Question about Wallace

[Macca19]

Im sure its been answered before but I dont ahve the time to do all the research.

What is the extreme fascination by the majority here to get Wallace as a coach?

What has he done in your opinions that seem to make him the only choice as coach?

His coaching record in my opinion has been fairly average and the recruiting in his time at the Bulldogs was very poor.

Im just wondering why you guys seem to rate him as the man that will "renovate" your club and take you to glory.

 

[afc9798]

I don't believe for a moment that he is the only option, but that said he is undoubtably a good candidate.

When he took over the Dogs they were in a mess and he initially took on the role only as caretaker. He crafted a gameplan that maximised the talents of what he had and he recruited wisely to get the Dogs into 2 consecutive Preliminary finals only falling short by 2 points in the first one (losing both to the Crows).

It was widely acknowledged that his gameplan frustrated other teams as it was a combination of all out attack and flooding defence which was very hard to read. When you look back at the Dogs list it was packed with mediocre players that got the best out of their abilities, with the exception of Grant, Smith,Johnson and Brown. I think this is the attribute that attracts people to Wallace along with his reputation as one of the best match day coaches (an area lacking sadly in Gary Ayres).

With the right recruiting and the right coach, I don't believe that we need to be at the bottom of the pack for long and that we can turn in competitive performances in the meantime.

 

[jc67]

Originally posted by Macca19
Im just wondering why you guys seem to rate him as the man that will "renovate" your club and take you to glory.

It's not unaminous by any means.
I think Wallace was fresh back in his day and thats all he ever was.
IMO it would be a worse decision than Robert Shaw

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by Macca19

His coaching record in my opinion has been fairly average and the recruiting in his time at the Bulldogs was very poor.

that's the great thing about the BF democracy anyone can say anything that spring to mind, without worrying whether it's remotely true.

if his coaching was so bad, why is he considered a prime candidate for another gig?
wait - I know! it's because those who count DON'T think he was a bad coach. go figure.

FFS.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by afc9798
he recruited wisely

While I agree with most of what you said, I will debate this point until the cows come home.

This is one area that I think Wallace is "a bit thin" in. He has been with the bulldogs for 6 or 7 years and in whole of his time he has never recruited to fix up his spine especially in key defensive positions. He tends to have a major obsessions with midfielders and as a result he turned the WB list into the shortest list in the comp.

This is one area that I am genuinely concerned when it comes to Terry Wallace. We have a couple of pieces of puzzle in place when it comes to building a spine for the future. My concern is that his "building" process is unlikely to be completed.

Saying that he has had time out of the game so he will be better the 2nd time around is a perception rather than a fact.

 

[panthers]

Dont forget Guy Mckenna

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18

Saying that he has had time out of the game so he will be better the 2nd time around is a perception rather than a fact.

While it is a perception rather than a fact, history has shown with those coaches who do coach 2nd time round that they learn a lot from their previous stint and by observation during the break.

Wallace is an intelligent thinking man and there's no reason to think that he won't have learnt either.

Most of what all posters post on here is their perception and not fact.

 

[bluecrow]

Re: Re: Question about Wallace

Originally posted by jc67

IMO it would be a worse decision than Robert Shaw

Yay. I'm not the only one who thinks this!

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Re: Re: Question about Wallace

Originally posted by jc67
IMO it would be a worse decision than Robert Shaw

Why do you think this?

Shaw was never successful at the battling Fitzroy, yet Wallace managed to lift the Bullies from cellar dwellars to the finals. IMO, for most of his time he got the most out of the Bullies squad - the same can't be said for Shaw, or any Shaw for that matter.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by macca23
While it is a perception rather than a fact, history has shown with those coaches who do coach 2nd time round that they learn a lot from their previous stint and by observation during the break.

Wallace is an intelligent thinking man and there's no reason to think that he won't have learnt either.

Most of what all posters post on here is their perception and not fact.

But you can build an argument based on that on any other coach out there.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
But you can build an argument based on that on any other coach out there.

My PERCEPTION of Wallace is based on his performances at the Bulldogs with a list that wasn't all that good.

His performances when coaching indicated that he was a very good match day coach.

