West Coast management

[McKenna for PM]

This is a response to another thread. But I feel so strongly about this in the wake of that game that I am also putting it here.

I want Ken Judge's critics to also consider the possibility that WC management is at fault. I use the example of the new jerseys. As soon as they came in we started living on the bottom half of the ladder. Not are they, but their inception signalled a lack of appreciation for tradition, and demonstrated to the players and staff that West Coast Incorporated is more interested in merchandising than the welfare of the team they are at the helm of.

Ken Judge is in my opinion a poor coach. I would love to be wrong. But regardless of this, the fact is that he has been given a contract that is still current, and if the management kicks him out before seeing it through then the faith I have in them will reach negative figures.

 

[ONE EYE]

Alan Jeans has been in Perth this week. He said on the radio today that this is a time for the Club to consolidate and get behind the Club. Not look to knock off Admin & Coaches. Of course Yabby Jeans coached Judge at Hawthorn but he is a very wise man in football matters. Judge is building our next Premiership team. Just be patient. He cant click his fingers and expect all our youngsters to become experienced overnight. Next year we should see some improvement in endeavour. But the results will be no better. Especially without kemp and McIntosh.

As for our jumpers. I hate them. I like the Ochre colour but the jumper design - in words of Kevin Bartlett- looks like a dogs breakfast.

GO EAGLES

 

[Frodo]

It's a club. Other coaches always support each other. Eagles management is bad for recruiting Judge and keeping him.

Next year will be better. Just look at the kids we've got. Where have I heard that before?

Freo for the last 7 years. Do we really want to be like them tossers?

 

[GoEagles]

I say we try and get Brian Cook back from Geelong. I don't think Nisbett has done as good a job as Brian Cook did in the early-mid 90s

 

[Frodo]

No doubt about it, Cook has been missed.

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

Listen to yourselves here people, you're blaming the performances on a geurnsey!!!

Last year we blamed the crowds for the eagles performances, then we turned on KJ, but once we realised he was staying the blame turned to the players. Now you people are blaming a CEO and a geurnsey?

Come on!!!!Stop making these pathetic excuses and accept the fact that we are a poor team at the moment.

The CEO's job is to keep the eagles finances and board organised, he doesn't need to know ******** all about footy, thats where the coaches come in(though our coaches don't know much more than Nisbett anyway). And the jumpers are there so that the players don't run out there naked(and obviously so they recognise each other easier). Tradition doesn't play a part in winning games. Cousins was like 15yrs old when the eagles last won a premiership, the rest of our rookies mostly weren't even in their teenage years yet.

If tradition played a part in winning games and premierships than collingwood would go undefeated.

 

[McKenna for PM]

With all due respect d4e, asserting that tradition doesn't win games is blatantly wrong.

I won't bother to elaborate on a response to the Collingwood example with that of Essendon and Carlton. But the team now with the new strip looks like a young, cheap club not dissimilar to the way Fremantle has always looked. When players are instilled with a sense of pride and tradition in their team then they are far more likely to go that extra step, and put in that extra effort on the field. I am suggesting that the lack of heart and guts our team has been criticised for is related to the lack of pride they have in the team they are playing for. And as more of our veterans retire the problem will be compounded.

The CEO's job is to manage financial and MANAGEMENT matters. Part of a management issue is building on the proud tradition that West Coast has achieved for itself, not selling it off.

Look at Carlton. A team steeped in tradition, INCLUDING one of success. If John "%$*#(*$#(*)#" Elliot were to suggest changing the jumpers he would be shot (actually maybe he should suggest that!!!!). By firstly changing the guernseys West Coast has been built on, and secondly replacing them with such foul ones, management has shown that they are not interested in holding on to a tradition of success, and therefore are largely responsible for making the players feel the way they obviously do regarding their club.

I am worried that the change of the jumpers sent us down a road we may not be able to find our way off. What we need is for management to take the first step in a number of difficult ones, swallow their pride and change them back.

