View Full Version : Hawthorn; broken hearts.
benno87
23 May 2004, 20:37
I hope you don't mind me coming on here and posting my sympathy for the supporters, players and anyone involved at Hawthorn at the moment. I barrack for North Melbourne, though I really enjoy watching Hawthorn play well, and Shane Crawford is an awesome captain.
After watching your game today, I felt really bad, especially for Peter Schwab. I think this guy can really coach, it's just a matter of confidence within himself and his club, if Hawthorn let him go this year, I will be apaulled, because this guy has the ability to coach a football club. Yet it doesn't always reflect the win/loss ratio, Mick Malthouse 16th? Grant Thomas 1st? I mean I have a packet of potato chips that could coach St Kilda right now. Anyway if Hawthorn can demonstrate patience with Schwab for atleast 2005, and agknowledge the injuries, lack of confidence etc. I'm sure he'll show them Wins.
In that last quarter Hawthorn wanted to win much more than Sydney, Lekkas ytried his guts out, as did Crawford, Vanderburg, Mitchell, these guys I rate as an A-Grade midfield, with the best tap ruckman in the AFL.
Anyway can I just say hang in there supporters, because atleast Hawthorn, much like North Melbourne, wont allow the club to fall away in a season and will continue fighting, much like 2003, maybe that's why I like watching them.
So go Hawthorn for a win next week!
The Candy Man
23 May 2004, 21:53
I agree with you benno87, and thanks for posting. I've always said coaches are over-rated, an opinion that often buys me an argument.
That's not to say coaches aren't important, but as you so correctly pointed out, is Grant Thomas REALLY 15 places ahead of Mick Malthouse in coaching ability?
David Parkin and Rodney Eade, two men who have coached at AFL level, both claim that the most important people in a football club are: recruiting staff firstly, followed by medical staff ..... then thirdly the coachiing staff. I agree with them in this.
Like you, I think Schwabby has what it takes to be a successful coach. Everything, that is, except that bit of luck we all need to succeed. When you consider some of the alternatives being mentioned, give me Schwabby any day.
Thanks for your thoughts benno87, and all the best to the Kangaroos for 2004 and beyond.
benno87
23 May 2004, 22:00
No worries mate; Ihere is a statement
"Peter Schwab is the unluckiest person in football"
The Candy Man
23 May 2004, 22:03
Not so sure about him being the unluckiest, and I don't think Schwabby would feel he was all that unlucky. I would say, however, there are some who have had a little more luck when it matters most
:)
Originally posted by benno87
Mick Malthouse 16th? Grant Thomas 1st? I mean I have a packet of potato chips that could coach St Kilda right now.
I totally disagree with that, thomas has good players around him (now), he still needs to get the individuals to gel together and to play to a plan, don't worry about the saints they will likely hit a hurdle along the way*, it will then be upto thomas to lift their confidence and get them back on track.
*they hit a mini one with the rape alligations, it wasn't one of the saints stars, but he still needed to handle that situation well, i don't know if he did or not, as i try to aviod off-field info.
back on topic, i think you will find it is a tad bit harder to coach clubs then most people think, right now, thomas would have to keep all the saints players ego in check, and lets not forget they have very few players with finals exp. that is when we will see just how well he can coach. Malthouse maybe the better coach but it is still about the players performing, and the coach motivating them to do so.
The Candy Man
23 May 2004, 22:22
Feher,
You put Riewoldt, Koschitzke, Ball, Goddard, Gehrig and Hamill in the Hawthorn team, I guarantee we would be better situated than 2-7 and 15th on the ladder.
It doesn't make Schwab a better coach, it just makes him a better performed one.
Originally posted by The Candy Man
Feher,
You put Riewoldt, Koschitzke, Ball, Goddard, Gehrig and Hamill in the Hawthorn team, I guarantee we would be better situated than 2-7 and 15th on the ladder.
It doesn't make Schwab a better coach, it just makes him a better performed one.
Thats fine, but the coach still has imo a rather large role to play especially after loses, also things like recruiting, trading, motivation etc
I think thomas deserves some credit, i am not saying he is the best coach, but i feel you are undervaluing the coaches roll
The Candy Man
23 May 2004, 23:02
Originally posted by feher
Thats fine, but the coach still has imo a rather large role to play especially after loses, also things like recruiting, trading, motivation etc
I think thomas deserves some credit, i am not saying he is the best coach, but i feel you are undervaluing the coaches roll
This is perhaps one of the greatest misconceptions in modern football. The coach has very little input into into recruiting. He may ask for a CHF and a ruckman (let's face it, who doesn't?), but he has no idea what is out there.
He has to put his faith in the recruiting staff and hope that they pick a winner. That's why credentialled people such as Parkin and Eade are saying the recruiting people and medical staff are more important than the coaching staff.
It annoys me when people say how well Mark Williams has recruited for Port Adelaide. It's not Mark Williams, it's a man named Alan Stewart who is responsible for their recruiting.
As for trading, a coach can say, "Yeah, go and get me Wayne Carey", but it is not the coach who does all the wheeling and dealing and has to ensure all deals done are in compliance with AFL rules and adhere to salary cap restrictions.
I know Schwab wanted Brown, but we didn't get him. That wasn't Schwab's fault, it was because of our mismanagement of the salary cap. Coaches never get involved in player contract negotiations because it may sway them in their assessment of a player's value.
Grant Thomas has inherited a wonderfully skilled group of players and has applied very basic coaching techniques. That's all the Saints need at the moment. I can't think of one innovative or radical idea he has implemented in respect to on-field tactics.
