Analysis Search for Director of coaching

[Pottzy]

No ones mentioned him yet but what about Guy McKenna??

Just saw on the AFL website he is coming back to Melbourne to work in coaching or media so hes available, plus there is no worry about contract to another club and trying to convince him out.

I think he fits the bill really well, would prefer him to Sanderson.

Totally agree... Surely McKenna is an obvious target. Wouldn't he and Beveridge have worked together at Collingwood? Surely this would assist with them coming together in the new roles and McKenna was doing good things at Gold Coast until he decided to call out an ex-dog for being weak! I suppose Scott Watters is another option for the same reason of Beveridge and him possibly working together at Collingwood, although I'm not as sold to what Watters could provide with footy/coaching knowledge

 

[Doggies7]

Yeah Guy McKenna wouldn't be an awful choice. I definitely think we need a DOC to help Beveridge, there just doesn't seem to be many great choices around. I'd hate to appoint a guy just because he is the best available recently sacked coach...

 

[Proffessor]

I’m surprised that people can’t see the value in the director of coaching role.

One of the key reasons quoted for Macca’s demise was lack of time – I think his relationships with the players deteriorated in his second year when he spent less time fostering those personal relationships. Having a director of coaching will allow Bevo to spend more one on one time with the players while the DOC handles more of the day to day coaching matters.

I also think there may have been some trouble when Macca flipped from being the nurturing, encouraging nice guy to the demanding, confrontational coach. Having 2 people in high coaching positions allows each to take a different persona and work together good cop bad cop style to get the most out of the players.

It is a necessary role and if the club is not enthused with the calibre of current candidates I think we should get someone for a one year trial role and continue to sound people out over the next 12 months.

There were many reasons that McCartney wasn't successful, but I don't think a lack of support was a significant factor. The DOC support was suggested as a solution by many people who liked McCartney and wanted him to stay, but considering that the people suggesting this course of action typically didn't recognise his weaknesses, I think is fair to suggest that their proposed solutions weren't likely to be successful either.

So just because some people who supported the last failed coach thought he would have been helped by a DOC, doesn't mean that it would be a good idea to impose one on his successor.

The senior coach is the head honcho. He is the one that cops it if the club performs poorly, so he needs to call the shots and have the final say on football matters. A seasoned mentor may be useful for a young coach but only if he thinks he needs one, and then it should be one of his own choosing. Someone he respects and trusts and can call on when he needs. I don't think this lends itself well to a full time/ongoing paid position, more like an old colleague you can call on (and maybe even sling a few bucks consultant style) as required.

I don't see why people think using a formal appointment to determine and engage such a mentor is likely, let alone necessary, to yield good results. Neeld certainly didn't seem to benefit much from the Neil Craig appointment and Nathan Buckley hasn't necessarily benefitted from the Rodney Eade appointment either. Both of those guys were apparently still coveting senior jobs, which suggests their devotion to making someone else successful in that same role may have been less than 100%. Even the James Hird, Bomber Thompson arrangement which was more like the trusted friend arrangement at least initially, has ended disastrously.

 

[yebiga]

What does Denis Pagan get up to these days?

 

[Dav1d]

What does Denis Pagan get up to these days?

He works in real estate

 

[Bazza Bulldog]

There were many reasons that McCartney wasn't successful, but I don't think a lack of support was a significant factor. The DOC support was suggested as a solution by many people who liked McCartney and wanted him to stay, but considering that the people suggesting this course of action typically didn't recognise his weaknesses, I think is fair to suggest that their proposed solutions weren't likely to be successful either.

So just because some people who supported the last failed coach thought he would have been helped by a DOC, doesn't mean that it would be a good idea to impose one on his successor.

The senior coach is the head honcho. He is the one that cops it if the club performs poorly, so he needs to call the shots and have the final say on football matters. A seasoned mentor may be useful for a young coach but only if he thinks he needs one, and then it should be one of his own choosing. Someone he respects and trusts and can call on when he needs. I don't think this lends itself well to a full time/ongoing paid position, more like an old colleague you can call on (and maybe even sling a few bucks consultant style) as required.

