Ayres and development

[lacrow]

OK, after all my suggestions about getting Terry Wallace being shot down because he supposedly "doesn't develop youth", I'd like to ask why so many of you guys think Ayres does a good job at developing youth.

1. The only good young GUN players we have developed so far under Ayres are Johncock and Burton. We are still waiting on Reilly (who I think will turn out to be a star) and Hentschell (jury still out). The fact is that Ayres has not done a good job with youth.

2. On top of that, getting a young player like Reilly is not due to the coach but rather to the management of the AFC who do all the drafting and scouting. Sure, he probably has a certain amount of input - such as suggesting that we need a certain type of player - but the people running the show usually do the final drafting.

3. As for Wallace, exactly what youth do you all think he should have been developing? THERE WAS NONE AROUND! The club was bankrupt (practically) and in a shambles - none of which was Wallace's doing. So I challenge anyone to develop young players under a situation like the one Wallace was working with.

P.S. Go Crows, I would love to see us beat Brisbane! Wish I was going to this game with you all (and downing about 10 beers along the way).

 

[DaveW]

Burton was already a talent by the time Ayres came. For me he was the one real positive to come out of 1999. Especially as he went for mark of the year about half a dozen times.

I'd say McGregor has developed as a solid CHB for us under Ayres, but there's probably not a whole lot more who weren't already good players before he came.

I'm not so keen on Wallace, as to me he seems like damaged goods. He's had a good long stint at one club and he hasn't come up with anything. The Bulldogs were the best performed team over the 44 H&A rounds of 1997-1998. But despite getting home prelims with a weeks rest he couldn't get them a grand final berth. (Their loss. ) The Bulldogs steadily slid down the ladder from there.

It could just be he got the best out of an above average group, and he's good enough to get success elsewhere, a la Malthouse. But I'm not so sure.

Plus I can't stand his voice.

I don't think the criticism of Wallace was his development of players so much as his recruiting. He was obsessed with going for midfielders, and did so at the expense of the balance of the list. Rohde inherited a bunch of smalls, which meant having to use a player like Nathan Brown as a key forward.

I think I read somewhere that Sydney's pay-out of Wallace was conditional on him not getting another coaching job. So if the original contract he signed was three years, he might not be searching for a coaching role in 2005 but just keep living off the easy money the Swans are giving him. Don't take any of that as unmitigated fact however.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by lacrow
OK, after all my suggestions about getting Terry Wallace being shot down because he supposedly "doesn't develop youth", I'd like to ask why so many of you guys think Ayres does a good job at developing youth.

1. The only good young GUN players we have developed so far under Ayres are Johncock and Burton. We are still waiting on Reilly (who I think will turn out to be a star) and Hentschell (jury still out). The fact is that Ayres has not done a good job with youth.

2. On top of that, getting a young player like Reilly is not due to the coach but rather to the management of the AFC who do all the drafting and scouting. Sure, he probably has a certain amount of input - such as suggesting that we need a certain type of player - but the people running the show usually do the final drafting.

3. As for Wallace, exactly what youth do you all think he should have been developing? THERE WAS NONE AROUND! The club was bankrupt (practically) and in a shambles - none of which was Wallace's doing. So I challenge anyone to develop young players under a situation like the one Wallace was working with.

P.S. Go Crows, I would love to see us beat Brisbane! Wish I was going to this game with you all (and downing about 10 beers along the way).

1. I never said that Ayres is good at developing youngsters either. Apart from Johncock who is a gun and McGregor who has developed into a solid CHB, Ayres has not done a hell of a lot with development.

2. Not quite. I think you will find that a coach has a lot of input as to who he wants to select. How this recruiting business works is basically, the coach tells the recruiting manger what type of player he is looking at. Recruiting manager lets his scouts know and he gets feedback on all the players. At the end of the season Coach sits down with the recruiting manager and football department and watched endless tapes of players. They then do a phantom draft for the top 30. Players they think will go in a certain position. They then shortlist the players they think will be available for our picks. Coach gets a lot of input into these discussions and on the draft day when the pick comes around 99% of the time it is coach who has the final say.

