All I hope is that they psych tested the applicants.

IQ, EQ, adjustment and drive are not easily assessed on interview. If fact, if the interviewee has ANY social skills, then you cannot assess these factors validly and differentiate between interviewees based on an interview.

Job history is going to be much the same. Referees will be much the same.

Bet it doesn't happen and we make the same effing mistakes again and again. Trying to get the best people using exactly the same method. The people using it just reckon that THEY are smarter. I understand it but it is profoundly arrogant and insightless. Using the same method but expecting a different outcome was described by someone once...I just can't remember what they said.

whats the good of that, when we know the people sitting in judgement on behalf of the club are the ones who continually fail us...

So its the previous 10 years of boards who should have been psych tested, so we can then trust in their decision making processes to make the successful changes... & their choices of those who will choose from the coaching applicants.

.... and then what of the people who lobbied for those failing directors of the past 12 years.... they also should be psych tested for their hand in the elevation of those boards & the decisions taken back all those years ago which led to this.

again its not the coaches who deliver this culture, but its the culture which devours all who come usunder. psych test that.

You seem to just take everything you read on here at face value. From believing Roos is a certainty to now believeing that we will make a panic installation of a coach simply because you have read it on here.

Whoever gets the job will most likely - I hope - have to go through the rigorous process that TimD would like to see, and be appointed with the best of faith and intentions to win games of footy.

A caretaker should be given less credit when things go well, and less haranguing when things go poorly.

The only tangible improvement I have seen since Craig has come in is the team works harder offensively, the losses still occur because we are a bad team and that any major structural changes will need a pre-season and confidence.

I may be reading this wrong but do you really think we should do all the psychometric testing on every single applicant? I kind of understand the desire but I would have thought to someone like Roos that would be a bit of an insult.

I may be reading this wrong but do you really think we should do all the psychometric testing on every single applicant? I kind of understand the desire but I would have thought to someone like Roos that would be a bit of an insult.

Essendon did

and look at their results

Again, I think most here are just thinking a new coach will change everything.

It worked for Port, a new new coach and Koshie.

I may be reading this wrong but do you really think we should do all the psychometric testing on every single applicant? I kind of understand the desire but I would have thought to someone like Roos that would be a bit of an insult.

Tend to agree.. Youd only run the upcoming aspirants through that stuff. Choco Eade Roos and Craig are known elements

Again, I think most here are just thinking a new coach will change everything.

everything ? Never

Much ? often

if Roos is still in the running I suspect the biggest obstacle remaining is for him to have the rigth support team assembled. His style of coaching is more presidential style and depends on able assistants IMO. It has been widely discussed that his previous success had a lot to do with the wealth of talent at his disposal like Lyon, Longmire et al to support him.

That's why I don't think he will coach again.

It worked for Port, a new new coach and Koshie.

Perfect example right there. "It worked for Port", so it MUST work for us.

There is a lot more to it than that. Port at least had key importances that we don't. Leaders, culture, effort, list goes on.

Keep reading and you'll find these also:

"Clearly through the process you start thinking about coaching again, but if the question is put to me, 'Will you coach Melbourne?' or 'Will you coach Brisbane?' the answer is no at this particular time."

"I'm mindful of never saying never, simply because people will say 'Oh you said back then that you'd never coach again, so I'm not going to say that because I really don't know."

I am pretty sure his stance is: he definitely does not want to coach next year or in the near future but does not want to completely reject the idea of coaching again (3-5 years time).

It would be a very hard thing to say that you never want to coach again - you don't know how you will feel about it in 5 years time and if he does say that he would never get offers in future.

He seems a very reasonable and intelligent man - I would be very surprised to see him coaching next year because he is not going to enter the coaching ring if he is not up to it.

One thing I know for sure. I have absolutely no idea who will be our next coach.

The last 115 pages make it no clearer.

Yes there is a shortlist of the names discussed. As to who it will be, beats me.

I also feel confident in saying, that not one poster on this thread knows either.

Everybody is just guessing.

It worked for Port, a new new coach and Koshie.

just as long as its a Coach with some aggressive traits, for our gamestyle to break away from the bruise free non combat wayz of the north. a bit sociable not, & a bit common yes, & yet ruthless against the Oppos'.

big bad Mal.

One thing I know for sure. I have absolutely no idea who will be our next coach.

The last 115 pages make it no clearer.

Yes there is a shortlist of the names discussed. As to who it will be, beats me.

I also feel confident in saying, that not one poster on this thread knows either.

Everybody is just guessing.

....at at least we've psych tested & scrutinised all who dare lead an organisation of some descipt. only adam ant has avoided the DL glare.

One thing I know for sure. I have absolutely no idea who will be our next coach.

The last 115 pages make it no clearer.

Yes there is a shortlist of the names discussed. As to who it will be, beats me.

I also feel confident in saying, that not one poster on this thread knows either.

Everybody is just guessing.

I wouldn't disagree with you.

I really like Craig but just don't want to see him as coach next year. In the public eye he is damaged goods (from the Neeld regime).

I really wanted Roos (just love everything that comes out of his mouth and his personality) but I will accept that thats not going to happen.

