Mega Thread The Western Bulldogs - The Sack Macca saga

[immortalmike]

And if our current rebuild IS slower to achieve results, I expect it will then be inevitable that the coach's career will be curtailed. Expansion clubs or not, we can not afford to bounce along the lower rungs of the ladder winning 5-8 games for more than a few years, regardless of equalisation measures.

I do get worried about talk like this. If bouncing around the ladder winning 5-8 games for a couple of years is what we need to do as a club to set up a flag. That's what we do. Now I'm not suggesting that is what's best for our club but I don't like talk of can't afford, the last thing I want us to end up like is that bastion of mediocrity North Melbourne. A team that continually sacrifices tomorrow for today because they can't 'afford' not to.

 

[ivan rassmussen]

But the clubs higher up the ladder than us right now have their mid to top end talent already in their team (which is why they are higher up the ladder) and mostly with 100+ games under their belts. We are trying to draft the top end talent to get us up the ladder quickly, however most of the very best kids are unavailable to us. We are trying to play catch-up with one hand tied behind our backs.

As were Geelong during that period, yet they didn't really bottom out, and took a big risk with Ottens. As others have pointed out, not all the Geelong father-sons were acknowledged first rounders either. Who's to say Zane Cordy won't be a 3rd/4th rounder who plays well in a flag side, or young Foster kicks 50-60 goals in a flag year? And GWS and GCS will have to shed top talent at some point as they can't keep them all.
Plus, we have more father-son opportunities in coming years than anyone else - as long as genetics plays its part and they are interested in footy.
(Btw, Travis Cloke was the third, and best, of his family. Zane could be a lot better than Ayce. Peter Foster was a late bloomer, son looks like following in dad's footsteps.)
The wheel will turn, and the clubs higher up the ladder, although not affected by GWS/GCS, will have to manage lists as they evolve, and hopefully drop as we are rising.

 

[Bulldog1954]

The essential difference here is that many of us who support Brendan do feel that Eade sacrificed player development for immediate results.

Eade had to do this - if you are a team that is good enough to be top 4 three years in a row you have to go all out for a flag. Ultimately he failed but when you are in that window you play your best side.

 

[ivan rassmussen]

I do get worried about talk like this. If bouncing around the ladder winning 5-8 games for a couple of years is what we need to do as a club to set up a flag. That's what we do. Now I'm not suggesting that is what's best for our club but I don't like talk of can't afford, the last thing I want us to end up like is that bastion of mediocrity North Melbourne. A team that continually sacrifices tomorrow for today because they can't 'afford' not to.

mike, that's fine, but how sustainable will our club be if we have a "Melbourne" type era. Malthouse has pointed out in a Fairfax article today that free agency will favour tob performing clubs. If we sit on 5-8 wins for, say, 5 years, we won't get a shot at anyone, not even a Crameri, as we won't be seen as a contender. We will have to pay significant overs in salary to get good, rather than very good, players from other clubs. Building from within is fine, but if we need to top up our kids with a bit of 'cream' from elsewhere, we will struggle to get it.
'Afford' to me is absolutely the right word. If we struggle over an extended period, we also become more expendable to any future adjustments to the configuration of the competition.

 

[ivan rassmussen]

Eade had to do this - if you are a team that is good enough to be top 4 three years in a row you have to go all out for a flag. Ultimately he failed but when you are in that window you play your best side.

Wallace did the same thing - e.g. Robbins, Garlick, Hunter and Winmar. Problem was, once that failed, he didn't know how to coach and rebuild.

 

[Mutt]

As were Geelong during that period, yet they didn't really bottom out, and took a big risk with Ottens. As others have pointed out, not all the Geelong father-sons were acknowledged first rounders either. Who's to say Zane Cordy won't be a 3rd/4th rounder who plays well in a flag side, or young Foster kicks 50-60 goals in a flag year? And GWS and GCS will have to shed top talent at some point as they can't keep them all.
Plus, we have more father-son opportunities in coming years than anyone else - as long as genetics plays its part and they are interested in footy.
(Btw, Travis Cloke was the third, and best, of his family. Zane could be a lot better than Ayce. Peter Foster was a late bloomer, son looks like following in dad's footsteps.)
The wheel will turn, and the clubs higher up the ladder, although not affected by GWS/GCS, will have to manage lists as they evolve, and hopefully drop as we are rising.

Geelong weren't drafting during their rebuild with the AFL having gifted the very best talent to two new expansion teams. Our first picks over the past few drafts would be second round picks in any other year. Our second round picks would be third round picks and so on.

If you want to bemoan our draft selections in the Rhode/Eade years and laud Geelong's, that's fine - but they have nothing whatsoever to do with the point I was making.

 

[lachy]

Wallace did the same thing - e.g. Robbins, Garlick, Hunter and Winmar. Problem was, once that failed, he didn't know how to coach and rebuild.

Ivan, with due respect as I love your posts, to say he didn't know how to coach and rebuild is inaccurate, the same goes for Eade, they never got the chance.

For example, Malthouse got the pies to 2 g/f's in a row. It took 7 years for them to be built up to compete again. In that time they went right back to the bottom rungs of the ladder.

