Support of the whole Adelaide public?

[WaynesWorld19]

Originally posted by Tyson20
I must say Wallace has disappointed me this week!

He's practically given up on coaching Adelaide because of the crap that he reads and hears coming from our media!

Well Terry, if u give up that quick, its probably best you dont come to the AFC!

Stinks of him playing Hawthorn and Richmond off of eachother...nice tactic!

AFC should look elsewhere now IMO!

Wallace knows how the media works and how to stimulate appropriate responses.

Would not be surprised if he chief rumour monger

 

[Tyson20]

Originally posted by macca23
If you're going to have a bitch about something I posted, at least have the common sense to get it right!!

What I said was:

"And to some of you out there, in future games when Craig is outcoached, please don't come on this board whining about it. You will have got what you deserve."

Nobody said you can't have an opinion. My comment is addressed to the pro-Craig supporters. If they want to openly support him now when there is no logical or performance based reason to do so, then don't come crying when that person doesn't deliver.

then i reckon it probably should have read...

"And to the pro-Craig supporters bla blah"

would have made more sense and i would have understood where u were coming from, rather than the generalisation u gave!

 

[Tyson20]

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
Wallace knows how the media works and how to stimulate appropriate responses.

Would not be surprised if he chief rumour monger

Thats exactly my point! I dont think he had any intention of coming to Adelaide, knowing that the Hawthorn and Richmond jobs would be open as well.

Now he's just trying to add a few extra zeros to his contract!

 

[afc9798]

Originally posted by Tyson20
Thats exactly my point! I dont think he had any intention of coming to Adelaide, knowing that the Hawthorn and Richmond jobs would be open as well.

Now he's just trying to add a few extra zeros to his contract!

Tyson20, two things I like about you. 1. You say "gee whiz" a lot and 2. You believe nearly everything that you read or hear from the club or the media. Both traits are admirable, but will result in you getting badly burnt in years to come.

The AFC has a history of being insular, evasive and secretive. Trigg has improved this to some extent, but the board is still behaving like we are in a position of great power in the football world.

I believe that the club should reneg on the stated process with Neil Craig, appoint Terry Wallace if he really wants to be here and get on with the planning for next year. Peter Curran can take the club for the remaining rounds if Craig spits the dummy. This would trump Hawthorn and Richmond (if Wallace is genuine), install faith in the supporters, show that the AFC can actually make a tough decision publicly and focus the club on immediate improvement.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by afc9798
Tyson20, two things I like about you. 1. You say "gee whiz" a lot and 2. You believe nearly everything that you read or hear from the club or the media. Both traits are admirable, but will result in you getting badly burnt in years to come.

The AFC has a history of being insular, evasive and secretive. Trigg has improved this to some extent, but the board is still behaving like we are in a position of great power in the football world.

I believe that the club should reneg on the stated process with Neil Craig, appoint Terry Wallace if he really wants to be here and get on with the planning for next year. Peter Curran can take the club for the remaining rounds if Craig spits the dummy. This would trump Hawthorn and Richmond (if Wallace is genuine), install faith in the supporters, show that the AFC can actually make a tough decision publicly and focus the club on immediate improvement.

Quality post.

 

[Tyson20]

Originally posted by afc9798
Tyson20, two things I like about you. 1. You say "gee whiz" a lot and 2. You believe nearly everything that you read or hear from the club or the media. Both traits are admirable, but will result in you getting badly burnt in years to come.

The AFC has a history of being insular, evasive and secretive. Trigg has improved this to some extent, but the board is still behaving like we are in a position of great power in the football world.

I believe that the club should reneg on the stated process with Neil Craig, appoint Terry Wallace if he really wants to be here and get on with the planning for next year. Peter Curran can take the club for the remaining rounds if Craig spits the dummy. This would trump Hawthorn and Richmond (if Wallace is genuine), install faith in the supporters, show that the AFC can actually make a tough decision publicly and focus the club on immediate improvement.

i realised i was saying it too much about 2 mins b4 reading your post...i do apologise!

and secondly, u couldnt be any further from the truth! what i read in the media, i take on its merits, then decifer for myself whether i think its true or not! a lot of what is written is crap as most of us would know!

and i will not deny that i unashamedbly support Steven Trigg! i think he has been great for the club..other people might not think so, but i do!

i also dont believe everything that comes out of the club, esp if its out of Reids, the players, assistant coaches mouths!

