Why not a old school coach with a simple plan

[godsofrichmond]

I am writing the post on the assumption that Wallace is gone at least at the end of the year.

I read alot of comments on the older coaches like sheedy and mathews that the game has gone past them. But lets think about that comment. How has the game changed. Well my read is that the likes of hawthorn with their rolling zones are one of the main changes in the game. people haveing been running the ball with precision passing to get through the zones. We at richmond have been trying to do this aswell. we also have been using the rolling zone. but lets face it....we dont have the skill nor the mental ability to process this sort of game plan. So what is another option to that. Kick over the zone. Simple game plan....long a direct.

Now who could provide us with a good old fashion long a direct game....a good old fashion long a direct coach. A sheedy...a mathew....heck even a Haffey could do the job.

My fear with these younger coaches (ie hardwick, buckly etc) is they will try and bring in complicated game plans that our players just simply cant handle. Go for a simple plan. Backmen one on one. On ballers run hard and in straight lines. Richo one out in the goal square with the rest of the forward line standing outside the 50 ready to go front and square.
Not a hard plan...nor do you really need to be the best skilled team. Simple but effective. And in this day and age...it will be different.
really, what do we have to lose.

 

[godsofrichmond]

id be interested to hear what others think about this

 

[nut]

I am writing the post on the assumption that Wallace is gone at least at the end of the year.

I read alot of comments on the older coaches like sheedy and mathews that the game has gone past them. But lets think about that comment. How has the game changed. Well my read is that the likes of hawthorn with their rolling zones are one of the main changes in the game. people haveing been running the ball with precision passing to get through the zones. We at richmond have been trying to do this aswell. we also have been using the rolling zone. but lets face it....we dont have the skill nor the mental ability to process this sort of game plan. So what is another option to that. Kick over the zone. Simple game plan....long a direct.

Now who could provide us with a good old fashion long a direct game....a good old fashion long a direct coach. A sheedy...a mathew....heck even a Haffey could do the job.

My fear with these younger coaches (ie hardwick, buckly etc) is they will try and bring in complicated game plans that our players just simply cant handle. Go for a simple plan. Backmen one on one. On ballers run hard and in straight lines. Richo one out in the goal square with the rest of the forward line standing outside the 50 ready to go front and square.
Not a hard plan...nor do you really need to be the best skilled team. Simple but effective. And in this day and age...it will be different.
really, what do we have to lose.

Dennis you really need to give it away....

 

[deliberate!!]

"Why not a old school coach with a simple plan"

Hello?

 

[godsofrichmond]

Dennis you really need to give it away....

lol not him.

But Haffeys paddock has a good ring to it lol

 

[XYZ123]

Didn't we do that when we got rid of Frawley only to pick up Wallace? He was "experienced" and look where it got us. You must realise that unfortunately, the game is not what it was 5-10 years ago, which is why Pagan, Sheedy and shortly Wallace simply cannot coach modern day.

Ideally, you would want someone who has been an assistant coach THROUGH THIS CHANGE IN FOOTBALL, and can therefore understand and adapt to how things were done vs how things are done now.

Perfect example is Hawks coach Clarkson - he was part of the Port Adelaide coaching staff when they took the flag, he understood the way things were done, and now has combined it with his own modern methods and look how successful he/Hawthorn have been.

This is why your Hardwicks, Hinkleys and to a lesser extent Campbell's should be the ones we go after - Knew how it was done BEFORE and know how its done NOW.

Look, id love more than anything for football to go back to the way it was - man on man, long kicking no zoning etc. but the reality is, the modern game is simply not like that. It is far far far more important to know what the team can and cant do, and then model an appropriate playing style to suit the list, NOT adapting a fancy style and forcing the team to carry it out when they simply have no hope (Whats happening now ).

Its not all about gameplans - someone is needed who can UNDERSTAND the players, UNDERSTAND the list, UNDERSTAND their strengths and weaknesses. Once this is done, the gameplan can then look after itself.

 

[1980GFVideo]

Richo one out in the goal square with the rest of the forward line standing outside the 50 ready to go front and square.

Basing our forward line on a bloke who wont be around in 1 or 2 years.

Not great for the future.

Jack Riewoldt is not going to make a career as a crumber needs to take marks and present as an option.

BTW-Hafey not Haffey. You are confused with Laffy,Daffy and Chaffy.

 

[Maybenextyear]

Melbourne slaughtered us in the second quarter by just going long and taking it down the middle. They kept it simple and straight and it took us to pieces.

