We need to employ a new structure where the senior coaches and players are all accountable to one person, and ultimately that person is accountable for the club's ongoing performance.
For example, a senior coach may be under pressure to get results so they play older players who are either below the grade, out of form or just have no upside to help the club going forward, instead of playing youthful players that will take the club forward. A bit like recruiting and playing the likes of Miller, A.Edwards, keeping Newman 1-2 years too long etc.
On the other hand a manager identifies that we have weaknesses in certain areas that are not being addressed by senior players and therefore instructs the head coach to look for someone else capable of playing that position unless said senior play shows outstanding form at a lower level. The manager does not care about increasing the number of wins in the short term as their clear focus is on premierships only.
The manager will also assess the performance of the senior coach and other coaching staff throughout the year, not only in the background but in the public eye as well. The manager will not allow a coach to get stuck in their ways in relation to their gameplan if they can see it is not working and doesn't suit the team of players.
Overall the role of the manager is to oversee the production of a group of staff and players capable of winning us a premiership whilst having ultimate power in relation to all decisions that influence the team (leaving the admin to the board etc.). If the team is failing the manager can either make personnel changes or be sacked.
How would this benefit us?
The manager would be a step away from the coaches and players, and therefore would be able to make tougher decisions that offer long term benefit. In our situation they would have identified issues within our playing group and coaching staff that needed to be addressed much earlier, and would have been much closer to fixing them.
While a lot of these things would seem a no brainer to us it often seems clubs overlook things within their 4 walls because they believe in theit foundations it's one s**t. In other words trying to get Cotchin to battle through a hard tag instead of developing a team plan to help him escape a tag is an example of the dribble. Or, choosing to flog a dead horse like Newman when younger counterparts like Dea or Lennon were available just because he had a little more experience.
It is the decisions like these that would set a manager and a coach apart and make us a stronger club.
The manager would say after the game against Hawthorn that his coach got it completely wrong and never gave his players a chance to win. The manager would identify that with the season over senior players would be dropped for poor performance in favor of youngsters. The manager would not waste these opportunities on stinkers like Conca, S.Edwards, Arseberry, but would instead take risks on younger players and give them exposure.
A manager could make this club a ruthless powerhouse!
For example, a senior coach may be under pressure to get results so they play older players who are either below the grade, out of form or just have no upside to help the club going forward, instead of playing youthful players that will take the club forward. A bit like recruiting and playing the likes of Miller, A.Edwards, keeping Newman 1-2 years too long etc.
On the other hand a manager identifies that we have weaknesses in certain areas that are not being addressed by senior players and therefore instructs the head coach to look for someone else capable of playing that position unless said senior play shows outstanding form at a lower level. The manager does not care about increasing the number of wins in the short term as their clear focus is on premierships only.
The manager will also assess the performance of the senior coach and other coaching staff throughout the year, not only in the background but in the public eye as well. The manager will not allow a coach to get stuck in their ways in relation to their gameplan if they can see it is not working and doesn't suit the team of players.
Overall the role of the manager is to oversee the production of a group of staff and players capable of winning us a premiership whilst having ultimate power in relation to all decisions that influence the team (leaving the admin to the board etc.). If the team is failing the manager can either make personnel changes or be sacked.
How would this benefit us?
The manager would be a step away from the coaches and players, and therefore would be able to make tougher decisions that offer long term benefit. In our situation they would have identified issues within our playing group and coaching staff that needed to be addressed much earlier, and would have been much closer to fixing them.
While a lot of these things would seem a no brainer to us it often seems clubs overlook things within their 4 walls because they believe in theit foundations it's one s**t. In other words trying to get Cotchin to battle through a hard tag instead of developing a team plan to help him escape a tag is an example of the dribble. Or, choosing to flog a dead horse like Newman when younger counterparts like Dea or Lennon were available just because he had a little more experience.
It is the decisions like these that would set a manager and a coach apart and make us a stronger club.
The manager would say after the game against Hawthorn that his coach got it completely wrong and never gave his players a chance to win. The manager would identify that with the season over senior players would be dropped for poor performance in favor of youngsters. The manager would not waste these opportunities on stinkers like Conca, S.Edwards, Arseberry, but would instead take risks on younger players and give them exposure.
A manager could make this club a ruthless powerhouse!