3. His track record with youngsters is not very good AND as DaveW said his recruiting is nothing short of pathetic. He is obsessed with midfielders. Who can forget that blunder where he traded Brett Montgomery and long with a draft pick that was ontraded to Melbourne for Matthew Bishop, for Nathan Eagleton. He left Bulldogs in a very difficult positions. He never recruited KPP and developed them. There was plenty of talent at the Doggies especially in the last couple of years of his contract. McMahon was pick number 10 in the draft. Giansiracursa has unlimited potential but Wallace was never able to get the best of him.

 

[lacrow]

I would disagree vis-a-vis Wallace's development skills. Consider the following scenario:

He gets the Bulldogs to perform very will with a very average side, aside from Chris Grant and a couple others. Then, after doing well with nothing and ending up with a low draft picks as a result, it is no wonder the guy didn't come up with great young talent.

The Crows today are in exactly the same scenario, except with a whole lot better management and finances as a club. Our team continues to age, yet also continues to end up in respectable positions on the ladder. As a result our draft picks are not high and we end up with mediocre talent (exceptions notwithstanding).

I'm not saying that Wallace is any better at development than Ayres has been. All I'm saying is that his player development - GIVEN THE SITUATION - was not as god-awful as some on this board have been asserting.

 

[Mong]

Re: Re: Ayres and development

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
There was plenty of talent at the Doggies especially in the last couple of years of his contract.

Doesn't this go against the other arguments you've been making that he doesn't recruit good young players?

Giansiracursa has unlimited potential but Wallace was never able to get the best of him.

How could you expect him to get the best out of him? He was only a kid. The AFL site it down so I can't look it up at the moment but I'm pretty sure Giansiracusa only played under Wallace for one or two years and played pretty well for him. Johncock didn't play a game in his first year so you can't expect too much too soon. Giansiracusa was a pretty good young player under Wallace I thought and made good progress. When Wallace left many people around the country were saying that the Dogs had a good list of young players.

Wallace made a big mistake with the Eagleton trade but at one time Eagleton was a very good midfield player. Every club has one similar recruiting mistake. It's actually possible that he learnt from it and won't make the mistake again.


****

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by lacrow
I would disagree vis-a-vis Wallace's development skills. Consider the following scenario:

He gets the Bulldogs to perform very will with a very average side, aside from Chris Grant and a couple others. Then, after doing well with nothing and ending up with a low draft picks as a result, it is no wonder the guy didn't come up with great young talent.

The Crows today are in exactly the same scenario, except with a whole lot better management and finances as a club. Our team continues to age, yet also continues to end up in respectable positions on the ladder. As a result our draft picks are not high and we end up with mediocre talent (exceptions notwithstanding).

I'm not saying that Wallace is any better at development than Ayres has been. All I'm saying is that his player development - GIVEN THE SITUATION - was not as god-awful as some on this board have been asserting.

I disagree. Doggies had some real talented players when Wallace was around. He didn't get the best out of them and they have gone backwards since then. As I said Jordon McMahorn was #10 pick. That higher than anyone we have ever had except Angwin. Giansiracursa is IMHO a very talented wingman who has the potential to be one of the best wingman in the AFL.

It all comes down to recruiting. Coach has more input into the type of player he wants on his squad. Wallace's obsession with midfielders left Doggies in an extremely vulnerable position. They had to play Brown and Johnson and key forwards. 2 blokes who are 182 cm. He is one of the best match day coaches going around but there is more to coaching thanjust matchdays.

I don't even know why are we discussing Wallace when he said he will only go back to coaching if the side he is taking on has a very good chance at winning a premiership in a space of 4 years. St. Kilda would be a perfect team for Wallace. He could get the best out of them. Crows are not because he will not develop youngsters to the best of their ability.

