The new coaching panel for 2005

[Stiffy_18]

How many times do I have to say that once the draft time comes around the head coach has the FINAL say

We can have Alan Stewart as our recruiting officer and that still won't make much difference because come draft day Ayres has the final say as to who gets picked. Fantasia and Reid make their suggestions as to who we SHOULD pick but the coach goes against that most of the time.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
How many times do I have to say that once the draft time comes around the head coach has the FINAL say

So if we had Wallace instead of Ayres, we would have had Eagleton instead of Angwin...

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
So if we had Wallace instead of Ayres, we would have had Eagleton instead of Angwin...

Nothing wrong with Eags... at least he gets stuck in, unlike some of our current rabble.

 

[Mong]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
How many times do I have to say that once the draft time comes around the head coach has the FINAL say

As it should be. But the coach makes his judgement based on the information provided to him by the recruiting manager.

The recruiting managers surely would rate each player in the draft and the coach will make his choice based on things such as position. I find it hard to believe that a coach would flat out take someone that a recruiting manager recommended against.

Every player taken would come with a high rating from Fantasia and co.


****

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by ****
As it should be. But the coach makes his judgement based on the information provided to him by the recruiting manager.

The recruiting managers surely would rate each player in the draft and the coach will make his choice based on things such as position. I find it hard to believe that a coach would flat out take someone that a recruiting manager recommended against.

Every player taken would come with a high rating from Fantasia and co.


****

Do you know the process in how this is done.

Here is a quick overview.

James Fantasia has his area that he looks after and has a network of scouts who are responsible for their clubs/areas. Each one of those scouts gives a weekly detailed report on each and every player that they have seen and send it to Fantasia. Each scout will also compile a video of a player/s and send it to the club.

Once the season over, the whole football department (including Reaidy, Triggy, entire coaching staff and recruiting team) sit down and analyse all of the reports and view all the video footage of players. Fantasia's job is to analyse the draft deeply and rank each player from 1 to whatever.

Come draft time, when it comes to our pick, everyone at that table will have their suggestion but the final say always rests with the coach especially in early rounds. Once you get to the later picks thats when someone like Fantasia or Reid will have the biggest say.

When te draft was telecasted by CH7 did you ever watch it?????? Remember that time when everyone was arguing at Adelaide's table but Blight had the finals say. That should give you a bit more insight.

Coach is made very aware of the talent pool and ranking of the players. The coach is also very aware of every players ability, his strengths and his weaknesses before he goes to the draft.

Solely blaming recruiting depratment is plain wrong. Yes they have to take some of the blame BUT it shouldn't only be Fantasia that cops the flak. Reidy, Triggy, Ayres, Craig, Mickan, Curran, Jarman, Fantasia and every other scout have to accept the blame. Not only James himself.

Its very easy to blame James Fantasia, but at the end of the day it is not entirely his fualt.

 

[spindoctor]

Nah, fire the whole coaching staff except for Jars and Schwerdt.

 

[Mong]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Solely blaming recruiting depratment is plain wrong. Yes they have to take some of the blame BUT it shouldn't only be Fantasia that cops the flak. Reidy, Triggy, Ayres, Craig, Mickan, Curran, Jarman, Fantasia and every other scout have to accept the blame. Not only James himself.

Its very easy to blame James Fantasia, but at the end of the day it is not entirely his fualt.

No it's not entirely his fault and I'm certainly not suggesting it is. Like the head coach is most responsible for coaching, the recruiting manager is most responsible for recruiting, or at least the recruiting intelligence that is provided to the coaching staff.

I don't think Trigg should be blamed at all but of the others you've mentioned I agree. In fact, not too long ago I questioned Reid's involvement in all this and you defended him, preferring to put all the blame on Ayres. I have questioned the performances of Ayres, Reid and Fantasia and suggested that they all are similarly to blame for our current predicament. You on the other hand love to blame Ayres for everything yet defend the others.

As far as I'm concerned they all should be questioned and be held accountable, not only Ayres.


****

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by jc67
there is not a lot of differance between wallace and ayres imo, i dont rate wallace at all. (fresh 7 years ago and thats all he ever was)
I am well aware that i am about to get shouted down but if we are going to keep with the head coach structure I would like Danny frawley to get a go, or (nah i wont say his name YET).

everyone's entitled to their opinion, but your view is out of step with the majority of the football community on Wallace, who was a great matchday coach who got the most out of not much.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by afc9798
I remeber the same things being said about Robert Shaw as you are saying about Wallace. The problem with coaches who come from clubs with crap facilities and ordinary lists is that they don't know what to do when all the resources are laid on. Wallace could be an exception, but I don't think the AFC would want another "seige mentality" coach due to the scars from the Shaw era.

