Opinion Who will be our next head coach?

[plugger66]

Saad was very good before his drug issues. He was cut without being given much chance to get back to full fitness, possibly because he wasn't a hard working grind them down type. Richo has a preference for utilitarian work horses.

You need to stop blaming coaches for lack of players ability. If as you say he was cut because of that reason why wouldn’t another club realise that and pick him up. I will tell you why. Not good enough.

 

[gringo2011]

Sippos is playing but it’s American footy Agree though. Where is the rush for all our delisted players. Even munching tin and Goddard will probably be gone at the end of this year.

Very few players delisted from a bottom club will get another chance, it means nothing at all. Very few get a go from a top club either actually.

 

[gringo2011]

Let’s get this straight. Clubs have recruiters all over the country and see stars and players not up to it. Are you saying these same sort of people miss out on our guys because of our development. Surely if they are so smart they would see our players were delisted because of poor development and say let’s get this player because I know with good development they will become a good player. No they don’t because the players we delist just aren’t good enough. If it was development there would be a fair few players picked up. The one thing we have done right is lose bugger all players that have gone to other clubs because we delisted them.

Are these the same people that have snubbed state league players for years and on the back of Ryan and Kelly now all watch VFL, SANFL and WAFL religiously? They are sheep and have no creativity.

 

[plugger66]

Very few players delisted from a bottom club will get another chance, it means nothing at all. Very few get a go from a top club either actually.

Of course they don’t because they aren’t good enough. You seem to think it’s our development. Obviously other clubs don’t otherwise they would back themselves with their good development but they don’t.

 

[plugger66]

Are these the same people that have snubbed state league players for years and on the back of Ryan and Kelly now all watch VFL, SANFL and WAFL religiously? They are sheep and have no creativity.

They still got picked up eventually. Where are our players that are picked up eventually. Why didn’t they go back to the state leagues and stand out like kelly did. Again simple reason. Not good enough.

Where is the parkers and Wilkies from our delisted players.

 

[austinnn]

All I'm saying is you can't argue it both ways.

Same system, same coach. Some improve, others don't.

Truth is in there somewhere.

I think Bartel knows his stuff when it comes to footy. Multiple premiership player, Brownlow medalist etc.

However I feel that because his comments go against the anti-cho narrative in here they are dismissed as poorly informed.

IMO.

So once again, maybe you've confused the idea of a coach improving player with players who are good.

Firstly just because Bartel knows how to play footy really well and knows about player development, doesn't mean he's across how the saints players were developed.

Secondly I'm not dismissing his comments, I'm skeptical about them and want elaboration. I'm curious to see the details of which aspects of which players he's improved, that's all, and even if Saint Roo himself said it, I'd still want to know the details.

It doesn't matter because I'll never get those answers and Richo is done in any case, so I'll shut up now, thanks for the discussion though.

 

[plugger66]

So once again, maybe you've confused the idea of a coach improving player with players who are good.

Firstly just because Bartel knows how to play footy really well and knows about player development, doesn't mean he's across how the saints players were developed.

Secondly I'm not dismissing his comments, I'm skeptical about them and want elaboration. I'm curious to see the details of which aspects of which players he's improved, that's all, and even if Saint Roo himself said it, I'd still want to know the details.

It doesn't matter because I'll never get those answers and Richo is done in any case, so I'll shut up now, thanks for the discussion though.

But he is closer to knowing more about development than people on the internet. Most here think richo has control of development off the field. His development role is only on field both here and sandy.

 

[Therealsaint]

Scott ponders future as Richardson stares down barrel

Brad Scott is considering whether or not to return to AFL coaching in 2020, while St Kilda coach Alan Richardson faces renewed pressure.

www.theage.com.au

At least it's not sounding as definitive as it was. Players want Ratts apparently.

Of course they do

 

[plugger66]

Of course they do

Well more don’t than do so of course not.

 

[Therealsaint]

Well more don’t than do so of course not.

Well gringo is the simon "lethlean" of this forum and if he says they prefer ratts than who are we to question him,he also has it on good authority than scott is not much chop either so maybe we should lock that in as well

 

[VDS66]

Firstly just because Bartel knows how to play footy really well and knows about player development, doesn't mean he's across how the saints players were developed.

Lol and we do?

Here's the thing, you cannot decipher the causes.

However in this bizarre universe known as footy, we are happy to apportion responsibility to the head coach.

If the team performs badly, it's on the coach.

If the team performs well, it's on the coach. Or in our case the assistant coach.