I don't see why people think using a formal appointment to determine and engage such a mentor is likely, let alone necessary, to yield good results. Neeld certainly didn't seem to benefit much from the Neil Craig appointment and Nathan Buckley hasn't necessarily benefitted from the Rodney Eade appointment either. Both of those guys were apparently still coveting senior jobs, which suggests their devotion to making someone else successful in that same role may have been less than 100%. Even the James Hird, Bomber Thompson arrangement which was more like the trusted friend arrangement at least initially, has ended disastrously.

I completely agree with this, particularly the last paragraph. To add on, I agree that if Luke feels he needs a seasoned mentor he should select one of his own choosing. However, I wouldn't formalise this with a paid position. I'm sure Clarko, Longmire and Lyon have trusted mentors from outside of their environments (maybe Roos is 2 cases). Your point about Craig and Eade is well made and shows that this approach has not been successful. In fact I'm struggling to think of a link to a flag where this has worked through a formal appointment?

 

[TBOW]

There were many reasons that McCartney wasn't successful, but I don't think a lack of support was a significant factor. The DOC support was suggested as a solution by many people who liked McCartney and wanted him to stay, but considering that the people suggesting this course of action typically didn't recognise his weaknesses, I think is fair to suggest that their proposed solutions weren't likely to be successful either.

So just because some people who supported the last failed coach thought he would have been helped by a DOC, doesn't mean that it would be a good idea to impose one on his successor.

I've never really been pro or anti-McArtney, but I think it is pretty clear that the club did not want to sack him and were only forced to when his position became untennable. They must have the belief that lack of support was a factor in his failure as they have made this DOC position an important part of the coaching structure going forward- specifically in conjunction with Beverage.

The senior coach is the head honcho. He is the one that cops it if the club performs poorly, so he needs to call the shots and have the final say on football matters. A seasoned mentor may be useful for a young coach but only if he thinks he needs one, and then it should be one of his own choosing. Someone he respects and trusts and can call on when he needs. I don't think this lends itself well to a full time/ongoing paid position, more like an old colleague you can call on (and maybe even sling a few bucks consultant style) as required.

I do see your point in regards to this, I think it is very important that whatever structure, title and person are put in place there is no scope for any kind of power vaccuum or even public questioning of the head coaches decisions. I agree that whoever it is needs to have a great relationship with Beverage and probably needs to be an older coach who does not have any burning desire to usurp the throne.

I disagree that it should be a part time or consultant position however. I think there is so much involved in coaching a club these days that having a guy permanently there to consult/assist/take up the slack is completely necessary. I think we need to move away from part time appointments altogether - it just creates to much discontinuity at the club and the right guy for a particular moment may just not be around when that moment arises.

We can call the position whatever we want, we can structure it however we want and we can hire whoever we want to make sure that this position runs smoothly in support of Beverage but I do think we need someone there all the time.

I don't see why people think using a formal appointment to determine and engage such a mentor is likely, let alone necessary, to yield good results. Neeld certainly didn't seem to benefit much from the Neil Craig appointment and Nathan Buckley hasn't necessarily benefitted from the Rodney Eade appointment either. Both of those guys were apparently still coveting senior jobs, which suggests their devotion to making someone else successful in that same role may have been less than 100%. Even the James Hird, Bomber Thompson arrangement which was more like the trusted friend arrangement at least initially, has ended disastrously.

The anecdotal evidence is compelling but I think it is a case of the wrong people for the roles rather than the roles being wrong altogether. I can see that the power balance can be an issue (although apparently that was already the case in some regards with Monty) but I'd be interested in hearing what other issues you think a DOC style appointment would actually create.

 

[stefoid]

What does Denis Pagan get up to these days?

* no. if you are in any way in the macca was an clueless dinosaur camp, then Pagan would be that x a squillion.

The advantage of Beveridge is he spent a couple of years seeing the way they do things at hawthorn, and a lesser extent at collingwood. Which is primarilly why we considered him, I would have thought.

A director of coaching would have to be an experienced ex-senior coach to come in round out the 'successful club' vibe - ideally someone from geelong. i.e someone like Thompson. Presumably he is off in la-la land, however.

Sanderson might have ended in tears, but there are lessons there to be shared from his ex-geelong days and the crows.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Bev will bring plenty of lessons from the Hawks and Collingwood. Pretty much over the 'Geelong factor', and the Crows? Please. He will definitely have to approve any such appointment of a mentor, hopefully someone he knows well and respects.

