Hardwick

[Simon_Nesbit]

(one of your posters asked the question on hawks board - the thread closed whilst I was typing my reply. Thought it could provoke some discussion, so added it here instead).

You stated it's a serious question, so here's a serious answer. Consider my answers through the lens of my appreciation for what Hardwick the coach achieved at Hawthorn.

What do you want to get out of your football club?

What does Hardwick?

Invariably the difference between those two objectives is what causes much of the disharmony between fans and the club. (Obviously incompetence forms a big part).

....

Hardwick, much like Clarkson is a meticulous planner. He has a firm idea in his head of what a premiership-winning Tigers outfit would look like. He probably presented to the board with a "5 year plan" of some description, the end point being competitiveness in finals, potentially grand finals. (You need luck just to get there).

He would have examined your list, and put a line through half of it. Question marks next to the rest, with maybe a handful of 'ticks'. That isn't wholly reflective of the quality of the individual players, but where they fit within his ideal gameplan.

His first year (as mentioned above) he cut something like 15 senior players. That's the equivalent of five years decent drafting in one hit. Chainsaw surgery if you will. Those 15 were clearly not part of the premiership-winning plan, nor would they be valuable contributors during the "growth" phase.

Some of the players he kept, including some reasonably claimed as "stars" were seen to have deficiencies, they weren't "complete" players - so they were played in positions, and with direction that would (either through experience or direct instruction) help them develop.

It's frustrating watching a rebuilding club, especially one that seems to plateau. Hawthorn provided an unrealistic template to follow (4 years) due to the incredible individual talents - we had a good collection of players that just didn't "fit" together - despite all the rhetoric about a complete rebuild, much of our premiership list were allready Hawthorn players when Clarkson/Viney/Hardwick started.

Following Clarkson's philosophy, Hardwick isn't coaching for this game, this moment. He's coaching towards a far greater, future moment. That's why players are left with seeming mismatches (to learn from the experience), why alternate tactics are used extensively (despite failing at the time), why some players are given extended runs at the expense of others (they offer "something" to his ideal gameplan others don't).

Will he get there? Who knows, but the journey is far more exciting for us than for him.

 

[Slattery_20]

His first year (as mentioned above) he cut something like 15 senior players. That's the equivalent of five years decent drafting in one hit. Chainsaw surgery if you will. Those 15 were clearly not part of the premiership-winning plan, nor would they be valuable contributors during the "growth" phase.

15? Wow, the number grows every month.

7 was the official number.
Added to 3 retirements = 10 off the main list.

Eerily similar to a post from another Hawks poster about one M Knights and how he was on the right track because he had a grand plan & a different game-plan.
I really think it's a bit naive to claim other coaches don't have these ideas of where & why they want guys to develop.

Of course, for some coaches it's seen as making a mistake; for others, it's seen as a vital part of a master plan. Largely that's a function of time, punters will give any coach X number of years of free reign then start calling them to account.

In the real world, coaches like to have these grand plans but they have to roll with the punches & adjust as they go. That's the trickiest bit of their job, when to make the call that a guy losing his position or not physically there yet is just hurting the side & losing confidence and should go back. And he'll have to justify it to the board & the punters, which again gets harder as they go on.

Give it another year or two, every player played out of their obvious position while another player runs around in the 2s in a loss will be called a mistake and he'll be questioned about, then hammered for it. What has changed, not much, other than supporters' patience.

 

[T4P]

15? Wow, the number grows every month.

7 was the official number.
Added to 3 retirements = 10 off the main list.

Eerily similar to a post from another Hawks poster about one M Knights and how he was on the right track because he had a grand plan & a different game-plan.
I really think it's a bit naive to claim other coaches don't have these ideas of where & why they want guys to develop.

Of course, for some coaches it's seen as making a mistake; for others, it's seen as a vital part of a master plan. Largely that's a function of time, punters will give any coach X number of years of free reign then start calling them to account.

In the real world, coaches like to have these grand plans but they have to roll with the punches & adjust as they go. That's the trickiest bit of their job, when to make the call that a guy losing his position or not physically there yet is just hurting the side & losing confidence and should go back. And he'll have to justify it to the board & the punters, which again gets harder as they go on.

