Fair demotion for midfield coach/senior assistant though, I think we're much more likely to wait out his contract. But I'm confident that without Noble we'll see a different approach at selection.
Last edited:
The REALLY REAL Tom Doedee Thread
- Thread starter fabs33
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Fair demotion for midfield coach/senior assistant though, I think we're much more likely to wait out his contract. But I'm confident that without Noble we'll see a different approach at selection.
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 77,210
- 151,326
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #78
It's not a demotion. Just doesn't sit on selection.
We have umpteen coaches. Not all of them sit on match committee.
None of them, apart from Campo, are the Senior Assistant and Midfield Coach though. You can't expect his role to be moved out of selection committee. I don't Pyke was in a position to set the agenda at the start of last season. He had to suck it and see to a large extent. He gets to set the agenda this year though, I agree with you there. But there's no way that it will include Campo's expulsion from match committee.
Shaz2012
Cancelled
- Sep 15, 2012
- 7,928
- 8,424
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I just dont believe this stuff on the coach mot having the final say. Buckley and Scott dont strike me as the types that play many cards when they go on AFL 360 or whatever it is. They might have said that but I just don't buy it.
The buck stops with the head coach. The assistants dont go down with the ship when the coach gets sacked. Its just illogical that you dont give the coach the right to pick his team and yet hold only him responsible.
If Pyke didnt want to play Mackay he wouldnt have played him. Simple as that.
The buck stops with the head coach. The assistants dont go down with the ship when the coach gets sacked. Its just illogical that you dont give the coach the right to pick his team and yet hold only him responsible.
If Pyke didnt want to play Mackay he wouldnt have played him. Simple as that.
As someone on record, multiple times, being very bullish on Menz, to the point of disbelieving the swipes about his conditioning, I too have heard from good sources that his fitness remains significantly below expectations.
Significantly. And I take no pleasure in it whatsoever
Well that sucks. Do they think he could play a role up forward or is he that bad?
That seems to be a matter of conjecture.
He is miles and miles off midfield, that's out of the question
In terms of his forward ability, he may not have the capacity to play forward for us. He was clearly fit enough and good enough to play forward for Carlton and he did well there too. He's fitter than he was, so he's definitely fit enough to play forward. But maybe not enough to play our way for us. I don't know
Guessing a little on tone & inference we're pretty pissed at him, so even if he is fit enough to play forward we might still not let him out of principle
I'd still want to see him get a go. Boy can flat out play. If he gets out there we might find this other stuff doesn't matter so much
The senior coach is not the only coach held responsible, it's just a bigger story when they are moved on. The game has changed significantly and the coaching group is as much a team as the 22 who take the field. The senior coach may be the leader, but the team won't function if they're an autocrat. Of course, you'd have to ask whether they're even the leader when their boss sits on match committee and also in the box on game day. Both Bucks and Scott openly scoffed at Robbo, I doubt it was anything but an honest statement and I doubt they were deliberately misleading their rivals, which is your implication when referring to playing cards.
Common strategy for the leader to downplay their power.
My company CEO will publicly say "I ask the team if it's possible, and trust their judgement" - and that's true often enough - but if he wants to make a call, he makes the call.
Btw it sounds like the Cats/Pies scenario is more like the coach is persuaded to a different view. That's different to being unpersuaded but overruled.
Pyke is accountable for selection.
Shaz2012
Cancelled
- Sep 15, 2012
- 7,928
- 8,424
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Yep agree. They [will] know their answer to this question will be most relevant inside their own doors so you may as well block the whole world out and imagine the answer is being directed at their coaching team.
What else are they supposed to say. I have meetings with them every week but ultimately nothing they say is going to override me. Thats not to say they dont value the input or use input to help them in their own decision making.
Agree with you 1970crow that its now a team job. But the leader of the team is one person and the buck stops with him.
Last edited:
Not sure what to make of the SEN article, then
Pdub
Norm Smith Medallist
From my understanding, the line coaches are in charge of their zone, it's their job to get the most out of that zone and make sure it's working like a well-oiled machine. Pyke gives them the direction of what he wants each line to be able to do and how he wants the group to work, but it's up to the line coach to make that happen. It's up to the line coaches to choose the players they want in their zone each week, it's their job to make their line work so they get given the responsibility to do it their way, with who they want.
You will not get the best out of a person if you want them to do something in a way they disagree with, so Pyke needs to allow them to have that responsibility. If he thinks they constantly choose the wrong people then he needs to replace the coach, not tell them who to pick.
Pyke would work with the line coaches to bounce ideas off them and to give them guidance and possible alternative approaches they may not have thought about, he would challenge their decisions to see their reasoning, but in the end, the line coach needs to choose the personnel he thinks would work the best in his zone.