So I guess its Eade or WIlliams or ...... with Craig as an assistant or in a development role - thats what I want.

The coach is pretty much an investment into hope and as much as I like Craig he just doesn't bring as much as a Williams.

I keep saying the players need a clean slate but we can't just keep giving them clean slates every time they try and drive this football club into the ground (this is our last shot).

Who ever is the next coach is in it for the long hall - is Craig up for another 4 or 5 years? Can Craig sell hope to supporters and players? (the former most important!)

One thing I know for sure. I have absolutely no idea who will be our next coach.

The last 115 pages make it no clearer.

Yes there is a shortlist of the names discussed. As to who it will be, beats me.

I also feel confident in saying, that not one poster on this thread knows either.

Everybody is just guessing.

= Demonland 24 hours a day

= Demonland 24 hours a day

Nothing quite like approving your own comment daveytrain1

Well, perhaps we like to live in Lloyd Christmas' (paraphrased) world:

PJ: What do you think the chances are of a team like us and a coach like you... ending up together?

Roos: Well, PJ, that's difficult to say. I mean, we don't really...

PJ: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you, Roosy. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?

Roos: Not good.

PJ: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?

Roos: I'd say more like one out of a million.

...pause...

PJ: So you're telling me there's a chance... *YEAH!*

bahahaahaha!!

Fairly baseless whingeing, seeing as none of the people who made the previous coaching appointment are involved this time around.

Or is the common thread that they all work for MFC and the club is cursed?

Give me a ******* break.

Try reading.

Go on.

Try picking my emphasis on method rather than people, or that I was concerned that the same method by different people would lead to the same result.

Different people.

same method

Try reading.

It worked for Port, a new new coach and Koshie.

And what was it that worked for Port?

Demoralised team for whom nothing seemed to go right - check!

Sacked coach who had seemed the right man at the start, but turned out to be very wrong - check!

Moribund club culture, and Board who had no idea of how to build and nurture it - check!

They even had a couple of likely coaches turn them down flat (Leon Cameron was one, wasn't he?), and lost some senior players.

But there was a long history of tenacity and struggle that Kochie was able to tap into, and to rebuild the club culture - and, most importantly of all, self-respect - very quickly.

They then made a wise and careful and unhurried choice of coach.

And then (and only then) did key players in Boak & Trengove recommit to the club, because it became clear that things were improving from the base, instead of just papering over the cracks on the surface.

For us, so far so good. This time it really does seem to be different because we're building from the base too. The Neeld debacle may have done us a favour in the long run, to show up how deep the problems ran.

Unless we stuff it up from here on (sadly, not impossible), no reason why we couldn't bounce back quickly too.

Nothing quite like approving your own comment daveytrain1

Keeping it real..

Try reading.

Go on.

Try picking my emphasis on method rather than people, or that I was concerned that the same method by different people would lead to the same result.

Different people.

same method

Try reading.

I read.

And you made a baseless assumption that different people would use exactly the same method.

Your standard is dropping, timD.

If it is insulting then you get valuable insight into how a bloke is going to cope with being questioned without even needing to interview them. Insulting = threatened. If that is all it takes, then it says a lot. Imagine how he'd cope if a player, coach, or administrator questioned him?

I may be reading this wrong but do you really think we should do all the psychometric testing on every single applicant? I kind of understand the desire but I would have thought to someone like Roos that would be a bit of an insult.

Every draftee gets psych tested. Why shouldn't they get offended? If it is not a big deal for every kid daft camp, then how come it is for the big boys? Are they that precious?

And again, if you want the best people, you use the best methods. Nothing else gets you the data you need.

Heard from a really good source that the coaching panel wasn't too overwhelmed with "chocos" interview..

Eade has built teams from our position to top four teams, more than once, he has done well everywhere he has gone, got the most out of his players, he is obviously the man for the job, infact he was the man for the job in late 2011 when we hired Neeld.

I question that he has built a club from our position before...

Barassi left in '95 with 9 wins. Eade already had players of the likes of Lockett, Kelly, O'Loughlin, Lewis, Creswell, Roos, Kickett, Dunkley, Bayes... its not a wonder he got them to a grand final that following year.

The dogs when he arrived in 2005 had West, Darcy, Johnson Smith, Murphy, Eagleton, Cross, Gia, Gilbee, Lake, Cooney, Grant to name a few...

My point is not so much that he is not a good developer of players, and not a good coach, but it's perhaps worth understanding that he had the nucleus of a good team already at his club and on the list.

We don't have that core group yet. We have some nice bookends and a lot of 'potential' but in terms of experience, leadership, and hardness at the ball we are miles away from those lists above.

Perfect example right there. "It worked for Port", so it MUST work for us.

There is a lot more to it than that. Port at least had key importances that we don't. Leaders, culture, effort, list goes on.

I never said it must work but it can work. Bulldogs is another example. Coaches that don't tolerate soft / non existent performances from players. Get Choco.

Heard from a really good source that the coaching panel wasn't too overwhelmed with "chocos" interview..

There's more sauces here than the Heinz factory...