No Oppo Supporters Re-signing Tex, Danger and Sloane *** Crows Only ***

[Pdub]

+1. Those clowns have been over-training for a couple of years. They will have a crowded injury tent this year and their depth is non-existent. Ryder...pfffft...average backup ruck and okay forward.

http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/2013-06-18/ryder-nominated-for-goal-of-year

He's capable of doing some pretty incredible things on the field, just lacks consistency. If the port coaches are as good as their reputation says they are for getting the best out of players, it's pretty scary what he could be. I'm not convinced they are the miracle workers their supporters believe they are though.

 

[baldandbroke]

I thought Sando was doing well - and had the ingredients to become a good coach. Then I came to the conclusion he wasn't what I'd hoped ... and after seeing more info about his coaching I think I was wrong in my original assessment.

Walsh will be judged in hindsight too. Impossible to tell anything from now except the fact that he is looking like hitting the right buttons, but until we see it action for a period of time we are guessing the same as we always do.

Sando didn't go from a 10/10 in 2012 to a 0/10 when he was fired, and Walsh has not even got a mark yet coz he has not coached a game in anger.

I reckon Sanders has a point.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Look I think this is all pretty reflective of the average footy supporter in whose eyes, the players are king.

Team has success in 2012 - how good were our players!! The game plan? Nothing too fancy - get and kick long, pretty simple, could have coached themselves.

Team turns to crap in 2013/14 suddenly it's a complicated game plan - hard for the players to implement. Players are confused.

Couldn't possibly be the players - must be the coach. So then he's replaced.

Then it's all how crap the coach was. Didn't have an outside plan for MacKay.

Supporters can never accept its the players

I dont think thats unreasonable though. You bring in the best talent you can, then you get someone to manage that talent. If the talent performs well, thats expected, you put a lot of time and effort into assembling and preparing that talent. If one or two drag arse then you tell them to lift their game, if they all drag arse then you look to the manager to see what hes doing wrong. To use a poorly formed analogy if one violinist is out of time and out of tune its the violinists fault. If the entire orchestra is out of time and out of tune its the conductors fault.

 

[Mismatched]

Look I think this is all pretty reflective of the average footy supporter in whose eyes, the players are king.

Team has success in 2012 - how good were our players!! The game plan? Nothing too fancy - get and kick long, pretty simple, could have coached themselves.

Team turns to crap in 2013/14 suddenly it's a complicated game plan - hard for the players to implement. Players are confused.

Couldn't possibly be the players - must be the coach. So then he's replaced.

Then it's all how crap the coach was. Didn't have an outside plan for MacKay.

Supporters can never accept its the players

I'm sorry mate, but that's one massive cop-out for Sando. for starters there was some pretty serious self gratification going on by Crows supporters over Sando at the end of 2012, his mates from Geelong are still at it in fact.

You talk about the players copping the blame, and they should, but surely it's the coaches job to ensure the players are accountable to their performance.

You keep banging on about Mackay, yet Sando kept picking him each week, surely if he's as clearly to blame, then why should Sando not cop even more blame for continuing to pick him. Should he not cop the blame for not demanding the likes of Danger and Thommo improve their kicking or defensive efforts?

If the playing are to blame and Sando is in fact a very good coach, why weren't we culling them like there's no tomorrow and going through a rebuild.

Answer is, Sando is employed to get the absolute best out of the playing group, to turn 40 odd blokes into a football team, to cull those that aren't up to it and promote those who are. If the players aren't up to it, then ultimately the coach isn't up to it.

I don't think Sando was a bad coach and god knows he was let down by his administration, but ultimately if the players aren't performing, that's his responsibility and if the hierarchy don't think he's up to doing this job he should be moved on.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Could have been to save money...the club could have asked him whether he required one and he said no.