Give it another year or two, every player played out of their obvious position while another player runs around in the 2s in a loss will be called a mistake and he'll be questioned about, then hammered for it. What has changed, not much, other than supporters' patience.

After this many games last year, the Bombers had one 5 games.
This time this year, they've won 5 1/2 games.
The Matthew Knights bashing seems a bit harsh.

 

[TOOs_Finest]

15? Wow, the number grows every month.

7 was the official number.
Added to 3 retirements = 10 off the main list.

Eerily similar to a post from another Hawks poster about one M Knights and how he was on the right track because he had a grand plan & a different game-plan.
I really think it's a bit naive to claim other coaches don't have these ideas of where & why they want guys to develop.

Of course, for some coaches it's seen as making a mistake; for others, it's seen as a vital part of a master plan. Largely that's a function of time, punters will give any coach X number of years of free reign then start calling them to account.

In the real world, coaches like to have these grand plans but they have to roll with the punches & adjust as they go. That's the trickiest bit of their job, when to make the call that a guy losing his position or not physically there yet is just hurting the side & losing confidence and should go back. And he'll have to justify it to the board & the punters, which again gets harder as they go on.

Give it another year or two, every player played out of their obvious position while another player runs around in the 2s in a loss will be called a mistake and he'll be questioned about, then hammered for it. What has changed, not much, other than supporters' patience.

Not sure if the OP, when referring to his first year, was including two clean-outs... which were pretty much done within his first twelve months (close enough).

 

[Dustin Credible]

After this many games last year, the Bombers had one 5 games.
This time this year, they've won 5 1/2 games.
The Matthew Knights bashing seems a bit harsh.

The worse the Bombers perform under Hird the more they feel the need to bash Knights. It was no-where near as bad when they were winning games at the start of the season.

wrt the OP, it's true that Harwick appears to be coaching, with selection and matchups, for tomorrow rather than for today.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

15 came from the Tigers poster on our board. If it was 15 in two seasons that's a more realistic cut (but still pretty deep).

 

[MightyTiger]

Retirements:
Joel Bowden, Kane Johnson, Matthew Richardson (3)

Delistings:
Nathan Brown, Mark Coughlan, Cleve Hughes, Jarrad Oakley-Nicholls, Adam Pattison, Kayne Pettifer, Graham Polak, Dean Putt, Jarrod Silvester (9).

Traded out:
Andrew Raines (Brisbane), Jay Schulz (Port Adelaide) (2)

Traded in:
Mitch Farmer (1)

National Draft:
Dustin Martin (Bendigo Pioneers), Ben Griffiths (Eastern Ranges), David Astbury (North Ballarat Rebels), Matt Dea (North Ballarat Rebels), Troy Taylor (NT Thunder), Jeromey Webberley (Clarence), Ben Nason (Central Districts) (7)

Pre Season Draft:
Dylan Grimes (Northern Knights) (1)

Rookie Draft:
Robert Hicks (Calder Cannons), Pat Contin (Glenelg), Relton Roberts (NT Thunder), Nick Westhoff (West Adelaide), Graham Polak (Richmond), Jamie O'Reilly (Ireland) (6)

EDIT: This was all done at the end of the 2009 Season, the Club cut the list pretty deep that year.

 

[Parquet Court]

Retirements:
Joel Bowden, Kane Johnson, Matthew Richardson (3)

Delistings:
Nathan Brown, Mark Coughlan, Cleve Hughes, Jarrad Oakley-Nicholls, Adam Pattison, Kayne Pettifer, Graham Polak, Dean Putt, Jarrod Silvester (9).

