Coach 2022 Coaching

[gringo2011]

Not once have I said that. The difference is I don’t mention it every post. I also acknowledge money has been an issue. Something I’m nearly certain is fact. And not hard to guess. Before this year I reckon we have lost money for about 15 years. Even after2 grand finals in a row. Either way is it the list or the coach? Let’s blame the coach. Only one has to be sacked that way.

We pay Gubby Allen, several other recruiting staff etc. I would rather one great recruiter and lose other staff. Without a gun recruiter you are going to keep losing money forever as you stagnate. Melbourne and Richmond changed their fortunes through the draft.

Ratts looks pretty shit too to be honest. He's looking like a one trick pony that lost his one trick. Poor list and poor coaching set up. Apparently players claimed that they were unsure of the game plan early last year. He seems a pretty basic communicator but can't seem to sell his plan.

 

[plugger66]

We pay Gubby Allen, several other recruiting staff etc. I would rather one great recruiter and lose other staff. Without a gun recruiter you are going to keep losing money forever as you stagnate. Melbourne and Richmond changed their fortunes through the draft.

Ratts looks pretty sh*t too to be honest. He's looking like a one trick pony that lost his one trick. Poor list and poor coaching set up. Apparently players claimed that they were unsure of the game plan early last year. He seems a pretty basic communicator but can't seem to sell his plan.

If you think rats is the problem you overrate our list. That’s where I’m confused because you say and recruiting is crap. If it’s both the list and the coach I’m shocked we can score. Did you actually notice who was out of the side Friday. Nearly starting mids. Did actually see the best players from all winning side. Mainly mids. The loss had zero to do with rats. As for one great recruiter I’d say every club has many recruiters. Our problem may not be the head man. It could easily be the spotters.

 

[PoppedCorn]

I actually didnt see the team for the pies game till about 10 mins before and was rather surprised.

Couldnt believe Kent and Owens were in and nwm was the sub

Just didnt make sense to me

Neither did not putting sincs in the middle when we are massively short of mids with smarts

I question the selections and the player positions often

 

[BrutThough]

I actually didnt see the team for the pies game till about 10 mins before and was rather surprised.

Couldnt believe Kent and Owens were in and nwm was the sub

Just didnt make sense to me

Neither did not putting sincs in the middle when we are massively short of mids with smarts

I question the selections and the player positions often

Who would you have selected as a mid and a small forward instead?

 

[PoppedCorn]

Sharman for kent
Kents there because of pressure when it hits the ground
Dont let it hit the ground by bringing in a decent marking fwd

Starting owens in the mid was crazy, its not like we were 40 up
Thats just a positional change i think

 

[Jade Buddha]

Problem is the people picking our next coach are the same ones that thought Hannebury and Hill were a good idea

They were a good idea. But sometimes reality doesn’t always work in favour of the theory.

 

[Mowman]

They were a good idea. But sometimes reality doesn’t always work in favour of the theory.

Hannebery was never a good idea
And Hill was never the player that suited our needs. Obvious now and obvious before the deals were done

 

[Jade Buddha]

Hannebery was never a good idea
And Hill was never the player that suited our needs. Obvious now and obvious before the deals were done

Disagree mate. Both are/were very good players. In form and fitness both make good contributions.
Dispute the negativity on here that would be universally accepted views.
It’s in the myopic supporters view that they are no good

 

[plugger66]

Hannebery was never a good idea
And Hill was never the player that suited our needs. Obvious now and obvious before the deals were done

We needed outside run. Hill was the exact type. Just not good enough. Hanners was brought in for no cost trade wise and we needed leadership.

 

[Mowman]

Disagree mate. Both are/were very good players. In form and fitness both make good contributions.
Dispute the negativity on here that would be universally accepted views.
It’s in the myopic supporters view that they are no good

What has Hannebery added
And Hill is a 900k hbf with no defensive game . I think most in the football world would say they have been disappointing at best
Playing Hill at HBF is what is best for Hill not what is best for the team

 

[Mowman]

Sharman for kent
Kents there because of pressure when it hits the ground
Dont let it hit the ground by bringing in a decent marking fwd

Starting owens in the mid was crazy, its not like we were 40 up
Thats just a positional change i think

Agree don’t think Owens should just get one game , give him a block of 3 to 5 games

 

[AirWinmar]

As opposed to all the other sides so far this year. Who has won the games. The best mids or the best forwards. I’m going mids.

Not sure how this is relevant to the post

 

[Yawkey way]

If you think rats is the problem you overrate our list. That’s where I’m confused because you say and recruiting is crap. If it’s both the list and the coach I’m shocked we can score. Did you actually notice who was out of the side Friday. Nearly starting mids. Did actually see the best players from all winning side. Mainly mids. The loss had zero to do with rats. As for one great recruiter I’d say every club has many recruiters. Our problem may not be the head man. It could easily be the spotters.

It could easily be a combination of both but we obviously lack some quality on this list and badly overrate some of our players so ratten would need to be a magician to do too much. We did make the finals when things went our way so he at least gets a pass at this point. Having said that if it’s a bad year and someone better is actually willing to take the job he could be in trouble. If clarko said I want the job it would be hard to see ratts surviving but it’s st Kilda so who knows.

 

[plugger66]

It could easily be a combination of both but we obviously lack some quality on this list and badly overrate some of our players so ratten would need to be a magician to do too much. We did make the finals when things went our way so he at least gets a pass at this point. Having said that if it’s a bad year and someone better is actually willing to take the job he could be in trouble. If clarko said I want the job it would be hard to see ratts surviving but it’s st Kilda so who knows.

