Exactly why I am just about certain the successor will be Brett Kirk, but I don't think you'd knock back a bloke with Bomba's credentials if he was open to coming to the Dee's

Im a massive kirk fan too.

If Bomber was too come in does he change his game plan to the complete opposite to what Roos has or yet again train the players

Change a game plan that Roos has install into these players?

I agree that playing for 10 years under different coaches will teach a player. That clearly gives ex-players an advantage. But it doesn't automatically make them a better coach than someone who has never played. Under that logic, Peta Searle (apologies if I have the name wrong) should never have been an Assistant Coach in the VFL.

Coaching is a combination of people management, list management, gameplan design, teaching, media management and a myriad of other things. Having been a player will help with gameplan design. What else?

It doesn't mean that everyone that's played AFL is going to be a better coach than someone that hasn't but like for like the applicant with AFL experience wins...and as for the example of Peta Searle, well she is an assistant coach and as we know the 2 jobs are light years apart.

...now if I had Peta Searle teaching me how to tag or Cameron Ling, who would I listen to? Everyone brings their own strengths and weaknesses to a role, and I'm sure Peta adds to the group coaching mix at Port.

It would be a bold move for us to appoint someone who hasn't played the game at the highest level and it's not going to happen.

Exactly why I am just about certain the successor will be Brett Kirk, but I don't think you'd knock back a bloke with Bomba's credentials if he was open to coming to the Dee's

Im a massive kirk fan too.

If Bomber was too come in does he change his game plan to the complete opposite to what Roos has or yet again train the players

Change a game plan that Roos has install into these players?

An interesting point you raise, you know Vince Lombardi never played professional ball for the NFL and is generally considered one of the best coaches ever. While I think you would probably be right 3/5 times, the on balance difference means I'd like to keep my eyes open, likewise I believe a coach could be the best person for the job and female.

That said if Kirk got the nod, I'd trust the decision and live with it despite the hippy mantra (I used to have long hair once upon a time), 200 games on the trot shows a mental discipline that few others can claim, as awesome as Ling is (and I'd be happy if he coached) I still rate Kirk as a better player (and somehow a bit like Jim Stynes if that is not sacrilege to say?).

Different time, very different game.

I think it matters to us as a club, we won't go the double of rookie coach and never played AFL at the highest level.

I don't know that he would change much defensively, maybe just the offensive side of things

Exactly why I am just about certain the successor will be Brett Kirk, but I don't think you'd knock back a bloke with Bomba's credentials if he was open to coming to the Dee's

I think he is in the box seat at the moment.

Looks like Demonland has decided on Brett Kirk. Just remains for the club to announce it then....

Looks like Demonland has decided on Brett Kirk. Just remains for the club to announce it then....

I'd expect them to wait until the end of the season, in case we change our minds. They hate to flatfoot the fans.

Im a massive kirk fan too.

If Bomber was too come in does he change his game plan to the complete opposite to what Roos has or yet again train the players

Change a game plan that Roos has install into these players?

Firstly - Bomber is also big on defense but as you say is more attacking than Roos. Could you imagine taking the Roos plan and incorporating more attacking elements - thats what Longmire did to Roos gameplan.

Controversial opinion - I don't think that gameplans vary so greatly these days - Sydneys has been tweaked with big forwards up front. Certain clubs revolve game plans around their strengths - big forwards - small forward - goal kicking mids but th plans are not acres apart - two way running - emphasis on defensive efforts and keep possession.

The difference in clubs is not their gameplans but the coaches ability to teach and get players to play to their full potential and the gameplan.

Neeld was huge on defense and two way running as is Roos but he either couldnt teach it or they way he delivered message, the players didnt listen or understand.

Controversial opinion - I don't think that gameplans vary so greatly these days - Sydneys has been tweaked with big forwards up front. Certain clubs revolve game plans around their strengths - big forwards - small forward - goal kicking mids but th plans are not acres apart - two way running - emphasis on defensive efforts and keep possession.

The difference in clubs is not their gameplans but the coaches ability to teach and get players to play to their full potential and the gameplan.

Neeld was huge on defense and two way running as is Roos but he either couldnt teach it or they way he delivered message, the players didnt listen or understand.