Traded out:
Andrew Raines (Brisbane), Jay Schulz (Port Adelaide) (2)

Traded in:
Mitch Farmer (1)

National Draft:
Dustin Martin (Bendigo Pioneers), Ben Griffiths (Eastern Ranges), David Astbury (North Ballarat Rebels), Matt Dea (North Ballarat Rebels), Troy Taylor (NT Thunder), Jeromey Webberley (Clarence), Ben Nason (Central Districts) (7)

Pre Season Draft:
Dylan Grimes (Northern Knights) (1)

Rookie Draft:
Robert Hicks (Calder Cannons), Pat Contin (Glenelg), Relton Roberts (NT Thunder), Nick Westhoff (West Adelaide), Graham Polak (Richmond), Jamie O'Reilly (Ireland) (6)

EDIT: This was all done at the end of the 2009 Season, the Club cut the list pretty deep that year.

wow we had some hacks that year, im going straight to the "00s Mediocre AFL players appreciation society" on face book with these.

the past month i have especially noticed that hardwick seems to be coaching for tomorrow rather than now. especially with key injuries to players who were doing great jobs in their roles.

i especially saw that in the match v the dogs, rance on minson or who ever it was and houli on gia and they got burnt by their mediocre opponents but there didnt seem to be a change by hardwick

 

[MightyTiger]

wow we had some hacks that year, im going straight to the "00s Mediocre AFL players appreciation society" on face book with these.

the past month i have especially noticed that hardwick seems to be coaching for tomorrow rather than now. especially with key injuries to players who were doing great jobs in their roles.

i especially saw that in the match v the dogs, rance on minson or who ever it was and houli on gia and they got burnt by their mediocre opponents but there didnt seem to be a change by hardwick

No better way to learn then to learn by your mistakes.

 

[TOOs_Finest]

15? Wow, the number grows every month.

7 was the official number.
Added to 3 retirements = 10 off the main list.

15 came from the Tigers poster on our board. If it was 15 in two seasons that's a more realistic cut (but still pretty deep).

Retirements:
Joel Bowden, Kane Johnson, Matthew Richardson (3)

Delistings:
Nathan Brown, Mark Coughlan, Cleve Hughes, Jarrad Oakley-Nicholls, Adam Pattison, Kayne Pettifer, Graham Polak, Dean Putt, Jarrod Silvester (9).

Traded out:
Andrew Raines (Brisbane), Jay Schulz (Port Adelaide) (2)

Traded in:
Mitch Farmer (1)

National Draft:
Dustin Martin (Bendigo Pioneers), Ben Griffiths (Eastern Ranges), David Astbury (North Ballarat Rebels), Matt Dea (North Ballarat Rebels), Troy Taylor (NT Thunder), Jeromey Webberley (Clarence), Ben Nason (Central Districts) (7)

Pre Season Draft:
Dylan Grimes (Northern Knights) (1)

Rookie Draft:
Robert Hicks (Calder Cannons), Pat Contin (Glenelg), Relton Roberts (NT Thunder), Nick Westhoff (West Adelaide), Graham Polak (Richmond), Jamie O'Reilly (Ireland) (6)

EDIT: This was all done at the end of the 2009 Season, the Club cut the list pretty deep that year.

So, 14 is actually the official number, which is a little closer to 15 than 10 is Slatts, assuming we cut the OP some slack on using the word 'cut'. Some were traded and some retired (possibly would have been cut anyway). But 14 old faces out, and 14 new faces in all the same. Admittedly, some were rookies also, of which I think only two didn't play a game in 2010 (Contin and Westhoff).

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Don't you love it when you put effort into nineteen lines in your post, but the one you just copied without checking becomes the major point of dicussion?

 

[richoatthedisco]

Will he get there? Who knows, but the journey is far more exciting for us than for him.

Not a bad thread Simon but I disagree with this statement. We're but spectators; it's Hardwick's ride.

Give it another year or two, every player played out of their obvious position while another player runs around in the 2s in a loss will be called a mistake and he'll be questioned about, then hammered for it. What has changed, not much, other than supporters' patience.

In another year or two you'd hope and expect the best 22 would be playing in their best positions.

 

[aislegi]

Will he get there? Who knows, but the journey is far more exciting for us than for him.

One thing I like very much about Hardwick is the renewed determination that he has instilled in the players, who all dive in after the ball like school kids who've seen a buck at the bottom of the swimming pool

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

I'd hope (and expect) Hardwick is working too damn hard to enjoy the ride richoatthedisco.

Should he "salute" on the last day then he can sit back and reflect on what he's achieved. (Many would say Clarkson spent too long looking back and pining for a fit playing list for far too long).

