Mega Thread The Western Bulldogs - The Sack Macca saga

[TheHoneyBadger]

Come on Nath, keep up, I just said all that for you a few posts ago! How can I represent your interests (for a small fee) if you are going to go off like a loose cannon and undermine my PR skills?

Apologies, Ivan. This 'having a manager' thing is new to me.

How's my contract status here? Igloo, Mike__, Ant_ and Testekill are telling me nothing.

You really don't need to defend Peter Gordon. His last two years have been exemplary. Anyone who can't see that isn't paying attention.

You wouldn't think so. At least it's in the appropriate thread.

 

[ivan rassmussen]

Apologies, Ivan. This 'having a manager' thing is new to me.

How's my contract status here? Igloo, Mike__, Ant_ and Testekill are telling me nothing

All good, I'm just having coffee with them now, and your new contract should be sorted pronto. I'm sending through a few blank pages soon - just sign on the dotted line, I'll take care of the rest.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I've completely changed my mind again. It wasn't a mistake to hire him, and the reason what he did in 2012 in terms of reshaping the list I can understand but I don't necessarily agree with them. Anyway, moving on, here are my reasons:

He simply isn't a very good coach when you're looking at the definition of a coach in its purest definition. That means team selection (which has been woeful), team style, match day tactics. I can give multiple, multiple examples of all three, both with my eye and statistics, which prove all three.

Even if you believe that he needs to implement his own "style", and that it can inevitably become successful, it's taking too long and we're going to be playing catchup against other teams. Two clubs with first year coaches, GWS and Brisbane, who both beat us when they were not favourites before the game, and finished below us on the ladder, improved through 2014 enough to the point that if you were to run power rankings right now, I'd say almost everybody would have us as the third worst team in the league, only ahead of St. Kilda and Melbourne. Again, I can elaborate and compare if people want me to. Those two teams, especially Brisbane, improved in half a season to the point that they're now better than us, after starting the season worse than us.

You might say that's fine as long as there's not discontent, and players are still with the coach, but irrespective of what you actually believe their impact on footballing alone and their ability as players, and the impact on developing the list, players wanting to leave shows signs that the coach doesn't have control of all the players. And that's just talking about the players that have left, they don't get on with the coach, I'm sure there's others still playing. You might be saying that it's for their own good, they're soft players not contributing, but where's the balance? Good coaches have everybody, or at least not multiple people upset and leaving, as well as doing all the things that people claim he's doing by getting rid of soft/weak/non-contributing players (not that I agree with that)

He's had three years. Not one, not two like Rhode, not two like Watters, he's had three years to change the list, implement game styles that he wants, and he's still historically unsuccessful like coaches like them, three bottom-5 finishes in the three years that he's been coach. He's had three years to do what he wants and we're still a bad team. Paint it any way you like, we won 7 games out of 22 this last season, and lost games to GWS, 2 of the 7 wins were to a team that finished below us by a single goal each time, etc.

Talented young players, which were drafted by the recruiting team and he can't be directly responsible for, paper over the cracks. They'll play well, merely because they're brilliant young players, in spite of all of the problems I'm listing, and make him appear a better coach than he actually is. Our season looks a lot worse if you don't draft Bontempelli, you draft Aish or Scharenberg instead, and hypothetically speaking we don't win that game against Melbourne if we did, because we didn't draft a superstar first rounder who kicks two brilliant goals that hardly another player in the AFL could have kicked both of, including goal of the year, which wasn't because of the coaching, but just his sheer individual brilliance. Ergo with Stringer against St. Kilda, etc. etc.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree completely with this next point I'm making, I'm making it to play devil's advocate and give further points, calling him a good development coach and then pointing toward our young players as conformation bias, and you're justifying a good aspect of coaching in an area where it's not his responsibility and past success as a development man at other clubs. Few points I can make on this.

• You can't directly attribute the brilliance of some of our young players to his development, because we can't be certain that they'd develop elsewhere. Stringer, Macrae, Libba, Dahl, Bonts, could possibly have been good elsewhere
• For every player that's improved, there's an equal amount that's gone backward.
  • Wallis has gone backward since 2012 under his "development"
  • Talia has gone backward since 2013 under his "development"
  • Hunter had a poorer 2014 than 2013 and thus has gone backward under his "development"
  • Jones has gone backward since 2011 under his "development"
  • Liberatore did not develop from 2014 since 2013, arguably he had a poorer year. People may argue this point and attribute it to closer opposition attention, the increase in opposition attention wasn't significant enough to the point that going backwards was understandable
• Not to mention players he brought in, Young, Goodes, Lower, all off the list.

Not to mention the many, many other valid points that many have made (and instantly get howled down because of the pro-Macca groupthink that has developed), such as Geelong not believing his was suited to becoming a senior coach, looking at the W/L record, etc. etc.

