Hold on, you don't think in retrospect it is a puzzling decision to appoint 3 Line Development Coaches, all 3 without any previous AFL coaching or playing experience?

To be guided by an AFL head coach with no previous AFL head coaching experience, not to mention a Forward Line Coach with no previous coaching experience and a Football Manager with no previous Football Managing experience?

There's a lot of inexperience there, a lot of people finding their way in their jobs.

I'd say it was a cost-saving exercise to an extent, but probably a poor decision by Schwab and/or Neeld.

As has been said before, it's not about having a huge group of coaches; it's about having the right coaches.

You mean right coaches with the right experience.

You mean coaches like Dale Tapping who is VFL coach for Collingwood - who only has had TAC cup experience ?

You mean coaches like Brendan Bolton a Hawthorn Assistant who only has VFA coaching experience ?

These 3 guys that were not renewed were assistants to the assistants whose resume was working with younger footballers which is basically all we had left at the MFC !!!!

Most on here were also praising the appointment of Leigh Brown at the time. By the criteria you are marking his appointment on you would give suggest that Cameron Ling is a bad choice to pursue as he has had no coaching experience like Leigh Brown at the time.

I also find it interesting that you suggest it may have been a bad decision by Schwab/Neeld - you dont think that Craig had any input at all or is he too nice a guy to pot ?

Go through the assistant coaches and development coaches at other clubs and they are littered with personnel that did not play at the highest level (AFL) which basically means they get their start somewhere and at some stage had no AFL coaching experience.

The structure we had was ultimately a spectacular failure but to say that assistants to the assistants were "out of their depth" is guesswork at best.

If you all remember, when PJ came in he said there was no to much inexpensive at the club, he, was talking about everything from coachs, to players , its easyer to put more experienced staff then players no wonder the players did not develop, they had no idea and bother neither did most of the coaches.

You mean right coaches with the right experience.

I took that as being implied, but not completely.

I also never said any of the 3 line development coaches weren't capable.

You mean coaches like Dale Tapping who is VFL coach for Collingwood - who only has had TAC cup experience ?

You mean coaches like Brendan Bolton a Hawthorn Assistant who only has VFA coaching experience ?

Yes, but they weren't surrounded by people at their clubs who were also lacking in experience.

Individually I don't think there would have been anything wrong with these coaches, but in terms of the composition of a footy dept, it was terribly lacking in experience overall.

These 3 guys that were not renewed were assistants to the assistants whose resume was working with younger footballers which is basically all we had left at the MFC !!!!

Most on here were also praising the appointment of Leigh Brown at the time. By the criteria you are marking his appointment on you would give suggest that Cameron Ling is a bad choice to pursue as he has had no coaching experience like Leigh Brown at the time.

I also find it interesting that you suggest it may have been a bad decision by Schwab/Neeld - you dont think that Craig had any input at all or is he too nice a guy to pot ?

Go through the assistant coaches and development coaches at other clubs and they are littered with personnel that did not play at the highest level (AFL) which basically means they get their start somewhere and at some stage had no AFL coaching experience.

The structure we had was ultimately a spectacular failure but to say that assistants to the assistants were "out of their depth" is guesswork at best.

The rest of the post is just waffle not relevant to what I said.

I was only pointing out how inexperienced they all were as a whole, which would have affected their ability to do their job and get direction.

I'm actually surprised at least one wasn't kept, considering the experience coming in to assist them.

I'm also surprised you seem to have really taken this to heart.

I don't think they will have trouble getting new roles at other clubs.

Neeld was head coach, and would have a large say in the way his football dept was structured.

Schwab was CEO & his job was to put the footy dept together.

Craig was only a mentor with a vague role description and no real power. I even think he may have been appointed after the development coaches, from memory.

When I say they were "out of their depth", that does not attribute them with blame.

I think the situation they were put in as a collective left them without the requisite support to succeed.

Edited September 17, 201311 yr by Machiavelli

SNIP

(Jesus, I've turned into Ben Hur)

A pale imitation.

