Article on Herald Sun Superfooty today

[jo172]

And if our bumbling mess of a CEO did infact choose Sando as his first choice but wanted to wait 3 months to appoint him and Melbourne offered Sando the job rather than Neeld, guess what? We would of ended up with Neeld....

Bradbury appointment

They hadn't interviewed Sando yet ....

 

[knobby]

And if our bumbling mess of a CEO did infact choose Sando as his first choice but wanted to wait 3 months to appoint him and Melbourne offered Sando the job rather than Neeld, guess what? We would of ended up with Neeld....

Bradbury appointment

My mail - the selection committee had to convince the CEO Sando was the right man, the CEO wanted to make sure due diligiance was done and interviewed just about every applicant !

 

[ruscy002]

They hadn't interviewed Sando yet ....

We really hadn't interviewed our #1 candidate before other clubs had started appointing theirs? If this is the case then our process was an expert display of indecision and procrastination...

 

[ruscy002]

They hadn't interviewed Sando yet ....

Sure you're not thinking about Burns?

 

[jo172]

We really hadn't interviewed our #1 candidate before other clubs had started appointing theirs? If this is the case then our process was an expert display of indecision and procrastination...

How much of him being #1 candidate was by virtue of the interview though?

I would agree it wasn't a flawless selection process, but the hysterics were OTT

 

[jo172]

Sure you're not thinking about Burns?

It's possible you're right. It was one of the two.

I don't think you can blame the club for wanting to interview the 4 they saw as real contenders before making a decision.

The more I think about it the more I suspect you're right.

With Burns being so difficult (and a sizeable portion wanted him) it was always a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Hopefully there's a happy ending.

 

[Wilburwild]

They hadn't interviewed Sando yet ....

Yes they had, was just less media hype around Sando than Neeld and Burns. It was Burns who hadnt presented. They'd all been interviewed, Sando and Neeld had presented. Burns hadn't.

Anyhow, the proof will be in the pudding. It remains to be seen whether either of them can put a premiership team together.

I was surprised when I read the article this morning and wasn't sure I believed Neeld had been offered the job, as the article suggested. I didn't want to create another "which choice was better?" thread.

 

[ruscy002]

I would agree it wasn't a flawless selection process, but the hysterics were OTT

Agreed, but I think the hysterics were exacerbated by what appeared to be an excessively long process, that was the major criticism that I had.

FWIW, I genuinely believe that Sando was our #1 candidate. There's a bit of a benefit of hindsight in this statement but footy matters aside, I can't see any of the other candidates being the right fit for our club personality-wise.

 

[Huntercrow]

Melbourne journos (Robbo) say they love Neeld for his honesty and the way he handles himself during interviews, He acts like a 20 year coach.

But that's a Journo judging him on his ability to be newsworthy I think.

I really like Sando and what he has done for this group, he seems to make the game enjoyable to play again.
Also like that he stood back at the Nab cup Presentation so the players could bask a little. gave them a taste of what might be to come if they want it.
Seems to be a no nonsense bloke with a great coaching background.

 

[jenny61_99]

My mail - the selection committee had to convince the CEO Sando was the right man, the CEO wanted to make sure due diligiance was done and interviewed just about every applicant !

First part not true. Second part is.

 

[jenny61_99]

Agreed, but I think the hysterics were exacerbated by what appeared to be an excessively long process, that was the major criticism that I had.

FWIW, I genuinely believe that Sando was our #1 candidate. There's a bit of a benefit of hindsight in this statement but footy matters aside, I can't see any of the other candidates being the right fit for our club personality-wise.

You are right.. he was our #1 candidate but they wanted to make sure due process was followed given the criticism they copped from the previous appointment.

 

[jenny61_99]

Yeah, agreed.

Can't or Won't?

I was trying to clear up the hearsay, not add another dimension to it...

Yes, sorry didn't mean to do that. I want to say "take my word on it" but I know how little value that bears in here.

 

[Play On Advantage]

I remember before Neeld was appointed by Melbourne, he came out and said there was one job he wanted far more than the others. Even went as far to say he'd 'walk across broken glass to get it'.

My thoughts are that if that job was with Melbourne, why would he waste his time coming to us and telling us he has been offered the senior job there, surely he would just take it.

If he was our man, we could have got him.