 

[Mr Eagle]

West Coast tradition

These are certainly not excuses for why we are losing but I think they are indicative of the problem that affects the whole West Coast infrastructure - a lack of passion for the club.

Jumpers: changed. For no real reason.

Club colours: at the very least, "amended". Again, for no real reason.

Club song: all the good stirring bits about sticking it up the Vics removed. I would say that barring only Freo (now there's a familiar scenario!) we have the worst club song in the league.


And there are probably smaller things as well, but these are the big front-and-centre ones that have been annoying me for some time.

 

[ONE EYE]

The buck stops with the CEO. Just look at Freo. Hatt is gone. Soon followed by Drum.

But lets not get confused about their roles. Judge had been given a four year contract. He is known as a good recruiter and developer of talent. We need him to run that full term before assessing the results. If we gave him the boot now no one would do any better.

Back to the CEO. Nessie gave the players a real burst the other day. His necks on the line to. He is responsible for the football Department and is answerable to the Board. So he is responsible for the recruiting staff and Coaching staff.

But we again must look back to the previous regime. Cook and Malthouse. Please refer to todays article in the West (Pre Game Liftout) to see our errors in recruiting since the 94 Premiership. Lets just see if Nesbit and Judge can lift the Club over the next two years.

BE PATIENT. ENJOY WATCHING THE YOUNG PLAYERS DEVELOP. THIS WEEK IT IS JEREMY HUMM MAKING HIS DEBUT. HE WILL BE A BEAUTY.

GO EAGLES

 

[plays tall]

I read the article re drafting. some surprising admissions about how they ended up missing out on some good players.

trevor nisbett says they didn't think simon black would go so high. i remember reading the herald sun's draft preview that year (which is a prediction of who'll get drafted). they tipped simon black as an early draft. its a bit disappointing if melbourne journalists have got a better assessment of wa youngsters than the eagles recruiting department. its even more disappointing that the eagles ran the risk of missing out on him and assumed he would go late when it was publicised over here that he would go early.

who's in charge of recruiting at the eagles now? i hope its not the same people as those in charge in the years Nisbett talks about. maybe they should get mick moylan back if he's free. he did a good job at the eagles (and now port).

one other thing how is mcdougall going. i haven't read anything about him since they drafted him. is he injured? getting a game?

 

[daddy_4_eyes]

Last week he played a couple of quarters with his WAFL reserves side.

From what i hear he is a skin and bones kid who doesn't really have much skill but rather potential. He is considered a 'prospect', that is he was drafted because he has potential and is not likely to make his debut any time soon.

 

[Visro]

Originally posted by daddy_4_eyes
From what i hear he is a skin and bones kid who doesn't really have much skill but rather potential. He is considered a 'prospect', that is he was drafted because he has potential and is not likely to make his debut any time soon.

I think your source may be wrong. I saw him play for my school last year and even when he had hamstring problems he was very good. He is certainly more than potential....what might be his downfall though is his commitment, he is still quite immature and doesn't realise yet that he is being payed to play good football.

 

[RacerX]

Some of the posts above have left me feeling more than a bit disappointed with select eagles fans. The "we're struggling but at least we aren't as bad as freo" attitude and the "if we don't do this we may end up like freo" comments are beneath you and will be your downfall if everyone at the club feels that way.

Fact - There is a fierce rivalry between Freo and the Eagles.

OK now can we move on and have a serious discussion about the disappointing performance of both WA teams. What you people seem to be missing is that a lot of both teams problems are connected. Don't forget the WAFC being the common denominator for both clubs in terms of how they started and how they are run.

If you ask me both clubs could be run better. Where did we get this unaccountable and bureaucratic WAFC who should be more interested developing WA footy and less interested in making a buck and treating members like a commodities.

