Coaching Staff Former Coach Ben "Truck" Rutten - Sacked for real this time - 21/8

[ant555]

Is that because the senior players we are talking about were either drafted during the Saga period, or were around during that period?

It is pretty clear that the club took a softly, softly approach during that time. Even during Wooshas tenure this was happening.

Is that the current coaches fault? Or his predecessors fault. Or a fault with EFC in general for fear of getting offside with the AFL, media, general supporter/opposition base?

Maybe, just maybe, during those years we taught our leaders that accountability does not matter, only learnings!

Difficult problem for rookie coach to overcome without the backing of the club. I hope Truck stays, drops these lazy ass players at all costs and the club realises who is dead wood and who is not.

There are some from that period and a few newer players from what I hear. The issue it seems is they see the game plan as too complicated and not just Trucks defense but also what Caracella is trying to sell with the ball movement. My opinion is it is a result of the culture of the club changing some time towards the end of Sheedy's era. You get players starting to play a bit of me footy when Sheedy was not at his best. Roll that into the Knights era where senior players where never really on board and then the next group of players learn from the previous and so on . Adding to that is we have simply drafted nice blokes as a policy since 2007 so the level of leadership needed to drive the standards on field is not strong.

 

[DonsRule]

There are some from that period and a few newer players from what I hear. The issue it seems is they see the game plan as too complicated and not just Trucks defense but also what Caracella is trying to sell with the ball movement. My opinion is it is a result of the culture of the club changing some time towards the end of Sheedy's era. You get players starting to play a bit of me footy when Sheedy was not at his best. Roll that into the Knights era where senior players where never really on board and then the next group of players learn from the previous and so on . Adding to that is we have simply drafted nice blokes as a policy since 2007 so the level of leadership needed to drive the standards on field is not strong.

Your comments about Parish really worry me and that it seems to have been allowed to stay.
But not surprising either when you see the team on the field

 

[Old Campaigner]

So Rutten believes that the way to win finals is to play less one on one and more zonal. How does him abandoning this game plan make us more likely to win finals? It seems like the system he has chosen to implement has failed and to placate the players has chosen to chase a few easy wins with an attacking one on one style that does not stand up in finals.

Going more one on one is going against his philosophy and further away from blue collar tough defensive team, why should he not be sacked if he is not even trying to implement the style he thinks is necessary to win finals?

Sounds like at least some of the playing group were either unwilling to or incapable of learning the gameplan Rutten wanted to implement. That left him with the choice of either persisting with a gameplan he believed was needed to win finals but couldn't be implemented due to personnel issues, or modifying the gameplan into something he was not convinced was the way forward but could actually be successfully rolled out.

If that's how it actually played out I think it is more of a player issue than a coach issue, and sacking Rutten is just going to result in a new coach with a new gameplan that the players may or may not like.

I'd rather cut out the parts of the list who either lack the football IQ to learn a new gameplan or think it's ok to pick and choose what parts of the coach's messaging they want to listen to. At the end of the day you can have the greatest coach ever involved in the game but if you haven't got the right cattle that guy is going nowhere fast.

 

[ant555]

Your comments about Parish really worry me and that it seems to have been allowed to stay.
But not surprising either when you see the team on the field

It is a worry. I really think the total lack of midfield depth has stopped them from making a statement this year and that is not just because of midfielders being injured but also the fringe guys like Langford and Snelling. It has also been compounded by us not having any small forwards so anyone who may be midfield depth is playing forward.

 

[Old Campaigner]

It is a worry. I really think the total lack of midfield depth has stopped them from making a statement this year and that is not just because of midfielders being injured but also the fringe guys like Langford and Snelling. It has also been compounded by us not having any small forwards so anyone who may be midfield depth is playing forward.

It seems to me that an offseason where we can give Parish the arse, draft some young leaders like Bailey Humphrey and/or Jhye Clark, bring in some mature depth like Deven Robertson and/or Jack Bytel, and draft some small forwards (i.e. the Davey twins and maybe another depending on picks) would go an incredibly long way towards fixing the culture issues within the playing group.

We'd have more young leaders to form a core group along with Hobbs etc, we'd have some midfield depth that would allow the coach to drop guys who don't defend, and we'd address our crippling lack of forward pressure.

 

[ant555]

So Rutten believes that the way to win finals is to play less one on one and more zonal. How does him abandoning this game plan make us more likely to win finals? It seems like the system he has chosen to implement has failed and to placate the players has chosen to chase a few easy wins with an attacking one on one style that does not stand up in finals.

