A Coaching hypothetical

[Crow-mo]

Again you completely misunderstand. I'm asserting a philosophical position in relation to probabilities and the coaches' influence upon improving a club's chances. Coaches are very important absolutely, but the fact that a coach has in the past won a flag does not always necessarily assert that they would be the best person for a job to win future flags at a different club. There is always the possibility that they were to a degree lucky and/or that they wouldn't be able to recreate that success at a different club as well as a different untried candidate. My problem with STO's assertions was the certainty of "proven" coaches which is a logical fallacy as no coach is proven in their task of winning future premierships, unless you believe in dual-directional time travel.

I may have missed the mark a little on your other post, but not this one.

when you talk about possibilities of being lucky etc. then you are clutching at straws. certainly there are wrong styles and types for clubs and lists - but you have absolutely set out your stall on the fact the luck factor.

which I would want some evidence of before giving it any creedance.

proven is always better than unproven - but there are suitability issues too. Neither Blight or particularly Matthews has shown any penchant and/or ability to rebuild a list. they're finishers, not builders.

putting a finisher into a building scenario is not going to work, which is not the same as just saying that the former was lucky or not really very good.

any argument that suggests someone is definitively capable of "finishing" without having proven that is tenuous just as suggesting that someone who has crossed the line, lucked out and may not be able to do it again.

there is always faith involved with unproven coaches, and in some cases it works out well - but that is not an argument against someone who has done it, has achieved it, has experienced what is required.

the only certainly in STO's positions is the certainty that someone who has done something, has certainly proved they can, that innately in the right circumstances they have the ability to meet the challenge. there is no such certainty with someone who has not. that is not a logical fallacy as you fancifully claim.

put another way, if you put Craig and Matthews in the coaching pool at seasons end you can be damned sure that one of them would attract first attention. and no amount of vague and baseless supposition will change that.

 

[Crow-mo]

Which wasnt an assertion i ever made....

stop being picky.

 

[Crow-mo]

A post that even Crow-Mo thinks is too strong?

tone more than content.

I was a little too fired up from some earlier posts, that I didn't deal with this one on face value;

 

[Macjoe]

that's a pointless assertion not based on logic or reason, but rather hope and wishful thinking.

you keep going round in circles trying to distance coaches from their results, and if that is what you truly believed then it wouldn't matter if Craig or Fat Cat coached the club.

here's the way I see it.

1.) can you make a serious, informed argument that Craig is the best coach in the league? No you cannot.

2.) can you make an argument he is amongst the top half dozen or so? almost certainly

3.) can you make an argument that his background, understanding of SA footy, and general connection with the club give him extra points and simpatico making him the right choice for the Adelaide Football Club? I'd think you probably could a fair strong pitch here

you need to start focusing on 2 & 3, and not trying to confect a fantasy where no.1 is your thrust.

in absolute terms Craig is not the best coach in the league and few would think he is - however, he might just be the most suited of the upper tier candidates for us. He has many flaws, and his blind sheep supporters insistence on an all or nothing devotion without nuance does rational analysis no favours. of course he has many positive attributes too - and one of the most compelling is that for all the mistakes he has made, he has made them with us, and his own journey of learning might have been clsoely attuned with the journey of this club. the lessons and learning are all very AFC focused and as a result might be of the most benefit to the AFC. i.e what he has learned might be most pertinent and thus valuable to this club, and the mistakes of a new coach might still need to be made again.

but that said, make no mistake if we got another Grade A coach, then they would do very well here also. Do not tell me Matthews, Malthouse, Roos, Eade or Thompson would not also do very very well here. just don't.

speaking of snide sniping, you could always just argue your position?

Ah, sh*t, I already apologised to STO for that. My mistake. Grovel, grovel...

I'm having some trouble realising that when some long established posters write stuff that seems to me really offensive and nasty about other long established posters... they ARE long established, and have developed banter towards each other that I am not party to.

