January at Carlton

[mediumsizered]

Sacking coach's is how the once great Blues used to deal with poor seasons. I wouldn't mind going back to those days.

LIke when we sacked Robert Walls after Round 10 in 1989 & didn't make the finals that year or the following 3 seasons. Realistically, though, the Carlton Football Club has not been huge on sacking coaches. The only other coaches that have been sacked at Carlton over the last 30 years have been Ian Thorogood, David Parkin (after 1985), Alex Jesaulenko (after 1990) & Wayne Brittain & only one of the replacement coaches has experienced almost immediate premiership success (Walls, 1987).

If we had sacked Parkin after the unsuccessful 1991 & 1992 seasons who knows if we would have won the '95 premiership.

 

[HBF]

^^^^ Fair point about Parkin MS.
I've heard Sticks say on more than one occasion that Parkin gave the players alot more freedom in 1995 than he had done in previous seasons, and really let the players decide what sort of training, recovery work, etc, etc they would do.

 

[Sharks On A Plane]

Don't see how your comment was constructive, as we see 1000 post on BF that people have it on good authority and never back it up with a name or any evidence.

That's because there is such a thing as protecting your sources...

I was pilloried for saying that we'd draft Cloke and that the Fevola rumour was true - but I wasn't going to tell everybody how I knew.

Any chance of an apology from my doubters?? slim to none...

 

[Jimthegreat]

LIke when we sacked Robert Walls after Round 10 in 1989 & didn't make the finals that year or the following 3 seasons. Realistically, though, the Carlton Football Club has not been huge on sacking coaches. The only other coaches that have been sacked at Carlton over the last 30 years have been Ian Thorogood, David Parkin (after 1985), Alex Jesaulenko (after 1990) & Wayne Brittain & only one of the replacement coaches has experienced almost immediate premiership success (Walls, 1987).

If we had sacked Parkin after the unsuccessful 1991 & 1992 seasons who knows if we would have won the '95 premiership.

They won 7/12 from 10 games immediately after Walls was sacked after winning 2 from 10, bing on the bottom 4 games out of the 5 (s it was at the time). So they weren't likely to make the finals, although they gave it a good shot in the end. The two they lost were by 3 points and 5 points, the latter to the premiers. You don't think Jezza had success immediately after Ian Stewart was sacked? Went from 1-6 and bottom of the ladder to winning 13 of out next 16. Not to mention the premiership the next year. The first of 3 flags from 4 years.

And that's just Carlton. Pagan himself took over after Schimma was sacked during the pre-season Cup after a 147 point loss and the result was immediate (how things change). Wheeler was sacked after round 2 in 1994, with Alan Joyce taking the Bulldogs to the finals. You must be getting worried about uncle Denis.

Look for the AGM to be around 8 Feb.

 

[mediumsizered]

They won 7/12 from 10 games immediately after Walls was sacked after winning 2 from 10, bing on the bottom 4 games out of the 5 (s it was at the time). So they weren't likely to make the finals, although they gave it a good shot in the end. The two they lost were by 3 points and 5 points, the latter to the premiers. You don't think Jezza had success immediately after Ian Stewart was sacked? Went from 1-6 and bottom of the ladder to winning 13 of out next 16. Not to mention the premiership the next year. The first of 3 flags from 4 years.

And that's just Carlton. Pagan himself took over after Schimma was sacked during the pre-season Cup after a 147 point loss and the result was immediate (how things change). Wheeler was sacked after round 2 in 1994, with Alan Joyce taking the Bulldogs to the finals. You must be getting worried about uncle Denis.

Look for the AGM to be around 8 Feb.

Ian Stewart wasn't sacked. He resigned due to 'ill-health' (read into that what you will). Serg Silvagni then coached the team for the next 2 games (both of which were lost) then Jezza took over in Round 7, 1978 (we beat Collingwood at Victoria Park) & the rest, as they say in the classics, is history.

