Why are we so quick to discard coaches?

[nacnud]

Don't judge a book by it's cover campaigner. I'm probably younger than you.

Sorry mate but while I love your posts, I consider 'boomer' to be a state of mind rather than just an age group.

 

[Topkent]

Sorry mate but while I love your posts, I consider 'boomer' to be a state of mind rather than just an age group.

You don't have to categorize people though, each thought can be independent of the next one.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

Not to say the same thing twice (read my above post), but Harvey said that skills sessions go for 60% longer now, and they were only required in the 90s to do them 3x a week.

I agree that their training varies now more than ever (he states that the only real non-skills training was weights/running), but from what I've read the time spent on skills has only increased.

It was quite a few years ago now but I remember Dwayne Lamb saying he was stunned that once he retired from AFL and went back to Subiaco that they did far more skills training at State league level than at AFL level. We are talking 20 years ago though.

From what I watch I don't see the rewards much for all the skill training they are doing......

 

[SSSSSS]

And why are coaches normally short men?

Higher IQ per square centimeter.

 

[Scotland]

Age is only one factor. Alastair Clarkson is 51, John Worsfold is 51, Ken Hinkley is 53. The latter two aren't facing the chop because they are old, they are facing the chop because their teams keep hovering around 7th-12th and not progressing.

Paul Roos is 56 and every time there is a coaching opportunity being discussed his name gets thrown into the ring. Mark Thompson is 56 and only out of the game because of his extra curricular activities. Ross Lyon is 53 and will be back soon enough. Malthouse is 66 and his last tenure was a disaster. I doubt we'll see him again. Leigh Matthews at 67 seems content with his media/board roles. He's also 12 years out of coaching. Kevin Sheedy was still coaching at 66 and is not 73. Donezo. I'm not sure who else is out there that is over 50 that deserves a crack at it?

Andy Reid has been involved in the NFL for nearly 30 years and has been a head coach since 1999. When he got his first head coaching gig he was the second youngest coach in the NFL. He was an assistant at a team that won a Super Bowl, took Philadelphia to a Super Bowl and has taken Kansas City to an AFC Championship game (effectively a prelim) and now a Super Bowl win. He's got a 61% winning record over two decades which is fairly impressive, but people still doubted him until yesterday based on a 50% playoff record and no Super Bowl wins.

The AFL has moved away from the chop and change mentality that you see in Europe. Collingwood, Geelong, GWS, Hawthorn, Port, Richmond, Sydney, West Coast have all had the same senior coach for at least 6 seasons. Clubs are focused on maintaining stability and filling the roles around the senior coach better - similar to the NFL where it's a cast of thousands. Richmond had Bartlett, Jeans, Northey, Walls, Gieschen in the same time we had Malthouse. They had Frawley, Wallace, Rawlings (temp), Hardwick in the same time we had Worsfold. Since we've had Simpson (6 years coming into his 7th) they've stuck with Hardwick and have improved on field and off.

The biggest issues with coach selections in the AFL is the tendency to only pick former AFL level players (though there are more GOPs these days getting gigs rather than just Buckley, Hird, Voss) and misalignment with list management and overall strategy.

 

[Virgin Dog]

"young people are soft" is the most boring opinion you can have. I can guarantee all the players today train longer and harder than their counterparts of the 80s and 90s.

A study on narcissism recently conducted by the Michigan State University actually found that Boomers are more sensitive than Millenials. In fact, the study found that the older you are, the more sensitive you are likely to be. I think I'll take a peer-reviewed scientific study over the anecdotal ramblings of some random Bigfooty user

 

[Topkent]

A study on narcissism recently conducted by the Michigan State University actually found that Boomers are more sensitive than Millenials. In fact, the study found that the older you are, the more sensitive you are likely to be. I think I'll take a peer-reviewed scientific study over the anecdotal ramblings of some random Bigfooty user

If you have had any social interaction with anyone in your life you would know that young people are more sensitive than older people.

 

[Virgin Dog]

If you have had any social interaction with anyone in your life you would know that young people are more sensitive than older people.

Oh yes, anecdotes are worth far more than empirical evidence from a much larger population size

 

[DoubleBlue2]

Gridiron coaches often have to work their way through a lot of different roles before they get the top job.
AFL coaches can get there much younger.