Add to that the fact that the only people who stay on this forum over time are (almost by definition) PASSIONATE and rather single-minded and I have to conclude that you guys have the right to post what you feel like, and if i don't like it, I don't have to come to this site.
Since I do like this site, I'll try to pull my head in. (Have to admit, I'm not much good at pulling my head in). Guess you'll just have to kick it every now and then.

Now, your other post, Crow-mo.
Brilliant!
Your point about how "his own journey of learning might have been closely attuned with the journey of this club" matches my thoughts about why the dark years following 2005 Rds 1 - (19? 20? 22?) have been bearable, even growth years. Yes, I know 2006 (H&A 16/6) was nearly as good as 2005 (H&A 17/5) but I felt a growing desperation that time was slipping away, and we were getting worse, not better. Then, predictably I thought, Geelong and Hawthorn emerged from the ruck. Even in the glory days of early 2005, when Adelaide was unstoppable with a mix of kids and really good but aging senior players, it worried me what a good coach with a more even team would do if they added NCs philosophies to their own.
And Bomber and Alistair did just that. NC's ideas weren't the keystone of their successes, but I think he was an influential factor.

As you say, he has flaws - I'm not willing to concede the word "many" - and surely one of them, that seems to have been a significant factor in our lack of finals success since '05 has been his belief in "tapering" (as I think it is known in cycling and athletics). Not that I think the concept isn't an important part of finals preparation, I'm sure it is, but I think that early on NC over-valued it's role in the '97/'98 premierships, and hasn't yet got the nuts and bolts of tapering screwed down.

The balance between football professionalism and football fun is another learning curve for NC. While he acknowledged there was an issue, and moved forward I tended towards NC's view rather than Welsh/Hudson. I always have felt that footballers at the AFL levels of salary are being paid as performers rather than footballers in the local club sense. But Craigy didn't do a dummy spit, he enfolded his player's views into his own view. Growth.

Your final point is very telling as well, not only for the insightful list of included coaches "Matthews, Malthouse, Roos, Eade or Thompson" but also for those you leave out: Pagan, Williams, Walls, Wallace, Worsfold and (as yet) Voss/Buckley. Many are premiership coaches, but you don't include them in your list of A Graders. Not sure where you rank Clarkson, but anyway I agree with both your list, and your point.

However...
I'm sure you knew (assuming you have read this rather extended post) that a however was coming.
However, you start with
1.) can you make a serious, informed argument that Craig is the best coach in the league? No you cannot.

Yes. I believe I can, and I believe YOU have. I am sure I cannot say the argument is proven, and debate will undoubtedly continue. As it has with McHale, Smith, Jeans, Hafey, Barassi, Parkin, Sheedy and Matthews.

The key fact relating to Craig is that he has not yet won even a single premiership as head coach, and some others "in the league" have won 1 or in Malthouse's case, 2. Those I have mentioned above have won 4 or more. That is a very problematic factor to the assertion that he is currently the best coach, but it is only one factor. There are so many others to consider:

Development of the given list
Creation of a winning game plan
Recruitment to suit the list's needs
Injuries and injury management
Club culture and ethics
Win/loss record.
...and I am sure you and others can add to this list.
​

In each of these a reasoned argument can be mounted that he equals or excedes the performance of other current coaches.

To combat the damning "no Premierships" issue I offer the following - the current coaches' records in Premierships are not so outstanding that they should be given definative weighting, with the possible exception of Malthouse, and I believe he falls down when his recent record is considered. Further, although I am NOT suggesting that Blighty's premierships are Craig's, he did have enough of an influence on them that he cannot be considered as having NO premiership experience.

In conclusion, I offer that a serious, informed argument CAN be mounted that Craig is the best coach in the business. It is not yet proven. It is not a widely shared view yet, but holding it is more than just "blind sheep" support.
​

 

[Crow-mo]

Macjoe,

I don't agree with all of that, but it was a reasoned and enjoyable post to read. thanks for making the effort to add something genuinely interesting.

