Whatever we were trying to do in 2018, it didn't work. That's the "what," but what would be the "why?"

We have gotten rid of some of our assistant coaches, and we need to work on our squad list; but would our problems stop there? I am not so sure.





Last year, we would kick into F50 and hope for the best. This year, we tried to move the ball better, but our execution never got to the level we all expected it could be. Moreover, correct me if i am wrong, but our mids weren't as good as we thought they should be in winning the ball out of stoppages and contests. We weren't able to see, but glimpses of our gameplan. Why? Is it the players? The coaches? Everybody?



Even if one agrees with our gameplan, we have failed to execute it.

Handballing to players under pressure was not part of the gameplan. Kicking the ball to opposing players was not part of the gameplan. Lack of pressure was not part of the gameplan. Losing contests were not part of the gameplan. Still, that was what we saw, week in, week out; and this is on the players.







Our gameplan needs players with great disposal skills. We don't have as many of those as we should. A gameplan must fit the squad list; not, the other way around. That failure is on the coaches.

They at least failed on their assumption that our players were able to put the plan in practice. Since this doesn't explain why we have gotten so much worse in constested footy compared to last year,[1] the issue seems to have been both the coaches and the players; which is not comforting at all.





In relation to 2017, our only on-field improvement was that teams hardly have put the game out of reach when we "shut off." I have no idea why we enter into "stand-by" mode, but that was a constant last season, and it has happened again this season. The main difference is that instead of those defensive meltdown of 2017, we had offensive meltdowns; but those are meltdowns nonetheless. Since our record got worse, I am not sure whether the trade-off is worthy.





When it was said we would be focusing on possession, I never thought it would be keeping possession out of defense. Why would we keep the ball closer to their goal? I thought we were adding something to our 2017 forward pressure.







Our plan needs a compact side. Being compact, we would move the ball around in short kicks. In case of the ball being loose or a turnover, we would be close and settled enough to get it back. I get that. But, then, we were supposed to attack in block, moving forward as a unit. If the ball was forward, the whole team should be forward, increasing our forward pressure. This almost never happened.





On the contrary, we got stuck out on the back. We couldn’t keep pressing forward, and too much of game time was played far from our goal. Now, I don't understand, if there was space to move fast forward, why we haven't done that consistently. We almost never counter-attacked. Truth be told,

ultimately, our gameplan had no answer to "how are we going to attack?"

We had no 2017 forward pressure nor 2014 counter-attack. We had the worst of both worlds!

WHY?!



Looking at our season as a whole, our football seems absolutely headless right now: from list management, to team selection, to game-day strategies.

I could include leadership and fitness in that list, too. One must look what are we taking from the analytics as well. In the end, our problem seems to be spread everywhere. That's what losing six out of the last seven games does!



This year in isolation was an absolutely self-inflicted disaster. This is awful, and those responsible deserve all criticism and more. On the other hand, if we just stop shooting ourselves on the foot, we will improve greatly. But, how could we do that? First of all, are we able to do that? It is a tough and painful question, but one that must be made.



For argumentation's sake, I will assume that we are able to stop being our worst enemies.[2] However, the question must remain open, so we can answer it next season. If we are able to improve, what can we do? I suspect changes must begin from the top.



I have this hypothesis for a while, that Ken would be cumulatively holding both head-coach (HC) and general-manager (GM) positions. Davies would be head-of-football only formally. He responds to Hinkley; not, the other way around.



For instance,