Yes I accept that he needed to rebuild the list. No, I don't disagree that he was the wrong choice at the time. But the fact of the matter he's had three, coming up now four offseasons to do what he wants. The last two years, there have not be significant injuries to the point you can say we're among the 5 or 10 clubs with the worst injury lists in the season. He's had 66 games, and 3 now coming up 4 offseasons to prove himself as a coach, and I just don't see how you can overlook these many, many faults that I have just listed. If it was one, two years as coach I could accept it. But three years as a senior coach, three offseasons to build a list, three preseasons to teach players your styles and implement what you want to do, and 66 games to prove yourself as a tactical coach, and none of it sticks out.

I just don't see how you can overlook all of these points I have made.

 

[razorwick]

I've completely changed my mind again. It wasn't a mistake to hire him, and the reason what he did in 2012 in terms of reshaping the list I can understand but I don't necessarily agree with them. Anyway, moving on, here are my reasons:

He simply isn't a very good coach when you're looking at the definition of a coach in its purest definition. That means team selection (which has been woeful), team style, match day tactics. I can give multiple, multiple examples of all three, both with my eye and statistics, which prove all three.

Even if you believe that he needs to implement his own "style", and that it can inevitably become successful, it's taking too long and we're going to be playing catchup against other teams. Two clubs with first year coaches, GWS and Brisbane, who both beat us when they were not favourites before the game, and finished below us on the ladder, improved through 2014 enough to the point that if you were to run power rankings right now, I'd say almost everybody would have us as the third worst team in the league, only ahead of St. Kilda and Melbourne. Again, I can elaborate and compare if people want me to. Those two teams, especially Brisbane, improved in half a season to the point that they're now better than us, after starting the season worse than us.

You might say that's fine as long as there's not discontent, and players are still with the coach, but irrespective of what you actually believe their impact on footballing alone and their ability as players, and the impact on developing the list, players wanting to leave shows signs that the coach doesn't have control of all the players. And that's just talking about the players that have left, they don't get on with the coach, I'm sure there's others still playing. You might be saying that it's for their own good, they're soft players not contributing, but where's the balance? Good coaches have everybody, or at least not multiple people upset and leaving, as well as doing all the things that people claim he's doing by getting rid of soft/weak/non-contributing players (not that I agree with that)

He's had three years. Not one, not two like Rhode, not two like Watters, he's had three years to change the list, implement game styles that he wants, and he's still historically unsuccessful like coaches like them, three bottom-5 finishes in the three years that he's been coach. He's had three years to do what he wants and we're still a bad team. Paint it any way you like, we won 7 games out of 22 this last season, and lost games to GWS, 2 of the 7 wins were to a team that finished below us by a single goal each time, etc.

Talented young players, which were drafted by the recruiting team and he can't be directly responsible for, paper over the cracks. They'll play well, merely because they're brilliant young players, in spite of all of the problems I'm listing, and make him appear a better coach than he actually is. Our season looks a lot worse if you don't draft Bontempelli, you draft Aish or Scharenberg instead, and hypothetically speaking we don't win that game against Melbourne if we did, because we didn't draft a superstar first rounder who kicks two brilliant goals that hardly another player in the AFL could have kicked both of, including goal of the year, which wasn't because of the coaching, but just his sheer individual brilliance. Ergo with Stringer against St. Kilda, etc. etc.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree completely with this next point I'm making, I'm making it to play devil's advocate and give further points, calling him a good development coach and then pointing toward our young players as conformation bias, and you're justifying a good aspect of coaching in an area where it's not his responsibility and past success as a development man at other clubs. Few points I can make on this.

• You can't directly attribute the brilliance of some of our young players to his development, because we can't be certain that they'd develop elsewhere. Stringer, Macrae, Libba, Dahl, Bonts, could possibly have been good elsewhere
• For every player that's improved, there's an equal amount that's gone backward.
  • Wallis has gone backward since 2012 under his "development"
  • Talia has gone backward since 2013 under his "development"
  • Hunter had a poorer 2014 than 2013 and thus has gone backward under his "development"
  • Jones has gone backward since 2011 under his "development"
  • Liberatore did not develop from 2014 since 2013, arguably he had a poorer year. People may argue this point and attribute it to closer opposition attention, the increase in opposition attention wasn't significant enough to the point that going backwards was understandable
• Not to mention players he brought in, Young, Goodes, Lower, all off the list.

Not to mention the many, many other valid points that many have made (and instantly get howled down because of the pro-Macca groupthink that has developed), such as Geelong not believing his was suited to becoming a senior coach, looking at the W/L record, etc. etc.