I also think rather than advance the argument that he is the best coach with your list of factors, that closer scrutiny of that list with reference to some others would move that argument further away. i.e. you're closer to proving that he isn't than he is.

although for the life of me, I can't understand why so many people think Malthouse's recent record lets him down, he's done more than us with less than us. hell our club has said that Collingwood is the model we have adopted for our rebuild. What Micky has done with the Black n White far exceeds (imo) what he did with West Coast (who were bankrupt and sucky - that's a technical term - when he took over).

I sincerely hope Collingwood ditches Malthouse, for Buckley. which would be the equivalent of us ditching Craig this year for Rehn (or fat cat). hell it could work out - but I don't like the odds. this current fascination with the new coaches I reckon will be an embarassing book mark in the history books soon enough. filed under what were we thinking??!!??? as I believe the chapter will be called.

for a personal view that may not accord with others, I am not sure I think Thompson is a coaches behind (exagerrated obviously). he is the Avram Grant of AFL, perfectly ok but the light went on when the players realised they had to do it themselves.

 

[Crow-mo]

Your final point is very telling as well, not only for the insightful list of included coaches "Matthews, Malthouse, Roos, Eade or Thompson" but also for those you leave out: Pagan, Williams, Walls, Wallace, Worsfold and (as yet) Voss/Buckley. Many are premiership coaches, but you don't include them in your list of A Graders. Not sure where you rank Clarkson, but anyway I agree with both your list, and your point.

thought I might expand on this:

Pagan - very good coach, now damaged good from being in the wrong situation. Norm Smith couldn't have done anything with Carlton in the state they were in.

Williams - can't work out if he's a great coach, or manic depressive coaching ego maniac. and I know I am not the only one confused about this. ask the port board seriously maybe, he needs a different club where he doesn't have so much say, so much history to re-attune himself. seems to burn players.

Walls - was a superb coach. too old, but never afraid of a challenge. legacy hurt by an illadvised coaching swap with Northey at Richmond.

Wallace - again, there is a very good coach in there. with a better organisation around him, I suspect he could've played to his strengths a lot more. needed a board who could guide, corrall and control him. you swap him and craig in 2004 and I wonder what it looks like for both of them? not to mention he was totally undone by the 2004 draft, such is luck. too late though, he is damaged goods. time has gone.

Worsfold - don't know. think he's west coasts gary ayres. a coach who preaches accountability and simple footy - and he had it over us. a lot. how good is he? again, plenty of more knowledgable footy people than me don't know. was not highly rated as a Carlton assistant. but see pagan.

Voss/Buckley? well Voss I suspect is benefitting from dead cat bounce - the fresh air that sweeps through a club when it got stale. its what causes plenty of caretaker coaches to be get full time jobs they don't deserve. lets wait until year 2 or 3 on that. as for Buckley - who is to say he's the next Roos? could just as easily be the next Tony Shaw or Tim Watson. hell can someone tell me the difference at the same stage between buckley and tim watson? other than Watson was a better player

it wasn't long ago that Brereton was the big hot coaching property but couldn't be lured away from the media as everyone said he needed assistant coaching experience - and now some numbskulls are saying if you were a good enough player, then media perspective - helicoptering view above the game - is what matters most. WTF??????

Clarkson - man with a plan. whether it was his plan or not. he's an organisational guy, who in conjunction with his entire club got everyone on the same page. obviously a smart guy, and oversaw a tactical premiership - one that involved a distinct strategic game plan. we need more time to fully assess but he could be a very, very good coach. he had a significant hand in his team winning their flag, and now we are seeing him deal with adversity. if push came to shove, I'd err on the side of ranking him (very) highly.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

although for the life of me, I can't understand why so many people think Malthouse's recent record lets him down

Agree with this.

It seems the only people calling for Malthouse to go are Collingwood fans who - for reasons known only to them - seem to be sick of winning. And a few media luminaries who take it personally when MM berates one of their colleagues at a press conference.