One big difference I have noticed is Neeld seemed to coach us as if we were beyond where we were at, didn't worry about teaching or developing just expected more and more games to do that for him, Roos has basically said don't worry about the opposition 2014 is about making sure we know our game plan and do the things we want to do.

One big difference I have noticed is Neeld seemed to coach us as if we were beyond where we were at, didn't worry about teaching or developing just expected more and more games to do that for him, Roos has basically said don't worry about the opposition 2014 is about making sure we know our game plan and do the things we want to do.

I agree - but look at back at thrust of Neelds messages - non negotiables and defensive efforts - not so different from Roos. The ability to make players hear the messages, understand the messages and be motivated to perform the message - light years of difference.

I agree - but look at back at thrust of Neelds messages - non negotiables and defensive efforts - not so different from Roos. The ability to make players hear the messages, understand the messages and be motivated to perform the message - light years of difference.

Similarly, the more open coaches (such as the Scott twins) will say they know what another team's gameplan is and what is required to beat it. But they may not have the capability to do so.

Similarly, the more open coaches (such as the Scott twins) will say they know what another team's gameplan is and what is required to beat it. But they may not have the capability to do so.

Correct - most games plans are visible and obvious - the trick is playing to the gameplan at 100% capacity - both intensity and skill.

I can see the Kirk connection with Roos, Lyon etc but out of left field (and I declare myself as I am a massive fan) I ask you to consider Luke Beveridge. Luke is the back line coach at Hawthorn and has coached briefly at Collingwood and his junior coaching record is superb. He is out of contract at the end of the year and was personally sought out by Clarko when he left Collingwood and went back to his full time job. I love the way the Hawks defend and then move the ball forward and he is a former Melbourne player who is respected by all the players he coaches.

I can see whay many are a fan of Kirk as a player, but what makes you all so confident he would be a good coach.

In his short time as a footy commentator i was less than impressed with his oratory skills.

I can see whay many are a fan of Kirk as a player, but what makes you all so confident he would be a good coach.

.

You don't need gaurantees that he will be a good coach - you only need to assume ( and do your due diligence) with any of the candidates that they COULD be good coaches. Thats why there is a two year hand over period.

Would you suggest that after the two years, that Roos ( who wants to be part of the club ongoing) seeing that his heir apparent hasnt got what it takes would say " what the hell - lets give it a fly anyway".

I have seen succession plans in business be called off because after a few years as the annointed understudy, the board and CEO have deemed the understudy not up to the next step.

Roos being somewhat a visionary and full of integrity would certainly not hand over to a coach that he thought wouldnt make the grade - he has a track record with Longmire. I would think - worse case scenario - if he wasnt very confident that his successor could take us to the next level he would go to the CEO and board and say - "go out and get the best available coach - this bloke aint got it"

You don't need gaurantees that he will be a good coach - you only need to assume ( and do your due diligence) with any of the candidates that they COULD be good coaches. Thats why there is a two year hand over period.

Would you suggest that after the two years, that Roos ( who wants to be part of the club ongoing) seeing that his heir apparent hasnt got what it takes would say " what the hell - lets give it a fly anyway".

I have seen succession plans in business be called off because after a few years as the annointed understudy, the board and CEO have deemed the understudy not up to the next step.

Roos being somewhat a visionary and full of integrity would certainly not hand over to a coach that he thought wouldnt make the grade - he has a track record with Longmire. I would think - worse case scenario - if he wasnt very confident that his successor could take us to the next level he would go to the CEO and board and say - "go out and get the best available coach - this bloke aint got it"

I think that's a really good point and a good post.

I think that's a really good point and a good post.

I have seen it happen in business twice but its a bit more discreet than it would be for an AFL coach. The two successors to CEO positions I know of, moved on to explore other opportunities before taking over the CEO positions ( the other opportunities were how to get the giant boot marks out of their arses).

It would be a bit uglier with a succession plan with a coach as there usually aren't many other opportunities - nevertheless, you would hope that Roos and Co would not proceed to hand over if they were not happy with the successors progress.