Yes I accept that he needed to rebuild the list. No, I don't disagree that he was the wrong choice at the time. But the fact of the matter he's had three, coming up now four offseasons to do what he wants. The last two years, there have not be significant injuries to the point you can say we're among the 5 or 10 clubs with the worst injury lists in the season. He's had 66 games, and 3 now coming up 4 offseasons to prove himself as a coach, and I just don't see how you can overlook these many, many faults that I have just listed. If it was one, two years as coach I could accept it. But three years as a senior coach, three offseasons to build a list, three preseasons to teach players your styles and implement what you want to do, and 66 games to prove yourself as a tactical coach, and none of it sticks out.

I just don't see how you can overlook all of these points I have made.

You had me at hello......

 

[Butane]

I've completely changed my mind again. It wasn't a mistake to hire him, and the reason what he did in 2012 in terms of reshaping the list I can understand but I don't necessarily agree with them. Anyway, moving on, here are my reasons:

He simply isn't a very good coach when you're looking at the definition of a coach in its purest definition. That means team selection (which has been woeful), team style, match day tactics. I can give multiple, multiple examples of all three, both with my eye and statistics, which prove all three.

Even if you believe that he needs to implement his own "style", and that it can inevitably become successful, it's taking too long and we're going to be playing catchup against other teams. Two clubs with first year coaches, GWS and Brisbane, who both beat us when they were not favourites before the game, and finished below us on the ladder, improved through 2014 enough to the point that if you were to run power rankings right now, I'd say almost everybody would have us as the third worst team in the league, only ahead of St. Kilda and Melbourne. Again, I can elaborate and compare if people want me to. Those two teams, especially Brisbane, improved in half a season to the point that they're now better than us, after starting the season worse than us.

You might say that's fine as long as there's not discontent, and players are still with the coach, but irrespective of what you actually believe their impact on footballing alone and their ability as players, and the impact on developing the list, players wanting to leave shows signs that the coach doesn't have control of all the players. And that's just talking about the players that have left, they don't get on with the coach, I'm sure there's others still playing. You might be saying that it's for their own good, they're soft players not contributing, but where's the balance? Good coaches have everybody, or at least not multiple people upset and leaving, as well as doing all the things that people claim he's doing by getting rid of soft/weak/non-contributing players (not that I agree with that)

He's had three years. Not one, not two like Rhode, not two like Watters, he's had three years to change the list, implement game styles that he wants, and he's still historically unsuccessful like coaches like them, three bottom-5 finishes in the three years that he's been coach. He's had three years to do what he wants and we're still a bad team. Paint it any way you like, we won 7 games out of 22 this last season, and lost games to GWS, 2 of the 7 wins were to a team that finished below us by a single goal each time, etc.

Talented young players, which were drafted by the recruiting team and he can't be directly responsible for, paper over the cracks. They'll play well, merely because they're brilliant young players, in spite of all of the problems I'm listing, and make him appear a better coach than he actually is. Our season looks a lot worse if you don't draft Bontempelli, you draft Aish or Scharenberg instead, and hypothetically speaking we don't win that game against Melbourne if we did, because we didn't draft a superstar first rounder who kicks two brilliant goals that hardly another player in the AFL could have kicked both of, including goal of the year, which wasn't because of the coaching, but just his sheer individual brilliance. Ergo with Stringer against St. Kilda, etc. etc.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree completely with this next point I'm making, I'm making it to play devil's advocate and give further points, calling him a good development coach and then pointing toward our young players as conformation bias, and you're justifying a good aspect of coaching in an area where it's not his responsibility and past success as a development man at other clubs. Few points I can make on this.

• You can't directly attribute the brilliance of some of our young players to his development, because we can't be certain that they'd develop elsewhere. Stringer, Macrae, Libba, Dahl, Bonts, could possibly have been good elsewhere
• For every player that's improved, there's an equal amount that's gone backward.
  • Wallis has gone backward since 2012 under his "development"
  • Talia has gone backward since 2013 under his "development"
  • Hunter had a poorer 2014 than 2013 and thus has gone backward under his "development"
  • Jones has gone backward since 2011 under his "development"
  • Liberatore did not develop from 2014 since 2013, arguably he had a poorer year. People may argue this point and attribute it to closer opposition attention, the increase in opposition attention wasn't significant enough to the point that going backwards was understandable
• Not to mention players he brought in, Young, Goodes, Lower, all off the list.

Not to mention the many, many other valid points that many have made (and instantly get howled down because of the pro-Macca groupthink that has developed), such as Geelong not believing his was suited to becoming a senior coach, looking at the W/L record, etc. etc.

Yes I accept that he needed to rebuild the list. No, I don't disagree that he was the wrong choice at the time. But the fact of the matter he's had three, coming up now four offseasons to do what he wants. The last two years, there have not be significant injuries to the point you can say we're among the 5 or 10 clubs with the worst injury lists in the season. He's had 66 games, and 3 now coming up 4 offseasons to prove himself as a coach, and I just don't see how you can overlook these many, many faults that I have just listed. If it was one, two years as coach I could accept it. But three years as a senior coach, three offseasons to build a list, three preseasons to teach players your styles and implement what you want to do, and 66 games to prove yourself as a tactical coach, and none of it sticks out.