Forget Buckley. Richmond should be throwing a massive pile of $$$ at Mick.

 

[Crow-mo]

I think you'll see Collingwood sign up Micky again in the next month. they've struggled with an under-done and injury hit forward line, but its starting to come together for them. another month - in which they should win 3 of 4, consolidating at or around top 4 and they'll sign him. as they should.

I also think Richmond are just watching to see what happens, as Mick has said he WILL coach next year. first choice is collingwood, but he will be running the show for someone. and there is talent in that Richmond list, he'll be the King of Punt Rd with the turnaround he'd extract in 12 months from that bunch of underachievers.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The question is will Collingwood be prepared to watch Buckley go and coach somewhere else?

It would absolutely kill them to see Bucks succeed elsewhere I'm sure. It will take some balls from them to reappoint Malthouse and turn their back on their favourite son. Whether it is the right decision to do so or not.

Next season will almost be an untenable situation, unless the Pies have ultimate success this season or are near the top of the table next year. Malthouse will be scrutinised and measured against Buckley like never before. The knives will be at the ready.

 

[Crow-mo]

personally I think they will, and I think they will do it in the next couple of weeks.

Buckley shouldn't even want to coach a big club first up. hiding to nothing.
can you imagine the scrutiny if it he doesn't hit the ground running - there will be another strong campaign this year for the pies, and if he doesn't take it further immediately - well then he's in tony shaw, card marked "never to coach again" territory.

first timers should go somewhere with more margin for error, especially if they have temperity to call themselves career coaches

 

[jenny61_99]

I think you'll see Collingwood sign up Micky again in the next month. they've struggled with an under-done and injury hit forward line, but its starting to come together for them. another month - in which they should win 3 of 4, consolidating at or around top 4 and they'll sign him. as they should.

Not so sure Collingwood are "getting it together"... the teams they've beaten (Melbourne, Brisbane, North Melbourne, West Coast, Port Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney) are hardly quality opposition this year (with the exception maybe of Brisbane but that is still debatable). While they've lost to Adelaide, Geelong, St Kilda, Essendon and Carlton. Mind you they may well make it to the top 4 given the generousity of their draw . Don't think they'll progress very far though once they get there.

I also think Richmond are just watching to see what happens, as Mick has said he WILL coach next year. first choice is collingwood, but he will be running the show for someone. and there is talent in that Richmond list, he'll be the King of Punt Rd with the turnaround he'd extract in 12 months from that bunch of underachievers.

I personally think Malthouse would be better moving to Richmond. Gives him a fresh challenge and changes things up at Collingwood. A win/win scenario.

 

[KUNG FU]

I may have missed the mark a little on your other post, but not this one.

when you talk about possibilities of being lucky etc. then you are clutching at straws. certainly there are wrong styles and types for clubs and lists - but you have absolutely set out your stall on the fact the luck factor.

which I would want some evidence of before giving it any creedance.

proven is always better than unproven - but there are suitability issues too. Neither Blight or particularly Matthews has shown any penchant and/or ability to rebuild a list. they're finishers, not builders.

putting a finisher into a building scenario is not going to work, which is not the same as just saying that the former was lucky or not really very good.

any argument that suggests someone is definitively capable of "finishing" without having proven that is tenuous just as suggesting that someone who has crossed the line, lucked out and may not be able to do it again.

there is always faith involved with unproven coaches, and in some cases it works out well - but that is not an argument against someone who has done it, has achieved it, has experienced what is required.

the only certainly in STO's positions is the certainty that someone who has done something, has certainly proved they can, that innately in the right circumstances they have the ability to meet the challenge. there is no such certainty with someone who has not. that is not a logical fallacy as you fancifully claim.

put another way, if you put Craig and Matthews in the coaching pool at seasons end you can be damned sure that one of them would attract first attention. and no amount of vague and baseless supposition will change that.