Going more one on one is going against his philosophy and further away from blue collar tough defensive team, why should he not be sacked if he is not even trying to implement the style he thinks is necessary to win finals?

When Clarkson started at the Hawks he had a grand game plan he presented to the board. It was gone by the fourth round of his first season. He modified his game plan another couple of times times before the 2007 season. It was also modified after the 2009 season and leading into their run of Grand Finals.
Source - Dermott Brereton.
Sack him if he can not get the players but game plan one or two and even three can often not work.

Richmond 2016. Jack Reiwoldt openly says mid season they need to stop trying to be Hawthorn. Hardwicke survives. The modify the game plan to something the players buy into. The rest is history.

 

[ant555]

It seems to me that an offseason where we can give Parish the arse, draft some young leaders like Bailey Humphrey and/or Jhye Clark, bring in some mature depth like Deven Robertson and/or Jack Bytel, and draft some small forwards (i.e. the Davey twins and maybe another depending on picks) would go an incredibly long way towards fixing the culture issues within the playing group.

We'd have more young leaders to form a core group along with Hobbs etc, we'd have some midfield depth that would allow the coach to drop guys who don't defend, and we'd address our crippling lack of forward pressure.

No argument from me.

 

[JayJ20]

Putting the man, a guy who seems genuinely good and who has proven himself to be of class in a horrible situation, to one side, are we going to now pretend like he has made noticeable progress getting players to defend in the 4 years he has been at the club?

There are a number of issues playing out at the same time. The players not listening to Rutten is one of them. The club not listening to Rutten is another.

The debacle that is the board and executive leadership is the biggest problem.

Stability for its sake cannot be the answer.

Even if we hadn't blow up Rutten's credibility and authority, as if anyone will listen to him now, the on field direction was a real problem.

It is laughable to cite improvement this year. As I understand it, we play the lowest pressure games in the AFL, according to CD. That is certainly consistent with my impression of our games. Literally nothing positive can be take from low pressure matches.

This is a genuine question. At what point do we stop looking at the coach and start looking at the players and list management? A good club needs to be able to identify the exact problem. Why do we continuously end up with an attacking team that doesn't defend? Is it development or is it recruiting?

If it was another coach, then sure, but we literally got Rutten specifically for the purpose of his success with Richmond in building and implementing what is the best team defence in the modern era. Hardwick couldn't manage that for 6 years prior to it and he suddenly manages it in 2017? In the 18 years I have followed Essendon, we haven't been able to defend consistently. Why do so many coaches struggle to implement a sustainable team defence at Essendon? How did Worsfold and Rutten implement a good defensive system in the back half of 2018, only for it to unravel again in 2019? What is it that completely sucks the coaching ability away from coaches at Essendon in comparison to other teams?

At what point do we stop looking at coaches all the time and start looking at who we recruit? I can tell you with 100% certainty that we wouldn't have this conversation if our midfield comprised of Hewett, Oliver, Dunkley with the likes of Shai Bolton supporting them.

I can tell you the exact problem. EVERY year, we talk about building a defensive midfield by increasing the average height and weight of our midfield + looking for players that are contested in nature all over the ground. We then go ahead and recruit players that are front-runners. All cream and no cake. So how do we really expect coaches to implement a defensive game when we have no real "blue collar" players?

I was sucked into the coaching criticism of Worsfold, but Rutten's tenure made me re-think how the whole club operates. I realise that it isn't just a list management issue. The CONSTANT pressure around the club and the lack of faith in coaches makes every coach setup for failure. I've noticed it in 2018 and 2019, but every time a coach tries to teach our players consistent team defence, the games become a little boring and we don't do as well. Instead of pushing on with it, the supporters, ex-Essendon players, the media etc heap pressure on the coach because we're not winning a premiership. When the coach eventually has enough of the pressure, they let this team play free defenceless football that suits the list build and the wins start to come in the back half of the year. Then everyone says "why didn't they play like this at the beginning of the year? This team is at its best when it plays with flair and excitement blah blah". Then finals comes around and we get smacked because defence wins premierships. Then the very same people analyse the final and say "this team doesn't play a sustainable brand of football and doesn't defend". It makes me frustrated to see the very same Essendon media people contradict themselves.