Wallace will NOT be coming to Adelaide...he has made that much clear!

 

[afc9798]

Originally posted by Tyson20


i realised i was saying it too much about 2 mins b4 reading your post...i do apologise!

and secondly, u couldnt be any further from the truth! what i read in the media, i take on its merits, then decifer for myself whether i think its true or not! a lot of what is written is crap as most of us would know!

and i will not deny that i unashamedbly support Steven Trigg! i think he has been great for the club..other people might not think so, but i do!

i also dont believe everything that comes out of the club, esp if its out of Reids, the players, assistant coaches mouths!

Wallace will NOT be coming to Adelaide...he has made that much clear!

Offering him the position (if the AFC really want him!!) would quickly flush out his sincerity or lack of it. I believe that his position is actually designed to flush out the AFC. I think he is pretending not to be interested because of the process etc. whilst hoping that this will rekindle the interest in him. If you looked at the lists and their recent history, Adelaide is the plum job of the 3 without a doubt.

 

[Tyson20]

Originally posted by afc9798
Offering him the position (if the AFC really want him!!) would quickly flush out his sincerity or lack of it. I believe that his position is actually designed to flush out the AFC. I think he is pretending not to be interested because of the process etc. whilst hoping that this will rekindle the interest in him. If you looked at the lists and their recent history, Adelaide is the plum job of the 3 without a doubt.

AFC is definitely the plum job i agree with you!

and that is an interesting observation, and something i hadnt considered! however the AFC have already approached Wallace and sought an interview with him, and as far as im aware he has bucked at it because of what the interview would involve!

he didnt want to give out all his secrets - esp if he wasnt chosen as the man for the job - only to go on and coach at another club!

 

[marvin]

Originally posted by dyertribe
Hawthorn and Richmond are two of ten clubs in Victoria - and they are less high-profile than Carlton, Collingwood and Essendon. Expectations also aren't that high - despite their prior successes in the 70s and 80s, as both clubs have faced extinction in the past and know what it's like to suffer persistent disappointment.

Having lived in Melbourne for the last 8 years, and for 10 of the last 13, I would disagree. Collingwood and Essendon are numbers 1 and 2 in terms of profile in this town, but Richmond and Hawthorn slot in right behind, and ahead of Carlton.

Expectations are very high - don't get the failure to meet those expectations confused with them. That's what cost Schwab and Frawley their jobs.

Originally posted by dyertribe
Adelaide FC on the other hand is arguably the primary institution in South Australia - with the head coach's job being arguably the most high-profile employed position in the state. If the team is not performing to expectation public and media opinion is focussed immeasurably on the coach and his performance - and under a glare much harsher than what any Hawthorn or Richmond coach could suffer.

I doubt it. The glare on Schwab this year has been horrendous - enough to publically reduce him to tears on more than one occasion, and just maybe (speculation on my part only) contributing to the heart problems he's suffered in the last few years. Frawley and his players have been publicaly spat on, and over the past few years Punt Road has had manure and other deposits left after bad losses.

The other thing to remember is that the focus is invariably on the teams going poorly. Thomas, Thompson, Daniher, Sheedy, Pagan and Laidley (and to some extent, Rohde) are all coaching teams that are are going according to, or exceeding expectations. Malthouse has the immunity afforded by back-to-back grand finals; and so the heat has been shared equally this year by Frawley and Schwab (and in the last few weeks, Rohde).

You've also got 2 papers gunning for the struggling coaches (and with the competition comes an added ferocity of attack, as new angles are sought); and as of this year, a full time radio station devoted to sport (which in practicality, is 80% plus devoted to footy), plus the same spectrum of TV as in SA. The glare in Adelaide is really not much worse than what it is in Melbourne.

Originally posted by dyertribe
Also, expectations are always unrealistically high and despite enjoying maximum off-field resources and winning 2 Premierships since entering the league in 1991, the coaching attrition has been unusually high, with 3 coaches being sacked and 1 resigning claiming he was "burnt out."

Since 1991, despite enjoying record memberships, making the finals on 6 occasions and winning a premiership, Hawthorn have also been through 4 coaches.