I just don't see how you can overlook all of these points I have made.

Brilliant.

Written without denigrating anyone or using hyperbole.

I can't say I believe some of things you've mentioned but I, like you, believe they are valid points worth discussing.

I'd send this to the board with a list of all McCartney's positives(which there are a lot of too) if they were meeting tomorrow to discuss his coaching tenure.

 

[Ant_]

Apologies, Ivan. This 'having a manager' thing is new to me.

How's my contract status here? Igloo, Mike__, Ant_ and Testekill are telling me nothing.

You wouldn't think so. At least it's in the appropriate thread.

Tagging me in a thread I don't read*...bad form Nath.










*perks of being a super, one of the others gets to read it

 

[threenewpadlocks]

If you want to TL;DR it, just read the bits in bold. That sums up my views and opinions.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Liberatore did not develop from 2014 since 2013, arguably he had a poorer year. People may argue this point and attribute it to closer opposition attention, the increase in opposition attention wasn't significant enough to the point that going backwards was understandable

You're changing the goal posts with Libba compared to the other players that you mentioned however. For Libba you only looked at a 12 month window yet for Jones you looked at 3 years. That's inconsistent and doesn't work for me.

I'd argue that Libba has improved in 3 years under Macca.
I'd also argue that Stringer and Macrae have improved in 2 years under Macca.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

You're changing the goal posts with Libba compared to the other players that you mentioned however. For Libba you only looked at a 12 month window yet for Jones you looked at 3 years. That's inconsistent and doesn't work for me.

I'd argue that Libba has improved in 3 years under Macca.
I'd also argue that Stringer and Macrae have improved in 2 years under Macca.

Firstly that's picking out one or two points in my argument as a whole.
In regards to Libba, Stringer, Macrae, again that's my point of conformation bias. Just because they have improved, does that make McCartney directly responsible, and therefore a good coach of their improvement? Well, no, I reckon, on two counts. One because he's not part of the development team. he's the head coach, he's not Joel Corey or Chris Maple or any of them. Secondly, after good draft selections, do we know that they'd be any worse players at any other clubs, with different coach and different development teams? Those players are jets. I'd say yes, they'd be that good elsewhere.
And yes, you can make the point Libba has improved at a whole. The point I'm trying to make however, is that for such a good development coach, why isn't anybody questioning why Libba at best didn't improve and break even, and at worse regressed since last year? Year on year, not talking as a whole.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Firstly that's picking out one or two points in my argument as a whole.
In regards to Libba, Stringer, Macrae, again that's my point of conformation bias. Just because they have improved, does that make McCartney directly responsible, and therefore a good coach of their improvement? Well, no, I reckon, on two counts. One because he's not part of the development team. he's the head coach, he's not Joel Corey or Chris Maple or any of them. Secondly, after good draft selections, do we know that they'd be any worse players at any other clubs, with different coach and different development teams? Those players are jets. I'd say yes, they'd be that good elsewhere.
And yes, you can make the point Libba has improved at a whole. The point I'm trying to make however, is that for such a good development coach, why isn't anybody questioning why Libba at best didn't improve and break even, and at worse regressed since last year? Year on year, not talking as a whole.

I agree with the bolded bit. But contrary to Mark Neeld's efforts for instance, most of our recent early picks have at least improved as expected whereas Melbourne's have not.

So I think the balance is that Macca is not a bad coach like Neeld was, but at the same time he hasn't shown that he is a particularly good coach either.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I agree with the bolded bit. But contrary to Mark Neeld's efforts for instance, most of our recent early picks have at least improved as expected whereas Melbourne's have not.

So I think the balance is that Macca is not a bad coach like Neeld was, but at the same time he hasn't shown that he is a particularly good coach either.

If it gets to the point that we are comparing him with Neeld, the fact that that comparison has been made by a person like yourself speaks volumes.

Funny thing is, I'm not saying he's a shockingly bad coach. He probably is a good development coach, and he probably does understand the game well and does communicating well. The logic and basis for what he did that he needed to do at the end of 2011 was a sound policy that had had previous success, whilst it could be argued that it was outdated tactically, the board had come to that view, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's fair enough. The main basis of my argument is, however, that he's had three years and three preseasons, to show that, paraphrasing you, "not a particularly good coach", and the things that he's implementing simply are not working, and players are walking out on the coach because they don't want to be a part of the thing that he is implementing.

 

[lachy]

Good post threenewpadlocks, I have posted comments under your bolds



He simply isn't a very good coach when you're looking at the definition of a coach in its purest definition. The coach does not chose the team alone, in fact the chairman of the selection committee has the casting vote of who plays. I agree team selection has been interesting to say the least, however in saying that it was our first year of a stand alone VFL team and they may have been using this resource more now than they will in the future.