I completely understand Woosha's criticism of the club's entitlement. This club does not have the patience for success. The reason why Essendon will always be setup to fail is because they don't believe in working hard to achieve a longterm goal. It's all about short term successes to paper over the cracks. The supporters will always bring up the last 18 years and the supporters themselves are not patient enough to think about the longterm goals, which makes them inclined to put pressure on the club to make irrational and reactionary short term decisions.

The only way I can see this cycle broken is to recruit players that are naturally contested so that we are forced to play a boring contested gamestyle that is reliable, but with zero entertainment value. Fill the side up with Hewetts and Hockings. Add Shiels and Stringers later. Unfortunatley, Dodoro doesn't build lists like that, so I don't see things changing unless he is removed. He has way too much influence at the club for coaches to overcome. If we don't address the real issues, then we will continue to churn through coaches like Richmond, Melbourne and Carlton of old with no hope for success.

I want to back Rutten because I want the other areas fixed so that Rutten can truly have the faith and support of the club to build his own side. It's a disgrace that he is under this much pressure in his second year with a young and inexperienced list. Very symptomatic of a broken club with broken values.

 

[ant555]

This is a genuine question. At what point do we stop looking at the coach and start looking at the players and list management? A good club needs to be able to identify the exact problem. Why do we continuously end up with an attacking team that doesn't defend? Is it development or is it recruiting?

If it was another coach, then sure, but we literally got Rutten specifically for the purpose of his success with Richmond in building and implementing what is the best team defence in the modern era. Hardwick couldn't manage that for 6 years prior to it and he suddenly manages it in 2017? In the 18 years I have followed Essendon, we haven't been able to defend consistently. Why do so many coaches struggle to implement a sustainable team defence at Essendon? How did Worsfold and Rutten implement a good defensive system in the back half of 2018, only for it to unravel again in 2019? What is it that completely sucks the coaching ability away from coaches at Essendon in comparison to other teams?

At what point do we stop looking at coaches all the time and start looking at who we recruit? I can tell you with 100% certainty that we wouldn't have this conversation if our midfield comprised of Hewett, Oliver, Dunkley with the likes of Shai Bolton supporting them.

I can tell you the exact problem. EVERY year, we talk about building a defensive midfield by increasing the average height and weight of our midfield + looking for players that are contested in nature all over the ground. We then go ahead and recruit players that are front-runners. All cream and no cake. So how do we really expect coaches to implement a defensive game when we have no real "blue collar" players?

I was sucked into the coaching criticism of Worsfold, but Rutten's tenure made me re-think how the whole club operates. I realise that it isn't just a list management issue. The CONSTANT pressure around the club and the lack of faith in coaches makes every coach setup for failure. I've noticed it in 2018 and 2019, but every time a coach tries to teach our players consistent team defence, the games become a little boring and we don't do as well. Instead of pushing on with it, the supporters, ex-Essendon players, the media etc heap pressure on the coach because we're not winning a premiership. When the coach eventually has enough of the pressure, they let this team play free defenceless football that suits the list build and the wins start to come in the back half of the year. Then everyone says "why didn't they play like this at the beginning of the year? This team is at its best when it plays with flair and excitement blah blah". Then finals comes around and we get smacked because defence wins premierships.

I completely understand Woosha's criticism of the club's entitlement. This club does not have the patience for success. The reason why Essendon will always be setup to fail is because they don't believe in working hard to achieve a longterm goal. It's all about short term successes to paper over the cracks. The supporters will always bring up the last 18 years and the supporters themselves are not patient enough to think about the longterm goals, which makes them inclined to put pressure on the club to make irrational and reactionary short term decisions.

The only way I can see this cycle broken is to recruit players that are naturally contested so that we are forced to play a boring contested gamestyle that is reliable, but with zero entertainment value. Fill the side up with Hewetts and Hockings. Add Shiels and Stringers later. Unfortunatley, Dodoro doesn't build lists like that, so I don't see things changing unless he is removed. He has way too much influence at the club for coaches to overcome. If we don't address the real issues, then we will continue to churn through coaches like Richmond, Melbourne and Carlton of old with no hope for success.

I want to back Rutten because I want the other areas fixed so that Rutten can truly have the faith and support of the club to build his own side. It's a disgrace that he is under this much pressure in his second year with a young and experienced list. Very symptomatic of a broken club with broken values.

I agree with the sentiment of all of this. I was hoping they could stay the course. Truck was not wrong with his ambitions and comments on how they club needed to change. Trouble is now we just have to cut and run again. Too much has happened for Truck to stay and it be anything else more than a circus. The pressure will be massive.
The only way forward is complete review. New coach via a proper process. Admit we are in a rebuild.