A pale imitation.

Hahahaha and not as good looking either (Kate Upton)

A pale imitation.

Christ, that would make him transparent!

i've never heard of these blokes.

I thought the role of these three was pretty much to be line coaches at Casey, to ensure that the messages the head coach and the assistants were passing along regarding game plan, and individual player requirements, we're being enforced at Casey, and to provide direct feedback about a players performance at Casey.

We have a squad of 40+ players including Rookies. The squad trains together all summer, and some sessions during the season. Other sessions are just the match squad for that week plus or minus a few for injuries back ups etc.

The head coach and his assistants would develop a game plan and would prepare development plans for all players on the squad. These assistants would enforce that and ensure the message is heard when not with the main group. All are experienced working with young players, would probably be paid half that of the regular assistant coaches and it is unlikely that an experienced AFL assistant coach is going to go back to a role as a VFL line coach or take the pay cut.

The idea is sound, and it is something we've all been calling for: a second XVIII that plays and is coached like or firsts, and our deception players to play in the second in their position to develop for AFL.

Can anyone tell me how these coaches performed at the above role? Maybe KC can, but unless you are heavily involved in Casey I doubt you can assess their work.

None of them are from elite organisations. Neeld recruited Greaves from Geelong Falcons, Paul Satterley from Werribee and Andrew Nichol from Vic Metro U16.

But didn't these guys all come from "elite" organisations in the past?

Edited September 17, 201311 yr by DavidNeitz9

They are all elite organisations in the field of coaching Junior footy

I would like to thank Satterley for his VFL player reports, Nichol for standing on whoever oppositions leg it was and Greaves for just being there.

Seriously though, sometimes you can only be as good as your manager allows you to be and I'll put it out there that these blokes had a pretty ordinary boss to work under for the majority of their tenures.

Craig was only a mentor with a vague role description and no real power. I even think he may have been appointed after the development coaches, from memory.

I still maintain that the average supporter ( and even not so average supporter) are just not in a position to judge assistant or line coaches. Pure and simple but I'll let it go.

I am interested in the above on Craig. For the life of me I can't work out why people are so quick to judge personnel that they have little insight to enable good judgement but continually give enormous latitude to Neil Craig . (actually I do know why - he comes across as a good bloke). $400K a year for a mentor with vague role description and no real power ? He was brought in specifically to lend experience and guide an untried coach and coaching panel. By that KPI alone he failed miserably.

Wasn't all these guys part of a footy university that Neeld Spruiked on about?

They must have learnt lot..

Wasn't all these guys part of a footy university that Neeld Spruiked on about?

They must have learnt lot..

How not to ...

We should de-list Brian Royal again. Just to make sure.

I still maintain that the average supporter ( and even not so average supporter) are just not in a position to judge assistant or line coaches. Pure and simple but I'll let it go.

I am interested in the above on Craig. For the life of me I can't work out why people are so quick to judge personnel that they have little insight to enable good judgement but continually give enormous latitude to Neil Craig . (actually I do know why - he comes across as a good bloke). $400K a year for a mentor with vague role description and no real power ? He was brought in specifically to lend experience and guide an untried coach and coaching panel. By that KPI alone he failed miserably.

It's very difficult if you have no direct control over the head coach and he dismisses your advice.

Craig's role was to act as a mentor, and take a wholistic and longterm view of what the club was doing, whilst striving to innovate and maintain "elite performance."

He had no control over isolated coaching decisions.

He wasn't a coach.

From what I have heard, Neeld marginalised Craig's influence somewhat by taking his advice on board as another opinion, but ultimately still went on to make decisions as he saw fit.

And Neeld's judgment was poor.

I blame Shwab for his ridiculous counterintuitive organisational structure.

Craig's only real recourse for correcting Neeld's mistakes when he wouldn't listen, was to go to Schwab or the board, but that was akin to knifing him in the back, and the perception would've been that Craig was angling to take Neeld's job, rightly or wrongly.

A pale imitation.

I shudder at even being thought of as an imitation - pale or not.