I'm adding to that the PERCEPTION that he will improve in the manner that other good coaches such as Blight and Matthews have by a break in the media.

As you think that can apply to any other coach out there, which ones would you like to do that for Stiffy??

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I agree with your percerption of Wallace Macca. Hopefully AFC also agree.

 

[jc67]

Re: Re: Re: Question about Wallace

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
Why do you think this?

Merely opinion kane.
I just think he would be a BAD fit for the club, only opinion.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by macca23
My PERCEPTION of Wallace is based on his performances at the Bulldogs with a list that wasn't all that good.

His performances when coaching indicated that he was a very good match day coach.

I'm adding to that the PERCEPTION that he will improve in the manner that other good coaches such as Blight and Matthews have by a break in the media.

As you think that can apply to any other coach out there, which ones would you like to do that for Stiffy??

You can say the same thing about Rodney Eade or even Graham Cornes.

You can go a step further and say that Craig last coached in 95 and his sport science background would be of great advantage. Yes he was on Gary's coaching panel but do we know for certain how much of an input did he have. I know I have heard a couple of whispers that Craig didn't think Gary's gameplan was good enough but there was nothing he could really do about it.

Don't get me wrong, I believe Wallace will be a better coach but I think we need to REALLY analyse every possible candidate and pick someone who IS the rigth choice and that might not be Wallace. All I know that we have to go into this open minded and we CANNOT afford to make a mistake with this.

 

[ant]

All I remember is in the Ayres era, I'd **** my pants prior to every encounter with Wallace's Dogs. I just knew he'd come up with something special tactically and on match day that would un nerve us and throw Gazza off balance (a position which he always struggled to recover from).

Wallace's WB team had severe deficiencies which he was able to overcome during the season but come finals time, he was usually found out and was powerless to stop. Our sides in 97 and 98 were special in that every key area we were better, the ruck, key defensive positions, big targets up forward, more effective gameplan with the tools to execute and the magical talents that you need to win finals.

I can't counter the argument that his recruiting and development was poor, but maybe he's learnt from that too. Certainly, the elements of a spine is almost in place, which he can hopefully build around.

With more resources and having another turn at the coaching caper, he seems the best candidate IMO.

However, it would seem Craig has the significant inside running. We'll sound out Wallace but maybe not chase him as hard as we need to. I have little doubt that if the club wanted him as much as say macca23 does (), we could definitely get him.

 

[Stiffy_18]

ant you make exceptionally good points and I agree that he appears to be the best candidate.

I just don't think we should jump into it. As you say his recruiting was his flaw and I see that as a major deficiency for a club that is in our situation. Maybe he has overcome this and maybe he has learned his lesson BUT is it a risk worth taking??????

I just think we most definetly CANNOT screw this up. The next coach should be a PERFECT fit for our situation and must be given at least 3 years to build the side up. You cannot rebuild a side in 2 years.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Question about Wallace

Originally posted by jc67
Merely opinion kane.
I just think he would be a BAD fit for the club, only opinion.

No problems with you having a differing opinion. Just interested as to why you think this way???

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18

Don't get me wrong, I believe Wallace will be a better coach but I think we need to REALLY analyse every possible candidate and pick someone who IS the rigth choice and that might not be Wallace. All I know that we have to go into this open minded and we CANNOT afford to make a mistake with this.

I agree that we have to really analyse every genuine possible candidate due to the importance of the position and gettting it right.

That's not the same as every candidate because IMO there are very few genuine candidates out there.

Take the experienced coaches currently coaching that are worth having - Matthews, Malthouse, Williams, Sheedy, Pagan and perhaps Roos.

None of these will be coming to Adelaide.

As for the unemployed there is Wallace and Eade who have experience - both genuine candidates.

Then there is the new breed of assistant coaches. O'Donnell is the pick of these followed by Guy McKenna. None of the others will seriously be considered

Neil Craig is obviously another candidate, and I think he's tainted by the past.

Candidates such as Rhen and Jonas would be giant gambles and won't be considered.

So there you have it Stiffy

Wallace

Eade

O'Donnell

McKenna

Craig

IMO that's all there is to consider

 

[ant]

I hope the club is keeping their mind open as well, and this intensive search for the best coach possible for the Adelaide Crows in 2005 is done independently and with an open mind.

