Rayzor, i usually appreciate your posts and all but...that post is way overdoing it in defence of Wallace. I know you liked him as coach but come on. One minute you excuse him as not being in charge of recruiting and then you want to give him credit because more players remain on our list from his reign than Frawley's.
Thing is ranger, there's still dozens of people who blame Wallace far more than any other individual for the players we recruited and drafted while he was at the club. If those people insist on refusing to accept that coaches these days get only a partial say at best in drafting and recruiting, then they need to at least give Wallace credit for getting us the best batch of young players we've ever had to work with.
That's the gist of what I wrote in the post you've referred to, my own personal belief is that Wallace coming in and forcing us to keep our draft picks marked a crucially important shift in club policy - one that overruled decades of bad practice from the board and far more recently, a couple of disastrous years of Miller trading our early picks: we could now have blokes like Fevola, Ball, Burgoyne, Lovett-Murray, Bradshaw etc. running around for us, instead we got genuine young stars from the draft.
Any side which can add players like Deledio, Cotchin, Reiwoldt, Foley and nearly a dozen other decent players (some of whom may well end up more valuable than the four aforementioned players) every five year draft cycle is eventually top-4 and maybe premiership bound.
I really don't get people mercilessly bagging a coach who was influential enough in his first years to put the policies in place which have led to us building a foundation for success at long last.
Frawley's reign was a disaster in terms of acquiring young talent.
Yes, to put it mildly, five 'decent' players with White one of them and the already mature Tuck - failing that badly in a 5yr drafting cycle continues to hurt you for 10yrs afterwards.
Wallace's recruits are very recent and most of them showed nothing under Wallace. The few who were good under him were mostly either givens at their draft position (Deledio, Cotchin) or were guys that he didn't necessarily want (Cousins, Riewoldt).
It's always a coach's cross to bear - many of the players recruited while they're at the helm are not able to contribute much until the next coach comes along. Bear in mind that ATM we're all thankful and appreciative that Hardwick is getting games into kids, but everyone here seems to forget that Wallace did do the same - e.g. got 50 games into a bloke like Edwards who is only this year physically ready to play AFL (and really showing the benefits of that), at the expense of a veteran who probably could have contributed more for Wallace in the then present.
Wallace promoted the club but it was all smoke and mirrors.
Mate, Wallace is on record saying that it would take until 2011 for our list to be back in seriously competitive shape - that was his reality. Later saying that we were 'locked and loaded' for finals in 2009 is merely him obeying the board's wishes - 'finals or else' - and trying his best to comply with those wishes when he knew in advance it would take everything to go our way for us to achieve what they asked.
He spent more time in the media talking than he did communicating with the young players that should have been his priority.
It's easy to throw 'should' around in hindsight, but the reality is
all coaches have their strengths and weaknesses. 4-5 years from now we might be lamenting that Hardwick was exceptional at getting the most from kids and developing a good culture in those youngsters, but later keeps getting his pants pulled down at the tactical matchday side of coaching during the business end of the season.
We got a junior development coach for the first time under Wallace, we got a player welfare officer for the first time under Wallace, he'd never coached at a club with either, perhaps he was guilty of not getting the balance right between giving them the space to do their job and developing a more personal relationship himself with those younger players? You'll note that nobody who was playing regular senior football complained that they didn't get his attention often enough - just the Coburg regulars, who did, I might add, have a Richmond appointed coach to give them feedback in line with the general aims and wishes of the senior coaching staff.
Wallace is an outstanding analyst and planner because he spent a lot of time watching footage. That's how he can make calls like that Deledio is best at HBF playing a Goddard-type role and be right. FWIW, I don't see anyone on the 'sorry' thread who called him clueless apologising that he was right and they were wrong, nor anyone apologising that they bagged him for persisting with the likes of King and White.
How do you explain his non appearances at training on numerous occassions?
Delegation Bob - right or otherwise. But anyone who implies Wallace didn't work hard enough ought to look at a photo of him at the start of his tenure and one at the end - he aged a decade in five years. I have no doubt whatsoever he'd be the kind of bloke regularly up at 3am looking at footage and toying with ideas. He gave it his best.
What about the change of gameplan the night of the Carlton game 2009?
Do you want to be more specific about how exactly the gameplan was altered?