Match day tactics are poor. It may be for learning but need to see significant improvement with this.

Team style, well we don't have one but this is more a reflection of team selection

Even if you believe that he needs to implement his own "style", and that it can inevitably become successful, it's taking too long and we're going to be playing catchup against other teams.

It takes 4 to 5 years. Improvement is not linear and there are always variations. In saying that team development is as important as individual improvement now

irrespective of what you actually believe their impact on footballing alone and their ability as players, and the impact on developing the list, players wanting to leave shows signs that the coach doesn't have control of all the players.
Have no issue at all with the players that have wanted to leave. 6 weeks out from the end of the season my opinion was they should be traded. Add Grant to the list and all players I believe needed to be traded have been.

No coach, and I mean no coach has every player on side. The important facet here is the key core of players are supportive of the coaches direction. None of the key core have been implicated in the rumours of discontent. If they are then the coach goes, if not the players go as they are not part of the key core

He's had three years.
Three years lays the foundation for a rebuild. He gets next year to demonstrate the proof of the improvement. Cannot work out why he got a 2 year extension. I get 1, this thread demonstrates why if the board is supportive, but 2, makes no sense

Talented young players, which were drafted by the recruiting team and he can't be directly responsible for, paper over the cracks. They'll play well, merely because they're brilliant young players, in spite of all of the problems I'm listing, and make him appear a better coach than he actually is.
What cracks do they paper over? If this is the key core coming through it actually demonstrates being patient will be worth while as the list and team building through the draft is working

calling him a good development coach and then pointing toward our young players as conformation bias, and you're justifying a good aspect of coaching in an area where it's not his responsibility and past success as a development man at other clubs. Few points I can make on this.

• You can't directly attribute the brilliance of some of our young players to his development, because we can't be certain that they'd develop elsewhere. Stringer, Macrae, Libba, Dahl, Bonts, could possibly have been good elsewhere - true but by the same token you cannot say definitively it is not the development program he overseas. Keep in mind he would not even be the coach developing these players, it would be the development coaches
• For every player that's improved, there's an equal amount that's gone backward.
  • Wallis has gone backward since 2012 under his "development" - had he not got injured this is debateable
  • Talia has gone backward since 2013 under his "development" - he had to go forwards first. The worst you could say is stagnated
  • Hunter had a poorer 2014 than 2013 and thus has gone backward under his "development". On what basis?
  • Jones has gone backward since 2011 under his "development" - Jones never went forwards
  • Liberatore did not develop from 2014 since 2013, arguably he had a poorer year. People may argue this point and attribute it to closer opposition attention, the increase in opposition attention wasn't significant enough to the point that going backwards was understandable, agree with the last point
• Not to mention players he brought in, Young, Goodes, Lower, all off the list. The wrong Mc Cartney, J Mac's responsibility. Do agree though poor

 

[lindsay_bulldogs]

If it gets to the point that we are comparing him with Neeld, the fact that that comparison has been made by a person like yourself speaks volumes.

Funny thing is, I'm not saying he's a shockingly bad coach. He probably is a good development coach, and he probably does understand the game well and does communicating well. The logic and basis for what he did that he needed to do at the end of 2011 was a sound policy that had had previous success, whilst it could be argued that it was outdated tactically, the board had come to that view, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's fair enough. The main basis of my argument is, however, that he's had three years and three preseasons, to show that, paraphrasing you, "not a particularly good coach", and the things that he's implementing simply are not working, and players are walking out on the coach because they don't want to be a part of the thing that he is implementing.

I think that is a bit misleading. Players walking because of coach or because of offers on the table are to small. I think its the latter. We offered these players one year and two year contracts. The players took the hint.

 

[immortalmike]

Did someone say that our reigning best and fairest winner has gone backwards?
That's it no more McCartney thread for me.

 

[Toastman]

I've completely changed my mind again. It wasn't a mistake to hire him, and the reason what he did in 2012 in terms of reshaping the list I can understand but I don't necessarily agree with them. Anyway, moving on, here are my reasons:

He simply isn't a very good coach when you're looking at the definition of a coach in its purest definition. That means team selection (which has been woeful), team style, match day tactics. I can give multiple, multiple examples of all three, both with my eye and statistics, which prove all three.

Only if you believe he was coaching for wins not for development. Yes, coaching for development is different to coaching for wins, sometimes you leave a player you need in the seconds because it is better for his development, sometimes you leave a guy on a player who is convincingly beating them to see how they work through it and to give them the experience, sometimes you even play players in positions where they aren't very good to teach them the skills. I personally think this is a nonsense and that the arguments during a development phase should be focused around development since that is obviously what his KPIs are related to.