This wouldn't surprise me. I could believe that the club couldnt find a suitable replacement in time. I could believe they didnt want to fill Baileys role while he was serving his suspension (which qualified candidate would take the role for half a season anyway) and I could believe out of respect for Bailey they didnt fill his role while he was alive, which while admirable indicates poor succession planning.

I could also believe that Sanderson had been reading his own 2012 press clippings, and thought he was ready to go it alone. Humble isnt a word that comes readily to mind when thinking about Sando.

 

[Sanders]

It may sound like a cliche but it is management 101. Sounds basic yet so many don't get it!

its like a car crash, must look away but can't....

Tell me Sanders whether you think the players were playing for Sando when the finals were on the line in the last month of the season?

Imo, he had lost the players, which made his job untenable.

Many posters raised concerns about his ability on match day prior to his sacking.

Ok. Who suffered for the bloody mindedness of management? Who suffered for the refusal to buy in a tactician? Maybe Hinkley would be a dud without the level of support the PAPS have continually surrounded him with.

Port have no interest in the intellectual experiment of seeing how he'd go without the support of Richardson/walsh/voss

I'm not saying sando was Robert shaw terrible, but imo does not have all the necessary tools to become a successful senior coach.

And I'm saying you wouldn't know. and I've never thought, even in the good days, that he showed great signs. But you can't leave someone unsupported and then make decisive judgements on them. You wouldn't know, and neither would anyone else.

I'm far more confident in Afc moving on... Even though there are no guarantees with Walsh given he is untried.

Who the hell would know? We're all going to suck it and see what happens.
I have more confidence in the walsh regime just because I don't think we'll make the same mistakes.

 

[Sanders]

Could have been to save money...the club could have asked him whether he required one and he said no.

The club should have been making the decision on whether he needed support, not the man himself.

 

[Sanders]

What about this as a possible theory

Suppose Sando and Bailey take a look at our list and decide that based on our playing list matche'd up against other teams and trends in game styles that a heavy focus i contested ball with a dual anchor structure up forward with tippett and Tex. That's our best chance of winning, and the game plan that will get it down.

And it turns out they're right.

But Skirt & Tex are essential for that game plan, and that we don't have the skills for the heavy retention over possession style that the Hawks use.

Then he loses 1 and then both of them.

He's yelling at list management that this team can't win without 2 big forwards and to get in some replacements. Nothing really happens. He keeps telling Trigg & co. That we cannot win like this, and they do nothing.

Eventually he is so frustrated he checks good buddy pods out of the retirement home, in a desperate hope of putting in place the structure he knows works.

Now he's telling everyone that his game plan works but the crows wouldn't staff it properly for him.

You lose the key pieces in a successful structure, and then people blame the structure when the pieces aren't replaced?

In the wash up we push back and say he should have adjusted the plan to what he did have. And he points out forcibly that he told us we weren't otherwise good enough. We didn't have the cattle so the structure had to come first

If that were true, could we really argue that much?

 

[SpeciousArgument]

What about this as a possible theory

Suppose Sando and Bailey take a look at our list and decide that based on our playing list matche'd up against other teams and trends in game styles that a heavy focus i contested ball with a dual anchor structure up forward with tippett and Tex. That's our best chance of winning, and the game plan that will get it down.

And it turns out they're right.

But Skirt & Tex are essential for that game plan, and that we don't have the skills for the heavy retention over possession style that the Hawks use.

Then he loses 1 and then both of them.

He's yelling at list management that this team can't win without 2 big forwards and to get in some replacements. Nothing really happens. He keeps telling Trigg & co. That we cannot win like this, and they do nothing.

Eventually he is so frustrated he checks good buddy pods out of the retirement home, in a desperate hope of putting in place the structure he knows works.

Now he's telling everyone that his game plan works but the crows wouldn't staff it properly for him.

You lose the key pieces in a successful structure, and then people blame the structure when the pieces aren't replaced?

In the wash up we push back and say he should have adjusted the plan to what he did have. And he points out forcibly that he told us we weren't otherwise good enough. We didn't have the cattle so the structure had to come first

If that were true, could we really argue that much?