You and STO have misused the word "prove", until you can recognise that we will continue to run around in circles. There are no proven facts in relation to the future. A coach is hired on the ability of how they can affect that future, not what they have done in the past.

I think that a series of very good interviews and a stellar coaching/playing career can be more valuable evidence of an ability to win future premierships, than having actually racked one up. I recognise maybe I read into STO's argument what I wanted to read, but I don't agree that the fact that "guys like Paul Roos, Mark Thompson, and Allistair Clarkson are on a level Craig hasnt reached yet" precludes Craig from being the best available coach for the Crows.

 

[KUNG FU]

And just one last self-indulgent post: I'm not an-NC apologist. Up until mid/late 2008 I was very much one of the most critical posters of his coaching.

 

[Crow-mo]

You and STO have misused the word "prove", until you can recognise that we will continue to run around in circles. There are no proven facts in relation to the future. A coach is hired on the ability of how they can affect that future, not what they have done in the past.

that's just semantic word play to no useful end

I think that a series of very good interviews and a stellar coaching/playing career can be more valuable evidence of an ability to win future premierships, than having actually racked one up.

i don't know where to start, so I'm not really going to. other than to say nonsense. there is no end of people with stellar playing careers who were lousy coaches, and do you seriously there are any coaches appointed who didn't "interview" well? c'mon.

 

[Vader]

My thoughts on the various coaches...

Thompson - He built this team and their gameplan. I rate him VERY highly and would definitely consider installing him as the AFC head coach - ahead of Neil Craig. That said, he was given time to pull it all together - it took him until his 8th year to win the flag (something which people might like to consider given that Craig is coming up on 5 years in the job).

Lyon - Not sure what to make of him. He started by turning St Kilda into Sydney's "Mini-me" - but abandoned that tactic when it was shown to be an absolute disaster. Since then they've gone from strength to strength. What he hasn't shown is an ability to develop the youngsters - players under 25 are a rare commodity in St Kilda's best 22 these days.

Eade - I'd consider Rocket to be Craig's equal. He's shown the ability to develop a list, both at Sydney and Footscray. He's also shown the ability to get his team to play finals winning footy (Sydney made the flag under his tutelage in 1996 and Footscray made the prelim finals in 2008). He's a master match-day tactician, I'm just not so sure that he's quite as good at preparing his team as Neil Craig is.

Malthouse - It's been a long while since he tasted premiership success, in 1994 with a supreme Weagles outfit. He's rebuilt Collingwood several times over and took them to consecutive Grand Finals in 2002 & 2003. He knows how to get the best out of what really isn't the best list going in the AFL. I just don't think that he'd be a good fit for the AFC.

Voss - The jury is still well and truly out. To date though he hasn't shown anything to indicate that he'd be a better option than Neil Craig.

Ratten - Still in the process of rebuilding a team list which was partly destroyed by Pagan, partly by poor recruiting, partly by neglectful list management in the 1990s and partly by draft penalties following the salary cap scandal. Hasn't got his team into the finals yet, so no reason to rate him higher than Craig.

Knights - Dismal failure as coach of the Port Adelaide Magpies, but then again so was Craig at Norwood. Like Ratten, he has yet to get his team into the finals - so you'd have to rate him well behind Craig.

Williams - Choco DOES have a flag to his name (2004), he also has the biggest AFL Grand Final capitulation to his name (2007). Culturally, he'd be more suited to coaching a Victorian team than the AFC. No way on earth I'd want him coaching the Crows.

Roos - Another coach with a premiership under his belt (2005). Counting heavily against Roos is his inability to develop the youngsters. We've turned over a large proportion of our list and now have a relatively young team. Roos has continually minimised the turnover of Sydney's list and it now stands on the brink of collapse as a result. In terms of his tactical nous and ability to get the best out of his players, I rate him very highly. However, his failures in the list management area leave him rated behind Neil Craig in my eyes.

Crocker - Yet to coach a single game. He does have 10 years as an assistant coach - how long do you need to qualify for the main gig?