Since 1991, Richmond have been through 6 coaches. A large part of that turn over is due to the fact that expectations are unrealistically high.

Kangas have had 3, Collingwood 3, Sydney 5, Melbourne 3, Bulldogs 4, St Kilda 5, Carlton 3, Geelong 3 since 1991. Essendon are a stunning exception.

4 coaches in 14 years is not an unusually high turnover of coaches in the AFL. It's unusual to lose one to "burn-out", but I suspect that was as much to do with the individual and his style as the position.

Originally posted by dyertribe
If that's not a poisoned chalice - especially considering the current confusing, biased and bizarre appointment process - then what is?

It's a poisoned chalice, but no more poisoned than any of the other 15 poisoned chalices at their respective clubs. There's no job security anywhere other than Essendon, there's massive pressure when the going gets tough, and there's a pool of 50 odd assistant coaches, 30 odd second-tier league coaches and half a dozen ex-coaches floating around the media on any given day who are just waiting for an opportunity to get their hands on their own chalice.

Just out of interest, apart from appearing to favour Craig, what have the club done wrong in your eyes in the selection process? When Ayres resigned, they really had no choice but to appoint Craig as interim coach given the alternatives. Do you think if Sheedy or Matthews got hit by a bus tonight, Harvey or O'Donnell wouldn't be interim coach? And wouldn't this give them the inside running over arguably better credentialled candidates like Wallace or Eade?

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by marvin
Just out of interest, apart from appearing to favour Craig, what have the club done wrong in your eyes in the selection process?

Apart from clearly favouring Craig, they've scapegoated Gary Ayres and have not sought to make anyone else - including themselves - accountable for the assorted errors that led to his sacking/resignation.

Yes, of course there had to be an interim coach appointed, that was a given - you can't steer a ship without someone at the helm and you can't run a football team by committee. But, I was opposed to the way it was immediately made into a stated audition process. How Craig performs between Ayres departure and the end of the season should have no bearing on his chances of being appointed either positively or negatively - it is not his side and we are in the opening stages of a serious rebuilding phase. To label it an audition puts unfair pressure upon Craig to get results - possibly at the expense of rebuilding and blooding youngsters - and gives Craig an unfair advantage over other candidates if he is successful.

Apart from all that, my overall lack of faith in the powers that be stems from the litany of mistakes that have been made in other areas in the past year or two.

 

[Tyson20]

Originally posted by dyertribe
Apart from clearly favouring Craig, they've scapegoated Gary Ayres and have not sought to make anyone else - including themselves - accountable for the assorted errors that led to his sacking/resignation.

Yes, of course there had to be an interim coach appointed, that was a given - you can't steer a ship without someone at the helm and you can't run a football team by committee. But, I was opposed to the way it was immediately made into a stated audition process. How Craig performs between Ayres departure and the end of the season should have no bearing on his chances of being appointed either positively or negatively - it is not his side and we are in the opening stages of a serious rebuilding phase. To label it an audition puts unfair pressure upon Craig to get results - possibly at the expense of rebuilding and blooding youngsters - and gives Craig an unfair advantage over other candidates if he is successful.

Apart from all that, my overall lack of faith in the powers that be stems from the litany of mistakes that have been made in other areas in the past year or two.

the audition process, as it has been labelled, also had certain criteria that Craig had to abide by, and it was clearly stated that winning wasnt the be all and all, but blooding some kids and being ULTRA competitive was!

regardless of what it was labelled, Craig was always going to be under pressure because his credentials are no where near that of Wallaces' or Eades'.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by Tyson20
it was clearly stated that winning wasnt the be all and all ...

Ah, but in his prematch interview as he was walking across the ground just before the first bounce against the Roos he said, "tonight is all about winning."

 

[Tyson20]

Originally posted by marvin
Having lived in Melbourne for the last 8 years, and for 10 of the last 13, I would disagree. Collingwood and Essendon are numbers 1 and 2 in terms of profile in this town, but Richmond and Hawthorn slot in right behind, and ahead of Carlton.

Expectations are very high - don't get the failure to meet those expectations confused with them. That's what cost Schwab and Frawley their jobs.