I would tell him he was a fool for having a rigid plan that relied on 2 players being fit and on the park, one of whom was out of contract at the end of 2012 and gave no indication he was keen to stay. I would tell him he was even more of a fool for not adapting once he lost Tippett as his game plan relied on ONE player being on the park, and taking on a role he wasnt ready for.

After losing Tippett and then Walker i could forgive not finishing top 4 in 2013, maybe even not finishing top 8. What i cant and wont forgive is the insipid, directionless and uncompetitive performances from a team that lost a prelim by 5 points half a year before.

IMO its the head coaches responsibility to get the most out of the players available. Do you believe Sanderson got everything he could out of those 2013 and 2014 squads? Because the people responsible for explaining a million dollar hole in the budget were pretty sure he didnt, and couldnt.

 

[Sanders]

I would tell him he was a fool for having a rigid plan that relied on 2 players being fit and on the park, one of whom was out of contract at the end of 2012 and gave no indication he was keen to stay. I would tell him he was even more of a fool for not adapting once he lost Tippett as his game plan relied on ONE player being on the park, and taking on a role he wasnt ready for.

After losing Tippett and then Walker i could forgive not finishing top 4 in 2013, maybe even not finishing top 8. What i cant and wont forgive is the insipid, directionless and uncompetitive performances from a team that lost a prelim by 5 points half a year before.

IMO its the head coaches responsibility to get the most out of the players available. Do you believe Sanderson got everything he could out of those 2013 and 2014 squads? Because the people responsible for explaining a million dollar hole in the budget were pretty sure he didnt, and couldnt.

I think we got in 2013, 2014 exactly what we deserved; which wasn't much different to 2010, 2011

I categorically reject the idea that we under-achieved in 2013 & 14.


I still say that 2012 was a fluke, but I am speculating that maybe I'm wrong. Maybe 2012 showed what could be done with our list if the pieces are there. Maybe 2013 & 14 is our real level? and the only way to rise above that was a very clever game plan devised by Sando & Bails?

Of course this is all speculation and I'm not even sure i buy it. I just wonder a bit about the hand he got dealt.

Maybe the rumours about us and cameron were true? That we knew we needed a twin post for our game plan?

Let's put it another way: if 2015 resembles 2014 & 2013 do we blame walsh? What would it say about Sando?

 

[mattymac]

There's no doubt losing the twin towers destroyed his gameplan. But for mine what finally killed him was the fact he was basically indecisive. He seemed to need Bailey in the box because he couldn't make a decision on his own. I saw it a lot in the way he talked as well. Used to lead into answers to questions with "oh yeah its a hard one...do you do x or do you do y?".

We saw it constantly on game day where the oppo would make a move. A simple move like drop someone back or swing someone forward and it invariably took until after the next break before an attempt was made to remedy the problem. He seemed to coach by committee.

In real time you can't afford to get everyone's opinion to validate your ideas. You make a call or you get burnt every minute you dawdle.

The reality is whenever he came up against an experienced coach in 2014 he got his lunch money taken off him. Even when they had garbage lists like Melbourne and Carlton. I feel this is because he just didn't trust his judgement and act decisively on gameday.

 

[Sanders]

The reality is whenever he came up against an experienced coach in 2014 he got his lunch money taken off him. Even when they had garbage lists like Melbourne and Carlton. I feel this is because he just didn't trust his judgement and act decisively on gameday.

This is probably pretty close to my thoughts too.

 

[rezagun]

LOL - so anyone who thought he was an ok coach, knows **** all about footy?

Laughable at best.

He was 30 seconds away from making the finals in 2013 and that was without our best key forward.

Walsh is the new coach, hope he does well but until he coaches a game or two, its too early to say we are better off.

I said MOST , you can be in the 15%.