 

[Slattery_20]

Don't you love it when you put effort into nineteen lines in your post, but the one you just copied without checking becomes the major point of dicussion?

Yeah my bad, I started it.... in my defense though, I didn't just question the numbers in my reply.
Dea, Mt - Simon did say 'cut X senior players', I took that to mean delistings from the main list. Perhaps I'm being too literal.

Not a bad thread Simon but I disagree with this statement. We're but spectators; it's Hardwick's ride.

In another year or two you'd hope and expect the best 22 would be playing in their best positions.

I think that's almost a ridiculous aim though. Look at the pies 2010 season - and they were clearly further along than where you currently are, there were probably 4-5 spots changed from start of the year to the end.
With so many guys in their first 3-4 seasons there is no way the coaches can know exactly where all of them fit best, or where the team is best served by them fitting in.

I'm sure he'll have his plans of where players fit into different roles but that's not to say you know exactly what the pecking order will be to form a 'best 22' at any certain point in time - and all that could be changed massively by one or two recruits or bad injuries. A 'best 22' is far too simplistic - what if player X doesn't develop as expected? What if draftee Y is way more ready than expected? What if player Z does a knee - are you better off moving a player already there, or bringing someone up from the 2s?

After this many games last year, the Bombers had one 5 games.
This time this year, they've won 5 1/2 games.
The Matthew Knights bashing seems a bit harsh.

A lot of it is, agree there. But it wasn't ever about purely W/L with Knights - more the nature of the losses and the absolute lack of promised improvement in defensive work - the stat I'd throw back is we'd had 3 x 7 goal thrashings to this point last year, 0 this year. Off-topic again... sorry mods.

 

[Parquet Court]

im with slats here...not the knights v hird comparison but with what if things dont turn out the way they are expected.

- already we have seen astbury drop right down the pecking order, albeit a 2nd year player so leniency must be given. he was going to be the next CHB but a lack of size and strength have senn him back in coburg and now a dislocated knee cap.

- griffiths seems to be the golden child, played ok in his few games...what if his shoulders dont hold up

- nahas has emerged as a genuine winger/ hff kicking goals as well

- nason has dropped way off the pace, looks a spud

- graham was half decent last year now back to his spuddy ways

you cant plan for tomorrow too much as life/ football can not be predicted. what i would like to see is less exotic match ups and playing to win more...this sounds completely stupid to say but in that dogs match, leaving rance on minson (a slightly better version of graham) just reeked of that backing your players wayyy too much.

 

[Slattery_20]

In no way am I saying he's done anything majorly wrong (bar a call here & there, he is human & he will still be learning); just pointing out that the perceptions of him, and the standards by which he's judged, will swing. They always do. And that won't necessarily be justified or fair.

 

[bouncing back]

he's been terrific. not only in developing the youth but as the public face of the club.

 

[rammbo]

Dimmer is doing agood job and think hes the right man for the job , the biggest stuff up hes made this season is playing Brad the structure miller way to much in front of post, the last 2 games in particular.

 

[CallMeAl]

(one of your posters asked the question on hawks board - the thread closed whilst I was typing my reply. Thought it could provoke some discussion, so added it here instead).

You stated it's a serious question, so here's a serious answer. Consider my answers through the lens of my appreciation for what Hardwick the coach achieved at Hawthorn.

What do you want to get out of your football club?

What does Hardwick?

Invariably the difference between those two objectives is what causes much of the disharmony between fans and the club. (Obviously incompetence forms a big part).

....

Hardwick, much like Clarkson is a meticulous planner. He has a firm idea in his head of what a premiership-winning Tigers outfit would look like. He probably presented to the board with a "5 year plan" of some description, the end point being competitiveness in finals, potentially grand finals. (You need luck just to get there).

He would have examined your list, and put a line through half of it. Question marks next to the rest, with maybe a handful of 'ticks'. That isn't wholly reflective of the quality of the individual players, but where they fit within his ideal gameplan.

His first year (as mentioned above) he cut something like 15 senior players. That's the equivalent of five years decent drafting in one hit. Chainsaw surgery if you will. Those 15 were clearly not part of the premiership-winning plan, nor would they be valuable contributors during the "growth" phase.