There will nearly always be a spike in performance when a coach is sacked. Jezza even scored a draw against Richmond in his first game as coach of St Kilda in 1980, after the sacking of Mike Patterson. The real issue is does this spike in performance translate into long term success or is it short-lived? History tells us that the majority of coach sackings does not translate into long-term success.

We all know that whoever is coaching Carlton from 2008 onwards is most likely to experience a fair amount of success. This success will not come from sacking a coach, it will be derived from putting together a sound playing list, as is currently happening at Carlton. Pagan won't be there when this success finally happens, but he should not wear all the blame for the lack of success during his coaching stint. Let's never forget he inherited the playing list that won Carlton's first wooden spoon & unlike Grant Thomas, Rodney Eade & Terry Wallace he did not have immediate access to the best draft picks to start rebuilding the playing list.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Good point mediumsizered. It seems that many coaching and board wannabes are quite content to sit back and let someone else do the hard yards, and when the bloodflow has been stemmed and things are looking to turn around or in the case of the playing list, starting to look very positive, others come in while on the surface things are dire but under the surface, hopeful and then when immediate successes are recorded, they get the credit while the workhorses go down as being involved in nothing but poor performance. It is completely cruel.

Look at Wallace walking into two years worth of top draft picks at the Tigers. Gets none of the blame for the previous poor performances and all of the credit when the list starts to click as it should by that stage.

The conundrum is knowing if the incumbents can turn it around and what a natural time frame should be for that. Do you leave them there to finish the job or are they in fact hampering the progression?

It's win-win for newcomers. If it is on the verge of improvement and it does, they are heroes. If it doesn't turn around, they get a grace period where the previous administration/coach is blamed for the situation.

The thing we do know is that both Pagan and Collins (therefore Smorgon) inherited genuinely dire circumstances. Where they should be and in what timeframes is something everybody decides for themselves.

I wouldn't want the job for quids.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Ian Stewart wasn't sacked. He resigned due to 'ill-health' (read into that what you will). Serg Silvagni then coached the team for the next 2 games (both of which were lost) then Jezza took over in Round 7, 1978 (we beat Collingwood at Victoria Park) & the rest, as they say in the classics, is history.

There will nearly always be a spike in performance when a coach is sacked. Jezza even scored a draw against Richmond in his first game as coach of St Kilda in 1980, after the sacking of Mike Patterson. The real issue is does this spike in performance translate into long term success or is it short-lived? History tells us that the majority of coach sackings does not translate into long-term success.

We all know that whoever is coaching Carlton from 2008 onwards is most likely to experience a fair amount of success. This success will not come from sacking a coach, it will be derived from putting together a sound playing list, as is currently happening at Carlton. Pagan won't be there when this success finally happens, but he should not wear all the blame for the lack of success during his coaching stint. Let's never forget he inherited the playing list that won Carlton's first wooden spoon & unlike Grant Thomas, Rodney Eade & Terry Wallace he did not have immediate access to the best draft picks to start rebuilding the playing list.

To start with, Merry Xmas. Hope you had a good one.

You're right, he did resign for whatever reason, technicality in the case as the point being made was there was that the success was immediate. How much of a spike do you want at that point. 13 from 16 in 1978 and then 3 of the next 4 flags (last 2 with Parkin).

What ever you think of the list during Pagan's reign, the point was he didn't even get close to getting them to play to their potential. We paid him $600,00 a year to go from a rabble to a hugely bigger rabble. Most problems within a club start with a lack of on-field success and committment, for which he is responsible. He's lost "two groups" of players in that time, pre and -post 2004. As for draft picks, we did lose a couple but in those 2 lost years we picked up Simmo (who I'm happier to pick up than Goddard), Fisher, Walker and Stevens in National and Pre-season drafts.


Anyway, back on the topic, we'll what what changes come to pass early February at the AGM.