This is a theory... and only a theory.

Who believes Neeld was hired because if CS had hired an experienced coach, then he would no longer be boss cocky in the football department? Schwab had his fingerprints all over most football decisions up till this year. This traditionally is outside the realm of a CEO. What would have happened had he tried to tell Choco Williams or Rocket Eade that they needed to lose to get draft picks? Their reps are greater than his as they have actually won premierships (though in Rocket's case only as a player, assistant and reserves coach) and if they said to the board, 'It's him or me' the chances of them staying on would have been greater. I will add a caveat that everyone on the previous board thought CS was as dreamy as Zac Effron post 2011 and seemed to have a man crush on him so I couldn't guarantee that the coach would definitely win that political battle.

I don't think Schwab (in his mind) wanted someone he could easily control, but I think he wanted someone he felt he could work with.

Not sure what the distinction is.

But Schwab seemed convinced he had to be involved in the footy dept to ensure it succeeded, and in doing so was exceptionally counterproductive.

The management structure he set up is mind boggling, with everything filtering through him.

I think it's symptomatic of his background, having not come from business, but from purely football administration, even starting in recruiting.

He'd have been better suited to a Football Manager or GMFO role, but even then I don't think he'd have been very good.

I don't think Schwab (in his mind) wanted someone he could easily control, but I think he wanted someone he felt he could work with.

Not sure what the distinction is.

But Schwab seemed convinced he had to be involved in the footy dept to ensure it succeeded, and in doing so was exceptionally counterproductive.

The management structure he set up is mind boggling, with everything filtering through him.

I think it's symptomatic of his background, having not come from business, but from purely football administration, even starting in recruiting.

He'd have been better suited to a Football Manager or GMFO role, but even then I don't think he'd have been very good.

You've summed it up pretty well. The voice in Schwab's head (and I don't mean that disparagingly) was probably whispering to him that he needed someone that wouldn't cause any trouble for him and not be in a position to cause any trouble for him. I think though his actual cognitions told him what you wrote in the top sentence.

I don't think that Schwab was some kind of James Bond supervillain who did this out of spite and megalomania but maybe his perception of himself compared to other's perceptions of him seemed to be poles apart. He probably felt he was doing the right thing by the club and that his detractors' short sightedness needed to be suppressed for the good of the MFC. The truth of how the playing and coaching group saw him was a mile different.

I view him as Graeme Richmond without the premierships to justify his tenure. Maybe he learnt a little too much from GR about how the game (club politics) is played.

No, Schwab desperately wanted to drag MFC to success.

That in itself is admirable, but, as I recall hearing in one of his old Whiteboard Wednesday videos, having the desire and work ethic and best intentions is one thing, but you also need to have the capability and the aptitude to perform your role.

I think Schwab had a critical misunderstanding of what it took to rebuild our club and what his role in that should be.

I also now subscribe to the train of thought that even purely as a CEO he was a failure.

Whilst he produced results at times, his work pales in comparison to what someone like Peter Jackson has done in his stead, in a relatively very short time.

It's like the old case of a bloke being made manager when he has no managerial skills whatsoever, but has been in the trade for 20 years so its assumed he's fit to run such a business.

Oops... successful conversion to a Schwab thread complete.

Oops... successful conversion to a Schwab thread complete.

Indeed. Nice save there Machiavelli!

I don't think Schwab (in his mind) wanted someone he could easily control, but I think he wanted someone he felt he could work with.

Not sure what the distinction is.

But Schwab seemed convinced he had to be involved in the footy dept to ensure it succeeded, and in doing so was exceptionally counterproductive.

The management structure he set up is mind boggling, with everything filtering through him.

I think it's symptomatic of his background, having not come from business, but from purely football administration, even starting in recruiting.

He'd have been better suited to a Football Manager or GMFO role, but even then I don't think he'd have been very good.

Schwab's own summation of the problem, post-resignation, was "I was clouding the fundamentals".

Indeed it seems he was interfering with processes all over the shop and all was counter-productive.