Re: Would we be better or worse off if Eade was still coach?
Good question. From what I've seen so far, I'd say it owes a lot to the Geelong style of play (surprise, surprise!) You could also watch Essendon now and see elements of it in their approach (again, not a big surprise). 'Bomber' is now a Bomber again and he and Bmac were there together after building the Cats up from nothing. Yes, Bmac was at Geelong from the start of the dynasty and was part of the development of their game plan. It wasn't based on free-running attacking football, not at the start anyway, but on a hard-nosed defensive effort all over the ground, forward as well as back. When everyone is a defender, it's easier for everyone to also be an attacker - Matthew Scarlett is the perfect example. I think you will find that Bmac's game plan will take shape in much the same way as Geelong's did - from a defensive mindset. He will demand that players go and get their own ball, or burrow in and help while their team mates get it. There will be plenty of red, white and blue around the contest. From there, you will see the focus move to delivery, but you have to get it before you can deliver it. Ask the Willi Watchers about the VFL side. They had 8 18 year olds up against Port on Saturday, and those kids had a real crack - didn't disgrace themselves at all. They are a bunch of hard nuts and the future of our club - playing footy McCartney-style and not taking any backward steps. The skills and outside pay will come. I believe the new game plan is just that, a plan, and it is being built from the inside out and from the back to the front. It will take a while, but if it's done properly, and the early signs are good, then it will be worth the short term pain. We're not playing finals this year, but we will be blooding some hard-arsed youngsters and laying the foundation for a dynasty. It's exciting. Looking back, misty-eyed, at the golden years of preliminary final glory is plain stupid. Let's consign the Rocket years to history where they belong and look forward to future flags instead.
Good question. From what I've seen so far, I'd say it owes a lot to the Geelong style of play (surprise, surprise!) You could also watch Essendon now and see elements of it in their approach (again, not a big surprise). 'Bomber' is now a Bomber again and he and Bmac were there together after building the Cats up from nothing. Yes, Bmac was at Geelong from the start of the dynasty and was part of the development of their game plan. It wasn't based on free-running attacking football, not at the start anyway, but on a hard-nosed defensive effort all over the ground, forward as well as back. When everyone is a defender, it's easier for everyone to also be an attacker - Matthew Scarlett is the perfect example. I think you will find that Bmac's game plan will take shape in much the same way as Geelong's did - from a defensive mindset. He will demand that players go and get their own ball, or burrow in and help while their team mates get it. There will be plenty of red, white and blue around the contest. From there, you will see the focus move to delivery, but you have to get it before you can deliver it. Ask the Willi Watchers about the VFL side. They had 8 18 year olds up against Port on Saturday, and those kids had a real crack - didn't disgrace themselves at all. They are a bunch of hard nuts and the future of our club - playing footy McCartney-style and not taking any backward steps. The skills and outside pay will come. I believe the new game plan is just that, a plan, and it is being built from the inside out and from the back to the front. It will take a while, but if it's done properly, and the early signs are good, then it will be worth the short term pain. We're not playing finals this year, but we will be blooding some hard-arsed youngsters and laying the foundation for a dynasty. It's exciting. Looking back, misty-eyed, at the golden years of preliminary final glory is plain stupid. Let's consign the Rocket years to history where they belong and look forward to future flags instead.
Comment