 

[Proffessor]

I've never really been pro or anti-McArtney, but I think it is pretty clear that the club did not want to sack him and were only forced to when his position became untennable. They must have the belief that lack of support was a factor in his failure as they have made this DOC position an important part of the coaching structure going forward- specifically in conjunction with Beverage.

.

My opinion is that anyone that couldn't see that McCartney was failing in his role as senior coach, was letting emotion cloud their judgement, including the club's administration. The fact they were eventually forced to accept his resignation, is an indictment on their lack of judgement rather than a reinforcement that a lack of support was to blame for McCartney's performance.

McCartney's epitaph was written on the wall in indelible ink back in early 2013. The fact that the administration refused to read it at the time, just delayed the inevitable and resulted in a messier end to the chapter.

I do see your point in regards to this, I think it is very important that whatever structure, title and person are put in place there is no scope for any kind of power vaccuum or even public questioning of the head coaches decisions. I agree that whoever it is needs to have a great relationship with Beverage and probably needs to be an older coach who does not have any burning desire to usurp the throne. .

How do you avoid authority queries, if you create a position which at least by title (director of coaching) indicates that they have over sight of the senior coach in some capacity?

I disagree that it should be a part time or consultant position however. I think there is so much involved in coaching a club these days that having a guy permanently there to consult/assist/take up the slack is completely necessary. I think we need to move away from part time appointments altogether - it just creates to much discontinuity at the club and the right guy for a particular moment may just not be around when that moment arises.

If you need help, you employ assistant coaches (good ones hopefully) which may be experienced and respected, but they need to be clearly answerable to the senior coach.

We can call the position whatever we want, we can structure it however we want and we can hire whoever we want to make sure that this position runs smoothly in support of Beverage but I do think we need someone there all the time.

The anecdotal evidence is compelling but I think it is a case of the wrong people for the roles rather than the roles being wrong altogether. I can see that the power balance can be an issue (although apparently that was already the case in some regards with Monty) but I'd be interested in hearing what other issues you think a DOC style appointment would actually create.

I think the reality is that the personal attributes and trusting relationship requirements for a senior coach - DOC arrangement to work are so hard to meet, that you are more likely for the arrangement to fail than for it to succeed. Therefore we are probably going to be better off by not having one.

 

[TBOW]

.

My opinion is that anyone that couldn't see that McCartney was failing in his role as senior coach, was letting emotion cloud their judgement, including the club's administration. The fact they were eventually forced to accept his resignation, is an indictment on their lack of judgement rather than a reinforcement that a lack of support was to blame for McCartney's performance.

McCartney's epitaph was written on the wall in indelible ink back in early 2013. The fact that the administration refused to read it at the time, just delayed the inevitable and resulted in a messier end to the chapter.



How do you avoid authority queries, if you create a position which at least by title (director of coaching) indicates that they have over sight of the senior coach in some capacity?



If you need help, you employ assistant coaches (good ones hopefully) which may be experienced and respected, but they need to be clearly answerable to the senior coach.



I think the reality is that the personal attributes and trusting relationship requirements for a senior coach - DOC arrangement to work are so hard to meet, that you are more likely for the arrangement to fail than for it to succeed. Therefore we are probably going to be better off by not having one.

I don't disagree with what you are saying.
I'm not as concerned about titles & positions as getting the right person performing the right role.

As you've said that coach - doc (or whatever title you want) relationship is the imperative aspect of the position & the hardest part to get right. Maybe that is the reason those other structures you quoted haven't been overly successful, or maybe it is any number of other reasons.

The main benefit I see in this position as opposed to more assistant coaches, is that it puts another guy in a clear overseeing role to deal with the overflow of day to day crap that coaches need to deal with these days. Sponsors, administrators, committees, even league stuff. The head coach can deal with what is important to him and flick the rest on.
It's stuff that an assistant coach wouldn't really be in a position (if only in title) to deal with but a DOC would have suitable clout.

I guess we'll just see it differently.
I always enjoy having a well thought out discussion with someone who has a alternate opinion to mine. BF's a boring place when everyone thinks the same. Cheers.