Some of the players he kept, including some reasonably claimed as "stars" were seen to have deficiencies, they weren't "complete" players - so they were played in positions, and with direction that would (either through experience or direct instruction) help them develop.

It's frustrating watching a rebuilding club, especially one that seems to plateau. Hawthorn provided an unrealistic template to follow (4 years) due to the incredible individual talents - we had a good collection of players that just didn't "fit" together - despite all the rhetoric about a complete rebuild, much of our premiership list were allready Hawthorn players when Clarkson/Viney/Hardwick started.

Following Clarkson's philosophy, Hardwick isn't coaching for this game, this moment. He's coaching towards a far greater, future moment. That's why players are left with seeming mismatches (to learn from the experience), why alternate tactics are used extensively (despite failing at the time), why some players are given extended runs at the expense of others (they offer "something" to his ideal gameplan others don't).

Will he get there? Who knows, but the journey is far more exciting for us than for him.

The concept you mention here is something that some people seem to have trouble grasping, but is important if you are to understand much of what the coach does.

It's a good way you describe it.

 

[richoatthedisco]

I'd hope (and expect) Hardwick is working too damn hard to enjoy the ride richoatthedisco.

If you didn't enjoy it there's no way you could do it. The pressure's just too great. Hardwick looks like he's loving every minute of it. If you think we as spectators get more out of Hardwick helping a guy like King improve, or seeing his plans start to take shape, you need to stop living vicariously.

I think that's almost a ridiculous aim though. Look at the pies 2010 season - and they were clearly further along than where you currently are, there were probably 4-5 spots changed from start of the year to the end.
With so many guys in their first 3-4 seasons there is no way the coaches can know exactly where all of them fit best, or where the team is best served by them fitting in.

I'm sure he'll have his plans of where players fit into different roles but that's not to say you know exactly what the pecking order will be to form a 'best 22' at any certain point in time - and all that could be changed massively by one or two recruits or bad injuries. A 'best 22' is far too simplistic - what if player X doesn't develop as expected? What if draftee Y is way more ready than expected? What if player Z does a knee - are you better off moving a player already there, or bringing someone up from the 2s?

You are being too literal again. Obviously all good teams have a flexible 'best 22', and obviously good players are capable of playing in more than one position, but obvious 'experimenting' will decrease as expectations move from 'development' to winning.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

ah, we're discussing different things.

Fans tend to be much more emotionally involved in the highs and lows game to game - winning and losing. Coaches are (by necessity) able to distance themselves from those emotions, and focus on the longer-term objectives.

I'm sure dimma rides that emotional rollercoaster, but it's his job not to get carried away, to focus on the big picture, etc.

 

[SPOCK]

(one of your posters asked the question on hawks board - the thread closed whilst I was typing my reply. Thought it could provoke some discussion, so added it here instead).

You stated it's a serious question, so here's a serious answer. Consider my answers through the lens of my appreciation for what Hardwick the coach achieved at Hawthorn.

What do you want to get out of your football club?

What does Hardwick?

Invariably the difference between those two objectives is what causes much of the disharmony between fans and the club. (Obviously incompetence forms a big part).

....

Hardwick, much like Clarkson is a meticulous planner. He has a firm idea in his head of what a premiership-winning Tigers outfit would look like. He probably presented to the board with a "5 year plan" of some description, the end point being competitiveness in finals, potentially grand finals. (You need luck just to get there).

He would have examined your list, and put a line through half of it. Question marks next to the rest, with maybe a handful of 'ticks'. That isn't wholly reflective of the quality of the individual players, but where they fit within his ideal gameplan.

His first year (as mentioned above) he cut something like 15 senior players. That's the equivalent of five years decent drafting in one hit. Chainsaw surgery if you will. Those 15 were clearly not part of the premiership-winning plan, nor would they be valuable contributors during the "growth" phase.

Some of the players he kept, including some reasonably claimed as "stars" were seen to have deficiencies, they weren't "complete" players - so they were played in positions, and with direction that would (either through experience or direct instruction) help them develop.

