A Question

[Tommo]

I would like people to answer this question:
IF we were to miss our "window of opportunity", meaning no premiership in the next 5 years. Would it be the right thing to sack CC?

My personal view is NO
CC should remain as coach as long as he is willing and able. He has been able to build a team from just about nothing, help build a club from a basket case. He has made bad and good moves along the way.

He has shown that he is a good coach, and even if we were to miss our opportunity, I think the club and coach would learn from it and be better. I personally think that any down time would be short lived.

 

[Borry]

The pressure is on Freo to get themselves on the AFL map and win a flag. If they can't do that in the next 5 years while underachieving along the way then the heat will be back on CC and rightly so.

 

[theGav56]

That's the situation Melbourne is in with Daniher isn't it? I think it would depend on his performance in the last year he was coach. Did he coach well? What are the reasons the team is not getting to/winning a Grand Final? Is it the coach, injuries, some other reason? There would not be a lot of acceptable excuses. The other question for me would be, what other potential senior coaches that we want are out there?

 

[Sailor]

Sometimes it's just a matter of luck (oh lord, why not one more minute in the GF). Injuries, bad umpiring decisions....
16 teams and only 1 can win. Does that mean 15 failures?
Remember, we are in the same position as Geelong were last year. Winning is not automatic nor progress.
Pick which teams you think will make the 8 and I can almost guarantee that you will be wrong.
Richmond, Geelong and Hawks will improve and think they are finals material.
Freo need to make it happen. Let's hope there's no hangover.

 

[Roundhouse]

I would like people to answer this question:
IF we were to miss our "window of opportunity", meaning no premiership in the next 5 years. Would it be the right thing to sack CC?

My personal view is NO
CC should remain as coach as long as he is willing and able. He has been able to build a team from just about nothing, help build a club from a basket case. He has made bad and good moves along the way.

He has shown that he is a good coach, and even if we were to miss our opportunity, I think the club and coach would learn from it and be better. I personally think that any down time would be short lived.

Ver good question Tommo.

I am a firm believer in the notion that stability at the top gives you a greater chance of success within any organisation. If the person at the top is competent in their duties it just makes sense to keep them there, as this gives those below them a better chance to succeed.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the emotive (and ego driven) environment of AFL football, there are always a number of people outiside of the organisation (and sometimes within) who are very quick to apply the "Walls Protocol" in order to make themselves appear to be more competent and all-seeing than anyone else.

Basically the "Walls Protocol" dictates that you routinely bag every organisation (whether they are successful or not). If after the bagging that organisation falters, you claim that you were right and justified in bagging them. Alternately, if after the bagging the organisation improves or maintains success, then you claim that your bagging inspired or shook them up which is what was needed for them achieve greater things. Either way, you end up smelling like roses.

For people within that organisation, especially those at the top, the "Walls Protocol" means that stability is only ever brief. Even if your organistaion has greatly improved, you only have a small period of praise before the next bagging ensues. Organisations try to minimise the constant stream of bagging by setting their own goals and timeframes for success. but even those are subject to attack and if they deviate from those goals, they are well and truly in the firing line.

The goal for organisations therefor becomes twofold. They all recognise that stability is needed for success, but the Walls protocal dictates that continual success is needed if clubs want to justify their periods of stability to those outside of the club. Hence clubs will continue to do as they always have done when it comes to coaches. They will turn them over as a means to alleviate pressure on their organisation, whether they believe that they are the best person for the job or not.

Connolly could win the next two flags and he would probably still be sacked in five years time. It is the nature of the AFL beast, and neither his skills as a coach, nor the obvious benefits of maintaing stabilty will come into the equation.

 

[Tommo]

Perhaps that is one good thing about having only a partially elected board. No matter how much stink is kicked up by the the members who are brainwashed by the "Walls protocol", as you put it, the board only has to convince the WAFC that there course of action is right. The clubs that have a fully elected board are in a way most susceptible to external pressures.

The reason I brought this up is that I'm seeing a trend toward long term coaching. I think many of the clubs have looked to Essendon for this. Even though sheedy has had his share of down times the stability has meant that the club has been able to strengthen itself to a point that when they drop down the structure of the club will ensure a speedy recovery.