I doubt it. The glare on Schwab this year has been horrendous - enough to publically reduce him to tears on more than one occasion, and just maybe (speculation on my part only) contributing to the heart problems he's suffered in the last few years. Frawley and his players have been publicaly spat on, and over the past few years Punt Road has had manure and other deposits left after bad losses.

The other thing to remember is that the focus is invariably on the teams going poorly. Thomas, Thompson, Daniher, Sheedy, Pagan and Laidley (and to some extent, Rohde) are all coaching teams that are are going according to, or exceeding expectations. Malthouse has the immunity afforded by back-to-back grand finals; and so the heat has been shared equally this year by Frawley and Schwab (and in the last few weeks, Rohde).

You've also got 2 papers gunning for the struggling coaches (and with the competition comes an added ferocity of attack, as new angles are sought); and as of this year, a full time radio station devoted to sport (which in practicality, is 80% plus devoted to footy), plus the same spectrum of TV as in SA. The glare in Adelaide is really not much worse than what it is in Melbourne.



Since 1991, despite enjoying record memberships, making the finals on 6 occasions and winning a premiership, Hawthorn have also been through 4 coaches.

Since 1991, Richmond have been through 6 coaches. A large part of that turn over is due to the fact that expectations are unrealistically high.

Kangas have had 3, Collingwood 3, Sydney 5, Melbourne 3, Bulldogs 4, St Kilda 5, Carlton 3, Geelong 3 since 1991. Essendon are a stunning exception.

4 coaches in 14 years is not an unusually high turnover of coaches in the AFL. It's unusual to lose one to "burn-out", but I suspect that was as much to do with the individual and his style as the position.



It's a poisoned chalice, but no more poisoned than any of the other 15 poisoned chalices at their respective clubs. There's no job security anywhere other than Essendon, there's massive pressure when the going gets tough, and there's a pool of 50 odd assistant coaches, 30 odd second-tier league coaches and half a dozen ex-coaches floating around the media on any given day who are just waiting for an opportunity to get their hands on their own chalice.

Just out of interest, apart from appearing to favour Craig, what have the club done wrong in your eyes in the selection process? When Ayres resigned, they really had no choice but to appoint Craig as interim coach given the alternatives. Do you think if Sheedy or Matthews got hit by a bus tonight, Harvey or O'Donnell wouldn't be interim coach? And wouldn't this give them the inside running over arguably better credentialled candidates like Wallace or Eade?

Quality Post!

 

[Tyson20]

Originally posted by dyertribe
Ah, but in his prematch interview as he was walking across the ground just before the first bounce against the Roos he said, "tonight is all about winning."

and wouldnt u say that after a 141 point club record loss!

we werent competitive for a half against Brisbane and we were so poor, that a close loss against a side fighting for a spot in the 8 would not have cut it with half of the morons that support our club...

i went to AAMI friday night hoping for a good close contest, thinking the Kangas would get over the top of us (as they should have)...not only were we competitive, but we ground out a win that we would have had no hope of doing with Ayres at the helm!

of course for the club, Friday night would have been about winning, as we are too proud a club to not want to bounce back after such a shallacking! at the beginning of Craigs helm, no one could have assumed we would have gone to Brisbane and gotten smashed like we did...we needed to hit back, and we did!

 

[arrowman]

DT, I agree with or respect a lot of what you say, but this stuff about the "audition" is getting over the top.
1. The club needed an interim coach.
2. The assistant coach (Neil Craig) was given that job.
3. Neil Craig is a candidate for the senior job.

So - What Craig does (not win/loss necessarily) and how he performs in the last 9 games of the season will have an influence on his candidacy.

Of course it's an audition. So what? That's not the reason he was given the interim job (what were they going to do - appoint Jacko to make sure it was impartial?), it's just a side effect. I reckon the club would much rather have had Ayres stay on and avoid this issue in the first place.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by arrowman
DT, I agree with or respect a lot of what you say, but this stuff about the "audition" is getting over the top.
1. The club needed an interim coach.
2. The assistant coach (Neil Craig) was given that job.
3. Neil Craig is a candidate for the senior job.

So - What Craig does (not win/loss necessarily) and how he performs in the last 9 games of the season will have an influence on his candidacy.

Of course it's an audition. So what? That's not the reason he was given the interim job (what were they going to do - appoint Jacko to make sure it was impartial?), it's just a side effect. I reckon the club would much rather have had Ayres stay on and avoid this issue in the first place.