I remember at the time of Collingwoods succession plan it was reported that Malthouse was pumping more for Neeld to follow after him rather than Buckley - I am not sure if that was because he thought that Neeld was a better coach or he just didn't like Buckley. I wonder how that would have turned out ?

I think Neeld would have been fine in the short term, but starting to show serious cracks now.

Neeld seemed perfectly capable of running Malthouse's ship, seeing as they were already at the point of operating just how he wanted.

The environment there had already been built and he'd just have to maintain that standard.

At MFC he had the problem of how to get a club from being a bottom feeder up to the level of Collingwood.

How do you instill that professionalism and not get the vast majority of players offside? How do you get from point A to B, when you've only ever dealt with player groups that had already been taken to point C by Malthouse?

It's a difficult question, one Neeld couldn't answer.

I don't even know if Roos would have been able to.

I think it may have been necessary to have a sacrificial lamb like Neeld to come in for a short time and raise standards, before someone like Roos could do the real work.

Not for me, if he hasn't played at senior AFL level and is a rookie coach he has 2 marks against him. We can't afford to take that chance, and filling in for a senior coach really tells you nothing about his ability to coach. Allan Joyce filled in for Jeansy won a flag but was a bust as a senior coach in his own right.

I don't think you can call a guy a bust who was responsible for leading Hawthorn to two flags, coaching them to a couple of finals on top of that and then coaching the Bulldogs to a couple of finals.

Here's an idea....

-Lingy signs on as successor.

-Does 2 years under Roos.

-Roosy then becomes Director Of Coaching.

-Bomber becomes head coach for 2 years.

-Then Ling takes over.

That way he learns under 2 premiership coaches before taking over and we have a great senior coach the whole time.

My problem with this Stuie, is that the players would be learning two almost completely different game styles. IMO, we need a consistency of game style and for that to become 'the Melbourne way'. Bomber and Roos are very different coaches, with very different game styles.

An interesting point you raise, you know Vince Lombardi never played professional ball for the NFL and is generally considered one of the best coaches ever. While I think you would probably be right 3/5 times, the on balance difference means I'd like to keep my eyes open, likewise I believe a coach could be the best person for the job and female.

Jose Mourinho (as much as I hate him) is another that never played at a particularly high level, yet is considered one of the great managers in world football. It's all about the tactics and man management. It's a very different game, but he has those assets to his advantage. At the moment, I feel that there is a palpable sense of stigma towards those coaches that haven't played at the highest level in the AFL industry or haven't achieved success at the highest level. As soon as that changes, you'll find that AFL playing experience will not be as important as coaching experience and ability.

I think Neeld would have been fine in the short term, but starting to show serious cracks now.

Neeld seemed perfectly capable of running Malthouse's ship, seeing as they were already at the point of operating just how he wanted.

The environment there had already been built and he'd just have to maintain that standard.

At MFC he had the problem of how to get a club from being a bottom feeder up to the level of Collingwood.

How do you instill that professionalism and not get the vast majority of players offside? How do you get from point A to B, when you've only ever dealt with player groups that had already been taken to point C by Malthouse?

It's a difficult question, one Neeld couldn't answer.

I don't even know if Roos would have been able to.

I think it may have been necessary to have a sacrificial lamb like Neeld to come in for a short time and raise standards, before someone like Roos could do the real work.

I think it shows the real difference between two men - both can create a game plan , both were probably closely aligned on their strategic philosophy - they were light years in motivating players and having the players respond appropriately.

The simple test is to hear the Neelds pregame address last year and then hear Roos speak.

you dont sign someone with no coaching experience as the successor

The suggestions of signing Ling to be the next coach are laughable

He might be an absolute dud

We could bring in a couple potential successors and pick the best - or groom Rawlings as a potential back up

But otherwise I agree - Ling can't become a senior coach in 1-2 years time. Whoever we choose I hope we will still have Roos behind stage (like Thompson under Hird)

Liked what i saw of Bolton on 360 last night. Seems like a very passionate, easy going bloke who obviously understands the importance of values, standards and hard work. Also really liked the fact he was not look at me, i am the head coach sort of ego. Seemed to understand and preach the importance of processes and being one in a team of capable people all pushing the same message. Be interesting to see how the Hawks go with him in charge

Woosha anyone?