My view is that more club leaders believe that if they have a coach with the skills who they believe will get better with experience then they will stick by him. Why go through an unnecessary change in culture or methodology, when you might have a guy like Bomber Thomson at Geelong, who can build a team, has built a team. He is obviously going to learn from the previous building phase and maybe do thing slightly differently.

I think clubs like Geelong, Port, and Fremantle have shown that they have strong boards that strongly believe they are doing the right thing. This is a sign of long term strength.

I think clubs are slowly adopting the philosophy that sustained success is best achieved through stability at the top.



My Question Relates more to the possible situation of the club ALMOST winning a GF in the next few year, rather than totally bombing out.

 

[dominguez]

Connolly really hasn't proven anything. We have had one finals victory in 5 seasons and people are now claiming that he is the messiah. Give me a break!

If we fail to win a final next season Connolly should go if there is a suitable replacement available. If we miss the 8 next year CC should go even if we have to replace him with an untried assistant.

It's disappointing that after so many years of supporting a crap football club some supporters are willing to accept mediocrity. You're willing to give a coach, who has traded for the short term, 10+ seasons? That's ridiculous!

If Connolly hasn't won a premiership or coached a side that consistently wins finals he won't be coaching Freo at the end of the decade, guaranteed. Since the end of 2001 when we finished 16th we have traded for Farmer, McPharlin, Croad, Simmonds, Black, JCarr, Tarrant, Solomon and Headland. That's a lot of experienced players to recruit, and we gave up a lot of draft picks to get them. We have traded for the short term and if we don't consistently win finals Connolly is to blame.

This whole "he took over when we were a basketcase" stuff is crap. That was 5 years ago and the draft is structured to catapult teams up the ladder. The bulldogs were a basketcase just a couple of years ago and some are tipping them for the premiership next year. The hawks have had a couple of bad years and will be very hard to beat in 2009. The eagles were 2nd last when we were last in 2001 and they haven't missed the 8 since. If the mob up the road spend a couple of consecutive years outside the 8 anytime soon Worsfold will get the sack and rightly so, and he is a premiership coach.

 

[theGav56]

You're willing to give a coach, who has traded for the short term, 10+ seasons? That's ridiculous!

Since the end of 2001 when we finished 16th we have traded for Farmer, McPharlin, Croad, Simmonds, Black, JCarr, Tarrant, Solomon and Headland. That's a lot of experienced players to recruit, and we gave up a lot of draft picks to get them. We have traded for the short term and if we don't consistently win finals Connolly is to blame.

This part of your post reads like you have no idea of the history of the Club since Connolly has been here.

The first three players on your list Connolly had nothing to do with, but anyway, in recruiting players like McPharlin, Croad, Headland and others in their early 20's with a decade of service ahead of them is not recruiting for the short term.

Black? Are you serious. He was traded for Simmonds. That is, we gave up zero draft picks for him.

Our trading and drafting has been very good under Connolly. One thing you don't get if you are not trading and drafting well is to play in a Preliminary Final, as well as the general opinion that you have a very good list.

 

[dominguez]

This part of your post reads like you have no idea of the history of the Club since Connolly has been here.

The first three players on your list Connolly had nothing to do with, but anyway, in recruiting players like McPharlin, Croad, Headland and others in their early 20's with a decade of service ahead of them is not recruiting for the short term.

Black? Are you serious. He was traded for Simmonds. That is, we gave up zero draft picks for him.

Our trading and drafting has been very good under Connolly. One thing you don't get if you are not trading and drafting well is to play in a Preliminary Final, as well as the general opinion that you have a very good list.

Where did I state that Connolly has traded for Farmer, Croad, McPharlin and Simmonds? I wrote that they arrived at the club after the 2001 season.

Where did I write that we gave up draft picks to recruit all of those players? I wrote that we have recruited a lot of experienced players and given up a lot of draft picks in the process, I did not say that we have used draft picks to recruit each of those players.

Where did I criticise our recruiting and drafting under Connolly? All I stated was that we have traded for a lot of experienced players, which should improve results in the short term. Hawthorn have gone the other way and tried to trade for as many draft picks as possible which was very brave of Clarkson.

