A Coaching hypothetical

[DJ75]

I have an interesting questions for you all.

Let's say it is September 2009. The Crows finished the season in 7th spot, won their first final and then lost and was knocked out. Geelong went on to beat St. Kilda in the GF.

At the end of September, the AFL is informed that all coaching contracts are not legally accurate and as such not binding (it doesn't matter why etc...). Essentially all coaches are free agents and on the market.

If we could target any current or former coach for the period from 2010 - say 2012, who would you go after?

Matthews for his ability to get the best out of a good squad and with GF winning experience?
Craig?
Bomber Thompson?

Thoughts??

 

[WALL-e]

Craig

 

[TheLeftFist8]

While Craig is not perfect, he has shown excellence in many areas imo and he has attempted to work on his deficiences. He is also a passionate SA man who understands our culture well.

The two major blights (pardon the pun) on his performance has been his finals record (let's hope he can rectify that record much like the messiah did in 97/98) and game-day coaching.

If, as in your hypothetical, we win a final this year then that's a step in the right direction.

Re game day coaching i believe Craig has shown a willingness to occassionally bend his philosophy of sticking to the pre-match plan and actually has made a few decent moves on game day (some proactive and some reactive, both types are needed btw). I reckon his pre-planning is exceptional and often gets the most out of the side he has on the park versus the specifics of the opposition. However, he needed to be able to tweak the plan or come up with a Plan B to counter the opposition before games slipped away. I'd say he is getting the balance far closer than ever before (wasn't tested for much of 05/06 due to Plan A's dominance).

In terms of overall game plans, the tweaking of the last few weeks has encouraged me due to the more balanced approach it appears Craig now has. Yes, he is stable and stays true to his beliefs even when we have a lean patch. Doesn't chop and change willy nilly which is a positive. However, he hasn't stubbornly stayed 100% with an approach that definitely needed some adjustments (not wholesale changes).


So for mine, I'd select Craig above anyone else atm.

Failure to develop our young guns into a consistent finals (and hopefully premiership but a lot comes down to the day) winning side in 3 years time would see the end of Craig.

 

[KUNG FU]

I really can't see any coach getting more out of the current squad than Craig. Of course I'd look at all the options, but I can't see the obsession with premiership coaches for one thing.

 

[King Elvis]

1. Craig
2. Bomber


Craig is the right man for this Club, I've got no doubt what so ever. He's not perfect, and I've been critical and frustrated with him at times, but he absolutely has the best interests of the Crows at heart.

 

[magtrev]

Craig

/nod

 

[jenny61_99]

I really can't see any coach getting more out of the current squad than Craig. Of course I'd look at all the options, but I can't see the obsession with premiership coaches for one thing.

Matthews would be the only available and "current" coach that has managed to do it at two clubs wouldn't he? So yes, it seems a bit silly to focus on only those coaches that had won a flag.

It's no secret that I like Craig. I have said all year that it wasn't our game plan that was lacking - it was our failure to execute it under pressure. He as much as admitted this the other night. What I see right now is an exciting brand of footy with an even more exciting group of youngsters. I'd really like to see Craig take them to the ultimate, which means probably another 2-3 years.

 

[James23]

Neil Craig is definetely the best man for the job.

Where he has brought the list to over the past 4-5 years is nothing short of incredible IMO.

He pretty much has rebuilt this squad from scratch, and is close to reaping the benefits of having a team developed mainly by him

 

[crowsup]

It's no secret that I like Craig.

You could have fooled me!
But don't get carried away. As soon as we have a bad game, the knives will come out in force.

 

[cmndstab]

Yeah, Craig. He wouldn't be a "free agent" anyway since he's made it clear that he'd only ever coach one club anyway

 

[jenny61_99]

You could have fooled me!
But don't get carried away. As soon as we have a bad game, the knives will come out in force.

Not from this little black duck!

 

[jo172]

Wait, we win a final?

Craig for mine as well, he's laid excellent foundations for a good future and I think deserves the opportunity/is the best man available to build the rest of the future.

 

[Southerntakeover]

I know we've all got our blinkers on, but if its an honest appraisal, wed have to accept that guys like Paul Roos, Mark Thompson, and Allistair Clarkson are on a level Craig hasnt reached yet.

 

[cmndstab]

I know we've all got our blinkers on, but if its an honest appraisal, wed have to accept that guys like Paul Roos, Mark Thompson, and Allistair Clarkson are on a level Craig hasnt reached yet.

Agreed at this stage, but I think Craig is heading in the right direction, whereas I feel that putting any of those guys in charge of our current squad would take time and would probably be a step backwards first before we started going forwards. Totally unsubstantiated thoughts mind you, just what came to mind when I was first going to post Thompson

 

[jo172]

I know we've all got our blinkers on, but if its an honest appraisal, wed have to accept that guys like Paul Roos, Mark Thompson, and Allistair Clarkson are on a level Craig hasnt reached yet.