Even if you believe that he needs to implement his own "style", and that it can inevitably become successful, it's taking too long and we're going to be playing catchup against other teams. Two clubs with first year coaches, GWS and Brisbane, who both beat us when they were not favourites before the game, and finished below us on the ladder, improved through 2014 enough to the point that if you were to run power rankings right now, I'd say almost everybody would have us as the third worst team in the league, only ahead of St. Kilda and Melbourne. Again, I can elaborate and compare if people want me to. Those two teams, especially Brisbane, improved in half a season to the point that they're now better than us, after starting the season worse than us.

You might say that's fine as long as there's not discontent, and players are still with the coach, but irrespective of what you actually believe their impact on footballing alone and their ability as players, and the impact on developing the list, players wanting to leave shows signs that the coach doesn't have control of all the players. And that's just talking about the players that have left, they don't get on with the coach, I'm sure there's others still playing. You might be saying that it's for their own good, they're soft players not contributing, but where's the balance? Good coaches have everybody, or at least not multiple people upset and leaving, as well as doing all the things that people claim he's doing by getting rid of soft/weak/non-contributing players (not that I agree with that)

He's had three years. Not one, not two like Rhode, not two like Watters, he's had three years to change the list, implement game styles that he wants, and he's still historically unsuccessful like coaches like them, three bottom-5 finishes in the three years that he's been coach. He's had three years to do what he wants and we're still a bad team. Paint it any way you like, we won 7 games out of 22 this last season, and lost games to GWS, 2 of the 7 wins were to a team that finished below us by a single goal each time, etc.

It was always going to be longer than previous teams rebuilds due to us bottoming out during the compromised drafts, Eade not developing young players towards the end of his time playing the same guys every week and us overextending in 2011 when we should have already been rebuilding.

Talented young players, which were drafted by the recruiting team and he can't be directly responsible for, paper over the cracks. They'll play well, merely because they're brilliant young players, in spite of all of the problems I'm listing, and make him appear a better coach than he actually is. Our season looks a lot worse if you don't draft Bontempelli, you draft Aish or Scharenberg instead, and hypothetically speaking we don't win that game against Melbourne if we did, because we didn't draft a superstar first rounder who kicks two brilliant goals that hardly another player in the AFL could have kicked both of, including goal of the year, which wasn't because of the coaching, but just his sheer individual brilliance. Ergo with Stringer against St. Kilda, etc. etc.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree completely with this next point I'm making, I'm making it to play devil's advocate and give further points, calling him a good development coach and then pointing toward our young players as conformation bias, and you're justifying a good aspect of coaching in an area where it's not his responsibility and past success as a development man at other clubs. Few points I can make on this.

• You can't directly attribute the brilliance of some of our young players to his development, because we can't be certain that they'd develop elsewhere. Stringer, Macrae, Libba, Dahl, Bonts, could possibly have been good elsewhere
• For every player that's improved, there's an equal amount that's gone backward.
  • Wallis has gone backward since 2012 under his "development"
  • Talia has gone backward since 2013 under his "development"
  • Hunter had a poorer 2014 than 2013 and thus has gone backward under his "development"
  • Jones has gone backward since 2011 under his "development"
  • Liberatore did not develop from 2014 since 2013, arguably he had a poorer year. People may argue this point and attribute it to closer opposition attention, the increase in opposition attention wasn't significant enough to the point that going backwards was understandable
• Not to mention players he brought in, Young, Goodes, Lower, all off the list.

You can't have it both ways, either he is bringing the wrong players in or he can't take responsibility for the recruiting unless you think he only gets involved in the recruiting and list management when we make the wrong decisions.
Clearly he is taking a far more hands on role in the recruiting and list management than Eade ever did and so should be able to claim some of the credit for the good outcomes and cop the blame on the bad choices. If you go through it the last couple of years of drafting and development were better than all but one of the years when Eade was the coach and even the Libba year was handed to him as a fait accompli.

I think that getting rid of him now would be the stupidest move the club has made in years. If we're going to get rid of him at least give him this year to bring in the remainder of the team which is going to challenge because now we only have about 3/4 of the team we need to be competing for a flag. If we find that when we are going for wins that he genuinely isn't a good game day coach then fine, get rid of him, but clearly he is doing a good job of forming the list for the challenge and we still need this year to get the rest of the job done.

Hopefully the board hold their nerve because otherwise we could end up with another coach like Eade who takes over most of a quality list and is never able to develop or recruit the remaining pieces.

 

[lindsay_bulldogs]

Did someone say that our reigning best and fairest winner has gone backwards?
That's it no more McCartney thread for me.