Maybe you should actually read peoples posts before getting on the front foot, because all of your avenues of criticism were unwarranted.

 

[Tommo]

The thing with the way The comp is structured is that just because you get draft picks when you are down doesn't mean you will get a premiership down the road. Just look at St Kilda.

A lot of the time it is good timing, having the right form and game plan at the right period.

I am only posing a hypothetical, it doesn't have to be CC as the example.

If a coach who during his time gets the a club to a handful of preliminaries, and one or two grand-finals but in that time doesn't win a premiership. Is it really a good idea for the club to dump him?

 

[blockerhall]

All he did was pull you up on some pretty poor association and sweeping negative generalisations.

All I see is our list improving through development, drafting and trading each year.

It is an interesting thought on Connolly staying on if we miss this time round, but it won't happen. The rabid grizzlers will tear him down in the end, there will always be a story from a dissatisfied group of fans or even players to create instability. He might have a shot if he was from Fremantle and his surname was from a footballing dynasty.

I think Malthouse is an example we could argue about for hours.

 

[dominguez]

The thing with the way The comp is structured is that just because you get draft picks when you are down doesn't mean you will get a premiership down the road. Just look at St Kilda.

A lot of the time it is good timing, having the right form and game plan at the right period.

I am only posing a hypothetical, it doesn't have to be CC as the example.

If a coach who during his time gets the a club to a handful of preliminaries, and one or two grand-finals but in that time doesn't win a premiership. Is it really a good idea for the club to dump him?

St Kilda did make a couple of prelims, then they sacked their coach which was the right thing to do. With a different coach the saints could have won a flag, they might not have, it's impossible to measure. If they had a coach who saw the value of ruckmen they would have performed better IMHO.

If in the next 5 seasons we finish 3rd, 2nd, 6th, 2nd, 4th, then yes Connolly should stay. But if at any time we miss the 8 he should go. All this is hypothetical ofcourse, there are a number of factors that could change things, eg if we lose those finals badly.

 

[dominguez]

All he did was pull you up on some pretty poor association and sweeping negative generalisations.

All I see is our list improving through development, drafting and trading each year.

It is an interesting thought on Connolly staying on if we miss this time round, but it won't happen. The rabid grizzlers will tear him down in the end, there will always be a story from a dissatisfied group of fans or even players to create instability. He might have a shot if he was from Fremantle and his surname was from a footballing dynasty.

I think Malthouse is an example we could argue about for hours.

I just think it is silly that some people now think that Connolly is a super coach. We have underperformed for 2 and a 1/2 of the last 3 years. Obviously the 2nd half of 2006 was encouraging, but CC has a lot to prove in 2007 and beyond IMHO. Plenty of teams have played in a prelim and then not gone on with it. Danny Frawley and Peter Schwab coached in preliminary finals a few years ago.

The way we managed to turn things around so quickly indicates that most of our problems were between the ears. If Connolly can maintain that hunger among the playing group then we are a good chance to win a premiership in the next couple of years. If he can't we will return to the inconsistency we saw from the start of 2004 until the middle of this year. Hopefully the former is the case, but if the latter materialises then CC should be shown the door at the end of 2007.

The argument that Connolly cops criticism for being from the east is crap. He received a lot of flack because we underperformed for over 2 years. If the team performed like they did from the start of 2004 until the middle of 2006 under Worsfold, Eade, Wallace, Pagan, Prescott or whoever the level of criticism from supporters would have been the same, although the media spotlight would have been less.

Considering the age of the best 22 Connolly took over for season 2002, continued improvement was a certainty. Our list has improved each year, which is why Connolly was in the gun last year and in the middle of this year. With an improving list we shouldn't have gone from winning 14 games, to winning 11 games, 11 games, and at the split round this year it looked like we were going to have another wasted season. Luckily for everyone involved (both those employed by FFC and supporters) we turned it around, but I'm not willing to have blind faith in Connolly just yet.

 

[Roundhouse]

Thanks for perfectly illustrating the "Walls Protocol" in this thread Dominguez.

 

[Bigger]

This whole "he took over when we were a basketcase" stuff is crap. That was 5 years ago and the draft is structured to catapult teams up the ladder. The bulldogs were a basketcase just a couple of years ago and some are tipping them for the premiership next year.