 

[Mr Eagle]

Originally posted by RacerX
OK now can we move on and have a serious discussion about the disappointing performance of both WA teams. What you people seem to be missing is that a lot of both teams problems are connected. Don't forget the WAFC being the common denominator for both clubs in terms of how they started and how they are run.

If you ask me both clubs could be run better. Where did we get this unaccountable and bureaucratic WAFC who should be more interested developing WA footy and less interested in making a buck and treating members like a commodities.

But you miss one very large point: the Eagles' woes (the large margins in particular) stem not from coaching, or management, but from the player group. Yes, management has a lot of answering to do for things like the jumper issue, but not for the form of the team. These are two different and distinct problems - and only one of them has parked us 2nd from bottom. West Coast could be run by the most club-loyal and committed managers possible, and this would not alter our team or its efforts. And theoretically this club could continue indefinitely with the current board/WAFC structure and still achieve good results.

 

[McKenna for PM]

Originally posted by Mr Eagle


But you miss one very large point: the Eagles' woes (the large margins in particular) stem not from coaching, or management, but from the player group. Yes, management has a lot of answering to do for things like the jumper issue, but not for the form of the team. These are two different and distinct problems - and only one of them has parked us 2nd from bottom. West Coast could be run by the most club-loyal and committed managers possible, and this would not alter our team or its efforts. And theoretically this club could continue indefinitely with the current board/WAFC structure and still achieve good results.

Mr Eagle,
Can you back any of that up? It seems to me that the management is at the core of the performance of a team. It is them that ultimately decide on everything, from coach and uniforms, to playing venues and member functions. They oversee the most fundamental aspects of a football club. It is also them that give the club direction and drive. Sure, the players are also responsible, but it is the management that employs the coach that employs the players, and it is management's responsibility to ensure that the "employees" are working hard and in unison. Now just because they are analogous to a corporation, it doesn't mean they should have the same policies, or at least not in the same order. The primary responsibility of club management is to build a TEAM. Making money should NOT be the number one priority, especially for a club whose supporter base is so large.

It seems clear that on the one hand, most Melbourne clubs have no problem forging a tradition of competitiveness and good football culture oweing to their geographic location, but they have a problem with making money. On the other hand, interstate teams seem to have a reverse problem - plenty of money but less tradition and culture. Management should set its policies around a problem like this - in WCE example, they should worry less about commercial enterprise and more about forging club tradition, pride, etc. It is this that creates a gutsy player group, not money. Do we want hard hitting, gutsy players or do we want overpaid showponies who are more interested in the financial aspects of footy?

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this nor whether I explained myself properly, so I apologise if this post is a load of crap - it's past my bedtime.

 

[Mr Eagle]

Originally posted by McKenna for PM


Mr Eagle,
Can you back any of that up?

"Logic" comes to mind, but that's not necessarily all there is to it

My backing up of it comes mainly from the results of our season thus far. Nothing changed in our management structure between the Carlton game and the Brisbane game, but the team's attitude did. No one got sacked the weeks we won, no monumental announcements were made either. But we still won. What changed in those weeks was the list of available players, and the response of the coaching staff to past results.

The only things that realistically affect a sporting team's performance are direct influences - the coach and his style, injuries, physical bars to being at place X at time Y, etc. Whether the club is selling its soul to the devil may have some impact on the club's appeal to future players, but players within the system already would not be influenced by much beyond the things they have to deal with directly.

IMHO.

 

[McKenna for PM]

It seems to me that you need to distinguish between short term performance and that of the long term.

In the short term, much of the factors are dependent on the coach and the players, but over a longer period, management is far more central to performance. Coaches are selected by management, and players come and go. It is the management that is in for the long haul, and it is their responsibility to oversee the discreet changes that really shape a club. Where WCE is at the moment is the result of the way it has been managed. Maybe all this was inevitable, or maybe good management (what's another word for them - I'm sick typing that word in!) would have better prepared themselves for the period we are currently enduring? But either way, the players aren't so much to blame as the directors (there's a word!). They're young guys who should be supported and shown the way to do it. And it is the coaching staff that do this. And who is responsible for the coaching staff???? MANAGEMENT!!!!!