That logic pretty much implies that a Premiership is solely due to the coach whereas we all know that's not true as we'll never be able to know for instance whether Craig could have won a premiership last year with say Geelong or Hawthorn's team?

While those three have achieved things Craig hasn't it doesn't necissarily make them superior coaches nor does it more pointedly make them a better coach for Adelaide in season 2010.

If I was building a team from scratch Craig would probably not be my choice. But as this hypothetical limited me to selecting a coach for the Crows next year I think Craig is the only logical person for the job.

 

[magtrev]

I know we've all got our blinkers on, but if its an honest appraisal, wed have to accept that guys like Paul Roos, Mark Thompson, and Allistair Clarkson are on a level Craig hasnt reached yet.

Granted, but a level worth deposing Craigy over? Despite the scenario, anyone but Craig being chosen would be a coaching change, and as the incumbent Neil gets a few steps head start.

 

[Riggy1]

I dont really care as long as we keep Rendell. But if I had to choose a coach I would go Rodney Eade. His gameplan + our midfield + our forward line = 130 scores most weeks. But if Rodney doesnt want to come to this Piss Ant state I would go NC.

 

[Southerntakeover]

That logic pretty much implies that a Premiership is solely due to the coach whereas we all know that's not true as we'll never be able to know for instance whether Craig could have won a premiership last year with say Geelong or Hawthorn's team?

No, it doesnt imply that at all. You need to stop making false links in order to avoid critical analysis of the club.

Its simple, and factual. These coaches are proven capable of winning a premiership. They HAVE won a premiership. To this point, you cannot say the same of Craig. Hypothethicals are irrelevant.

While those three have achieved things Craig hasn't it doesn't necissarily make them superior coaches nor does it more pointedly make them a better coach for Adelaide in season 2010.

If you're going to make an honest appraisal, if you were running a club, you would go for the proven successful commodity, over the commodity with large question marks over its head.

Theres no guarantee over over the future, but with the knowledge we have now, there are better coaches than Craig.

If I was building a team from scratch Craig would probably not be my choice. But as this hypothetical limited me to selecting a coach for the Crows next year I think Craig is the only logical person for the job.

I dont think theres anything logical about your decision at all.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Granted, but a level worth deposing Craigy over? Despite the scenario, anyone but Craig being chosen would be a coaching change, and as the incumbent Neil gets a few steps head start.

No, thats not the hypothetical.

If we're choosing from a completely open field, and all 16 were candidates, who do we pursue the hardest?

 

[jo172]

Its simple, and factual. These coaches are proven capable of winning a premiership. They HAVE won a premiership. To this point, you cannot say the same of Craig. Hypothethicals are irrelevant.

And the coaches were the sole cause of the premiership win?

If not then there are multiple variables which can't be kept constant across the different clubs thereby making accurate comparison impossible.

To make a comparison we have to keep the variables constant and we can only do this through hypotheticals.

If you're going to make an honest appraisal, if you were running a club, you would go for the proven successful commodity, over the commodity with large question marks over its head.

Again, you're assuming that all lists are exactly the same, or at least that our list was exactly the same as those coach's were in their premiership year which is plainly obvious that they weren't. You're also saying that success is the sole cause of the coach.

All we know is that there is a correlation between these coaches and success. Correlation is not necissarily causation.

Theres no guarantee over over the future, but with the knowledge we have now, there are better coaches than Craig.

How do we know this. It's impossible to have an objective measure of the relative merits of coaches, particularly over such a short term analysis. In your subjective judgment there are better coaches than Craig.

I dont think theres anything logical about your decision at all.

Well I do, this is real life, not a video game. You cannot change coaches with instant results. Craig has built up a rapport with the current players and has developed a list to play the game plan he has designed with so far good results. Bringing someone else in with different philosophies which might not necissarily be as good with a different list nor have developed the trust relationship necassary for coaching would not be as succesful as they have been at previous clubs nor as succesful as Craig would be.

Seriously mate, an introduction to reason and logic would assist you greatly.

 

[KUNG FU]

For me, a previous premiership at a different club counts for very little. I only care whether they are able to get this club a premiership and without evidence to the contrary, all the silverware in world counts for nought in context of this hypothetical job vacancy. Of course in 10 years time when we look back at the "best ever coaches", a premiership counts for so much more than a Neale Daniher's good stint at Melbourne.

At the core of this debate, it seems to be that STO's logic seems to be unrealistically pessimistic about the ability to assess a coaches ability without looking retrospectively.