The Dogs - the Dogs who have had the luxury of Brad Johnson, Scott West, Rohan Smith (600 games of experience between just those last two blokes right there), Luke Darcy and Chris Grant (when they're on the paddock) and having played in at least a preliminary final in the last 11 years.

We were the most basketcase of all the basketcases because we had NOTHING to draw upon in terms of experience of success.

Not a ****ing sausage.

 

[dominguez]

Thanks for perfectly illustrating the "Walls Protocol" in this thread Dominguez.

And thankyou for illustrating that blind faith still exists, I'm sure you believe that some dude could turn water into wine and walk on water 2000 years ago. I live in the real world, and everyone has to perform to keep their job. How many people earning the money that Connolly does could perform poorly for over 2 years? If his buddy Schwab wasn't at the club he would no longer be our coach. If we go on to win a flag then that union was fantastic for our football club, and we can be thankful for the strong bond they share. If we don't, or atleast get close, then the Schwab/Connolly relationship will see us miss our window and a superb list of footballers will continue to underperform through mismanagement.

I'd like to know how the Connolly lovers explain our dip in form in 2004, 2005 and first half of 2006, and then the sudden, massive turn around midseason? Something was done or said during the split round this year that had a massive influence on the mindset of the playing group. For 2 1/2 years prior Connolly had shown an inability to motivate and get the best out of his players.

I agree with you that stability is important, but Connolly is yet to prove that he is a very good afl coach. He's had 3 good months in 3 years. Hopefully we continue to improve next season, but if we go backwards why should we persevere with someone if there is someone better out there?

 

[Roundhouse]

Ahh finally the big gun in the Walls arsenal, the "blind faith" insult.

You are saying you are right because us poor fools can't see that all is wrong. Is that what I am hearing?

 

[Tommo]

The Dogs - the Dogs who have had the luxury of Brad Johnson, Scott West, Rohan Smith (600 games of experience between just those last two blokes right there), Luke Darcy and Chris Grant (when they're on the paddock) and having played in at least a preliminary final in the last 11 years.

We were the most basketcase of all the basketcases because we had NOTHING to draw upon in terms of experience of success.

Not a ****ing sausage.

This I believe will make the biggest difference in the future. Whether CC is the right man or not, only time will tell. The fact is that during his tenure the club has developed depth. But not just in terms of good players, the club has depth in so many different areas, leadership, coaching, admin etc.

This is why I feel so optimistic about the future of the club.
WE NOW HAVE A SOLID BASE
So that when we do eventually do bottom out is won't be for long.

By no means am I going to claim this is all done by CC, but modern day football means the whole club is involved. A club's coach, CEO, and President set the path for a club to follow, it is they who should get any due credit. (Not that that credit is really due at the moment as, as CC said we have achieved nothing).

PS
I agree with you dominguez, if CC and or the team were to not at least make a GF or get extremely close over the next 5 years then a change would probably be wise. All I'm saying is that the club should think very hard about the circumstances.

 

[blockerhall]

He's had 3 good months in 3 years.

I suggest you get a little bit of objectivity into your viewpoint.

 

[dominguez]

The Dogs - the Dogs who have had the luxury of Brad Johnson, Scott West, Rohan Smith (600 games of experience between just those last two blokes right there), Luke Darcy and Chris Grant (when they're on the paddock) and having played in at least a preliminary final in the last 11 years.

We were the most basketcase of all the basketcases because we had NOTHING to draw upon in terms of experience of success.

Not a ****ing sausage.

Those 5 guys are/were very good footballers, but the bulldogs would still be struggling without the likes of Cooney, Griffen and Ray, who they picked up when they bottomed out.

From the squad that Connolly coached in his first game Peter Bell was a premiership player, Troy Simmonds and Jeff Farmer had played in a grand final and Croad in a prelim.

IMO opinion Connolly took over a better squad than Eade. The bulldogs have a very poor spine and their best ruckman has missed the last 2 years.

 

[dominguez]

Ahh finally the big gun in the Walls arsenal, the "blind faith" insult.

