AFC Internals: Change Ahead?

[spectrumrt]

I've been reading the interesting posts here over the past few weeks regarding Craig, the coaching panel, suggested inflexibility, purported stubbornness etc.

As we know, employees in any organisation tend to come up for performance reviews at the end of each year of employment, regardless of contracts and so forth.

I wonder, what are the most likely aspects of review to occur with the coaching panel this year from the AFC Management/Board, specifically with regards to Craig (his pitfalls, his positives) and also specifically, development of the squad? What are our thougts here? How heavy will the review likely be?

Do we think that Craig will be under pressure to change game plans, styles, personal approaches? Will the board be citing Port Adelaide as an example of how to rebuild and attain GF berths or will it be internalised?

Let's go for some positive, constructive discussion here. We know that each team this decade, and each new coach (Willaims, Thompson etc) have had to go through a couple years building/personal development and failure) before reaching the pinnacle. Port epitomise this: two or three years on the cusp of GF berths and had they won and moved ahead, man how different would recent history have been?

Look forward to the comments here. Great forum.

 

[baaaallllll]

Welcome to the Adelaide board and big footy spectrumrt.

Will be interesting to see what happens at AFC as a result of what has happened this year.

 

[NikkiNoo]

As part of the Player Reviews, Craig also has a review by the players on his and the coaching staff performance for the year. Last years were particularly honest apparently, this year could be interesting...

 

[macca23]

I did write to Triggy on this very topic, and he did me the courtesy of a personalized response. Big tick for Triggy.

Basically the abbreviated thrust of my thesis was in respect of Craig not being a particularly good match day coach, in spite of ticking the boxes in virtually every other area.

In business when an otherwise good executive has a weakness you either give him special training or special support. Craig's performances in 3 losing finals campaigns and in our litany of close losses is testimony to a weakness in match-day coaching, particularly when close examination reveals that many of the losses were due to poor match-ups or tactical inertia.

My suggestion was to bolster this weakness with the appointment of a match day strategist - something which is gaining in popularity in other sports. If that gained us no more than 2 goals per game, our whole season would have been entirely different.

Another point of annoyance re Craig is his standard comment in after match speeches of "we will learn from that" - but we don't, do we?

While it may not sound that way from the above, I wrote it in a constructive manner as my intention was not to bag Craig. Rather it was for him to correct these weaknesses and so become the long term successful coach that we all want.

 

[Slick Dog Johnson]

I did write to Triggy on this very topic, and he did me the courtesy of a personalized response. Big tick for Triggy.

Basically the abbreviated thrust of my thesis was in respect of Craig not being a particularly good match day coach, in spite of ticking the boxes in virtually every other area.

In business when an otherwise good executive has a weakness you either give him special training or special support. Craig's performances in 3 losing finals campaigns and in our litany of close losses is testimony to a weakness in match-day coaching, particularly when close examination reveals that many of the losses were due to poor match-ups or tactical inertia.

My suggestion was to bolster this weakness with the appointment of a match day strategist - something which is gaining in popularity in other sports. If that gained us no more than 2 goals per game, our whole season would have been entirely different.

Another point of annoyance re Craig is his standard comment in after match speeches of "we will learn from that" - but we don't, do we?

While it may not sound that way from the above, I wrote it in a constructive manner as my intention was not to bag Craig. Rather it was for him to correct these weaknesses and so become the long term successful coach that we all want.

And what was Steven's response?

 

[Mismatched]

macca23, couldn't have said it better, you just outlined in a very succinct manner what must be done at the crows in the coaching box.

Craig, I believe is the right person for the job, but he does have these glaring weaknesses and it is up to people like steven trigg and Reidy to fix this and a match day strategist would be a great idea.

I also agree that whilst Craig says we will learn, I am yet to see very much proof that anything has been learnt, hopefully this can change.

Assistant coaches are where the changes must come, and perhaps a little more power to them come match day.

 

[GlaCial]

I did write to Triggy on this very topic, and he did me the courtesy of a personalized response. Big tick for Triggy.

Basically the abbreviated thrust of my thesis was in respect of Craig not being a particularly good match day coach, in spite of ticking the boxes in virtually every other area.

In business when an otherwise good executive has a weakness you either give him special training or special support. Craig's performances in 3 losing finals campaigns and in our litany of close losses is testimony to a weakness in match-day coaching, particularly when close examination reveals that many of the losses were due to poor match-ups or tactical inertia.

My suggestion was to bolster this weakness with the appointment of a match day strategist - something which is gaining in popularity in other sports. If that gained us no more than 2 goals per game, our whole season would have been entirely different.

Another point of annoyance re Craig is his standard comment in after match speeches of "we will learn from that" - but we don't, do we?