So if we are going to blame the coach for players supposedly stagnating, you must - if you are consistent - attribute all player improvement to him as well.

It is IMO inconsistent to pick and choose between poor player and poor development in the context of this discussion.


Could he have gotten more out of certain players? Absolutely. But thats a different discussion... Which applies to every other AFL coach.

 

[austinnn]

But he is closer to knowing more about development than people on the internet. Most here think richo has control of development off the field. His development role is only on field both here and sandy.

So who is responsible for player development, besides the player themselves?

The development coaches, working closely with their head coach and coaching director, surely.

That's like saying a director is not responsible for any fault of the workers. Not directly at fault, but ultimately responsible. Someone is charged with getting those workers working efficiently, in sync with the program and if things go **** up, that someone has to carry the can.

Trout was axed after a litany of poor choices as head of list management, not Richo because it's a different department, but player development is coaching and Richo is head coach, and Sexton is Director of Coaching, one would assume they are running the show.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

So once again, maybe you've confused the idea of a coach improving player with players who are good.

Firstly just because Bartel knows how to play footy really well and knows about player development, doesn't mean he's across how the saints players were developed.

Secondly I'm not dismissing his comments, I'm skeptical about them and want elaboration. I'm curious to see the details of which aspects of which players he's improved, that's all, and even if Saint Roo himself said it, I'd still want to know the details.

It doesn't matter because I'll never get those answers and Richo is done in any case, so I'll shut up now, thanks for the discussion though.

Bartel also said during the kangaroos match a couple of times that Acres was a “kick first midfielder” when any of us who watch him week on week out know he is a break tackle and handball first midfielder. He is gun shy with his kicking. That to me says he doesn’t watch the Saints particularly closely.

He also said on Talking Footy the other night that Gold Coast need to improve their development as draft picks don’t mean much if you don’t have development right (or something along those lines), so he does rate how important development is to a footy club.

 

[plugger66]

So who is responsible for player development, besides the player themselves?

The development coaches, working closely with their head coach and coaching director, surely.

That's like saying a director is not responsible for any fault of the workers. Not directly at fault, but ultimately responsible. Someone is charged with getting those workers working efficiently, in sync with the program and if things go **** up, that someone has to carry the can.

Trout was axed after a litany of poor choices as head of list management, not Richo because it's a different department, but player development is coaching and Richo is head coach, and Sexton is Director of Coaching, one would assume they are running the show.

The develop coaches do the work. They would consult with the head coach on where they think they should be playing on game day. I can only go with what Damien Hardwick told a group of us at Ormond. Reckon he knows more than me and maybe anyone else on here. He said there were many areas he just doesn't have the time to get involved in. That was one of many. I gather most clubs are the same.

 

[BrutThough]

Bartel also said during the kangaroos match a couple of times that Acres was a “kick first midfielder” when any of us who watch him week on week out know he is a break tackle and handball first midfielder. He is gun shy with his kicking. That to me says he doesn’t watch the Saints particularly closely.

He also said on Talking Footy the other night that Gold Coast need to improve their development as draft picks don’t mean much if you don’t have development right (or something along those lines), so he does rate how important development is to a footy club.

I thought Bartel was correct re Acres. He needs to be better at giving off the quick option thats there instead of always trying to take on the tackler. He just needs better awareness. It's okay to take on the tackler when he is just outside our 50 and has space to work with but it's just dumb to take them on 15m out from the opposition goal when there was a free player there.

 

[VDS66]

Bartel also said during the kangaroos match a couple of times that Acres was a “kick first midfielder” when any of us who watch him week on week out know he is a break tackle and handball first midfielder. He is gun shy with his kicking. That to me says he doesn’t watch the Saints particularly closely.

He also said on Talking Footy the other night that Gold Coast need to improve their development as draft picks don’t mean much if you don’t have development right (or something along those lines), so he does rate how important development is to a footy club.

Yeah and he was asked an opinion about Richo. One of his replies was that he has developed some young kids.

Then some people on here got shirty because heaven forbid we admit Richo actually did some things right.

I guess it comes down to who says it and how it fits the narrative in here as to whether the opinion has any merit.

It's like when King write a negative article about Richo.

Oh but although King is a flog he's spot on with this article... Then if he wrote something positive he's back to being a flog.

PS: where do you watch Acres from?

 

[mightymalaka]

Those pesky unbiased experts are confusing the issue yet again!

We should be taking absolutely no notice whatsoever to what they have to say
And instead trust all the important decisions to me!