 

[Topkent]

Oh yes, anecdotes are worth far more than empirical evidence from a much larger population size

Oh yeah and I'm sure they tested all of the test subjects at identical ages as young people and then again as older to people to see if their were variances

That's one of the funniest things I've ever heard

BTW, there are 2.5 million peer reviewed papers every year. Evidently alot fall through the cracks.

 

[Brasher]

A study on narcissism recently conducted by the Michigan State University actually found that Boomers are more sensitive than Millenials. In fact, the study found that the older you are, the more sensitive you are likely to be. I think I'll take a peer-reviewed scientific study over the anecdotal ramblings of some random Bigfooty user

Hey I'm old so can attest to this....but baby boomers, Gen X etc aren't making up a current AFL list alongside Millenials. I think the point of the original post is that maybe baby boomers, etc were a little thicker skinned at the same age.

I know those 19 year olds of the Greatest Generation who went off to fight WW2 probably didn't value their self worth by the number of Instagram followers they had collected.

 

[Virgin Dog]

Hey I'm old so can attest to this....but baby boomers, Gen X etc aren't making up a current AFL list alongside Millenials. I think the point of the original post is that maybe baby boomers, etc were a little thicker skinned at the same age.

I know those 19 year olds of the Greatest Generation who went off to fight WW2 probably didn't value their self worth by the number of Instagram followers they had collected.

That's an awfully simplistic way to look at it. You are summarising an entire generation by the behaviour of influencers. Would it be fair to make similar generalisations about older generations?

And to suggest baby boomers and co. were thicker skinned is simply anecdotal, with zero evidence behind it. I've mentioned a study that demonstrated the difference in softness between generations, which is the only non-anecdote even mentioned so far

 

[Topkent]

That's an awfully simplistic way to look at it. You are summarising an entire generation by the behaviour of influencers. Would it be fair to make similar generalisations about older generations?

And to suggest baby boomers and co. were thicker skinned is simply anecdotal, with zero evidence behind it. I've mentioned a study that demonstrated the difference in softness between generations, which is the only non-anecdote even mentioned so far

That's just saying as you get older you get softer haha. Wait till the young generation gets older as well.

 

[Brasher]

That's an awfully simplistic way to look at it. You are summarising an entire generation by the behaviour of influencers. Would it be fair to make similar generalisations about older generations?

And to suggest baby boomers and co. were thicker skinned is simply anecdotal, with zero evidence behind it. I've mentioned a study that demonstrated the difference in softness between generations, which is the only non-anecdote even mentioned so far

How does comparing the softness (what is their definition anyway, sensitivity? empathy? being in touch with your inner Oprah? ]) of 20, 45 and 70 year olds got to do with how an AFL player feels about how he is treated across the ages?

 

[Yojimbo]

And why are coaches normally short men?

Good question, the good ones were often very controversial as players and aggressive.

 

[Kwality]

While there’s an element of truth to this, at the end of the day communication is king.
If for whatever reason coaches struggle to communicate/motivate they are in a spot of bother
Same as any work place

Interesting how success followed Balmey after moving back a step from coaching.

 

[master bate]

Does the game style of NFL evolve as much as the AFL? What worked in the NFL in 1980 could it work today? has the game changed that much? Genuine question.

I'd say the NFL has evolved far more than AFL over that time frame and trends are constantly shifting as analytics, coaching philosophy and innovation continue to come in to the game. Andy Reid has been at the forefront of offensive coaching, and was derided for his style (despite it's success) when he was in Philly. In KC he's evolved further with a number of smart coaching hires alongside him and has found the QB to make his vision work.

That said....in my opinion the AFL underwent a huge shift in a small time frame between 2004 and 2008. A couple of decades of changes crammed in to about a 5 year period.

In 2004 Leigh Mathews was the king, and someone like Neale Daniher could find a lot of success pretty much running a club with a couple of good assistant coaches.

By 2008 Lethal was obsolete and Clarko and the Hawks (as well as success that Sydney, Coll, Geelong and other clubs had with heavy investment in their footy department) changed both the tactics of the game and structure and resources of a football club.

Pressure and tackling - once limited to a bit around the stoppages and defenders manning up - quickly became a full ground exercise and then teams had to be far more structured with ball movement to avoid getting killed on turnovers.

 

[master bate]

I think most coaches here get a fair go at it in terms of years. Where some of them are treated unfairly is that the clubs that hire them have unrealistic expectations in terms of the state of the list and no real strategic plan on how to improve that list.