You will not get the best out of a person if you want them to do something in a way they disagree with, so Pyke needs to allow them to have that responsibility. If he thinks they constantly choose the wrong people then he needs to replace the coach, not tell them who to pick.
Pyke would work with the line coaches to bounce ideas off them and to give them guidance and possible alternative approaches they may not have thought about, he would challenge their decisions to see their reasoning, but in the end, the line coach needs to choose the personnel he thinks would work the best in his zone.
For the sake of 17 days maybe we should wait on judging Menzel Fitness as there are conflicting stories
Lynch is the 3rd player when ask by the media about Menzel that has mention he is training hard and has not missed a beat.
Could be the standard Crows answer, Or maybe the limited public exposure to the normal training session where he works hard, So some are basing his fitness on the open sessions.
Let just wait and see on the 24th Feb or March 5, we will have our answer on his fitness then.
Lynch is the 3rd player when ask by the media about Menzel that has mention he is training hard and has not missed a beat.
Could be the standard Crows answer, Or maybe the limited public exposure to the normal training session where he works hard, So some are basing his fitness on the open sessions.
Let just wait and see on the 24th Feb or March 5, we will have our answer on his fitness then.
So Pyke would be happy with his line coaches otherwise at the end of last year he would have replaced some. So saying that he would be happy with their decisions for the past 12 months. He seriously wouldnt allow them two years to get it wrong if he thought they were, after all he could be gone in 4 years if the team fails.
Pdub
Norm Smith Medallist
You don't have to agree with every single decision a person makes to be happy with their overall performance. There may be decisions made by the line coaches that Pyke disagreed with that turned out to be very good decisions. I'd imagine at the end of the season Pyke weighed up their positives with their negatives as opposed to your average supporter who only knows about the things that didn't work.
You also need to be able to replace them with someone better for replacing them to be a good idea and if there is no-one better who is gettable and affordable then you are going to work with what you have.
Sure.
I'll try and simplify as much as possible. But essentially Tom is altering his ball drop slightly. This is all good. He is being told however to do so in small steps - that is at some training sessions to alter it and in others to keep it as normal. They are slowly increasing the times he uses the altered method.
This all sounds ok in theory, but is not how the brain works.
Neural pathways develop whenever we learn something new and the more the pathway is used, the more Myelin is wrapped around it. Myelin allows that pathway to operate faster (kind of like more lubricant and less friction). The thing is under pressure we revert to the pathway that we have used most often (easiest path). Tom has not played football for all that long and so this is a perfect opportunity to get in lots of repetitions of the new pathway and hence take over from the old.
Allowing him to keep using the old ball drop in some trainings is in fact reinforcing the old pathway and meaning it will take longer for the new ball drop to become what he does at critical moments.
I'm concerned that the Crows don't seem aware of this and/or don't have someone on staff who has this type of knowledge.
True but if there were any hugely wrong decisons Im pretty sure they would be gone, if this board was the coach somone would have been sacked over Mackay obviously Pyke was comfortable or didnt think it was massively wrong
That's pretty simplistic. Pyke can't just "replace" a contracted coach. The would come with a price tag in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, possibly more if we are forced to spend over the soft cap. You can't just wander around forgetting that the club has financial constraints and can't always do exactly what it might feel needs to be done. I'm not saying that Campo is in the gun, he could be extended next week, but nor should financial realities be ignored. We've just dropped $580k in a bad debt and we know the board loves to show at least an EBITDA surplus. Burning another $500k paying out Campo and replacing him or his replacement plus possible tax would be something the CEO and board would not consider. Pyke has to work with what he's got.
Im sure pyke is happy with Campo, the club had a solid year, whether he or campo or both agreed on Mackay, Seedsman or Hendo in the team it had no massive bearing if he had played CEY in the mid infront of Sloane, questions would be asked
Mackay's selection was rarely wrong. He played just well enough to hold his place and keep him ahead of the guys underneath him, who were unlucky at times with injury or just completely injured. The only selection error was bringing him back after he was dropped for the Geelong game without a game in the 2's. Doesn't mean that at 160 games he's not a complete plodder and the first player who needs to make way if we're going to take another step toward regular top 4 finishes and a genuine crack at a flag. If he's selected this year ahead of fit players with upside, then we're stuffed and will continue to go nowhere.
Bringing in players with a perception they have upside can also mean they may not perform also, a lot will depend who we are playing, where we sit on the ladder, how many of these players you bring ionto the team at the same time, when in the year, what bearing the game has on the year and of course match ups. Bringing in a player that has played under 20 games is a risk, what are the consequences of that risk if they fail.
Im happy to bring them in but not 5 or 6 maybe one or two at a time