 

[Jeffcrowe]

What about this as a possible theory

Suppose Sando and Bailey take a look at our list and decide that based on our playing list matche'd up against other teams and trends in game styles that a heavy focus i contested ball with a dual anchor structure up forward with tippett and Tex. That's our best chance of winning, and the game plan that will get it down.

And it turns out they're right.

But Skirt & Tex are essential for that game plan, and that we don't have the skills for the heavy retention over possession style that the Hawks use.

Then he loses 1 and then both of them.

He's yelling at list management that this team can't win without 2 big forwards and to get in some replacements. Nothing really happens. He keeps telling Trigg & co. That we cannot win like this, and they do nothing.

Eventually he is so frustrated he checks good buddy pods out of the retirement home, in a desperate hope of putting in place the structure he knows works.

Now he's telling everyone that his game plan works but the crows wouldn't staff it properly for him.

You lose the key pieces in a successful structure, and then people blame the structure when the pieces aren't replaced?

In the wash up we push back and say he should have adjusted the plan to what he did have. And he points out forcibly that he told us we weren't otherwise good enough. We didn't have the cattle so the structure had to come first

If that were true, could we really argue that much?

How do you explain the first 3 rounds when on multiple occasions the opp gets the ball over the back of the press on numerous occasion and waltzes into open goals and when hitting the front early in the 3rd quarter in all 3 games the players have nothing left in the tank and get walloped in the last 45 minutes. Or the game plan to handball incessantly to clear the ball from the back half (self proclaimed game plan) only for it to continuously break down so that the tactics need to be overhauled before round 4 and a big portion of the summer prep wasted. Many more examples as well

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

its like a car crash, must look away but can't....





Ok. Who suffered for the bloody mindedness of management? Who suffered for the refusal to buy in a tactician? Maybe Hinkley would be a dud without the level of support the PAPS have continually surrounded him with.

Port have no interest in the intellectual experiment of seeing how he'd go without the support of Richardson/walsh/voss





And I'm saying you wouldn't know. and I've never thought, even in the good days, that he showed great signs. But you can't leave someone unsupported and then make decisive judgements on them. You wouldn't know, and neither would anyone else.



Who the hell would know? We're all going to suck it and see what happens.
I have more confidence in the walsh regime just because I don't think we'll make the same mistakes.

I completely agree Afc should have replaced Bailey - pretty sure I mentioned it numerous times Just another example of how Trigg's poor decisions impacted on the on-field performance. It possibly would have been the difference between making & missing the finals.

However, if sando was a top notch leader he would have demanded better assistants around him that cover his weakness. You can't wait fir these things for a 2nd year after 1 poor year as coaches gave a short life in the job.

In the end Sando lost his players, which makes his job untenable. He should have rectified things earlier - he didn't - he has paid the price.

 

[TrainRoo32]

Reports on Roo & Dits, that Pendlebury has had a couple of sit downs with Paddy D!

Anything new to worry about? Or just the same hearsay as we been hearing?

 

[rezagun]

Reports on Roo & Dits, that Pendlebury has had a couple of sit downs with Paddy D!

Anything new to worry about? Or just the same hearsay as we been hearing?

A port flog trying to stir the pot. did andrew jarman tell him this one...??

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Reports on Roo & Dits, that Pendlebury has had a couple of sit downs with Paddy D!

Anything new to worry about? Or just the same hearsay as we been hearing?

Add him to the growing list of Clarkson, malthouse, selwood, etc...

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Reports on Roo & Dits, that Pendlebury has had a couple of sit downs with Paddy D!

Anything new to worry about? Or just the same hearsay as we been hearing?

We're getting Pendlebury!

 

[Deaneus!]

Pendlebury to Adelaide!!

 

[Wood_Duck]

Add him to the growing list of Clarkson, malthouse, selwood, etc...

Ive heard that Taylor Walker is also spending quite a bit of time with him.