Worsfold - The 5th of the current coaches to have won a flag (2006). Was he made to look better than he really was, by having a midfield containing Judd, Cousins & the Ketamine Kid? I'm tempted to say yes, but for the fact that his teams regularly take us to the cleaners even when the big 3 are missing or having no impact. As me again in 5 years time, when the kids he's drafted since Judd's departure have matured and he has a generation of Eagles to call his own.

Rawlings - Has the highest winning ratio of any current coach - 100% (1 from 1). Seriously though, his lack of experience has to see him rated behind Craig.

Harvey - I don't rate him as a coach at all. That said, he may be a decent coach - but after being Fremantled we'll never know.

Bailey - The losingest coach in recent memory. Signing him would be akin to signing Robert Shaw all over again (still don't understand why we made that decision after sacking Cornes). Why would we want to sign the coach from the least performed club in the last 2 years?

Recent past coaches...
Matthews - Arguably the greatest player/coach the game has ever seen. You could argue (as Crow-mo has done) that he's a finisher and not a developer. I'd just argue that his heart is no longer in it.

Pagan - Developed a fine reputation at North, then destroyed it at Carlton. I must confess that I agree with Crow-mo here, NOBODY could have made Carlton competitive given the list they had at the time. Maybe he was made to look better than he was, courtesy of one W Carey? By all reports though, he didn't have a great rapport with the players, so I wouldn't want him coaching the AFC.

Ayres - I think we can safely say that the AFC has learned from its little blunder and won't be repeating this particular mistake again any time soon.

Prospective coaches...
Buckley - The intelligence he's shown with his "special comments" on TV are enough for me to believe that he's no Tony Shaw. That said, I'd still want him to have done an apprenticeship before I even considered appointing him as head coach of the Adelaide Crows.

Anyone else I should be considering?

 

[Riggy1]

My thoughts on the various coaches...

Harvey - He built this team and their gameplan. I rate him VERY highly and would definitely consider installing him as the AFC head coach - ahead of Neil Craig. That said, he was given time to pull it all together - it took him until his 8th year to win the flag (something which people might like to consider given that Craig is coming up on 5 years in the job).

 

[Vader]

That would of course be Mark Thompson... Why do I always get he & Mark Harvey confused? Might be because they both played for Essendon. OP fixed.

 

[Crow-mo]

Recent past coaches...
Matthews - Arguably the greatest player/coach the game has ever seen. You could argue (as Crow-mo has done) that he's a finisher and not a developer. I'd just argue that his heart is no longer in it.

I don't think there are major question marks about whether he has the stomach to go again - he says himself he doesn't. when you've achieved that much, do you really have the heart and interest in anything that looks a little too much like hard work. think Blight at St Kilda - though the sainters have been found out as having spread a great deal of misinformation on his tenure, equally I think he lost the will when they were just a little further away than he thought.

other than Blight is a far superior tactical coach, I don't think there is very much different between Matthews & Blight as coaches - both finishers; both not too flash without the players. which sounds circular, except there are plenty of guys no good even with the players, and some who are worse with senior, head strong talented players prepared to argue their corner.

Matthews 4 years out of the finals at brisbane, without any real inspiration or demonstrated ability to teach the young guys. he ended up much the same at Collingwood. going nowhere, and in the 5 years following the flag, never really looked dangerous or contenders again.

You look at Matthews record as developing, teaching, list building coach and its poor. very poor. which is fine, don't hire him to do that. Blight ran a mile at Adelaide when it even looked like he might need to that sort of stuff, and I think took on St kilda because (he thought) they were cherry ripe.

but as arguably the greatest player who ever lived, and certainly one of the greatest modern day coaches, its hard to see who could (ever) compare to Matthews for player/coach achievements.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Now that Wallace is gone there are only two coaches with previous experience coaching at another AFL club (Eade and Malthouse). The rest are first-timers.