Ultimately, Wallace knew that if we lost that night, our draw ensured that we would have a poor start to a crucial season and his career would be effectively over. I don't like coaches being put under that kind of pressure, I don't think it's constructive or helpful for anyone concerned.
What about his insistance on drafting Jordan McMahon?
He spent his whole time at the club trying to get a backline that could rebound. After a series of drafting disasters with the likes of Meyer, Roach and Raines (and about ten other similar types), he headed into his 4th year with the board demanding finals and no decent rebounders bar Newman, who point-blank refused to take the game on and break lines. It's no coincidence that our improvement this year has featured the likes of Connors and Edwards breaking lines across half-back - that's what we've missed for many years and what Wallace knew the side needed to improve. Unfortunately, the kids we did have were not physically ready (or a headcase in Connors' instance) or still stunk at the role after a lot of games (e.g. Raines, Hartigan etc.).
If the board demands finals, you do your best to fill the most important holes you have as best you can. Wallace wanted to take the long term road to 2011 and use the draft, the board wanted 'finals or else' immediately.
McMahon, Hislop and Thomson are March's 'gift' to our list, not Wallace's.
What about the self promotion of Tuesdays with Terry?
Did he name it that, or say he'll give access to the media on Tuesday's and they came up with a catchy title for it?
How can it be self-promotion when he only answered questions about the club or football in general,
not himself? He stuck up for our players constantly (even later in the piece when many of them were sticking a knife in his back), he always cast the club and its future in a positive light (a hanging offence apparently - selling false hope!), and every week our sponsors got just about the best deal in football for having their business featured prominently in the media - all from a club who'd been very bad at doing any of those things prior to him and paid heavily for it in sponsorship terms.
I clearly remember the years prior to Wallace when we couldn't get a positive story in the media for love or money, I clearly remember past Richmond coaches being a million miles out of their depth when it came to defending players, promoting the club or selling hope based on reality - I far preferred Wallace and many of you did too in the first years.
What about his demand of a send of game?
Can you actually prove that Wallace went to the club and 'demanded a send-off game?' That nobody just offered it to him and he accepted?
Love your loyalty to the guy, but move on mate, you won't find any support from anyone anyway.
a) I'm not loyal to Wallace, I just really hate seeing a lynch mob of people hanging someone on largely false evidence. I'd defend anyone in the same circumstances. Most people are carrying on with a level of vindictiveness typically reserved for an ex - just totally blind to any good points about that person.
b) I'm perfectly happy defending a position all by myself if I'm right.
Wallace was no good for our club, he lacked integrity and honesty and lost the playing group due to this.
I think far too much is made of Wallace's supposed lack of integrity and honesty, basically because he really lacks charisma and does not come across as very likeable. Have a look at the ugly charade Voss led people through with Brown's injury this year - will he be remembered for lacking integrity and honesty? Nope, he's charismatic and generally well liked.
Wallace DID lose the playing group and his sacking was certainly necessary for that reason. However, I'd also argue that the complete lack of support for him from the board and others in positions of power at the club heavily attributed to the player's losing faith in his ability, as did the demands for 'finals or else' which forced him to try and re-jig all they'd been working on gameplan-wise in order to get a list still way out of balance into a pointless finals series.
Hardwick has those qualities in spades, you will find our players would jump in front of a bullet for him, even the guys struggling to get a game at the moment.
No doubt.
Ideally Wallace would have had a bloke like Hardwick as an assistant...as I'm sure you're aware, there's been no shortage of tension between Clarkson and the Hawks' playing group over the years, a people person and all-round good fella like Hardwick is ideal in those kinds of circumstances to bridge the gap between coach and player(s).
I always said Wallace chose his assistants poorly, but coming to a club like Richmond where he reversed our fortunes immediately in his first year with a fantastic coaching performance in '05 before Brown went down, yet still had numerous Machiavellian characters trying to put up millions to get Sheedy instead, plus the hype for Campbell to take over last year, I can fully understand why he chose the assistants he did.
Wallace may have drafted these players but he was unable to get them playing well. He was reliant on Richo, Bowden, Brown and the like, who were either already here or traded for as "off the shelf" already developed players. That he had the talent on the list makes his inability to develop them even more damning IMO.
