I am going to have a go at finding flaws in your post here, it is not a personal attack, you have just made some points I think warrant challenging.
Yep, if we replace him with someone rubbish to average then that will be a loss. Ahh, yeah not a lot of football insight required to make that call!
Nobody has a monopoly on appointing highly effective coaches. And some known successful coaches' abilities just don't transfer well into a new environment. Pagan at Carlton, Malthouse at Carlton, Jeans at Richmond, the list is endless. On average, where anything that is working well is replaced in a system, you have a far greater chance of a worse outcome than a better one. I agree there is not a lot of insight required to make the call, it is plainly obvious. So this begs the question why you think this plainly obvious principle is not valid here....you have said Caracella is a good to elite coach, so you must think there is no realistic possibility of the club replacing him with a markedly less effective coach. Why?
I’m saying that BC is a good to elite coach amongst one of a team of good to elite coaches.
How could you distinguish this assessment from a pure guess for us? How, for instance, could you know that Caracella is not peerless among ball movement theorists and practitioners from the knowable AFL coaching pool. How could you know he is not the single most important coach at RFC?
At the end of the day he was part of the downward shift of a Geelong side that most of us could of coached to a flag in 11, before coming to us.
I am not even sure the Cats were favoured to beat Collingwood on GF day in 2011, but they were not favoured to win the flag before the season had commenced. They had lost Ablett, had a new head coach, and did not finish the season top of the ladder or with he highest percentage, and had been trounced by the Pies in the 2010 prelim. Would it be fairer to say that as an assistant coach Caracella was an integral part in two premierships at different clubs in a 7 season span? And these clubs were roughly 3rd favourite and 12th favourite pre season...and his stint at Collingwood was his first coaching stint, and they made finals each year he was there, and he has been dragged from club to club by people who have known him and worked with him...Balme for one...because they know how good he is...?
Also last year we looked a bit stale in terms of game plan at the end of the year. I reckon it’s more our list management and recruiting that has helped us turn it around and look more dangerous this year, coupled with the foundations of a consistent brand and strategy.
So Caracella alone takes the blame when we don't win a flag but everyone else takes the credit when we come good? Bear in mind we finished top of the table in 2018 and carried two crucially unfit players into the prelim where we were eliminated.
In terms of his replacement, there’s more evidence pointing towards us getting this right than there is that we won’t given how well we’re run these days. Sit back and watch it happen.
Of decisions that get an unwanted result, there are two categories:
1 wrong decisions
2 bad decisions
Not a person or organisation in the world can guarantee they will not make decisions that turn out to be wrong. Even brilliant decisions can get the wrong result due to unforeseeable or improbable issues acting against the decision. You cannot eliminate these no matter how hard you try.
Bad decisions I would say are ones where you can look back and identify where you could have foreseen the risk of it going wrong being greater than the potential reward of it going right. You can eliminate or minimise these if you are good.
I would agree the club does not seem to make bad decisions by and large, but there is always the unavoidable risk of a wrong decision. This will apply to the appointment of Caracella's replacement the same as with any other decision and this is why I do not agree with your seemingly blind faith in the club getting this decision right.
Last edited:
