Originally posted by ok.crows
Let me also play devil's advocate.
1.Wallace as you say has stated a desire to stay in Melbourne. Wallace is "xenophobic" - hates interstate sides. Hates the Crows in particular.
2.Wallace is not an attacking coach - he likes the flood.
3.Wallace does not have any runs on the board. No flags. Two PF losses is his best achievement - and both of those games his side was red hot favourite and playing at home against an interstate side. One of those PF games he lost by 70+ points.
4.Wallace subsequently took the side that lost those two PF games down to near-bottom.
5.Wallace is probably the only coach in AFL history to sack himself and land himself on the unemployment queue.
6.The Crows don't want Wallace.
For someone who prides themselves on fact this is not one of your better attempts.
1. WRONG. Wallace stated on KG and Cornesy's show his criteria for him to want to coach again. There's no Melbourne side that will be available that even half fits his criteria. He also stated CLEARLY that he was prepared to move interstate to resume his career..You also seem to have forgotten a club called Sydney.
2. WRONG. Wallace used to use a combination of flood and attack, as the occasion demanded, which was designed to maximize his pretty thin playing stocks. His sides also weren't chipping sides. They used to run the ball quickly out of defence with attacking flair. See Matthews and Malthouse for similar tactics.
3. IRRELEVANT. On your logic, we would never have appointed Blight and enjoyed those 2 premierships.
4. IRRELEVANT. Once again refer Blight. In fact refer football history in general.
5. WRONG. Once again refer Blight.
6. WRONG. Just plain incorrect.