You can't make players grow faster than nature allows Dustin. I'm sure Wallace would have loved Cotchin running through the midfield (not to mention having Martin available for him), Connors to become a desperately needed piece of the puzzle down back rather than acting like a whiskey swilling spoiled brat, Edwards breaking lines, Reiwoldt ruling the forwardline...unfortunately, none of them were ready, though all of them were given every chance to develop.
The very few blokes who were old enough and big enough like Tuck, Jackson, Moore, White and King, all developed well under Wallace. He also managed to get a lot of games into the younger blokes despite having the demand for immediate success hanging over his head constantly. Guys like Reiwoldt, McGuane, Thursfield and Edwards are as advanced as they are now because they were given a lot of games early on and preferenced over players like Tivendale, Kellaway, Gaspar, Schulz and others who weren't taking us anywhere long term.
A majority of the older blokes like Richo, Bowden, Simmonds and Brown all played the best football of their career under him.
These things are hardly damning IMO.
...you still expect us to swallow your version of his "success"? at the club?
You're entitled to believe what you like t08, I think my initial post set out very clearly the contrast between the Wallace era and the unmitigated nightmare which was the decade before him. One era has left us in a very solid position for the future, the other was the cause of all our problems.
I also firmly believe that Wallace got as much success out of our group as any coach in the same circumstances could. I enjoyed our '05 and '06 seasons where we were just a fit Nathan Brown away from playing finals, I enjoyed '08 where we were again unlucky not to play finals, I think we had justified excuses from injuries in '07, and I'd much prefer to have been a Richmond supporter for the last five years than a Melbourne supporter. We had no tanking, no tainted future flags, and the three seasons out of four that he coached out completely, he got a better result than anyone would have thought our list could achieve until he raised the bar on our expectations through good coaching. Ironically, if he'd done a Dean Bailey he'd be better thought of - his amazing early success with a shit list ended up condemning him.
Sometimes success can be just not failing as badly as others would in a situation where it's nigh on impossible to achieve universally recognised success.
Appreciate your well thought out post Rayz, and maybe I should have put a smiley emoticon on my post as it was more in jest than anything.
Fair enough tug, yours was just first in line and a lot of people do blame solely Wallace for our drafting.
But isn't it strange that finally we are seeing the likes of Tuck, Edwards, Connors and even King at times, flourish under a coach with the vision that we have needed for 15 years.
Tuck wouldn't be playing AFL football without Wallace's eye for talent, he went from being Frawley and Campbell's whipping boy to our best mid over the course of one pre-season under Wallace. No doubt Hardwick's influence has improved his football ~10%, but we have no evidence that Wallace didn't constantly ask Tucky to focus harder on the same things. In fact, this may be highly likely seeing he commented in his first weeks back in the media that Newman and Bowden needed to take the game on and break lines, not play individually safe football which hurts the team. He'd obviously been telling both that for years (demoted Bowden for it), this year after he's left Newman has taken the game on and he's been three times as valuable as he ever was under Wallace.
When a new coach comes in on a several year contract everyone's spot is up for grabs...perhaps that influenced these changes, perhaps Hardwick's just better at getting players to obey instructions? (though it helps if you're not a dead man walking)
Edwards improves each year he gets big enough to play senior football. I think Wallace did well by us getting ~50 games into him before Hardwick took over. I think he did the right thing by us holding Connors back and not rewarding a poor attitude with senior games - most of the disciplinary action he's had from the club was in the Wallace era...it laid a foundation for Hardwick's actions and Connors' turnaround at the least.
King's played better games under Wallace than he has this year (got Brownlow votes for them too), I think he and Wallace were victims of the gaping hole in our rebounding defender stocks and he was obligated to play where he's too short and can be exploited - he's clearly a run-with tagger, not a HBF or back pocket.
I know which coach I prefer.
Ideally we would have had a Hardwick style coach back in '05, along with a board that supported a full rebuild rather than a patch up job, and the financial strength to undergo that rebuild. Having said that, it may well come to pass that in the next few years as we get deeper into finals, the wheel turns and we less need kids babied through and developed, and more need a gun tactical matchday coach who can out-think his rival as Wallace so often did.
I really hope Hardwick's capable of being that master tactician, I have a lot of respect for the way he's gone about the role so far, but he wouldn't be the first 'bloody good bloke'coach to be outpointed by a better tactician on game day.