So do you think our coaching sub-committee went straight to the collingwood staff list, looked at who their assistants were

and simply picked one from there because they were so desparate for Collingwoods IP and didnt consider anyone else?

Did I say that?

Various things set people apart from others.

He looks and sounds very self-assured, he has coach his own team, and he knows what Collingwood has put in place to accomplish the things they have accomplished.

Which of those things is the most heartening for me to see as a supporter? The latter involvement with the best team in the land.

And I dare say the coaching committee thought the same.

Surely you're not suggesting, everything else being equal, that Neeld wouldn't have got the gig if he were coming from a bottom 8 club?

All things being equal?

When are they?

Does anyone here really believe that these three coaches that have been given jobs would have got them had they not come from Geel/Coll - Neeld, Geel/Ess (1 yr) - McCartney, and Geel - Sanderson?

No.

And no doubt it's the latter of your previous post. The Ocean Grove stint, the Western Jets stint and taking full control are good positives in his development and have given him a great grounding, but the significant part for me, is his significant involvement at Collingwood and being part of the rise to the top with involvement of both backline and midfield in his 4 years there.

It's a great package. His references from colleagues, are pretty handy acknowledgements too. Including the elite players at Collingwood.

Over-analyse the term all you like.

The major reason Neeld is coaching the club is because he intimately knows the worklings of the Colligwood Footy Club.

We need that IP.

The commentary so far by both Neeld and Mc Cartney show two operatotrs with a deep understanding of coaching and leadership. It doesn't necessarily follow that a former ex-chanp has the credentials. In fact, the ability to run quickly and mark a ball is no pointer to any coaching ability. We may be seeing a sesmic shift in coaching diretcions with 'professional coaches' as opposed to great footballers taking on what up to now was seen as a natural progress.

I reckon the opposite is true.

This is how it works in the U.S.

All things being equal?

When are they?

Does anyone here really believe that these three coaches that have been given jobs would have got them had they not come from Geel/Coll - Neeld, Geel/Ess (1 yr) - McCartney, and Geel - Sanderson?

But thi sis true in life anyway. Suuccessful applicants for jobs will be able to demonstarte a track record of achievement. How would an Asst coach at the Tigers do that over the past 5 years? for example.

The commentary so far by both Neeld and Mc Cartney show two operatotrs with a deep understanding of coaching and leadership. It doesn't necessarily follow that a former ex-chanp has the credentials. In fact, the ability to run quickly and mark a ball is no pointer to any coaching ability. We may be seeing a sesmic shift in coaching diretcions with 'professional coaches' as opposed to great footballers taking on what up to now was seen as a natural progress.

I reckon the opposite is true.

This is how it works in the U.S.

Well before we declare a shifting of the guard, we should probably give it a few years to see how it goes!!!

I do think that what you are saying makes logical sense - coaching is indeed a very different skillset to playing. However, there is an element of coaching that clearly would benefit by playing at the highest level. That is, if two candidates were absolutely identical, but one had played 100 games of AFL and one had played SANFL, I know who I would choose. Of course it's never that mathematical.

I think a real risk for the untried coach who hasn't played AFL is that if things go badly, which they will at times, they will have more detractors, sooner.

The commentary so far by both Neeld and Mc Cartney show two operatotrs with a deep understanding of coaching and leadership. It doesn't necessarily follow that a former ex-chanp has the credentials. In fact, the ability to run quickly and mark a ball is no pointer to any coaching ability. We may be seeing a sesmic shift in coaching diretcions with 'professional coaches' as opposed to great footballers taking on what up to now was seen as a natural progress.

I reckon the opposite is true.

This is how it works in the U.S.

Good point.

Not entirely sure why you were replying to that post with it though...

Well before we declare a shifting of the guard, we should probably give it a few years to see how it goes!!!

I do think that what you are saying makes logical sense - coaching is indeed a very different skillset to playing. However, there is an element of coaching that clearly would benefit by playing at the highest level. That is, if two candidates were absolutely identical, but one had played 100 games of AFL and one had played SANFL, I know who I would choose. Of course it's never that mathematical.

I think a real risk for the untried coach who hasn't played AFL is that if things go badly, which they will at times, they will have more detractors, sooner.

You're right, but that said, some of the most successful coaches internationally of modern teams had very little playing background at the highest level. Best example I know of is Jose Mourinho - won the Champions League at Porto and Inter, won the Premier League (and the FA Cup IIRC) at Chelsea, now has won the Copa del Rey at Real Madrid and is going to give the CL this year a massive crack IMO. This is a man who started coaching in his early 20s and has gone through the systems all the way to the top. Andre Villas-Boas (Chelsea manager, won Europa League with Porto last season) is similar in terms of path.

There are probably plenty more examples, especially in the US where it's much more meritocratic than in the European systems.