Is this unusual? In yesteryear it wasn't the case. Ayers, Walls, Matthews, Parkin, Pagan, Jeans, Cahill, Judge, Northey, Blight, Shaw... Were clubs more forgiving back then? More inclined to stick with the tried and true?

Coaches now seem to be tainted like never before by a bad run. Wallace will never coach again. It's rare to see a coach serve their apprenticeship at one club (eg Malthouse at Footscray) then see another club swoop in, out bid them and pinch a ready-made coach with senior experience.

Laidley would be a perfect example. Has served an apprenticeship in one of the most under-resourced clubs in the competition. Has come through ok. And, like anyone in anything, you're going to be better the second time around with experience to call upon.

I'll be interested to see if he gets another gig.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

With champion players going into coaching, the two ex-players who have impressed me the most in the media are Wayne Carey and Nathan Buckley. They just seem to know the game inside out. They see what others don't. Every word and observation rings true.

Conversley I've never heard Tony Shaw offer an interesting, insightful or meaningful contribution on any topic. Same with Tim Watson. Same with James Hird.

Obviously we only see snippets through the media of what these guys think/know and are too far away to make any real judgment... but that is the impression I have got. Those latter three are bland. Plastic. Cliched. Superficial.

They should know the game well. They played enough of it. But I'm not convinced they do. Or perhaps more accurately, what they know innately, they are unable to put into words. Football came so naturally to them that they had little understanding of the mechanics/dynamics that allowed them and their teams to perform well.

Whether this knowledge transfers to being a good coach is of course unknown. But you'd rather go with it than without it. I think it is wrong to lump Shaw/Watson/Buckley/Voss together. To borrow from Bomber Thompson, they are in a different stratosphere.

 

[Crow-mo]

I've never really been impressed with Buckley's commentary, and to be honest I've not been unimpressed. I just don't see what all this supposed insight is. he's a little more up-to-date with modern parlance, as you would expect being recently out of the game.

and given a coaches cardinal sin is losing the players... would you really back Carey or Buckley to win guys over in the long term?

 

[Southerntakeover]

and given a coaches cardinal sin is losing the players... would you really back Carey or Buckley to win guys over in the long term?

Mind expanding on this a little?

 

[Crow-mo]

Mind expanding on this a little?

they were abrasive, divisive figures in the locker room. Buckley in particular. Carey has a cult like following, but since many players have commented that the size of his personality and following kinda meant you had to join in and follow along. whereas Buckley was just an aloof ****.

I think Carey is a lot, lot more personable of the 2 from what I have heard, but it isn't hard to see Buckley retaining that prickly demeanour.

which is fine, as in theory you want authority. but there has to be respect and some sort of affection for the authority figure as well - otherwise the players tune out. Tony Shaw had plenty of discipline and authority, but when things get tough the board inevitably looks to the locker room. and if they don't see a team united and "on message" then its curtains.

we all like to think the answer is to crack the whip harder, but it has to be a 2 way street.

Buckley could end up a great coach, who knows, but I can't see how its become this sure thing.

 

[jenny61_99]

It's funny, I'd always thought Buckley would make the better coach over Voss. Voss was too much "one of the boys", I thought. Buckley shows quite an insight into the vagaries of footy in his commentary, Voss not so much. However, CM - you've highlighted a really big importance for coaching - having player respect and affection. Voss was such a leader both on and off the field. Well loved by all his fellow team mates. This is the reason why, I believe, he is doing so well with the Lions. Those boys would walk over hot coals for him. Of course this doesn't say anything towards the development of young players or his match day ability, but I think it speaks volumes. I wonder if Buckley will ever have that raport with his charges?

 

[cmndstab]

they were abrasive, divisive figures in the locker room. Buckley in particular. Carey has a cult like following, but since many players have commented that the size of his personality and following kinda meant you had to join in and follow along. whereas Buckley was just an aloof ****.

Wasn't this something that was said to be true of Buckley in his earlier years, but not so much in his later years?