It's frustrating watching a rebuilding club, especially one that seems to plateau. Hawthorn provided an unrealistic template to follow (4 years) due to the incredible individual talents - we had a good collection of players that just didn't "fit" together - despite all the rhetoric about a complete rebuild, much of our premiership list were allready Hawthorn players when Clarkson/Viney/Hardwick started.

Following Clarkson's philosophy, Hardwick isn't coaching for this game, this moment. He's coaching towards a far greater, future moment. That's why players are left with seeming mismatches (to learn from the experience), why alternate tactics are used extensively (despite failing at the time), why some players are given extended runs at the expense of others (they offer "something" to his ideal gameplan others don't).

Will he get there? Who knows, but the journey is far more exciting for us than for him.

Good post SN, the problem with being a planner and not a coach, is if you get it wrong 5 years down the track the club is back where it started from ( ie: Wallace), Hardwick is no doubt fixed on the job in hand and you are right, he has put a line through certain players, but thats not development thats just his opinion, putting all your eggs in 1 basket is, once again, not development, just blind hope, (players Astbury have already shown his poor judgement) Hardwick has to become a coach who gets the best out of every player on our list not just the ones he hopes will be the future, if Malthouse is the yard stick for coaches, then novice coaches like Hardwick should adopt his policies, such as, forget the coaching manual, forget the bullshit, get to know your players and what each of them can bring to the game, at this stage Hardwick coaches by the book, for the book and nothing but the book.
Reality is Hardwick is a fart in the wind of this club, only got the job cause his contract was $10,000 a year less then Ken Hinkley
Right now he is lightyears away from taking us into a finals series
While every Richmond supporter hopes he is getting it right, many of us, from what we have seen, in less then 2 seasons, have grave doubts

 

[MightyTiger]

Good post SN, the problem with being a planner and not a coach, is if you get it wrong 5 years down the track the club is back where it started from ( ie: Wallace), Hardwick is no doubt fixed on the job in hand and you are right, he has put a line through certain players, but thats not development thats just his opinion, putting all your eggs in 1 basket is, once again, not development, just blind hope, (players Astbury have already shown his poor judgement) Hardwick has to become a coach who gets the best out of every player on our list not just the ones he hopes will be the future, if Malthouse is the yard stick for coaches, then novice coaches like Hardwick should adopt his policies, such as, forget the coaching manual, forget the bullshit, get to know your players and what each of them can bring to the game, at this stage Hardwick coaches by the book, for the book and nothing but the book.
Reality is Hardwick is a fart in the wind of this club, only got the job cause his contract was $10,000 a year less then Ken Hinkley
Right now he is lightyears away from taking us into a finals series
While every Richmond supporter hopes he is getting it right, many of us, from what we have seen, in less then 2 seasons, have grave doubts

Absolute load of bullshit.

Nahas, King, Rance, White, Edwards heck even Graham has developed under Hardwick, the day Dimma walked through the doors at Punt Road he said that he should be judged on not how our top Draft Picks develop, but how he develops the fringe players already at his disposal.

And if we are to judge him on the development of players who many Tiger Supporters had already put a line through, then I'd say he's already got a pass mark.

And as to the bolded part, what the heck does that even mean.

And are you trying to say Astbury is a dud?

 

[Dr Tigris]

I'm struck by how Dimma is taking the team on a journey. Look at the game plan / structure change since he took over. At times they look fantastic -simple, direct and repeatable way of playing. Will work in finals. Young guys getting games (they probably don't really deserve) to develop them. He is coaching for 2-3 years from now. What we are seeing in TV, Cotch etc is simply getting older, bigger and more experienced. But they are being played to a system. Whether it will all work is another thing. But we will lose matches we might have won under Dimma because he is trying to build a team for 2013-15 on.

I'm not sold on him, especially as a match day coach. But what is happening is a full rebuild with the aim of winning a premiership. Wallace, and many other coaches, aim to make finals and build on what they have. Taking the long term plan and sticking to it is very hard. But they are doing that. We'll have downs, and some ups for another yera of two. Then we will have a very experienced and young team. Much like St Kilda 7-8 years ago - except I hope we do a lot better than them.