Problem is that's not really true, Malthouse started at the doggies, Walls at Fitzroy, Brisbane didn't have much when Matthews went up there.

I don't think much can inferred from whether the coach came from a struggling club, beyond the apparent qualities of their coaching - whatever they may be.

 

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
Brisbane didn't have much when Matthews went up there.

I thought their training facilities there were top notch well before lethal showed up. Didnt AFC do a tour of their HQ in the early 90's and decided to build a replica at West Lakes?

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by ****
No it's not entirely his fault and I'm certainly not suggesting it is. Like the head coach is most responsible for coaching, the recruiting manager is most responsible for recruiting, or at least the recruiting intelligence that is provided to the coaching staff.

I don't think Trigg should be blamed at all but of the others you've mentioned I agree. In fact, not too long ago I questioned Reid's involvement in all this and you defended him, preferring to put all the blame on Ayres. I have questioned the performances of Ayres, Reid and Fantasia and suggested that they all are similarly to blame for our current predicament. You on the other hand love to blame Ayres for everything yet defend the others.

As far as I'm concerned they all should be questioned and be held accountable, not only Ayres.


****

Now me blaming Ayres for everything is an absolute bulls**t. Have you not read any of the recent threads on this board?????? If you did then you would realise I don't blame Ayres for everything.

Fact is Ayres has the final say on draft day. Ayres and Curran wanted Angwin despite protests of Reid and Fantasia yet we get to blame James and Reidy for everything.

I blame Ayres where I think he is wrong but I also defend him when I think he is not to blame.

IMHO, Reidy is doing a good job and we would be worse off if we get rid off him.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Eade is a BIG no no IMHO.

I get the feeling AFC will not appoint untried coach so I am warming up to Wallace as he is the first cab off the rank in experienced coaches category.

Personally, I would want Roos but there is no way in hell he would leave the Swans.

Stiffy,
what does Roos have that Wallace or Eade don't?

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
I disagree. While I am not entirely in favour of Wallace being our next coach, he is a better coach than Ayres and if we ar e honest Ayres is the only coach that took us to finals for 3 consecutive years.

RE: Rehn, he left us for good reason. When Ayres is not at AFC any more Rehn will be more than welcome to come back.

He has taken a legal action against club because he is entitled to a long service leave. I am pretty sure you would take your employer to court if they failed to pay up.

Stiffy he is entitled to LSL only through a loop hole, that was later closed. Granted a number of players are pursuing it as is their right, but the entitlement is a little shady not a fair compensation as per regular employees.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
I actually think he is not THAT defensive. Eade is the most defensively minded coach I have ever seen.

What I liked about Western Bulldogs in Wallace era, is their never say die attitude and that attractive style of play. His sides have always displayed plenty of run from the backline and they used theat "forward handball" to set the movement.

Stiffy,
not agreeing with you a lot today

Eade invented the flood to setup attacking thrusts on the breakaway, Wallace refined this to the ultraflood which was designed to choke the life out the game and the opposition.

Eade was in no way more defensive than Wallace, however you could argue that Wallace was negative because of the quality of cattle at his disposal and he just trying to win games anyway he can.

which is part of the junkyard dog mentality we could use more of.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by PAfolwr
The Chokers one.
Finals are usually won by teams that play positive football.

west coast?

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by Jerome
I thought their training facilities there were top notch well before lethal showed up. Didnt AFC do a tour of their HQ in the early 90's and decided to build a replica at West Lakes?

not that I am aware of, Matthews gutted the football department and brought his own guys from the ground up.

 

[spindoctor]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Reidy is doing a good job and we would be worse off if we get rid off him.

Does Reid have compromising photos of you or something?

Cos I don't know where you pulled that opinion from?

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
Stiffy,
not agreeing with you a lot today

Crickey!!!!! Not the first time. All is good. Its pretty good to have a bit of a friendly debate

I like the way Roos relates to his players and doesn't limit them. If they let them make a mistake he lets them learn from that and doesn't automatically bench them. With Eade it was totally different. He had all these strict team rules that eventually tire the players out. If a player made a mistake he was benched. He never really let his players play their game. While this worked for a perdion of a couple of years, players usually tire of this tactic after a while. When a player is afraid to stuff up he will never play his best footy.

Thats just my 2 cents worth. Do you still disagree with this?

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18

He had all these strict team rules that eventually tire the players out. If a player made a mistake he was benched. He never really let his players play their game. While this worked for a perdion of a couple of years, players usually tire of this tactic after a while. When a player is afraid to stuff up he will never play his best footy.

No, Eade isn't on my list either Stiffy, for all the reasons that you have stated.

Curiously, Kerley repeatedly makes the same comment about the Crows under Ayres. That they are too restricted by team rules, and are playing hesitantly without enjoying their footy.