Who knows if Wallace or Eade were afforded that luxury of time whether they would have been able to have us challenging again in that timeframe. The fact is most clubs act to appease supporters and bring in a new voice to rebuild, hence why we have this thread in the first place. Others back those who go close to work there way back up again.

No matter who the coach is it will take time. The only constant is after the bottom has been hit there is a steady though not linear rise back for those that get back to challenging. Therefore, over the next 2 years there must be improvements in results to prove we are on the right track

 

[Butane]

Wallace did the same thing - e.g. Robbins, Garlick, Hunter and Winmar. Problem was, once that failed, he didn't know how to coach and rebuild.

Wallace first full season was 97

Dog's H&A ladder finished
97: 3rd
98: 2nd
99: 4th
00: 7th
01: 10th
02: 12th

He just got worse every year.

 

[the dog's kennel]

Who knows if Wallace or Eade were afforded that luxury of time whether they would have been able to have us challenging again in that timeframe.

To be fair he didn't afford himself that luxury. I wouldn't blame the club for Wallace's departure.

 

[ivan rassmussen]

Fair points Mutt, lachy and Butane. I'm enjoying the exchanges, very stimulating whilst I review project documents at work!

 

[lachy]

Wallace first full season was 97

Dog's H&A ladder finished
97: 3rd
98: 2nd
99: 4th
00: 7th
01: 10th
02: 12th

He just got worse every year.

He did not get worse, the team did as the players that got us to finals throughout the 90's retired, got older etc We were also cutting costs in the football department at this time. I don't think he was as good as coach as Eade was for us but also he was not that bad, my personal opinion. Our recovery begun once the group of 99 had 5 years under their belt after Wallace and Rhode had left and what Eade inherited.

Imagine our supporters if the graph went:
15th
9th
2nd
2nd
13th
15th

The same time period quoted. BTW these were Malthouses first 6 years at Collingwood

 

[lachy]

To be fair he didn't afford himself that luxury. I wouldn't blame the club for Wallace's departure.

I am not blaming the club one bit. We were broke, again, and were about to have a massive cut in spend in the footy department including assistant coaches. I also don't blame Wallace as he was on a hiding to nothing

 

[timtamWB]

Wallace first full season was 97

Dog's H&A ladder finished
97: 3rd
98: 2nd
99: 4th
00: 7th
01: 10th
02: 12th

He just got worse every year.

Not true. He improved in his Second year

 

[Butane]

He did not get worse, the team did as the players that got us to finals throughout the 90's retired, got older etc We were also cutting costs in the football department at this time. I don't think he was as good as coach as Eade was for us but also he was not that bad, my personal opinion. Our recovery begun once the group of 99 had 5 years under their belt after Wallace and Rhode had left and what Eade inherited.

Imagine our supporters if the graph went:
15th
9th
2nd
2nd
13th
15th

The same time period quoted. BTW these were Malthouses first 6 years at Collingwood

I've always thought Malthouse was over-rated. Coaching for 20 odd years with the two biggest spending clubs in the land and he can only just get an average of 1 flag every 16 years. Which is what all clubs should be able to do if it was a level playing field. Which it isnt.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

I do get worried about talk like this. If bouncing around the ladder winning 5-8 games for a couple of years is what we need to do as a club to set up a flag. That's what we do. Now I'm not suggesting that is what's best for our club but I don't like talk of can't afford, the last thing I want us to end up like is that bastion of mediocrity North Melbourne. A team that continually sacrifices tomorrow for today because they can't 'afford' not to.

I've said this before but in today's footy you get one chance to rebuild. We are doing it correctly IMO. Rich & a north have buggered it up by recruiting poorly. Rich topped up instead of staying in the draft and their mature age players aren't performing as well this year, so they have, as a team, a roof to their performance IMO. We are following the right way and in 8-10 years time, people will say that they Geelong/Bulldogs way to rebuild is the right way to do it!

 

[Toastman]

I don't buy the father / son advantage. Scarlett and Hawkins were the only players that should've been picked up earlier than they were. And even then the former was the only one relevant to their first flag. I distinctly remember people talking about Ablett being a mid to late third rounder because he was flaky and had attitude problems. Mind you we've done pretty well with father/sons ourselves.

This does not match my recollection at all, Gary Ablett was never worse than a second rounder and as a result of how good he was and the fact that Nathan played better in his pre draft year meant that by '04 Nathan was a guaranteed first rounder if he was available.

year Player Draft pick used Who they got as a result of not having to use an earlier pick
1997 Matthew Scarlett45 Joel McKay or Marc Woolnough
2001 Gary Ablett, Jr.40 Jimmy Bartel or Steve Johnson depending on where you place him, he was never close to falling in to a third rounder to my recollection.
2004 Nathan Ablett 48 Brad Ottens
2006 Tom Hawkins 41 Joel Selwood

The Scarlett pick didn't affect things too much but clearly missing Bartel or Johnson would have made a massive difference to their premiership winning teams and Ottens was another vital piece of their premierships. Selwood also played 20+ games in each of their three premiership seasons. The old rule had a massive impact on Geelong and if we had been able to use a third rounder for all of ours we would clearly be in a better position.