 

[Jimthegreat]

Good point mediumsizered. It seems that many coaching and board wannabes are quite content to sit back and let someone else do the hard yards, and when the bloodflow has been stemmed and things are looking to turn around or in the case of the playing list, starting to look very positive, others come in while on the surface things are dire but under the surface, hopeful and then when immediate successes are recorded, they get the credit while the workhorses go down as being involved in nothing but poor performance. It is completely cruel.

Look at Wallace walking into two years worth of top draft picks at the Tigers. Gets none of the blame for the previous poor performances and all of the credit when the list starts to click as it should by that stage.

The conundrum is knowing if the incumbents can turn it around and what a natural time frame should be for that. Do you leave them there to finish the job or are they in fact hampering the progression?

It's win-win for newcomers. If it is on the verge of improvement and it does, they are heroes. If it doesn't turn around, they get a grace period where the previous administration/coach is blamed for the situation.

The thing we do know is that both Pagan and Collins (therefore Smorgon) inherited genuinely dire circumstances. Where they should be and in what timeframes is something everybody decides for themselves.

I wouldn't want the job for quids.

You really can't, or don't want to see it do, you? Between you and MS there's more spin than Warnie over our current predicament. It's obvious to most others.

Wallace took over the ultimate rabble of the last 25 years and doing a great job with them getting the Tiges to their favourite finishing position this year. He got draft picks but they're still kids. Richmond have been getting decent draft picks for years because they've been no-good.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

You really can't, or don't want to see it do, you? Between you and MS there's more spin than Warnie over our current predicament. It's obvious to most others.

cough*bull*********cough.

Are you so blinded by your Pagan hatred, that you can't recognise an objective analogy if you see it? If I don't outright condemn Pagan, you assume I am completely defending him, such is your bias on this issue.

Are you denying that coaches take over when lists are on the verge of success? Happens regularly. Are you denying that the new coach gets all the accolades while the old coach is lambasted for performances rather than list development?

Wallace took over the ultimate rabble of the last 25 years and doing a great job with them getting the Tiges to their favourite finishing position this year. He got draft picks but they're still kids. Richmond have been getting decent draft picks for years because they've been no-good.

Wallace inherited a up and coming list with draft picks and a 5 year contract to do something with it. It's not as though he started from square one with little to work with.

Try and look big picture here. It is not easy to identify when a list should be performing and when it shouldn't and how much influence the coach has over that. People look at results as the be all and end all and development and circumstances are seldom explored. My only point here is that sometimes the outgoing coach deserves partial credit for the list they left behind.

If Pagan goes, is he leaving us with the list that Parkin or Brittain left behind? Will a new coach have to start again? The answer is a resounding no.

So before you start this 'you just can't see it' blah blah blah 'spin' line for the umpteenth time, try to look at both sides of an equation. Fair dinkum, if you play devil's advocate these days, you are accused of being an apologist. Take a look at my posts and then take a look at yours and decide which one has the greater leaning towards one side of an argument, which one is inflexible.

I'm totally over this patronising 'you have your head in the sand, you are blind, etc etc' crap that gets thrown around all the time.

Good news though, when Pagan goes, if the team has success, you can gloat about how it is all down to the new coach and your point is proven. If the new coach fails too, you can embark on a whole new campaign. If you like the new coach though, maybe you can even suggest that he gets 5 years like Pagan regardless of the teams they inherited.

Until you are prepared to comprehend posts and discuss points in a rational manner rather than trot out the same rhetoric regardless of content, I can not and will not take you seriously.

 

[mediumsizered]

To start with, Merry Xmas. Hope you had a good one.

You're right, he did resign for whatever reason, technicality in the case as the point being made was there was that the success was immediate. How much of a spike do you want at that point. 13 from 16 in 1978 and then 3 of the next 4 flags (last 2 with Parkin).

What ever you think of the list during Pagan's reign, the point was he didn't even get close to getting them to play to their potential. We paid him $600,00 a year to go from a rabble to a hugely bigger rabble. Most problems within a club start with a lack of on-field success and committment, for which he is responsible. He's lost "two groups" of players in that time, pre and -post 2004. As for draft picks, we did lose a couple but in those 2 lost years we picked up Simmo (who I'm happier to pick up than Goddard), Fisher, Walker and Stevens in National and Pre-season drafts.