I have no problem with rats not coaching next year if we don’t play finals. I just don’t think Friday gave us much indication of his coaching. The midfield just isn’t good enough. It’s going to be a tough few early matches.

 

[plugger66]

Not sure how this is relevant to the post

Thought it was relevant because you are suggesting our entry into the forward line is poor. I think our mids are poor not the bombing into the forward which all sides do by the way.

 

[ScrappyDo]

Agree don’t think Owens should just get one game , give him a block of 3 to 5 games

It would make sense to keep him in till we get a couple of Jones, Clark, Bytel back playing. I thought the kid gave it a good crack and didn't look out of place most of the time. Probably just the pace of AFL he needs to get used to.

 

[AirWinmar]

Thought it was relevant because you are suggesting our entry into the forward line is poor. I think our mids are poor not the bombing into the forward which all sides do by the way.

All sides kick down the line or deep to the forward line not their first option tho. Our mids got slaughtered at centre clearance.

 

[botts]

All sides kick down the line or deep to the forward line not their first option tho. Our mids got slaughtered at centre clearance.

I’m starting to worry that David king is right. Got no kids developing and the cliff might be coming

 

[Desperate saint]

In his 3rd year
What areas have improved ?
Do we have a game plan that will stand up in finals ?
Are we developing our young players for the future years ?
What is our brand and what do we stand for ?

Its only rnd 1 but I doubt we will play finals and I doubt he will be here next year

Reckon he is way too soft

 

[Joffaboy]

We needed outside run. Hill was the exact type. Just not good enough. Hanners was brought in for no cost trade wise and we needed leadership.

We all know Hanners has been a disaster, but when he has played those rare times, you see he is the class we have needed. Not much good to us if he can't get on the field though.
Hill was meant to be cream, thought he was ok on Friday, some of the turnovers wasn't his fault (poor disposal to him etc) and if we actually played properly he would be ok.
I was never sure on Hill, he was good in the 3 peat Hawks, but did little for Freo. He is as outside as anyone in the comp which is Ok if you have a decent grunt midfield.
Maybe the selectors should have secured a decent midfield before going for an outside playmaker.

 

[plugger66]

All sides kick down the line or deep to the forward line not their first option tho. Our mids got slaughtered at centre clearance.

I still don’t agree it’s our first option. Our problem is slow mids means slow ball movement so every forward is covered. When do occasionally get a quick clearance we miss moving forward targets because of skill or lack there of.

 

[plugger66]

We all know Hanners has been a disaster, but when he has played those rare times, you see he is the class we have needed. Not much good to us if he can't get on the field though.
Hill was meant to be cream, thought he was ok on Friday, some of the turnovers wasn't his fault (poor disposal to him etc) and if we actually played properly he would be ok.
I was never sure on Hill, he was good in the 3 peat Hawks, but did little for Freo. He is as outside as anyone in the comp which is Ok if you have a decent grunt midfield.
Maybe the selectors should have secured a decent midfield before going for an outside playmaker.

That’s true the last bit but maybe it was his type or no one.

 

[lewdogs]

It's a really interesting discussion in here at the moment. The reality is our midfield doesn't bat deep. So when you're missing Jones, Clark, Bytel, Hannebery and Billings (who can play outside mid/HF) it will make it very hard to win. Especially when the guys that come in and fill those roles (Byrnes, Owens, Kent) play so poorly.

The challenge facing the coaches over the next few weeks is how they can re-jig the midfield to make it more competitive. Bytel back will help a bit but not a lot, Ryder will help, but they're probably going to have to shift the magnets a bit. Sincs the obvious one.

 

[AirWinmar]

I still don’t agree it’s our first option. Our problem is slow mids means slow ball movement so every forward is covered. When do occasionally get a quick clearance we miss moving forward targets because of skill or lack there of.

That's why you need players ahead of the play leading and creating space. We rarely do this. If it isn't a strategy that we want to do the long direct kicks to a 50-50 as our main option, what we're trying to do is working very badly.

The mids aren't the only players getting the ball and clearance isn't the only way to get the ball. We were killed on the outside in the 1st half.

Imo the worst thing about our mids is their lack of pressure when losing clearance, but I think this is more structural than quality. Steele is probably the best defensive mid in the league and Crouch should be a good defensive mid. Yes we don't have a Dusty type mid that can just break through players, but at least we should be able to not let other mids waltz it out most of the time

 

[St Neil]

Did you all watch the press conference with Ratten... I'm a bit worried about him.

Looked like he needed a good sleep and a holiday.

Ratten looked stressed and frustrated post-match. His tone suggested that he was able to identify the problems but was searching for solutions.

AFL is a results generated industry. Results can be viewed through the prism of measurable metrics. These include games won, skills execution, and finishing ladder position.

Or results can be viewed through the prism of metrics that are subjective and open to interpretation. These include player development and developing a game plan (with buy-in) that will be successful.

As far as I’m concerned we just aren’t good enough at the moment, so it will be the latter metrics that I would be judging Ratten against (and others in the football department).

If a cluster of baby Saints starts to blossom, if we start to play a style of football that looks as if it will be successful, if there is player buy-in and team spirit, then I’d stick with Ratten. But I wouldn’t even consider reappointing him if these don’t happen.

The next month or so will be crucial while the season is alive and we have winnable games. I would hope the club would have other contingencies in play if a change is deemed to be necessary.