TOPIC:

After two wins where our instinctual play enable to win games we came up against a team that had the same instincts but were better drilled in how to use them. Claremont knew what to do when the play required a reaction, they knew where to go and what to do through their understanding and obvious skill levels.

For the Tiggers I thought Petrovski-Seton was clearly the most adept player on the field with Wynne and Ehlers showing class in trying conditions. The old adage about tall players still being tall at the end of the game was obvious once again.

For us Mr Wright showed his ability to play in all conditions with Dobson, De Campo and Bayok doing their best in the game.

I watched Claremont colts last weekend against Swans Grump and was super impressed with their midfield In general where they dominated SD in the second half. Well drilled as you say and had a bit of size amongst them. Yesterday's conditions obviously would have impacted the quality of the game but seems their boys have the ability to play in good or trying conditions. Flag favourites for me from what I've seen of the colts this year.

Too big and talented Grump, but the boys battled hard. They only really got a hold of us with the breeze in the last quarter.

Larry Bird wrote: Too big and talented Grump, but the boys battled hard. They only really got a hold of us with the breeze in the last quarter.

Not sure that agree with your summation, I thought they (tiggers) reacted to the challenges through an understanding of their roles in the situations, obviously well drilled in the various situations in the different parts of the ground and set ups.

I think we have the talent and the strengths but are playing on instinct and have a lack of role understanding when x happens then I need to react this way.

Even at colts level 'set plays'or set reactions'differentiate the top teams from the lesser sides.

Don't get exactly what your driving at Grump as far as what our players are being educated with or not educated with.

Larry Bird wrote: Don't get exactly what your driving at Grump as far as what our players are being educated with or not educated with.

If watch the good teams they seem to understand what to do in the various situations that arise in different parts of the ground, ball ups etc, kick ins etc.

Fair enough Grump, I'm of the opinion a coach can only improve a player by a couple of percent. You either have it or you don't.

Larry Bird wrote: Fair enough Grump, I'm of the opinion a coach can only improve a player by a couple of percent. You either have it or you don't.

Not so sure that is the case, development is about teaching the group how to respond in certain situations, very similar to how a lot of professions are taught, if a happens then b needs to be put in place.

Teaching individuals skills is another thing also. And one skill is about reacting to certain stimulus.

There is a degree of innateness about some players but again that is honed through understanding of what to do when ....., the ability to carry it out 90% of the time as opposed to an acceptable 60% is the difference between a Hawthorn or a ........!