I dont think theres one person atm that could say a bad word about anything Sando has done so far. VERY happy with him

 

[Freddy Bassett]

They hadn't interviewed Sando yet ....

How much time did they require?

 

[jo172]

How much time did they require?

Read the last page and you'll note I was wrong, it was Scott Burns.

And it was more difficulty regarding his availability as at the time he was still committed to West Coast's finals push.

 

[relapse]

Distinction between the ridiculing of wanting Neeld and ridiculing the hysterics when Neeld wasn't appointed.

Particularly when the genesis of the hysterics was that the AFC wasn't the first club to make an appointment.

It all comes down to aspects of the selection process that we'll never know.

If the rumours were true that Sanderson was second choice and that we were beaten to the punch for Neeld by Melbourne then any criticism directed at the club at that time for being victims of their own apathy would be justified. Especially after the farce that occurred in 2004 when Craig was appointed.

Fact remains that neither coach has yet coached a senior game and it's at least 12 months early to start judging who was the better option.

 

[Freddy Bassett]

Read the last page and you'll note I was wrong, it was Scott Burns.

And it was more difficulty regarding his availability as at the time he was still committed to West Coast's finals push.

Bradbury appointment

 

[jo172]

Bradbury appointment

T**ty Sprinkles

 

[jo172]

We are just parroting things we find amusing in the place of discussion yeah?

 

[Swifty18]

I'm glad we went for Sando; he seems like the kind of guy we needed. He's laid back and seems very approachable - something that a young list like ours needed. I wanted him from before Craig even left, but thanks to dodgey-as journos like Rucci, I was led to believe Sando was light years behind Neeld, Burns & Bickley, so I turned to Neeld. But I'm not sure if I'd want another coach who hadn't played in the AFL; Sando's career didn't go to plan early on so he knows how to fight, & knows what it's like to be on the "outer", which can only help our players who aren't in (or even close) to our best 22.

plus, Neeld creeps me out, whereas I could sit, watch & listen to Sando all day

 

[spenze]

Melbourne journos (Robbo) say they love Neeld for his honesty and the way he handles himself during interviews, He acts like a 20 year coach.

But that's a Journo judging him on his ability to be newsworthy I think.

I really like Sando and what he has done for this group, he seems to make the game enjoyable to play again.
Also like that he stood back at the Nab cup Presentation so the players could bask a little. gave them a taste of what might be to come if they want it.
Seems to be a no nonsense bloke with a great coaching background.

The day Robbo questioned Sandersons first press conference when Sando said we were going to stick our heads over the footy and win the contested ball, was the day I stopped listening to him.

Robbo suggested that it was an empty statement but then waxed lyrical about Neeld saying only 13 players were pencilled in as starters in the Melbourne side.

If he had watched us in the last 18 months of Craig (at least) he would have been well aware we had been smashed at the things Sando said he'd improve and had been a little more questioning on why Neeld felt such a high number should be pencilled in for the Dees considering their efforts.

He reminds me of the guy who watches the first quarter, gets on the piss and then checks the DT scores for best players so he can file a report.

O/T I would have been happy with either Sando or Neeld, I think both will make good coaches, I was just happy we didn't get Burns

 

[ftmch]

T**ty Sprinkles

This (and your follow up) could be POTY.
:thumbup:

 

[Freddy Bassett]

T**ty Sprinkles

hahaha

Fiddlesticks!

 

[jenny61_99]

It all comes down to aspects of the selection process that we'll never know.

If the rumours were true that Sanderson was second choice and that we were beaten to the punch for Neeld by Melbourne then any criticism directed at the club at that time for being victims of their own apathy would be justified. Especially after the farce that occurred in 2004 when Craig was appointed.

Fact remains that neither coach has yet coached a senior game and it's at least 12 months early to start judging who was the better option.

The rumors aren't true, sando was our first choice.

 

[pext]

I'm inclined to believe the Crows version of events. If we cast our minds back, the Melbourne process was a train wreck. Talk of Malthouse and Lyon, media leaks and then an ultra fast decision on Neeld.

Crows process was water tight. Nothing from the club has suggsted anyone but Sando was our preferred candidate.

The Geelong system has won three flags. The Collingwod system one. Plain and simple, I'd take Sando over Neeld.