Anyway, back on the topic, we'll what what changes come to pass early February at the AGM.

Thanks for Xmas greeting. I hope you had a good one, as well.

I will admit I have been frustrated with Pagan's coaching at times, but I think the playing list he inherited was ordinary at best. At the beginning of his coaching stint the following players were probably our best:
Allan: prone to injury & never repeated his mega years of 1999 & 2000.
Beaumont: Talented, but rarely a world beater. Now gone from the game.
Campo: Didn't like Pagan & this eventually came through in his performance.
Hickmott: Admired this guy, but 2003 was his last season.
Houlihan: Has played his best football under Pagan.
Hulme: Injuries & the game caught up with him very quickly.
Kouta: Tragic to see a champion cut down in his prime. Tries hard but his body just can't do what he wants it to do.
Lappin: Another one not enamoured with Pagan. Was good up until this season.
McKay: A club great but 2003 saw him out.
Murphy: Front runner who like Beaumont is gone from the game.
Ratten: Played half of 2003 before injury caught up with him.
Whitnall: Struggled with OP & then knee problems, but is playing good football again.
Silvagni (2001) & Bradley (2002) had retired just prior to Pagan's arrival.
Of this list, only Campo & Lappin can be regarded as players who did not produce their best due to being 'lost' by Pagan.

As you say Simpson has been a real plus. The patience shown with him by Pagan & his colleagues has to have played a part in his development. Fisher also is a definite bonus, given his late selection. Fevola despite his off-field misdemeanours has certainly blossomed since Pagan's arrival, having kicked 262 goals in his 4 seasons under Pagan (to think he would have been lost to the club if not for Pagan). The development of Walker is coming along nicely & Heath Scotland has certainly played some good football in the last 2 seasons.

Our playing list is lacking in quality players in the 25+ age group. We are probably short half a dozen of these players compared to the teams at the top end of the ladder. Pagan tried to address this at the end of 2003, but unfortunately Scotland & Stevens (taken in the pre-season draft) are the only ones taken then that have really prospered. Pagan has probably come up a little bit short on where we should be, but I would suggest the playing list he inherited did not match the list that Eade inherited at the Western Bulldogs & Eade was immediately able to add Adam Cooney, Farren Ray, whilst swapping a second round pick for Peter Street, who has been handy & then the following season pick up Ryan Griffen with an early draft pick. Hence why the Bulldogs have now seen finals action while Carlton languish at the bottom.

 

[HBF]

Good point mediumsizered. It seems that many coaching and board wannabes are quite content to sit back and let someone else do the hard yards,

I think you've made a very good point again ODN. If I was in a position to be offered a position on the board, I know I would want to have 2 things - $$$$ and a united board.

If you have these 2 things, then it makes things a hell of a lot easier than what you have, which is what the current board is dealing with right at the moment.

 

[HBF]

Wallace took over the ultimate rabble of the last 25 years and doing a great job with them getting the Tiges to their favourite finishing position this year. He got draft picks but they're still kids. Richmond have been getting decent draft picks for years because they've been no-good.

I would be careful about "heaping" praise on Richmond. They do have alot of kids, this is true, but they also have a couple of aging players that will take a lot of replacing.

Joel Bowden - 29 in June next year
Nathan Brown - 29 in February next year
Darren Gaspar - 31 in May in next year
Kane Johnson - 29 in March next year
Matthew Richardson - 32 in March next year
Troy Simmonds - 29 in July next year

IMO, Richo might have 2 more years left in him and 2007 might just be Gaspars last year in the AFL. I understand that 29 is not old in AFL terms, but it certainly puts them closer to their retirement.

I'm still not sold on Richmond to be honest, and I think their middle of the road finishes will continue for a few more seasons.

 

[Andyt30]

I doubt Pagan will get sacked their honoring his 2 year contract so looks like were stuck with him