 

[Southerntakeover]

And the coaches were the sole cause of the premiership win?

If not then there are multiple variables which can't be kept constant across the different clubs thereby making accurate comparison impossible.

To make a comparison we have to keep the variables constant and we can only do this through hypotheticals.

No, this is just foolish.

Attempting to completely distance a coach from his success based upon the quality of his list etc doesnt work. These arent independant factors you can isolate. The strength of a list, development of players etc are directly linked to a coaches performance.

You appear to be having trouble with the idea of unproven, rather than untrue. I havent said that Craig is incapable of winning a flag, simply that he has no proven ability to win one. These other coaches have a proven ability to win a flag.

Saying Craig might have won a premiership with Hawthorns list last year is an entirely useless statement. You cant prove it. I can however prove that Clarkson is capable of winning a flag with hawthorns list.

Again, you're assuming that all lists are exactly the same, or at least that our list was exactly the same as those coach's were in their premiership year which is plainly obvious that they weren't. You're also saying that success is the sole cause of the coach.

No, i didnt say that at all. You need to learn to read.

All we know is that there is a correlation between these coaches and success. Correlation is not necissarily causation.

No, its not, yet... if you're seeking a quality, would you pursue a commodity with that correlation, or with none at all?

Meanwhile, I seem to remember you championing Craig based upon his regular season winning percentage before. Comments?

How do we know this. It's impossible to have an objective measure of the relative merits of coaches, particularly over such a short term analysis. In your subjective judgment there are better coaches than Craig.

Its not subjective at all. Im not convinced for all your bluster that you actually understand the difference.

Well I do, this is real life, not a video game. You cannot change coaches with instant results. Craig has built up a rapport with the current players and has developed a list to play the game plan he has designed with so far good results. Bringing someone else in with different philosophies which might not necissarily be as good with a different list nor have developed the trust relationship necassary for coaching would not be as succesful as they have been at previous clubs nor as succesful as Craig would be.

So basically Craig should be our coach because he is our coach.

Nice circular logic. Yet you have the nerve to follow up with this gem.

Seriously mate, an introduction to reason and logic would assist you greatly.

Yeah, trying to patronize people who have achieved more than you isnt a great idea.

 

[Southerntakeover]

STO's logic seems to be unrealistically pessimistic about the ability to assess a coaches ability without looking retrospectively.

Whats pessimistic about suggesting that if theres a choice, you should go for a proven commodity over a speculative one?

Edit: And to qualify it, the coaches ive named have had success in a very specific time frame, so as to avoid the usual debate about the game changing etc.


Meanwhile, the claim that Craig hasnt had the list capable of winning a flag has been addressed in another thread recently. It wasnt a strong claim then, its not a strong claim now.

 

[jo172]

Saying Craig might have won a premiership with Hawthorns list last year is an entirely useless statement. You cant prove it. I can however prove that Clarkson is capable of winning a flag with hawthorns list.

But this in no way illustrates that Clarkson is capable of winning a flag with Adelaide's list than it does that Craig is with Adelaide's list. Your premise involves just as much guess work as mine.

No, its not, yet... if you're seeking a quality, would you pursue a commodity with that correlation, or with none at all?

Not unless I was satisfied that there was enough correlation that there was some causation to put them ahead of other commodities that had other succesful attributes. And while we're at it Clarkson, Thompson and Roos have won ONE premiership, hardly strong correlation in say a Leigh Mathews vein.

Meanwhile, I seem to remember you championing Craig based upon his regular season winning percentage before. Comments?

I've never been one to do that and would be surprised if true. However it is worth noting that you can gain a must stronger correlation from 100 odd premiership games compared to 5 or so Grand Finals or in your case, one premiership.

Its not subjective at all. Im not convinced for all your bluster that you actually understand the difference.

Your one objective measurment is that they have been the coaches of premiership sides (not won them, but have coached sides to them). That is a crummy objective measurment for speculating on their likely success in different circumstances. As we can't see the future all guessing for the likely sucess of certain coaches is entirely hypothetical and while using past performance as you are doing provides some indicia it does not present the outright proof you seem to believe.

So basically Craig should be our coach because he is our coach.

Now who can't read? Craig should be our coach because he's doing well as our coach and in my opinion for the reasons stated would do better than other coaches in our scenario. But your claim the circular logic which you profess is invalid is not toally with merit. Incumbents always have certain advantages, granted they do have weaknesses but there are strengths to having someone experienced in these circumstances.

Nice circular logic. Yet you have the nerve to follow up with this gem.

Yeah, trying to patronize people who have achieved more than you isnt a great idea.

I'm secure enough in my arguments not to try and be an internet hero.

 

[McCavity]

Gary Window