I also thought some others on list went forward or at-least remained the same. Jones backwards for example? Thought he was the same as normal.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Good post threenewpadlocks, I have posted comments under your bolds

I'm just going to address the general gist of your post. I can see merit in the argument of it taking 4-5 years to overhaul the club, maybe that's what he's determined needs to be done. But I'm saying is why should it take 4-5 years, because every other club is doing it in less time. GWS are different not only because draft concessions but because they've had two different coaches, but Brisbane began the year as a worse club than us, and in less than a year progressed past us. Not 4-5 years, 1 year. Port under Hinkley, 2012-14, were a kick out of the Grand Final in the third year, again, not 4-5 years, 3 years. St. Kilda and Melbourne, I'd put all my money on them finishing above 7 wins and 5th bottom in the third year that Roos and Richardson coaches them. Despite the multiple challenges Roos has with Melbourne, he'll have them better in their third year as we did in our third year.

 

[black pup]

Very well written, sums up the coaching situation perfectly, Macca is well out of his depth, he is not going to last anyway. We should bite the bullet now, before it gets ugly.

I've completely changed my mind again. It wasn't a mistake to hire him, and the reason what he did in 2012 in terms of reshaping the list I can understand but I don't necessarily agree with them. Anyway, moving on, here are my reasons:

He simply isn't a very good coach when you're looking at the definition of a coach in its purest definition. That means team selection (which has been woeful), team style, match day tactics. I can give multiple, multiple examples of all three, both with my eye and statistics, which prove all three.

Even if you believe that he needs to implement his own "style", and that it can inevitably become successful, it's taking too long and we're going to be playing catchup against other teams. Two clubs with first year coaches, GWS and Brisbane, who both beat us when they were not favourites before the game, and finished below us on the ladder, improved through 2014 enough to the point that if you were to run power rankings right now, I'd say almost everybody would have us as the third worst team in the league, only ahead of St. Kilda and Melbourne. Again, I can elaborate and compare if people want me to. Those two teams, especially Brisbane, improved in half a season to the point that they're now better than us, after starting the season worse than us.

You might say that's fine as long as there's not discontent, and players are still with the coach, but irrespective of what you actually believe their impact on footballing alone and their ability as players, and the impact on developing the list, players wanting to leave shows signs that the coach doesn't have control of all the players. And that's just talking about the players that have left, they don't get on with the coach, I'm sure there's others still playing. You might be saying that it's for their own good, they're soft players not contributing, but where's the balance? Good coaches have everybody, or at least not multiple people upset and leaving, as well as doing all the things that people claim he's doing by getting rid of soft/weak/non-contributing players (not that I agree with that)

He's had three years. Not one, not two like Rhode, not two like Watters, he's had three years to change the list, implement game styles that he wants, and he's still historically unsuccessful like coaches like them, three bottom-5 finishes in the three years that he's been coach. He's had three years to do what he wants and we're still a bad team. Paint it any way you like, we won 7 games out of 22 this last season, and lost games to GWS, 2 of the 7 wins were to a team that finished below us by a single goal each time, etc.

Talented young players, which were drafted by the recruiting team and he can't be directly responsible for, paper over the cracks. They'll play well, merely because they're brilliant young players, in spite of all of the problems I'm listing, and make him appear a better coach than he actually is. Our season looks a lot worse if you don't draft Bontempelli, you draft Aish or Scharenberg instead, and hypothetically speaking we don't win that game against Melbourne if we did, because we didn't draft a superstar first rounder who kicks two brilliant goals that hardly another player in the AFL could have kicked both of, including goal of the year, which wasn't because of the coaching, but just his sheer individual brilliance. Ergo with Stringer against St. Kilda, etc. etc.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree completely with this next point I'm making, I'm making it to play devil's advocate and give further points, calling him a good development coach and then pointing toward our young players as conformation bias, and you're justifying a good aspect of coaching in an area where it's not his responsibility and past success as a development man at other clubs. Few points I can make on this.

• You can't directly attribute the brilliance of some of our young players to his development, because we can't be certain that they'd develop elsewhere. Stringer, Macrae, Libba, Dahl, Bonts, could possibly have been good elsewhere
• For every player that's improved, there's an equal amount that's gone backward.
  • Wallis has gone backward since 2012 under his "development"
  • Talia has gone backward since 2013 under his "development"
  • Hunter had a poorer 2014 than 2013 and thus has gone backward under his "development"
  • Jones has gone backward since 2011 under his "development"
  • Liberatore did not develop from 2014 since 2013, arguably he had a poorer year. People may argue this point and attribute it to closer opposition attention, the increase in opposition attention wasn't significant enough to the point that going backwards was understandable
• Not to mention players he brought in, Young, Goodes, Lower, all off the list.

Not to mention the many, many other valid points that many have made (and instantly get howled down because of the pro-Macca groupthink that has developed), such as Geelong not believing his was suited to becoming a senior coach, looking at the W/L record, etc. etc.