As I posted above in this thread:

"Yes, of course there had to be an interim coach appointed, that was a given - you can't steer a ship without someone at the helm and you can't run a football team by committee. But, I was opposed to the way it was immediately made into a stated audition process. How Craig performs between Ayres departure and the end of the season should have no bearing on his chances of being appointed either positively or negatively - it is not his side and we are in the opening stages of a serious rebuilding phase. To label it an audition puts unfair pressure upon Craig to get results - possibly at the expense of rebuilding and blooding youngsters - and gives Craig an unfair advantage over other candidates if he is successful."

Now you can disagree with what I've said above, that's fine, but this is my feelings on the matter pertaining to the so-called 'audition process.'

 

[arrowman]

Yes, I read all that before.

- Who labelled it an "audition"?
- If the club denied it was an audition, who would believe them?
- Where has the club (or, indeed, anyone in the media) put pressure on Craig to achieve results at the expense of blooding youngsters?

I just think this "audition" thing is not important compared to the other issues here - eg the 100% sycophancy of the Adelaide media towards Neil Craig.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by arrowman
Yes, I read all that before.

- Who labelled it an "audition"?

Craig made mention of it and it was also the general feeling - and Trigg practically ratified this when he publicly stated he'd go into the box to see how he operates on matchday against Brisbane.

Originally posted by arrowman
- If the club denied it was an audition, who would believe them?

Neither here nor there - who believes them about anything anyway?

Originally posted by arrowman
- Where has the club (or, indeed, anyone in the media) put pressure on Craig to achieve results at the expense of blooding youngsters?

I haven't said that they did - however Craig himself said that "tonight is all about winning" prior to the Kangaroos match - the pressure on his candidacy mounting following the flogging we got against Brisbane.

As part of the "audition process" it is only natural that Craig would feel pressured to win some games to rescue his candidacy - which could well come at the expense of continuing the education of our youngsters.

Originally posted by arrowman
I just think this "audition" thing is not important compared to the other issues here - eg the 100% sycophancy of the Adelaide media towards Neil Craig.

It's part of the entire process, which we'd agree, is flawed.

 

[arrowman]

Originally posted by dyertribe
Craig made mention of it and it was also the general feeling - and Trigg practically ratified this when he publicly stated he'd go into the box to see how he operates on matchday against Brisbane.

(1) Craig was just stating the obvious (2) “General feelings” don’t count (3) So, when one of your candidates is operating where you can watch them, you should turn your head and refuse to watch?

Originally posted by dyertribe
Neither here nor there - who believes them about anything anyway?

Well you can believe what you want to believe. You have decided the club is favouring Craig, and you may be right, but “well, they would say that, wouldn’t they” is not an argument.

Originally posted by dyertribe
I haven't said that they did - however Craig himself said that "tonight is all about winning" prior to the Kangaroos match - the pressure on his candidacy mounting following the flogging we got against Brisbane.

Or it might be a good idea for a young team to win their next game after a flogging, whoever the coach is.

I don’t argue that there might be some doubts about the process, but I think you’re interpreting everything to suit your beliefs and ignoring the other equally reasonable explanations.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by arrowman
I don’t argue that there might be some doubts about the process, but I think you’re interpreting everything to suit your beliefs and ignoring the other equally reasonable explanations.

That's your opinion. You're welcome to it.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Well this thread is going round in circles...

Anyone who thinks Wallace is afraid of th media is deadset wrong, surely it's pretty easy to comprehend.

the pro-craig campaign means he does not believe in the end he will get the job, and that it is not a fair process. Why go through that, as he did in sydney, and jeopardise your prospects elsewhere?

I certainly wouldn't tender for a new client, and waste my time and money, if I thought the process was a sham. who wants to make up the numbers? get real.

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
Well this thread is going round in circles...

Anyone who thinks Wallace is afraid of the media is deadset wrong, surely it's pretty easy to comprehend.

the pro-craig campaign means he does not believe in the end he will get the job, and that it is not a fair process. Why go through that, as he did in sydney, and jeopardise your prospects elsewhere?

I certainly wouldn't tender for a new client, and waste my time and money, if I thought the process was a sham. who wants to make up the numbers? get real.

Let there be light!

I owe you a beer