The Saints are an extremely talented group, playing basic football, and doing it extremely well. When the Hawks were a kick out of a Grand Final in 2001, was that the doing of Schwab, or the players, or who?
Schwab is no better or worse coach now than he was then, so why are we now 15th? Two reasons .... we haven't recruited as well as some other clubs, and we have had problems with getting players up from injuries.
Hence, the two most important groups of people in any football club are: 1. Recruiting Staff 2. Medical Staff.
Originally posted by The Candy Man
This is perhaps one of the greatest misconceptions in modern football. The coach has very little input into into recruiting. He may ask for a CHF and a ruckman (let's face it, who doesn't?), but he has no idea what is out there.
He has to put his faith in the recruiting staff and hope that they pick a winner. That's why credentialled people such as Parkin and Eade are saying the recruiting people and medical staff are more important than the coaching staff.
Fair point, and i will admit i am wrong on this one, but the coach may get the final say, btw doesn't sheed look at the u18 games?
Originally posted by The Candy Man
As for trading, a coach can say, "Yeah, go and get me Wayne Carey", but it is not the coach who does all the wheeling and dealing and has to ensure all deals done are in compliance with AFL rules and adhere to salary cap restrictions.
i'll disagree on this a bit, the coach will go upto the player and tell him were he wants him to play, the type of role etc, he will tell the match committe who/what he is willing to trade.
Originally posted by The Candy Man
I know Schwab wanted Brown, but we didn't get him. That wasn't Schwab's fault, it was because of our mismanagement of the salary cap. Coaches never get involved in player contract negotiations because it may sway them in their assessment of a player's value.
see above, i believe they do somewhat in terms of were they want to play him, wasn't that one of the main reasons why salmon left ess in the first place? judge(?) offered to play him in the ruck
Originally posted by The Candy Man
Grant Thomas has inherited a wonderfully skilled group of players and has applied very basic coaching techniques. That's all the Saints need at the moment. I can't think of one innovative or radical idea he has implemented in respect to on-field tactics.
yes but he still has to pick the squad, put the players into position and make changes during the game, he also needs to have a rough idea of what each individual player can and can't do.
Originally posted by The Candy Man
The Saints are an extremely talented group, playing basic football, and doing it extremely well. When the Hawks were a kick out of a Grand Final in 2001, was that the doing of Schwab, or the players, or who?
The tactics may look simple but i reckon they are a bit more complex then that. Of course it is upto the player to carry out the coaches instruction, we don't totally know what the player has being told to do.
Originally posted by The Candy Man
Schwab is no better or worse coach now than he was then, so why are we now 15th? Two reasons .... we haven't recruited as well as some other clubs, and we have had problems with getting players up from injuries.
Hence, the two most important groups of people in any football club are: 1. Recruiting Staff 2. Medical Staff.
-
The Candy Man
24 May 2004, 00:20
Feher,
Next time you watch St.Kilda, I'd like you to take notice of how they play, and then I would ask you to think about who they remind you of.
I am talking about the way they move the ball down the field, especially when they get the ball past centre and move into attack.
Bear in mind, they have a full-forward with a strong body, good hands, and is very quick on the lead. They have a CHF who is very strong overhead and has an exceptional read of the game.
They have strong, quick footed midfielders and wingmen who kick long to the leading forwards. These forwards lead the moment the midfielder gets the ball, knowing it will be headed his way.
The ball moves from the HB flank, it is directed to the centre of the ground. Form CHB it will find its way to the wing. If the ball moves to the wing, it is scissored back to CHF. If it reaches the HF flank, it is scissored to the top of the goalsquare.
Does it remind you of anyone yet? I could go on with comparisons but I won't. The team I am talking about is the Hawks in the late 1980s.
St.Kilda move the ball the exact same way. There's nothing they do that you can't predict. Like a Warne flipper, knowing what's about to happen and then being able to do anything about it are sometimes 2 different things.
Watching the Saints, whenever they are moving the ball fluently, I know precisely where the ball is going next.
Grant Thomas has taken a step back in time and introduced an offensive plan that is a guaranteed winner. There's no magic, all you need is the players to be able to do the job.
The Hawks had it in the 1980s, the Saints have it now. Brisbane have been doing very much the same over the past 3-4 years. It's nothing new.
The sides who lack the player talent have to resort to this "keeping off" style of game that will never be successful. The coaches of these teams aren't worse coaches than Thomas, they just don't have the arsenal to coach the way they would want to.
Grant Thomas, IMO, is an excellent manager. He has used his knowledge well to put together a team to surround himself with to make sure that the team performs.
The Saints team last year is not much different to the team this year. But the difference is that Terry Daniher has arrived on the scene, maybe he is the reason that tactically the Saints are performing better.
When the Saints beat Freo I watched the footage of the team entering the rooms. Every support staff and player that did not play stood in a line and congratulated the team as they entered with Thomas the last person to congratulate them. You could see the effect this had on the players. Just constant positive reinforcement.
Originally posted by The Candy Man
...
Does it remind you of anyone yet? I could go on with comparisons but I won't. The team I am talking about is the Hawks in the late 1980s.
...
That was before my time, i have seen short clips of the hawks in the 80's but i would have never guessed that was the way the hawks played back then.
The Candy Man
24 May 2004, 15:07
Originally posted by feher
That was before my time, i have seen short clips of the hawks in the 80's but i would have never guessed that was the way the hawks played back then.
I'm not saying it's exactly the same, but the basic philosophy is the same. Every coach implements a basic system that the players know, then it is up to the players to get as close to it as possible. I beleive Thomas' basic game plan is similar to that of the Hawks in the late 1980s.