I fear it may not be.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by macca23
IAs for the unemployed there is Wallace and Eade who have experience - both genuine candidates.

Then there is the new breed of assistant coaches. O'Donnell is the pick of these followed by Guy McKenna. None of the other will seriously be considered

Neil Craig is obviously another candidate, and I think he's tainted by the past.

Candidates such as Rhen and Jonas would be giant gambles and won't be considered.

So there you have it Stiffy

Wallace
Eade
O'Donnell
McKenna
Craig

IMO that's all there is to consider

What have O'Donnell, McKenna & Craig achieved that makes them more credentialled than Jonas, who has also been an assistant coach?

 

[jc67]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question about Wallace

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
No problems with you having a differing opinion. Just interested as to why you think this way???

He practises the play for youre paycheck intead of for the team,club,supporters or your pride.
He quit the dogs when things got tough (Smorgon was always gunna pay him but see point1)
He's a typical Victorian know all prick.
His *innovative gameplan* was stolen from Mick Nunan (wonder if He's an option)
But most of all I simply dont trust him He looks shifty.

PS; I avoided posting this as I am now gunna cop it left and right.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by ant
I hope the club is keeping their mind open as well, and this intensive search for the best coach possible for the Adelaide Crows in 2005 is done independently and with an open mind.

I fear it may not be.

I would love it to be an independent committee that is appointed to do this. Some one like David Parkin should be part of that committee. However, I fear that as you say the same old people will be part of that subcommittee. I can just about bet my life and say that Trigg, Reid and Sanders will be on that committee that is looking for a new coach and 2 of those 3 people are the ones that I would sack at the end fo the year. So as you said and anyone can see we will appoint a coach who is willing to be the part of the boys club down at West Lakes

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
What have O'Donnell, McKenna & Craig achieved that makes them more credentialled than Jonas, who has also been an assistant coach?

The true answer is very little to nothing. It comes back to perception again. Jonas is regarded as good with the development of youngsters, but there were aspects of his coaching at Centrals that even they didn't like, and that will probably count against him.

He would be a real chance and a good choice for the role of development coach, but not the main gig.

The media talk O'Donnell up as a future AFL coach because he has played under one of the greatest coaches of all time, and been assistant to one of the most successful. I agree that proves nothing other than that he has a good pedigree. Whether he can do it is the gamble.

The same applies to McKenna but on a lesser scale, as he has learnt all of his footy from Malthouse basically. Still a gamble.

Both appear to be intelligent men.

Craig's only claim to fame IMO is that he's been part of our system and knows it. On the other hand that could count against him.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Question about Wallace

Originally posted by jc67
He practises the play for youre paycheck intead of for the team,club,supporters or your pride.
He quit the dogs when things got tough (Smorgon was always gunna pay him but see point1)
He's a typical Victorian know all prick.
His *innovative gameplan* was stolen from Mick Nunan (wonder if He's an option)
But most of all I simply dont trust him He looks shifty.

PS; I avoided posting this as I am now gunna cop it left and right.

Whilst I don't agree with everything you said, you won't be copping it from me, as I was just curious about your reasons. Cheers.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by macca23
The true answer is very little to nothing. It comes back to perception again. Jonas is regarded as good with the development of youngsters, but there were aspects of his coaching at Centrals that even they didn't like, and that will probably count against him.

He would be a real chance and a good choice for the role of development coach, but not the main gig.

The media talk O'Donnell up as a future AFL coach because he has played under one of the greatest coaches of all time, and been assistant to one of the most successful. I agree that proves nothing other than that he has a good pedigree. Whether he can do it is the gamble.

The same applies to McKenna but on a lesser scale, as he has learnt all of his footy from Malthouse basically. Still a gamble.

Both appear to be intelligent men.

Craig's only claim to fame IMO is that he's been part of our system and knows it. On the other hand that could count against him.

Jonas has been a senior coach, coach juniors & learnt from both Blight & Roos. IMO, gives him equal experience as an assistant to O'Donnell (under Sheedy & Matthews) & more experience than McKenna (who has only been under Malthouse).