 

[citizen-erased]

You always get some. When they say the coach loses the players it is generally some of the senior players who are supposed to be driving the message. I would be surprised if it is more than 10 or so players who are unhappy but it is enough to derail things.

I wonder who the seniors are?

From the on-field playing group all I see are heppell, merrett, parish and shiel.

Dev, hurls, stewart, tippa, etc didnt get out there much. But i guess there is destabilising effects off-field too.

Kelly is too new to the system surely.

Mcgrath?

Rutten is probably item #4 on the fixit list. But does feel we've made him largely untenable unless mahoney stays. Brasher and campbell surely go

 

[citizen-erased]

I agree with the sentiment of all of this. I was hoping they could stay the course. Truck was not wrong with his ambitions and comments on how they club needed to change. Trouble is now we just have to cut and run again. Too much has happened for Truck to stay and it be anything else more than a circus. The pressure will be massive.
The only way forward is complete review. New coach via a proper process. Admit we are in a rebuild.

I think we also end up burning a draft.

Can we get the right review done, then find a coach, and assess the list in time for october and draft time?

I think not

 

[Zach Package]

So Rutten believes that the way to win finals is to play less one on one and more zonal. How does him abandoning this game plan make us more likely to win finals? It seems like the system he has chosen to implement has failed and to placate the players has chosen to chase a few easy wins with an attacking one on one style that does not stand up in finals.

Going more one on one is going against his philosophy and further away from blue collar tough defensive team, why should he not be sacked if he is not even trying to implement the style he thinks is necessary to win finals?

Us, he’s placating us.

Plus he probably feels the pinch on job security because we clearly haven’t empowered him and let him do what clearly need to be done and what whoever comes after him will just continue to do.

 

[ant555]

I think we also end up burning a draft.

Can we get the right review done, then find a coach, and assess the list in time for october and draft time?

I think not

I actually think our drafting strategy is right now. They know we have to draft leaders. They can find a coach in 3 weeks. They can even review the footy department in that time frame and it can run along side looking for a coach. They can not keep truck even though I am very critical of how they have gone about it and the lack of time he has been given. The review does not have to be done before we find a coach.

 

[maskmcgee]

Sack him already. Worst coach in AFL history.

 

[ant555]

Sack him already. Worst coach in AFL history.

Dave Noble says hello

 

[Phone]

Sack him already. Worst coach in AFL history.

I dunno, there was this one coach who ended up seeing 38 of his players banned. that's gotta be up there

 

[madrigal]

If that's how it actually played out I think it is more of a player issue than a coach issue, and sacking Rutten is just going to result in a new coach with a new gameplan that the players may or may not like.

It may start as a player issue but if Rutten does not take the required steps to enforce the standards, for example dropping players not willing to comply (and eventually turning over the list) then it is both a coaching and player issue.

When Clarkson started at the Hawks he had a grand game plan he presented to the board. It was gone by the fourth round of his first season. He modified his game plan another couple of times times before the 2007 season. It was also modified after the 2009 season and leading into their run of Grand Finals.

I have no problem with changing, tweaking or evolving the game plan. However I get the feeling Rutten is not modifying because he thinks the new version is better but to chase what some in the media might call 'cheap' wins. If the evolution in plan is what Rutten believes is good to play finals footy then I have no problem with him as a coach, but if he is doing it to placate the members or players, he is a failure and should be sacked.

 

[ant555]

It may start as a player issue but if Rutten does not take the required steps to enforce the standards, for example dropping players not willing to comply (and eventually turning over the list) then it is both a coaching and player issue.

I have no problem with changing, tweaking or evolving the game plan. However I get the feeling Rutten is not modifying because he thinks the new version is better but to chase what some in the media might call 'cheap' wins. If the evolution in plan is what Rutten believes is good to play finals footy then I have no problem with him as a coach, but if he is doing it to placate the members or players, he is a failure and should be sacked.

The changes where made because of pressure outside the footy department within the club and coterie groups . That is how we operate.

 

[citizen-erased]

I actually think our drafting strategy is right now. They know we have to draft leaders. They can find a coach in 3 weeks. They can even review the footy department in that time frame and it can run along side looking for a coach. They can not keep truck even though I am very critical of how they have gone about it and the lack of time he has been given. The review does not have to be done before we find a coach.

Probably more about putting the review panel together
Assume a couple of weeks, then they have to get started, then debrief and write it up and present it.
Will be tight.