 

[macca23]

Re: Re: Ayres and development

Originally posted by Stiffy_18

3. His track record with youngsters is not very good AND as DaveW said his recruiting is nothing short of pathetic. He is obsessed with midfielders. Who can forget that blunder where he traded Brett Montgomery and long with a draft pick that was ontraded to Melbourne for Matthew Bishop, for Nathan Eagleton. He left Bulldogs in a very difficult positions. He never recruited KPP and developed them. There was plenty of talent at the Doggies especially in the last couple of years of his contract. McMahon was pick number 10 in the draft. Giansiracursa has unlimited potential but Wallace was never able to get the best of him.

Sorry Stiffy but you've picked a bad exaple in Giansiracusa. See link below.

http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/players/D/Daniel_Giansiracusa.html

For a guy just starting his career in the one and a bit years he playd under Wallace he did exceptionally well.

Wallace is a good coach, whether that be with youngsters or experienced players. Apart from that terrible voice of his, his main weakness is in the recruiting area. The draft choices while Wallace was at the Bullies in general were very ordinary, with a few gems sprinkled amonst them If he was the main player in the decisions as to who got drafted, he has a fair bit to answer for, as there were some real stinkers drafted by the Dogs while he was the man.

Recruiting is the only area about Wallace that worries me.

 

[naughty monkey]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
I don't even know why are we discussing Wallace when he said he will only go back to coaching if the side he is taking on has a very good chance at winning a premiership in a space of 4 years. St. Kilda would be a perfect team for Wallace. He could get the best out of them. Crows are not because he will not develop youngsters to the best of their ability.

Blight has twice said he would never coach again. Luckily Adelaide spoke to him anyway.

All coaches have weaknesses. You point he has struggled to develop youngsters. That is open to debate, imo. Same would also have to be said of Matthews. I don't think you'd find a single complaint from anyone here if Lethal was to coach the Crows next year!

Wallace is worthy of serious consideration as he has many strong points too.

 

[PAfolwr]

Re: Re: Re: Ayres and development

Originally posted by macca23
...Recruiting is the only area about Wallace that worries me.

Do we blame the coach for bad recruiting, or the person that gets paid good money to help out with just that task.
A coach should tell the recruiter what type of player he needs, but at the end of the day the "scouts" should have a big say into who gets recruited one would think.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Re: Re: Re: Ayres and development

Originally posted by macca23
Sorry Stiffy but you've picked a bad exaple in Giansiracusa. See link below.

http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/players/D/Daniel_Giansiracusa.html

For a guy just starting his career in the one and a bit years he playd under Wallace he did exceptionally well.

Wallace is a good coach, whether that be with youngsters or experienced players. Apart from that terrible voice of his, his main weakness is in the recruiting area. The draft choices while Wallace was at the Bullies in general were very ordinary, with a few gems sprinkled amonst them If he was the main player in the decisions as to who got drafted, he has a fair bit to answer for, as there were some real stinkers drafted by the Dogs while he was the man.

Recruiting is the only area about Wallace that worries me.

I have no doubts Wallace is a good coach and in the right club will be successful.
We have to remember:
He was at a club that was essentially broke and had a poor image.
The clubs adminisatration was poor.
He got the best from the group of players at his disposal. He started with a dispirited lot of players and turned them into a force, with everything going against him. I dont know of too many coaches who have done what he did.

Put into a strong administered club like Adelaide, where administration would have a strong influence over list management, Wallace would be a very good coach.
Bulldogs have definitely gone backwards since he left.

 

[Damp Squarie]

Rodney Rodney
Where are you
Sydneys flush with new Paul Roos
Adelaide Ayres is being knived
Has your coaching record been contrived

 

[Stiffy_18]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ayres and development

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
I have no doubts Wallace is a good coach and in the right club will be successful.
We have to remember:
He was at a club that was essentially broke and had a poor image.
The clubs adminisatration was poor.
He got the best from the group of players at his disposal. He started with a dispirited lot of players and turned them into a force, with everything going against him. I dont know of too many coaches who have done what he did.