Yes I accept that he needed to rebuild the list. No, I don't disagree that he was the wrong choice at the time. But the fact of the matter he's had three, coming up now four offseasons to do what he wants. The last two years, there have not be significant injuries to the point you can say we're among the 5 or 10 clubs with the worst injury lists in the season. He's had 66 games, and 3 now coming up 4 offseasons to prove himself as a coach, and I just don't see how you can overlook these many, many faults that I have just listed. If it was one, two years as coach I could accept it. But three years as a senior coach, three offseasons to build a list, three preseasons to teach players your styles and implement what you want to do, and 66 games to prove yourself as a tactical coach, and none of it sticks out.

I just don't see how you can overlook all of these points I have made.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I don't think he has been coaching for wins yet and that probably has had an effect on the players' confidence. Players like to WIN. He will need to turn that around pretty smartly in the first half of next season.

 

[Mutt]

Very well written, sums up the coaching situation perfectly, Macca is well out of his depth, he is not going to last anyway. We should bite the bullet now, before it gets ugly.

Well you weren't able to get Maple sacked before he went on to win a flag. On to the next target eh?

 

[Bont2Bruce]

If it gets to the point that we are comparing him with Neeld, the fact that that comparison has been made by a person like yourself speaks volumes.

I haven't previously put an opinion into this thread one way or the other in 400 pages. But yes, perhaps mentioning Macca and Neeld in the same sentence is to tar with the same brush. I hadn't really considered that until your post above.

Funny thing is, I'm not saying he's a shockingly bad coach. He probably is a good development coach, and he probably does understand the game well and does communicating well. The logic and basis for what he did that he needed to do at the end of 2011 was a sound policy that had had previous success, whilst it could be argued that it was outdated tactically, the board had come to that view, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's fair enough. The main basis of my argument is, however, that he's had three years and three preseasons, to show that, paraphrasing you, "not a particularly good coach", and the things that he's implementing simply are not working, and players are walking out on the coach because they don't want to be a part of the thing that he is implementing.

I think we are in agreement with respect to 'not a particularly good coach'.
And I think the majority of outside observers would be of much the same view.

 

[lachy]

I'm just going to address the general gist of your post. I can see merit in the argument of it taking 4-5 years to overhaul the club, maybe that's what he's determined needs to be done. But I'm saying is why should it take 4-5 years, because every other club is doing it in less time. GWS are different not only because draft concessions but because they've had two different coaches, but Brisbane began the year as a worse club than us, and in less than a year progressed past us. Not 4-5 years, 1 year. Port under Hinkley, 2012-14, were a kick out of the Grand Final in the third year, again, not 4-5 years, 3 years. St. Kilda and Melbourne, I'd put all my money on them finishing above 7 wins and 5th bottom in the third year that Roos and Richardson coaches them. Despite the multiple challenges Roos has with Melbourne, he'll have them better in their third year as we did in our third year.

Brisbane did win the pre season cup in 2013 and were expected to make the finals. Voss was advised by the board they expected 14 wins. As I said improvement is not linear
Port had been rebuilding since 2008. In the 2 years prior to Hinkley they won 3 and 5 1/2 games and stocked up on young kids. Following their timeframe we should be in the 8 in 2016
St'Kilda we will see how long they are down, they only bottomed out this year
Melbourne have been rebuilding since Gary Lyon made sense

Next year is critical for Macca. We either win at least 10 games or he won't be seeing out the final year of his contract or at least shouldn't as you also have to teach teams to win as well as other fundamentals. this happens we will have gone past a few
more

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Brisbane did win the pre season cup in 2013 and were expected to make the finals. Voss was advised by the board they expected 14 wins. As I said improvement is not linear
Port had been rebuilding since 2008. In the 2 years prior to Hinkley they won 3 and 5 1/2 games and stocked up on young kids. Following their timeframe we should be in the 8 in 2016
St'Kilda we will see how long they are down, they only bottomed out this year
Melbourne have been rebuilding since Gary Lyon made sense

Next year is critical for Macca. We either win at least 10 games or he won't be seeing out the final year of his contract or at least shouldn't as you also have to teach teams to win as well as other fundamentals. this happens we will have gone past a few
more

The timeframe I'm using obviously is a poor metric, but it's very simplistic as it looks at the first year that a coach is coaching, and irrespective of the W/L record before hand a new coach has a new style and implements things that he wants into a club.

 

[Bont2Bruce]

Melbourne have been rebuilding since Gary Lyon made sense

Very good.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Did someone say that our reigning best and fairest winner has gone backwards?
That's it no more McCartney thread for me.

2013 Brownlow Votes - 14.
2014 Brownlow Votes - 5.

2013 Contested Possessions - 319
2014 Contested Possessions - 299

2013 Clearances - 183
2014 Clearances - 156

And because I'm not blinkered and only look at one side of the argument, he did improve his SuperCoach score per game average by 4 points a game.
You might not disagree with my opinion that Libba has gone backward but it's not without merit, as shown above.