1st and only decision.......
P!ss on the fire and call the dog....It's over!
Someone turn out the lights and ffs padlock the doors shut!

 

[NarklesHelmet]

The develop coaches do the work. They would consult with the head coach on where they think they should be playing on game day. I can only go with what Damien Hardwick told a group of us at Ormond. Reckon he knows more than me and maybe anyone else on here. He said there were many areas he just doesn't have the time to get involved in. That was one of many. I gather most clubs are the same.

While his title isn’t a development coach (there are coaches as you rightly point out with that title at the club that work with players during the week) what you’re discounting is the key role matches have in player development. So Dimma, no doubt a modest man, won’t be taking credit for how big an impact he and the reserves head coach have on the development of their players on match days, but that doesn't make it the case.

A high level development coach/psychologist I know used a rule that “one match is worth 20 training sessions” so the head coach, even without the official role of “development coach” plays an absolutely crucial role in developing players in any professional sports club because:

1. He has a key say in how the team plays. Some game plans will work better with young players and promote different skills than others.
2. He is their main mentor on match day when they are getting their most accelerated development happening. This is key as he and the line coaches are giving them direct feedback on what’s happening in the most stressful part of their work week when good habits can be formed and reinforced to improve development, bad bits of play can be talked about in real time or, if a coach isn’t careful, players and playing groups can be scarred by bad things that happen on the field, stifling development.

Downplaying the role head coaches have in development also discounts the key role coaches they have during the week at training. During main training sessions the head coach is the key player in setting standards across the whole team. When does he choose to blow the whistle and stop training? Is it when a player misses a tackle or when they miss a target? This leadership filters down every day to the playing group and the effect of their coaching (for good or bad) compounds over many years. There is no doubt after 6 years for example that Richo has had, the players are playing in the style he has instilled into them.

And lastly, linked to point 2, he has a big say over match feedback and what players should work on to get better. What he prioritizes and values, the team does. If he values players tackling over skills, he will highlight this to them in their feedback for example.

One thing I’m always fascinated by when you watch players talk about playing under great coaches is a common theme I’ve heard from all of them: namely, they knew from the first minute of the first coaching session how good the coach was. The were meticulous and set very high standards. Eventually, these standards were upheld by the playing leaders themselves which can give an illusion of the players being more important than the coach but make no mistake, without the coach setting standards and maintaining them, great teams don’t develop.

To sum it up, it’s pretty simple really. Because matches are where most development happens and the coaches play a key role in matches, head coaches are inextricably linked to player development for good or bad.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

Yeah and he was asked an opinion about Richo. One of his replies was that he has developed some young kids.

Then some people on here got shirty because heaven forbid we admit Richo actually did some things right.

I guess it comes down to who says it and how it fits the narrative in here as to whether the opinion has any merit.

It's like when King write a negative article about Richo.

Oh but although King is a flog he's spot on with this article... Then if he wrote something positive he's back to being a flog.

PS: where do you watch Acres from?

I was kind of agreeing with you in the original comment actually... saying that listening to a media commentator to validate an argument on a point you agree with while dismissing him on another point is selective. My point essentially was they are just media commentators who have an opinion... it's not necessarily gospel and if, in the case of Bartel and Acres, he makes a comment completely at odds with how the kid has played since day 1, you lose respect for him a bit. We're all like that, some commentators we like and listen to more than others, it's pretty natural.

And I watch Saints games on TV a couple of times a week. Have since I moved away after watching and playing footy for years live. Honestly, I've never found a huge difference in how I understand a game having watched both for a long time (in fact all my friends from Australia who come and stay with me note how with time-zones I get to see way more games on TV than they do but I digress...) but if others think watching on TV invalidates or lessens the value of opinion, then go for it, I can't stop you.

 

[plugger66]

While his title isn’t a development coach (there are coaches as you rightly point out with that title at the club that work with players during the week) what you’re discounting is the key role matches have in player development. So Dimma, no doubt a modest man, won’t be taking credit for how big an impact he and the reserves head coach have on the development of their players on match days, but that doesn't make it the case.

A high level development coach/psychologist I know used a rule that “one match is worth 20 training sessions” so the head coach, even without the official role of “development coach” plays an absolutely crucial role in developing players in any professional sports club because:

1. He has a key say in how the team plays. Some game plans will work better with young players and promote different skills than others.
2. He is their main mentor on match day when they are getting their most accelerated development happening. This is key as he and the line coaches are giving them direct feedback on what’s happening in the most stressful part of their work week when good habits can be formed and reinforced to improve development, bad bits of play can be talked about in real time or, if a coach isn’t careful, players and playing groups can be scarred by bad things that happen on the field, stifling development.