 

[VitalDread]

I find it funny when people join the sack macca pages on facebook and say the majority has spoken we want him out.

When there's only like 57 people in the group

 

[grassman75]

Just spent time listening to Dougie at a sportsmans lunch.

He is still a funny guy, and i arksed him if he had changed his mind about the bulldogs after he paid out on us on Marngrook footy show last year (question courtesy of BRG93)

His response was pretty much that he phone macca and told him we should draft Fevola when Hall retired but macca said he didn't fit what our team was trying to foster ie: he is a dickhead who can kick goals

He reckons we can't kick enough goals, which is crap considering we play under a roof at Etihad and that Bonti was great last week, but can he back it up?

I got the sense that Douglas was / is still a little scorned by his delisting in 1994

 

[Hrovat24]

Just spent time listening to Dougie at a sportsmans lunch.

He is still a funny guy, and i arksed him if he had changed his mind about the bulldogs after he paid out on us on Marngrook footy show last year (question courtesy of BRG93)

His response was pretty much that he phone macca and told him we should draft Fevola when Hall retired but macca said he didn't fit what our team was trying to foster ie: he is a dickhead who can kick goals

He reckons we can't kick enough goals, which is crap considering we play under a roof at Etihad and that Bonti was great last week, but can he back it up?

I got the sense that Douglas was / is still a little scorned by his delisting in 1994

I reckon that's fair enough

 

[staphy]

Eade had to do this - if you are a team that is good enough to be top 4 three years in a row you have to go all out for a flag. Ultimately he failed but when you are in that window you play your best side.

Plus credit to Eade he did this while been very under resourced, Macca has had 3mil pumped into the football depart so far in his time as coach.

 

[wb_age]

Plus credit to Eade he did this while been very under resourced, Macca has had 3mil pumped into the football depart so far in his time as coach.

And if Macca was on big dollars ala Malthouse would we be able to inject such money into the football department?

 

[Metal]

But the clubs higher up the ladder than us right now have their mid to top end talent already in their team (which is why they are higher up the ladder) and mostly with 100+ games under their belts. We are trying to draft the top end talent to get us up the ladder quickly, however most of the very best kids are unavailable to us. We are trying to play catch-up with one hand tied behind our backs.

In addition, free agency may cause problems for us that past teams did not have to confront. I can envisage players being poached by the top clubs merely because they have the money and our player wants to have a better chance to play in a premiership. Who knows what someone like Stringer will do when he has a huge contract pushed in front of him. In that sort of a world we may become a factory for producing young talent but not able to become the powerhouse that encourages them to stay. Getting to the finals early and not going on with it will deprive us of top end draftees and make it harder for us not to slide again. We have to be able to keep our champions for an extended time if we are to become a powerful club again. It's also why I'd be happy for us to stay in the bottom 6 this year and next.

We must continue on with our policy of drafting the best talent available, hopefully to increase our stocks of tall mids, if for no other reason than we can trade later if necessary.

 

[staphy]

And if Macca was on big dollars ala Malthouse would we be able to inject such money into the football department?

Yes, because Simon Garlick spoke Thursday night at the East meets West Dinner and said we have no choice but to pump the 3mil extra so far into the football department for the development of our younger players and to try and stay in touch with the bigger clubs, he also said equalization will play a big part in leveling the playing field.

 

[Next Waiting]

In addition, free agency may cause problems for us that past teams did not have to confront. I can envisage players being poached by the top clubs merely because they have the money and our player wants to have a better chance to play in a premiership. Who knows what someone like Stringer will do when he has a huge contract pushed in front of him. In that sort of a world we may become a factory for producing young talent but not able to become the powerhouse that encourages them to stay. Getting to the finals early and not going on with it will deprive us of top end draftees and make it harder for us not to slide again. We have to be able to keep our champions for an extended time if we are to become a powerful club again. It's also why I'd be happy for us to stay in the bottom 6 this year and next.

We must continue on with our policy of drafting the best talent available, hopefully to increase our stocks of tall mids, if for no other reason than we can trade later if necessary.

I think this is where the emphasis on character assessment will help us. I'd expect that, apart from being top end talent, the young players we have recruited will be of the ilk where they are motivated, in part, by the prospect of building something from nothing and achieving against the odds.

 

[jamesDP]

I respect your opinion but the other side of the coin is that if the club does give Macca the boot and employ a coach with "tactical savvy and a plan b etc" who is to say for certain that this group of players would respond to him in a more positive way than they will with Macca in the future.

Some people are too impatient in my opinion and need to just hold firm unlike the last 60 years where our club has in hard times been too preoccupied with just quickly getting wins to keep members happy rather than sacrificing some wins to build a sustainable winning culture.

With due respect to your opinion I would not be totally over the fact that the players are currently responding to Macca's coaching prowess. I like McCartney he seems a decent chap, and like all Bulldog supporters I would like him to bring the success to the doggies, but somehow I just cannot see it for now.If we are to show improvement from last year we need to win at least 10 games, going to be a tough order. Win only a couple more this year then he is in serious doubt for next year. Yes he signed a two year contract extension, but when push comes to shove......