While it may not sound that way from the above, I wrote it in a constructive manner as my intention was not to bag Craig. Rather it was for him to correct these weaknesses and so become the long term successful coach that we all want.

Nice post Macca.

I don't think it's harsh to also add last years NAB Cup GF loss to Craig's list of big game failures.

Apart from the last Showdown, I can't remember Adelaide winning too many games when they have trailed at 3/4 time under Craig. Spontaneous or unorthodox moves are hard to counter because by their very definition you don't expect them. Craig has built up a reputation of rigidness - he should throw a few curve balls into the mix come finals time. Hey, what has he got to lose?

 

[- PC -]

I think NC would walk out the door rather than hand over control...albeit for a few hours a day.

My 2c

 

[maccas_no1]

I think NC would walk out the door rather than hand over control...albeit for a few hours a day.

My 2c

Stubborness???

 

[Eggzoi]

I did write to Triggy on this very topic, and he did me the courtesy of a personalized response. Big tick for Triggy.

Any hints as to what that response might have been?

 

[- PC -]

Stubborness???

Or ego...the worse/decider factor is NC doesnt see himself as a ''career'' coach so ''this'' part of his life is part of his learning experience ...if he walked out he would be in demand in a few places away from football...so I dont see him accepting a secondary role on match days...NC has stated time and again the buck stops with him.

 

[Mismatched]

Nice post Macca.

Apart from the last Showdown, I can't remember Adelaide winning too many games when they have trailed at 3/4 time under Craig. quote]

Think i heard a stat that before that showdown the crows, under craig had only won 1 or 2 matches after trailing at this point. Craig definitely struggles to "win" matches once they are underway, he can "save" them pretty well, just not win them.

 

[Southerntakeover]

Stubborness???

What a load of crap.

Its not stubborn to expect to have the boards confidence in your ability to do your job. If the board doesnt think Craig can do the job, they should have the class to get rid of him, none of this beating around the bush crap, where he can do all the list management but someone else comes in to coach match days. What a joke of an idea that is.

Note: The board does seem to think Craigy can do the job, and i dont want him sacked.

 

[macca23]

It wouldn't be right to post Triggy's response ad verbatim, but there's no trade secrets in the reponse in summary.

Basically Triggy's response was that he appreciated that I had presented my thoughts in a positive manner and that there were some good ideas amongst them.

He also indicated that they would be doing a review of activities and looking at ways to improve certain areas.

He concluded by thanking me for my support in general terms.

I was impressed with Triggy that he had bothered to read it in full and respond to it.

 

[CaptainDangerfield]

What a load of crap.

Its not stubborn to expect to have the boards confidence in your ability to do your job. If the board doesnt think Craig can do the job, they should have the class to get rid of him, none of this beating around the bush crap, where he can do all the list management but someone else comes in to coach match days. What a joke of an idea that is.
Note: The board does seem to think Craigy can do the job, and i dont want him sacked.

I agree. I can't see how this could be possible work.

 

[Mong]

The problem I see with the suggestion that Craig needs to implement more changes during games when things aren't working is that it seems to work against one of his major coaching successes. And that is his ability to empower (if that's the right word) players or give them confidence in their own ability. This has come from leaving players in certain positions/roles rather than creating a situation where the player is too scared to make mistakes. Now I know Gary Ayres was not one for making radical in game changes either but the players were scared to make mistakes under Ayres. And the result wasn't pretty. The resulting game style was ultra conservative. Craig's "allow the players to make mistakes" philosophy was a refreshing change when he took over and had immediate results.

I don't claim to have any answers and I'm not trying to say it's black and white but it strikes me that if you take away Craig's tendency to show faith in a player and risk hurting their confidence and playing within themselves. he wants players to take risks.

Craig's not stupid. There's no way he doesn't see it when players aren't winning their matchups. Its just that he has the conviction to not make a change. That's the style he's adopted.

 

[Crow Envy]

The problem I see with the suggestion that Craig needs to implement more changes during games when things aren't working is that it seems to work against one of his major coaching successes. And that is his ability to empower (if that's the right word) players or give them confidence in their own ability. This has come from leaving players in certain positions/roles rather than creating a situation where the player is too scared to make mistakes. Now I know Gary Ayres was not one for making radical in game changes either but the players were scared to make mistakes under Ayres. And the result wasn't pretty. The resulting game style was ultra conservative. Craig's "allow the players to make mistakes" philosophy was a refreshing change when he took over and had immediate results.

I don't claim to have any answers and I'm not trying to say it's black and white but it strikes me that if you take away Craig's tendency to show faith in a player and risk hurting their confidence and playing within themselves. he wants players to take risks.

Craig's not stupid. There's no way he doesn't see it when players aren't winning their matchups. Its just that he has the conviction to not make a change. That's the style he's adopted.

