nothing like an AFL game.

Higgins needs a spell whether injured or not.

Gia - no more talk of him as captain. At best he is an opportunist forward who can occasionally pinch hit in the middle.

[Ozza]

Re: Dogs too cautious: Eade

I've always been a big fan of rocket - and still am. But he has had 2 shockers in a row with perplexing match ups and has taken too long to make moves IMO.

Davis always has a picnic against Harbrow and I can't believe he left Harbrow effectively at full back on Davis for the whole game.

Why would we have a player like Gia play a defensive forward game on Heath Shaw. I know Gia did a good job at limiting Shaw's influence - but Gia is a player we want to have the ball - and once we were getting smashed (particularly in the middle) we needed Gia's clean hands in there.

But the most frustrating part is how we had no forward structure at all for 3 quarters. If the ball was at a stoppage on Centre wing - we had nobody in our fwd line and Collingwood had at minimum - Davis and Cloke. And everytime we play like this we get smashed. Even at Centre bounces - all of our guys were lining at 45m out - with nobody starting deep. Everyone in the stadium can see that this lack of structure kills us - and yet it goes on for an hour and a half before anyone changes it.

Picking Eagleton and persisting with Hahn has been a disaster - admittedly Hahn went ok in the last quarter down back - but for 3 quarters he put in a disgraceful effort.

[Mofra]

Re: Dogs too cautious: Eade

Why would we have a player like Gia play a defensive forward game on Heath Shaw. I know Gia did a good job at limiting Shaw's influence - but Gia is a player we want to have the ball - and once we were getting smashed (particularly in the middle) we needed Gia's clean hands in there.

I agree here - Gia is one of our best ball users in heavy traffic, and in high pressure games ball use is one of the first things to suffer. Yes he played his role, but in the past he has been able to stand up for the team and I don't think he was given the opportunity to do so yesterday.

Stack's inability to actually pick up a ball was glaringly noticeable yesterday, ditto a lack of intensity and a propensity to pull out of contests. Needs a spell.

Mitch simply needs to find a role in the side. If he's not forward no 3, not a middle-bullocker and is a slow defender, is that enough for him to remain in the side?

Eagle did some nice things yesterday, but if he's rated no 19 or 20 in the side picked, would it be better to roll the dice with Easton Wood for the purpose of development? Would Easton really give us much less than Eagle? I'm not sure it's worth a 30+aged fringe player in his last season keeping a young guy out unless he's a bona fide gamebreaker, and I don't think Eagle can be that player in 2010.

Everitt needs to play senior football. Addison, Cross, Moles, Williams and Morris aren't going to hurt teams with their footskills; on that score Everitt offers something important to the side with his ball use.

[The Coon Dog]

Re: Dogs too cautious: Eade

'The Rocket' has named them in other threads - Stack, Eagleton, Hahn, Gia & Hill are the one's he is referring too.

It is hard not to disagree with him.

In that case, I agree with him.

Sorry Rocket, I wasn't aware you had named them in other threads & it is hard to remember who posts what in different threads.

[dogsman26]

Re: Dogs too cautious: Eade

Ok, I'm noticing a trend here about Hahn and Eagleton being attacked, which I don't disagree with at all but I think more criticism needs to be given to Cooney and sadly Daniel Cross. Saying that Cross tries is just rewarding mediocrity which we shouldn't do. At his best Cross is one of the premium midfielders in the comp but he is far from his best. People really should be bagging more of the bigger named players, they are the ones who should be leading right now. Boyd is always a workhorse, Hall is trying, Lake tries, everyone else inlcuding Cooney is a dud right now. Cooney's finishing has been pathetic for the last couple weeks and reiterates many people's beliefs he is a mediocre brownlow medallist.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Dogs too cautious: Eade

The most often occurence of a dressing down is due to players not following the coaches instructions. Should players be immune to 'sprays' if they do this?

I've promised myself not to post on the game this week as I don't trust myself and don't want to be misinterpreted/cause misunderstandings etc.

However, this is an interesting point you raise, Mantis, that I think deserves some analysis. I think we have to ask ourselves what the desired 'end' result is in choosing to 'spray' a player. Is it to let everyone know that they screwed up and to mete out justice for a mistake and take out your frustrations on the player? Or is it to get the player to perform the role that is required of them, to pull the finger out, etc.? This is an important distinction because the first one is about punishment, the second one is about education.

If we agree that education and improved performance is the desired result, there are several different ways to achieve this -- yes, a spray is ocassionally the right option and with certain players, but human beings all respond quite differently to different stimuli. However, in this day and age of erosion of 'heirarchical' attitudes, sprays are becoming less and less effective, and coaches have to change their communication styles. In the old days the coach was by default an authority figure to be respected. These days, your players are more like to see everyone as roughly 'equal' and the coach as only one cog in the wheel that has to earn respect rather than be blindly given it -- Malthouse suggested as much last week when he talked about not being responsible for motivating the players, saying that his role as coach was to analyse opposition teams, create a response, teach etc., while motivation was left to the leadership group and the individual player.

Also, Paul Roos yesterday gave an excellent example of how to treat your players when Adam Goodes screwed up badly in letting his direct opponent have an uncontested possession in the forward 50. He just quietly spoke to him AFTER the quarter time team meeting, but always very respectfully. Bomber Thompson did the same thing with Steve Johnson at three-quarter time last Friday, discussing his 'non-team behaviour' with a natural light-hearted and quiet dignity without drawing attention of the rest of the team to it, after the huddle had broken up. This got the message across without belittling the player in front of his peer group. Mature players, especially, seem to respond more to a respectful discussion than if you treat them like naughty children. In fact, players GROW in maturity as you treat them as mature adults who are able to make their own decisions.

Perhaps treating the players like kids also leads them to stop taking risks or responsibility for their own behaviour because they just don't want to mess up and get 'scolded'.

Rocket has always been lauded for his tactical acumen and creativity, but I think it would be fair to say, with his history in losing the board at Sydney, having to have his portfolio cut after 2007 due to his failure to communicate effectively with the football department, Aker getting off the leash regularly, the lack of real on-field leadership all through the list, and the extremely risk-averse team mentality (which ironically leads to more turnovers), communication and people skills aren't his natural strengths. He works very hard at this, and is a polished communicator (especially with the media), but probably isn't as intuitive in this area as some other coaches are.

The lack of on-field leadership, especially, I think, can be linked back to this issue. If Rocket sees himself as Top Dog and is a control freak, then he shouldn't be surprised that there will be no alpha males on the field. Bomber Thompson and Paul Roos (I think the best man managers in the game) have the absolute respect of their players behind closed doors, but they make their players the leaders on the field, which is also why their teams are chock-full of leaders on every line and at every age group (Brett Kirk, Adam Goodes, Hall, O'Keefe, Gablett, Ling, Chapman, Enright, Mackie, Scarlett, Bartel, Selwood, Mooney, etc. etc. etc.), while even our stand-in captain (Gia) doesn't look like a leader and our best players on every line (Lake, Boyd, Cooney, Murphy, Higgins etc.) are flighty and error prone. Coincidence? You might say that it's just luck, but Kirk and Goodes were not natural leaders when Roos took over that list, nor were Chapman, Harley, Ling or Gablett in their earlier days.