The lack of the football GM position and the evaluations on finding competence for that position has undermined many clubs and coaches. Teams are now starting to make better hires in the list management position, although some clubs are still struggling to actually lay out and organise a proper chain of command and responsibilities.

I'm not at all surprised that success has followed Balmey because he's been the modern pioneer (there's been others back in the days of club Secretaries) of a competent administrator.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

While there’s an element of truth to this, at the end of the day communication is king.
If for whatever reason coaches struggle to communicate/motivate they are in a spot of bother
Same as any work place

Communication is very important to the current generation and how it is communicated is also very important.

30 years ago a player not happy with how a coach treated or talked to him would be either delisted or told to get with the program and do what his coach tells him.
Now a coach can be removed over simply one player not liking him and the old days of the club and board backing in their coaches are long gone, we live in a world where perception by the public is everything and clubs will stop at nothing to make sure they look good in the publics eyes even though deep down they probably don't agree with the levels they have to go to make the public feel warm and fuzzy.

Just a different world now, I grew up in the previous world and wouldn't swap it for anything but these guys grow up in this system and would stay the same.
Why it has gone so far in favour of the player only god knows but it is what it is.

 

[master bate]

In terms of coaches getting second chances the main barriers there to me seem to be that we don't have any way of smartly assessing or valuing assistant coaches. The senior assistant is a new role, apart from that they are mostly line coaches and footy is too complex and too much of a team game to determine if a coach has drastically improved one line of the team purely from stats.

You can score more and concede less based on a better forward line being more dangerous and defensive or because on a solid backline with great rebound skills.

In the NFL you've got offensive and defensive coordinators. Basketball you can get a read on the assistants who can coach up offense or defense. In soccer you can bring in a coach with a distinct style and reputation. In AFL footy there's the occassional Roos or Lyon but how many coaches come and go each year without even standing for something? Brad Scott coached for a decade and I can tell you his 50% win/loss means he's not terrible but I couldn't tell you what he does well or stands for.

 

[La Dispute]

Not to say the same thing twice (read my above post), but Harvey said that skills sessions go for 60% longer now, and they were only required in the 90s to do them 3x a week.

I agree that their training varies now more than ever (he states that the only real non-skills training was weights/running), but from what I've read the time spent on skills has only increased.

Plus the increasing complexity of drills, and having to learn a heap ultra-specific match situation type simulations, which requires a lot more focus than lanework and abritary tackling practice. The levels of engagement from both players and coaches is off the charts.

 

[boombastinac]

I think it's because some lists are just overrated due to the players getting older.
People just look for some random excuse that's relevant to what they want which is a change of coach.
I will raise you to the point of it not always working.
In the A-League you have all noticed that Melbourne Victory stunk due to a manager/coach who couldn't actually do the job.
The next week the victory lost another game and the fans were giving the club a serious bake on their social media platforms.

 

[Foucault1989]

Maybe some clubs, but I would doubt it. Boomer has talked before about how the training regime when he started at North in the 90s was nothing compared to what it was by the time he retired. Maybe 2 days a week in the 90s, to nearly a full week load.

If by "feedback" you mean the bullshit guys like Rocket used to serve up to his players, then I'm happy to say goodbye to dinosaurs like that. If they can't learn to communicate without screaming in a bloke's face, they wouldn't get a job managing 16 year olds at a supermarket, let alone an AFL team.

Good post. Finally the afl industry is working out what every other industry in the public and private sector have worked out...people perform better when they are valued and respected. Some of the crap old school coaches like Rocket used to come out with was borderline psychopathic.

 

[Foucault1989]

If you have had any social interaction with anyone in your life you would know that young people are more sensitive than older people.

I disagree. The outraged boomers are never far behind whenever something half progressive is introduced.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Australians are incredibly impatient, from the fans to club executives.

I would loathe to be a senior coach, everyone expects instant success and magic bullet solutions. As soon as your team gets a bad run, your supporters start looking for problems your coaching and want you gone, then the media use this as fuel for their own agendas, then the club executives feel pressured to sack you and look for the next messiah, where it all just rinses and repeats itself.

Just look at this board for instance, but just the main board board but team boards. If one or two supporter bases didn’t like their coach and wanted them gone, I would say “fair enough”, but it’s every supporter base who; 1. Just experience success or did recently. 2. Coach just started out.

Agree, we are very reactionary.