 

[Old Campaigner]

It may start as a player issue but if Rutten does not take the required steps to enforce the standards, for example dropping players not willing to comply (and eventually turning over the list) then it is both a coaching and player issue.

That's hard to do when you don't have much depth.

 

[JayJ20]

I agree with the sentiment of all of this. I was hoping they could stay the course. Truck was not wrong with his ambitions and comments on how they club needed to change. Trouble is now we just have to cut and run again. Too much has happened for Truck to stay and it be anything else more than a circus. The pressure will be massive.
The only way forward is complete review. New coach via a proper process. Admit we are in a rebuild.

I do agree that Rutten’s position has become somewhat untenable, but I also fear that there will be greater repercussions regarding player movement if Rutten is moved on. The more we make reactionary decisions, the more we set ourselves back.

We are left in a precarious position. The players that re-committed committed to Rutten. If Rutten is removed and the players are angry at how he was treated, I believe it will have consequences. Then we will become a real Carlton of the last 10 years basket case, which is a very difficult place to comeback from.

I think the best thing for the club long term is to salvage any stability that we can get and ensure that all instability is restricted to the board and doesn’t spill down to the coach and playing group.

Do an external review, keep Rutten for next year, assess the sides performance and if the side is still playing bad, then give yourself plenty of time to go through a proper coaching process to select the next coach. No need to rush things. We can’t go into the trade period with no coach. That’ll hinder our ability to attract players.

If Rutten is removed this year, then we’ll end up with Hird as coach.

 

[ant555]

I do agree that Rutten’s position has become somewhat untenable, but I also fear that there will be greater repercussions regarding player movement if Rutten is moved on. The more we make reactionary decisions, the more we set ourselves back.

We are left in a precarious position. The players that re-committed committed to Rutten. If Rutten is removed and the players are angry at how he was treated, I believe it will have consequences. Then we will become a real Carlton of the last 10 years basket case, which is a very difficult place to comeback from.

I think the best thing for the club long term is to salvage any stability that we can get and ensure that all instability is restricted to the board and doesn’t spill down to the coach and playing group.

Do an external review, keep Rutten for next year, assess the sides performance and if the side is still playing bad, then give yourself plenty of time to go through a proper coaching process to select the next coach. No need to rush things. We can’t go into the trade period with no coach. That’ll hinder our ability to attract players.

If Rutten is removed this year, then we’ll end up with Hird as coach.

Rock and a hard place

 

[JayJ20]

Rock and a hard place

I think sacking Rutten now will put off a lot of the best applicants for the coaching position as well as any potential trade targets we had, which almost guarantees Hird as the next coach and a lower finish next year. How Rutten was treated is fresh on everyone’s mind. It means that we won’t even have the opportunity to follow a proper selection process.

Risk assessment and long term planning is the very basis of management. You can make better decisions if you plan over a year (especially after the external review) than planning over a couple of weeks. I fear for the direction of the club if the club cannot assess the risks I detailed above. Sticking with Rutten for at least another season is the right call whether or not he is the right person.

 

[BrunoV]

Sounds like at least some of the playing group were either unwilling to or incapable of learning the gameplan Rutten wanted to implement. That left him with the choice of either persisting with a gameplan he believed was needed to win finals but couldn't be implemented due to personnel issues, or modifying the gameplan into something he was not convinced was the way forward but could actually be successfully rolled out.

If that's how it actually played out I think it is more of a player issue than a coach issue, and sacking Rutten is just going to result in a new coach with a new gameplan that the players may or may not like.

I'd rather cut out the parts of the list who either lack the football IQ to learn a new gameplan or think it's ok to pick and choose what parts of the coach's messaging they want to listen to. At the end of the day you can have the greatest coach ever involved in the game but if you haven't got the right cattle that guy is going nowhere fast.

Not all coaches are equal, though.

Some are better at motivating, persuading and/or compelling.

There are a number of problems all playing out at the same time.

A coach who has had 4 years to sell a defensive message and who has had no results is a problem.

Sticking with Rutten at this point in time would be jumping shark even more than re appointing Hird

 

[MiguelM]

Rutten has been treated badly but that is the AFL way. Two types of coaches, those that have been sacked, those that will be. Not many walk away.

If we lose players, so be it, club is bigger.

If the club had balls they would back Rutten but the longer the debacle goes on unlikely. So who then? Another untried assistant? Lyon, Buckley, Hird?

What a mess. Knee jerk reaction to a bad loss that should be on the players.