Put into a strong administered club like Adelaide, where administration would have a strong influence over list management, Wallace would be a very good coach.
Bulldogs have definitely gone backwards since he left.

I think you raise a very interesting and possibly valid point. I have said that as a match day coach, Wallace is certainly up there and he does prefer that style of play that provides a lot of run off half back flank. He also likes his defenders to use a "forward handball" that opens up the corridor.

My main concern with Wallace is his recruiting. Every coach has a major influence in who the club brings in. If we could somehow get a person responsible for choosing the players and someone to develop them.

If Ayres is to get the boot, I really want us to go for someone who is good in all aspects of coaching. Not someone who is fantastic in one area and **** in another.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Re: Re: Re: Ayres and development

Originally posted by ****

Wallace made a big mistake with the Eagleton trade but at one time Eagleton was a very good midfield player. Every club has one similar recruiting mistake. It's actually possible that he learnt from it and won't make the mistake again.

I absolutely agree.
it didn't turn out well, but at the time the doggies were thought to have gotten the better end of the deal. can't revise this now.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Stiffy,
if we do get rid of Ayres, I want us to go for the best coach available.

Wallace and Eade may fall under consideration.

Recycled coaches have done pretty well the last 10 years or so.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
Recycled coaches have done pretty well the last 10 years or so.

No they haven't.

 

[Jerome]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ayres and development

Originally posted by PAfolwr
Do we blame the coach for bad recruiting, or the person that gets paid good money to help out with just that task.
A coach should tell the recruiter what type of player he needs, but at the end of the day the "scouts" should have a big say into who gets recruited one would think.

You would think that...do you remember when they had the Bulldogs team miked up on draft day? We could all hear the reasoning for picking a player and my memory is that Wallace certainly had the final say...and that Dogs supporters on this site were not thrilled with his choices.

They were screaming for KPP's esp key defenders, which they never got...well they got Trent Bartlett but that was hardly great. Dogs fans wanted blokes who could be a 10 year option and I dont think TW delivered in that area.

Yes they didn't have heaps of cash to recruit gun players (they settled for the likes of Hudson and Bartlett), but they didnt seem to use their draft picks well enough under TW. Part of the reason they have gone backwards is because of his recruiting.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by DaveW
No they haven't.

oh really???

Adelaide 97, 98
Brisbane 01, 02, 03
that's 5 of the last 7 flags won by a 'recycled' coach.

not to mention Malthouse's 2 recent GF appearances made out of nothing.

but hey, why let the facts get in the way.

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
oh really???

Adelaide 97, 98
Brisbane 01, 02, 03
that's 5 of the last 7 flags won by a 'recycled' coach.

not to mention Malthouse's 2 recent GF appearances.

I meant modestly successful recycled coaches like the ones you're talking about. Not proven recycled coaches.

Blight - made the grand final every second year at Geelong
Matthews - got something all too rare for Collingwood: a flag
Malthouse - dual premiership coach at West Coast

A far cry from the likes of Eade and Wallace.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by DaveW
I meant modestly successful recycled coaches like the ones you're talking about. Not proven recycled coaches.

Blight - made the grand final every second year at Geelong
Matthews - got something all too rare for Collingwood: a flag
Malthouse - dual premiership coach at West Coast

A far cry from the likes of Eade and Wallace.

ah, the retraction.

Matthews was sacked for poor subsequent performance since 1990. worst of all, he was sacked for Tony Shaw. the 1990 team is still considered lucky.

Malthouse won something like 1 final out of 8 in the latter half of the nineties.

not a far cry at all from Wallace and Eade.

 

[DaveW]

I knew what I meant. Hence the quick reply to clariffy.

I'd be delighted if we got Matthews (especially - and I knew the Lions were getting a good thing when they got him), Malthouse or even Blight again (I knew we were getting a good thing when we got Malcolm too, not that I expected two immediate premierships ).

Eade and Wallace I could live with, but I wouldn't be over the moon.