Downplaying the role head coaches have in development also discounts the key role coaches they have during the week at training. During main training sessions the head coach is the key player in setting standards across the whole team. When does he choose to blow the whistle and stop training? Is it when a player misses a tackle or when they miss a target? This leadership filters down every day to the playing group and the effect of their coaching (for good or bad) compounds over many years. There is no doubt after 6 years for example that Richo has had, the players are playing in the style he has instilled into them.

And lastly, linked to point 2, he has a big say over match feedback and what players should work on to get better. What he prioritizes and values, the team does. If he values players tackling over skills, he will highlight this to them in their feedback for example.

One thing I’m always fascinated by when you watch players talk about playing under great coaches is a common theme I’ve heard from all of them: namely, they knew from the first minute of the first coaching session how good the coach was. The were meticulous and set very high standards. Eventually, these standards were upheld by the playing leaders themselves which can give an illusion of the players being more important than the coach but make no mistake, without the coach setting standards and maintaining them, great teams don’t develop.

To sum it up, it’s pretty simple really. Because matches are where most development happens and the coaches play a key role in matches, head coaches are inextricably linked to player development for good or bad.

I certainly didn't down play his role as development coach on match day. I actually that was his part in development. Now this is where we all have different opinion. I believe Clark and Coffield going back to the seconds doesn't hurt development. Others think it may. Also many people wanted Clark to play as a mid. He has had his 2 best games as a HBF. Seems ok development to me.

As for how players talk about great coaches well im not sure I see the point of that comment. Doubt anyone has said Richo is a great coach. He is going to be sacked after all. I must say I find it funny though when the coach is blamed for poor skill. Firstly if there skill is poor then that's a recruiting issue and secondly if they think they can improve their skill that is an off field development issue neither which has anything to do with the coach.

 

[NarklesHelmet]

I certainly didn't down play his role as development coach on match day. I actually that was his part in development. Now this is where we all have different opinion. I believe Clark and Coffield going back to the seconds doesn't hurt development. Others think it may. Also many people wanted Clark to play as a mid. He has had his 2 best games as a HBF. Seems ok development to me.

As for how players talk about great coaches well im not sure I see the point of that comment. Doubt anyone has said Richo is a great coach. He is going to be sacked after all. I must say I find it funny though when the coach is blamed for poor skill. Firstly if there skill is poor then that's a recruiting issue and secondly if they think they can improve their skill that is an off field development issue neither which has anything to do with the coach.

I think we agree then, I must've misread your comment as saying the head coach has nothing to do with development. Of course with matches being massive for development, both the head coach and the coach of the 2s play a key role for the whole squad.

 

[gringo2011]

They still got picked up eventually. Where are our players that are picked up eventually. Why didn’t they go back to the state leagues and stand out like kelly did. Again simple reason. Not good enough.

Where is the parkers and Wilkies from our delisted players.

In two years someone will get picked up who was delisted and they'll all chase the others.

 

[plugger66]

I think we agree then, I must've misread your comment as saying the head coach has nothing to do with development. Of course with matches being massive for development, both the head coach and the coach of the 2s play a key role for the whole squad.

Maybe it was a few posts back but I said his development role is only on field here and also at sandy.

 

[plugger66]

In two years someone will get picked up who was delisted and they'll all chase the others.

So 2 years. Interesting. Why not now or previously? Why aren't our delisted players dominating in the VFL?

 

[VDS66]

I was kind of agreeing with you in the original comment actually... saying that listening to a media commentator to validate an argument on a point you agree with while dismissing him on another point is selective. My point essentially was they are just media commentators who have an opinion... it's not necessarily gospel and if, in the case of Bartel and Acres, he makes a comment completely at odds with how the kid has played since day 1, you lose respect for him a bit. We're all like that, some commentators we like and listen to more than others, it's pretty natural.

And I watch Saints games on TV a couple of times a week. Have since I moved away after watching and playing footy for years live. Honestly, I've never found a huge difference in how I understand a game having watched both for a long time (in fact all my friends from Australia who come and stay with me note how with time-zones I get to see way more games on TV than they do but I digress...) but if others think watching on TV invalidates or lessens the value of opinion, then go for it, I can't stop you.

It was a genuine question. Watching live where you have an overview of the game is different to TV.

So if a commentator makes an observation based on how play is unfolding, them IMO it's pretty valid.

Wasn't implying that you know less because you watch on TV.

Cheers.