 

[Tex200]

I'm sorry mate, but that's one massive cop-out for Sando. for starters there was some pretty serious self gratification going on by Crows supporters over Sando at the end of 2012, his mates from Geelong are still at it in fact.

You talk about the players copping the blame, and they should, but surely it's the coaches job to ensure the players are accountable to their performance.

You keep banging on about Mackay, yet Sando kept picking him each week, surely if he's as clearly to blame, then why should Sando not cop even more blame for continuing to pick him. Should he not cop the blame for not demanding the likes of Danger and Thommo improve their kicking or defensive efforts?

If the playing are to blame and Sando is in fact a very good coach, why weren't we culling them like there's no tomorrow and going through a rebuild.

Answer is, Sando is employed to get the absolute best out of the playing group, to turn 40 odd blokes into a football team, to cull those that aren't up to it and promote those who are. If the players aren't up to it, then ultimately the coach isn't up to it.

I don't think Sando was a bad coach and god knows he was let down by his administration, but ultimately if the players aren't performing, that's his responsibility and if the hierarchy don't think he's up to doing this job he should be moved on.

Yep that's all fair comment.

No way Sando should escape part of the blame for 13/14. It burns me a bit though the way in which the players contribution to the mess is overlooked. They are big boys being well paid and self motivation is their own responsibility.

Their performances during 2011 were, at times, dishonest and sold NC down the river. Poor darlings weren't having fun anymore apparently, so they get their new coach.

Sando had his failings no doubt, but in 10/11 and 13/14 we have gladly latched on to 2 coaches failings to explain the continued failure of a number of players on our list for both those periods

 

[Tex200]

Playing devils advocate here. What happens if we make top 6 this year with essentially the same playing group? With your above reasoning when should a coach be moved on? We're you happy with game plans & match ups last year?

I think if we make top 6 then what we have is the Walsh spike.

Still don't think it totally absolves the players of sharing blame.

 

[GROTTO]

I think if we make top 6 then what we have is the Walsh spike.

Still don't think it totally absolves the players of sharing blame.

If we win the flag then what we have is the Walsh Climax.

 

[TexFactor]

well now its all done here is my (conspiracy?) theory:

whilst looking for dean baileys replacement during the 2014 season roo fell in love with walsh.

roo wanted him. roo chased him. roo convinced him. roo got him.

sando becomes collateral damage...not because he is a 'bad coach' but because walsh is the preferred choice.

The club spun a completely different story for various reasons but mostly on behalf of walsh because he didn't want to be seen flirting with the enemy whilst ports season was still in play.

That's not to say we couldn't fill pages on sandos faults (and we have) but I just think in the end it was about walsh being perceived as a better coach more so then what sando did wrong.

Perhaps the players even caught a wiff of what was going on? Could explain some of their 'efforts' towards the end of the season.

Bassett, Dew, Goodwin and Bolton were never a chance and where all red herrings to keep the story going - that we fired sando for his own faults after an EOS review and were doing our 'due diligence' in looking at all our options, rather than: "we have been poaching a coach from our bitter rivals for the past 6 months".

This would also help explain roos' strange phone call to Goodwin and even stranger, the otherwise unexplainable public airing of said phone call. Because it was meant to look like we were looking for a coach and Roo called in a favour from his mate.

AFC must have loved it when the media brought up actual candidates in Dew, Bolton and Bassett to help sell our story for us. Apparently bassett left the interview with the idea they had already made up their mind before he had even walked in. makes sense - because they had.

Sandos faults may have even been exaggerated by the club to help explain this 'unusual' and 'out of nowhere' sacking and help sell the story.

Finally, im suggesting that if roo hadn't met and fell in love with walsh then sando would probably still be coach.

This was all perpetrated by the illuminati of course, in an attempt to get Lindy to take her own life, because she was privy to some very sensitive information regarding the moon landing hoax and was about to go public. anyone heard from Lindy lately? didn't think so.

well its just a theory anyway.