 

[Mr Eagle]

So management are to blame because they got a coach who couldn't make everything bright and breezy instantly? Don't kid yourself - we'd be stuck down around this level regardless of the coach. The player base has been the victim of the draft system, age, and injury. No coach could avoid the inevitable downturn in performance.

So in some ways, the board did the right thing by getting Judge - a coach with a mediocre win-loss record but with a reputation for good recruitment and player development. The team was going to struggle on the ladder regardless. So why not focus on the future? It may suck having to lose most weeks, but as we've seen at Freo, blaming a coach for performance does not solve everything.

 

[McKenna for PM]

Originally posted by Mr Eagle
So management are to blame because they got a coach who couldn't make everything bright and breezy instantly? Don't kid yourself - we'd be stuck down around this level regardless of the coach. The player base has been the victim of the draft system, age, and injury. No coach could avoid the inevitable downturn in performance.

So in some ways, the board did the right thing by getting Judge - a coach with a mediocre win-loss record but with a reputation for good recruitment and player development. The team was going to struggle on the ladder regardless. So why not focus on the future? It may suck having to lose most weeks, but as we've seen at Freo, blaming a coach for performance does not solve everything.

I'm not saying that it is only because of poor management that we are in this position. I do think that this was inevitable. What I am saying, however, is that I'm worried management has not ensured our club's future, such that we could be in this rut almost indefinitely. All that really separates us from Fremantle is the fact that we have a history of success. I am worried that some of the moves from the directors are not protecting that proud history, which would put us in their position which, I think you'll agree, would not be all that fun.

 

[Mr Eagle]

What do you propose they might be doing better to ensure our playing future? I don't see that they have enough power over on-field matters to be screwing around with such vital things.

 

[McKenna for PM]

It's not that they don't have enough power on on-field matters, they are the employers of the coach and the players, they have the ultimate say. But they are not coaches, and I don't think they have a place to dictate any on-field activities.

But as far as the long-term issues go, they should never have changed our guernsey, and should admit it was a bad move and change it back. They should also fiercely protect the tradition WC's short history has been built upon, for example by ensuring that the club song remains (I'm not sure whether we've always had the one we have now so that's an assumption I'm making). Another move would be to ensure that corporate seating and membership is kept at a suitable level in order to protect the rights and support of the middle and lower class fans. Just a couple of examples, I'm sure more will come to me soon.

 

[Mr Eagle]

This is the point I was trying to make:

there ARE problems in management, but they are separate and realistically unrelated to our current performance woes. Whatever the myriad of management mistakes that have been made, we can't blame them for the lack of premiership points.

 

[McKenna for PM]

I never was blaming them directly for our current poor performance. I do however think they have played a part in it, particularly with regard to the new jerseys. But there's no denying that the problems of the here and now is more strongly attributable to the coach and players. It is, however, unfortunate that Ken Judge is the scapegoat for a series of blunders that have collectively set our team back in the task of rebuilding a team, not all of which (much less in my opinion) are his fault.

I'm going to try an anology (apologies if it's bad)-
It's like a ship that hits a reef. It's the captain's (ie. coach) fault that it hit the reef, but it's also significantly the fault of the control room (ie. management), who should have adequately ensured that a) the captain was a good seaman and b) that he had been properly forewarned of all factors including the prevailing weather conditions, position of the reef etc., and given him a good suggested course of action to avoid the reef. Both parties are potentially responsible, but which and for how much of it is difficult to tell.

I believe it is the fault of both parties. Ken Judge should be blamed for HIS mistakes, and management for theirs, and I am therefore highlighting the fact that a lot of KJ's critics don't properly understand how faults of management manifest themselves.