 

[acr2751]

rolling zones are just a new fad at the same time it took hawthorn a couple of years to prefect it st.kilda have spent 2 years learning it
wallace thought we would get it over summer,
the wheels of coaching will turn again the old zone in defensive 50 stopped the long ball coming in.
the new defensive rolling zone allows for a longer more direct style it just needs some one to try it a few times and win.
our list was built for a game plan that was suppossed to be run and carry with speed
instead we have gone in a different direction with a new game plan that we dont have the tools for

 

[tigerdan]

Didn't we do that when we got rid of Frawley only to pick up Wallace? He was "experienced" and look where it got us. You must realise that unfortunately, the game is not what it was 5-10 years ago, which is why Pagan, Sheedy and shortly Wallace simply cannot coach modern day.

Ideally, you would want someone who has been an assistant coach THROUGH THIS CHANGE IN FOOTBALL, and can therefore understand and adapt to how things were done vs how things are done now.

Perfect example is Hawks coach Clarkson - he was part of the Port Adelaide coaching staff when they took the flag, he understood the way things were done, and now has combined it with his own modern methods and look how successful he/Hawthorn have been.

This is why your Hardwicks, Hinkleys and to a lesser extent Campbell's should be the ones we go after - Knew how it was done BEFORE and know how its done NOW.

Look, id love more than anything for football to go back to the way it was - man on man, long kicking no zoning etc. but the reality is, the modern game is simply not like that. It is far far far more important to know what the team can and cant do, and then model an appropriate playing style to suit the list, NOT adapting a fancy style and forcing the team to carry it out when they simply have no hope (Whats happening now ).

Its not all about gameplans - someone is needed who can UNDERSTAND the players, UNDERSTAND the list, UNDERSTAND their strengths and weaknesses. Once this is done, the gameplan can then look after itself.

Fine theory but we can't be sure whether a young coach will make it or not. And it is a risk that we cannot afford to take. Mark Harvey had a great pedigree. Huge raps on him. Ended up a complete dud like Spud or the Giesch or Neesham or Rohde or any of the other rookie coaches over the years.

It's true we could get the next Norm Smith, but the odds are against it.

And history has shown that the RFC has a very low tolerance of rookie coaches. And then what happens? They get shit scared that they will lose their job so top up with duds to win a few extra games.

THAT is why we cannot take the risk with a rookie coach. Only a coach with a reputation will have the presence to keep the factions at bay. A rookie will be forever in fear of them.

If you really want a rookie coach, get one to do his apprenticeship at the RFC for a few years, then the club can see what he's really like, and he can get a feeling for the club and the players. Then when the time comes, elevate him to the top job. That's the only way I see we can do it right. Other clubs might be able to do it but the RFC is not up to it.

 

[XYZ123]

Fine theory but we can't be sure whether a young coach will make it or not. And it is a risk that we cannot afford to take. Mark Harvey had a great pedigree. Huge raps on him. Ended up a complete dud like Spud or the Giesch or Neesham or Rohde or any of the other rookie coaches over the years.

It's true we could get the next Norm Smith, but the odds are against it.

And history has shown that the RFC has a very low tolerance of rookie coaches. And then what happens? They get shit scared that they will lose their job so top up with duds to win a few extra games.

THAT is why we cannot take the risk with a rookie coach. Only a coach with a reputation will have the presence to keep the factions at bay. A rookie will be forever in fear of them.

If you really want a rookie coach, get one to do his apprenticeship at the RFC for a few years, then the club can see what he's really like, and he can get a feeling for the club and the players. Then when the time comes, elevate him to the top job. That's the only way I see we can do it right. Other clubs might be able to do it but the RFC is not up to it.

Thats very true about Harvey, and is the glaring opposite to someone like Clarkson. But to be fair Harvey also inherited a basket case of a club, and although they did make a prelim... so did we under Spud and the similarities are obvious.

As for getting a rookie coach to do an apprenticeship at RFC firstly, this shouldn't be allowed to happen. The RFC's culture has been embedded deeply over 27 years - unsuccessful, unstable and could implode at any point. Hence why someone with new ideas, from a successful background is needed to reverse this cycle.

I understand what your saying, and ideally you would want someone who is cool and creative enough to keep the pressure off with no fear, while being successful and bringing new ideas to the club. Its a fine line.

I think the solution for this would be something like this:

-Instill a rookie/youthful coach, ie. a Hardwick, with the guidance of a mentor, ie. Kevin Sheedy (both ex-bombers, both know and understand eachother, both have been successful). This allows for a younger person to have a shot WHILE the older mentor who is respected and reputable can remain a powerful figure and not let the younger be pushed around or cop flack.

-Sign this arrangement for NO MORE THAN THREE YEARS initially, then re-assess if it working or not.

The main problem with TW and his 5 years was although he turned over some massive amount of players in the first 2 years (20 something?), if things went wrong he could always fall back and deflect on the old "i said 5 years, judge me after 5 years". However, he just let it go on and now that the 5th year is here, and things aren't working he realises he is now im some major shit.

The solution need not be too drastic (ie. turn list upside down and start again), we have a decent list its just that TW has lost them and need someone fresh.