So playing a half back flanker on a KPP is smart? Then not to change it when it is obviously failing is arrogant and stubborn not conviction. I wonder if Craig will be enjoying his conviction watching Port in the GF, who knows if he didnt show so much conviction we might be there instead. Now why did you have to get me started again.

 

[Mad Dog]

As part of the Player Reviews, Craig also has a review by the players on his and the coaching staff performance for the year. Last years were particularly honest apparently, this year could be interesting...

See this is where I start getting a little agitated.

I wonder if AFL Footballers are the ideal people to critique and review the performance of coaching staff - and the viability of a gameplan.

You won't hear me baselessly criticising the Coach or the Club.......but if there is a change to be made - it should involve revoking some of the player empowerment.

 

[- PC -]

See this is where I start getting a little agitated.

I wonder if AFL Footballers are the ideal people to critique and review the performance of coaching staff - and the viability of a gameplan.

You won't hear me baselessly criticising the Coach or the Club.......but if there is a change to be made - it should involve revoking some of the player empowerment.

Who was it that reviewed the coaches performance and found themselves on the outer...or so it was rumoured

 

[TheLeftFist8]

Who was it that reviewed the coaches performance and found themselves on the outer...or so it was rumoured

No idea who but that is an inherent danger in that process and i wouldn't be surprised if there is truth to it.

A mate of mine participated in a group exercise at work with the topic being 'how can we improve'. He and his colleagues had the temerity to suggest some current negatives that needed improving...ended up being called into the managers office and castigated for not being a team player.

Sometimes the powers that be offer a feedback mechanism as a token, in Adelaides case as part of the 'player empowerment' process. Suddenly, when some honest critique comes their way, it's not actually welcome.

I don't believe (from the public persona he displays) that Neil Craig has the flexibility or humility of character to be challenged. Despite the player empowerment rhetoric it seems it's his (unchanging) way or the highway. That's fine, just dont get their feedback and be consistent in running the show autocratically OR actually accept negative criticism and change if warranted (and recent history suggests some changes are warranted IMO).

 

[King Elvis]

As part of the Player Reviews, Craig also has a review by the players on his and the coaching staff performance for the year. Last years were particularly honest apparently, this year could be interesting...

Shame the players went to the effort of offering honest responses, when they were seemingly ignored.

Macca - 'we will learn from this,' I think applies to everyone but the Senior Coach.

 

[Mad Dog]

No idea who but that is an inherent danger in that process and i wouldn't be surprised if there is truth to it.

A mate of mine participated in a group exercise at work with the topic being 'how can we improve'. He and his colleagues had the temerity to suggest some current negatives that needed improving...ended up being called into the managers office and castigated for not being a team player.

Sometimes the powers that be offer a feedback mechanism as a token, in Adelaides case as part of the 'player empowerment' process. Suddenly, when some honest critique comes their way, it's not actually welcome.

I don't believe (from the public persona he displays) that Neil Craig has the flexibility or humility of character to be challenged. Despite the player empowerment rhetoric it seems it's his (unchanging) way or the highway. That's fine, just dont get their feedback and be consistent in running the show autocratically OR actually accept negative criticism and change if warranted (and recent history suggests some changes are warranted IMO).

excellent post......

it's a fine balance between tokenism and fully blown empowerment.

In the end - it really only needs to be a democracy some of the time.....

 

[CrowMagnum]

What a load of crap.

Its not stubborn to expect to have the boards confidence in your ability to do your job. If the board doesnt think Craig can do the job, they should have the class to get rid of him, none of this beating around the bush crap, where he can do all the list management but someone else comes in to coach match days. What a joke of an idea that is.

Note: The board does seem to think Craigy can do the job, and i dont want him sacked.

The proof is in the pudding. The evidence is there that he's not doing the job and the worst part is that the coach seems to have no insight into the mistakes he has made, even the ones that have clearly cost us important games.

The board won't sack him but neither will they renew his contract. He'll be a one term coach.

 

[out of order]

The proof is in the pudding. The evidence is there that he's not doing the job and the worst part is that the coach seems to have no insight into the mistakes he has made, even the ones that have clearly cost us important games.

The board won't sack him but neither will they renew his contract. He'll be a one term coach.

you are you having a laugh arent you?

 

[jenny61_99]

It wouldn't be right to post Triggy's response ad verbatim, but there's no trade secrets in the reponse in summary.

Basically Triggy's response was that he appreciated that I had presented my thoughts in a positive manner and that there were some good ideas amongst them.

He also indicated that they would be doing a review of activities and looking at ways to improve certain areas.

He concluded by thanking me for my support in general terms.

I was impressed with Triggy that he had bothered to read it in full and respond to it.

Always professional to a T!