You are saying you are right because us poor fools can't see that all is wrong. Is that what I am hearing?

I'm not saying that anything is wrong. We played in a prelim this year and Connolly should be our coach for season 2007. Beyond that we wait and see.

Some of you are suggesting Connolly should coach us for atleast the next 5 years. I want to know what that is based on. If stability is the only reason we could have a problem.

 

[Roundhouse]

I'd like to know how the Connolly lovers explain our dip in form in 2004, 2005 and first half of 2006, and then the sudden, massive turn around midseason? Something was done or said during the split round this year that had a massive influence on the mindset of the playing group. For 2 1/2 years prior Connolly had shown an inability to motivate and get the best out of his players.

A number of decisions were made in 04 in the interests of the teams long term development. One that stands out in my mind is the decision to put Sandi in the ruck ahead of Simmonds. It is clear to everyone that Simmonds was a more competent ruckman at that stage, and Sandi was still a fair way off competing with the best in the comp.

Simmonds was still the best ruck option when the club turned down his request for a long term contract. In the short term it would have benefitted our performance to keep Simmonds, put him in the first ruck role, and leave Sandi to develop in the WAFL. It may have even meant that we would have won a few more finals in the past few years.

The decision to give Sandi all that time in the middle is definitely starting to pay off. I'm not saying that he is sole reason for our improve in the second half of 06, but is it just a coincidence that his best ever form has coincided with the best ever form of the team? Sandilands is now as good a ruckman as Simmonds will ever be, and his upside at 24? years old is huge. Passing up Simmonds has also meant that we have had the money free to lure the likes of JCarr and Tarrant.

It is factors like this that Walls protocal completely ignores by judging Connolly's performance soley on our ladder position in 04 and 05, by saying that we have recruited for the short term, and by completely ignoring the first two years of Connolly's tenure at the club.

If we had have made decisions based purley on short term success, sure we could have won more finals (even with our injuries). However even though we have only won one final, we have won it with a far greater up side than any other team in the top four this year. We have the depth to challenge for the next five years, and we have a group of quality young players that have the potential to be the nucleus of a very competitive team after that.

Of course if we don't win a flag in the next few years, then we should be asking questions why. But I think the point Tommo is making, which I agree with, is that you must take into account Connolly's role in getting us to where we are right now. Whether we reach the pinnacle or not, when the time comes to rebuild again a man who nearly got a team there and has experienced and learnt from the whole process would have to at least be considered as an option.

 

[dominguez]

Good post roundhouse and you make some interesting points.

Simmonds ruckwork towards the end of 2003 wasn't great, opposition players were reading his taps way too easily. He looked to be an average ruckman at best when he left the club and richmond took a big risk giving him a longterm deal, but he had a very good season.

It wasn't so much the ladder position in 2004 and 2005, it was the fluctuations in form that made Connolly look bad. Last year we had a great win on G against an inform Melbourne in round 6, then beat collingwood by 112 the next week. After 2 big wins like that many thouught we had turned the corner, but we followed up those 2 games with a terrible performance against the bombers away, a hiding at home against the lowly hawks, a superb victory at the cattery then got smashed in consecutive home games by the lions and kangaroos. It's the up and down form that was upsetting and pointed to the fact that there were motivational issues amongst the playing group. Play crap for a week or two, cop heaps of criticism from outside the club, pull your finger out for a week or two, then slip back into cruise control.

 

[blockerhall]

That's football. Have a look at the 2006 premiers form.

Rarely do sides put wins together in a run like we did at the end of this year. And I think it will become more of a rarity in years to come.

 

[Tommo]

Of course if we don't win a flag in the next few years, then we should be asking questions why. But I think the point Tommo is making, which I agree with, is that you must take into account Connolly's role in getting us to where we are right now. Whether we reach the pinnacle or not, when the time comes to rebuild again a man who nearly got a team there and has experienced and learnt from the whole process would have to at least be considered as an option.

That is exactly my point.
I am seeing a greater trend toward this way of think from many clubs around the league.

I think in the future we will see less and less coaching moves, as clubs get smarter about the way they select their leaders and greater money spent on the assistants around the coaches.
This area of football has no salary cape and clubs are starting to take advantage of that.