He would like to see them play under the most simple of game plans and just go out and enjoy themselves, playing natural instinctive footy. He firmly believes that the results would be much much better.

There's a fair bit of truth in what Kerls is saying.

 

[jc67]

Originally posted by macca23
No, Eade isn't on my list either Stiffy, for all the reasons that you have stated.

Curiously, Kerley repeatedly makes the same comment about the Crows under Ayres. That they are too restricted by team rules, and are playing hesitantly without enjoying their footy.

He would like to see them play under the most simple of game plans and just go out and enjoy themselves, playing natural instinctive footy. He firmly believes that the results would be much much better.

There's a fair bit of truth in what Kerls is saying.

You got me macca,,,and stiffy,
the answer is somewere inb between. FLEXABLE TEAM RULES???
ala sheedy. or a sheedy trained clone?
you can stop ignoring me now stiffy, i'm over the inept coaching of Friday.
bring on the hawks.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
Crickey!!!!! Not the first time. All is good. Its pretty good to have a bit of a friendly debate

I like the way Roos relates to his players and doesn't limit them. If they let them make a mistake he lets them learn from that and doesn't automatically bench them. With Eade it was totally different. He had all these strict team rules that eventually tire the players out. If a player made a mistake he was benched. He never really let his players play their game. While this worked for a perdion of a couple of years, players usually tire of this tactic after a while. When a player is afraid to stuff up he will never play his best footy.

Thats just my 2 cents worth. Do you still disagree with this?

I don't disagree in principle, it's great to play with flair - Mick Nunan was one of the best I ever saw for that, but it goes both ways. you need discipline as well, especially when it goes south. I also think it's easier to want to run and show on the SCG, it's a different proposition elsewhere.

If your players don't follow game plans, don't man up, play unaccountable football you can't let them off the leash. Once you have established the building blocks of solid fundamental football, set them off.

Also Tom Hafey forged a pretty good running, unaccountable team up in Sydney in the 1980's, that too was good for a while.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
I don't disagree in principle, it's great to play with flair - Mick Nunan was one of the best I ever saw for that, but it goes both ways. you need discipline as well, especially when it goes south. I also think it's easier to want to run and show on the SCG, it's a different proposition elsewhere.

If your players don't follow game plans, don't man up, play unaccountable football you can't let them off the leash. Once you have established the building blocks of solid fundamental football, set them off.

Also Tom Hafey forged a pretty good running, unaccountable team up in Sydney in the 1980's, that too was good for a while.

No, you're right but there is strict and then there is strict.

Roos still has his players playing to the game style they still have team rules and structures to follow. Its just that with Eade those team rules and structures seemed TOO strict and TOO many of them. Its just the way it comes across. His too excessive flooding made for boring football.

While Wallace still flooded he also had a game plan that was attractive to watch. It might be just me but that style that Wallace implemented with Doggies had a bit of flair and and that attacking run where you set things up with that forward handball.

While both coaches like to flood, Wallace's style was more appealing to watch IMHO. I know win is a win BUT you like to enjoy watching your side play. If Eade was our coach, we would come very unattractive side to watch, which historiaclly has not been a case with the Crows.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18

I like the way Roos relates to his players and doesn't limit them. If they let them make a mistake he lets them learn from that and doesn't automatically bench them.

While that's true, Stiffmeister, Roos won't be available.

In the long run, if we are to replace Ayres, and we should because he's had his best shot and come up empty, there are not too many obvious options, other than:

Wallace - my choice, and I won't bore you with all the reasons why - again!!

Eade - just too negative and defensive.

Mark Harvey - nup. Born to be an assistant coach, not the coach.

Gary O'Donnell - unproven as a senior coach, but a genuine chance.

Guy McKenna - intelligent footballer and could well be an intelligent coach. A risk as is O'Donnell.

 

[Jerome]

Originally posted by macca23
Guy McKenna - intelligent footballer and could well be an intelligent coach. A risk as is O'Donnell.

Didnt McKenna coach in the WAFL? If so, what was his record?

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by macca23
Guy McKenna - intelligent footballer and could well be an intelligent coach. A risk as is O'Donnell.

I wouldn't like him either. He has leanred all his craft under Malthouse. While MM is a very good coach, he too can be way too defensive.

Personally, I would like to appoint O'Donnell who has learned from 2 of the best. He played under Sheeds and leanred his craft under Matthews. I don't think you can get better than that.

Wallace would be my second choice. Everyone else doesn't really inspire me.

The thing with O'Donnell is that you can bet your bottom dollar that he will come in and the first thing he will do is look to build a rock solid spine. You can't go wrong with that attitude. Wallace on the other hand is likely to come in and start feeding his obsession with midfielders.