I wonder what experienced assistant coaches out there are looking to serve an apprenticeship role under Roosy?

I wonder how much a fresh coach if he was a quick learner, with the right attributes could glean in 2 years under Roos?

Is Ling really any more of a risk than appointing a Stewart Dew or similar?

I would expect that Roos and Jackson add weight to whether they have the right character to take on the role ie thier ability and willingness to learn, manage people and cope with adversity and overcome.

You get that you get the right person, If they don't tick those boxes thier level of experience is irrelevant. For mine Ling ticks the boxes.

Yes, because Stewart Dew is in the system and has been for years, something Ling doesn't have.

I agree with you in that Jackson and Roos will have plenty of input into the selection and they know what they're looking for, and Ling may well be that man, but he still presents a greater risk than most. Doesn't mean he won't make it as, like you say, he ticks boxes. I'm just not sold on him yet and believe there would still be an element of risk in appointing him.

Ling - No.

Bolton - Definitely No.

Thompson - No way.

Looks like it will be Captain Coach Kirk.

Matthew Lloyd will coach one day, and do bloody well IMO.

I wouldn't mind Plough doing Eade's role.

the rest was irrelevant

This bit isnt...can he coach?

The answer presently must be NO

The answer is presently we don't know and we don't know with any of the assistants, but like you I would have preferred it if Lingy had done some coaching time.

Is Ling really any more of a risk than appointing a Stewart Dew or similar?

I would expect that Roos and Jackson add weight to whether they have the right character to take on the role ie thier ability and willingness to learn, manage people and cope with adversity and overcome.

You get that you get the right person, If they don't tick those boxes thier level of experience is irrelevant. For mine Ling ticks the boxes.

It's all a bit of a risk even with Roos overseeing it. Ling ticks some boxes but as 'BB' posts, not all.

I really like the idea of Lingy but the question that sticks at the back of my mind is does he have a burning desire to coach and if he does why has he waited to get started?

Someone has posted in the past about how these succession plans work and it wouldn't be handed over if he wasn't up to scratch. There should be no 100% guarantee.

A lot of people seem to wish to avoid assistant coaches, and go for tried and tested. Tried and tested coaches are hard enough to come by as it is, let alone good ones. The recruits Roos has brought in have, in the space of just over half of a season of football justified their pay, and my membership fee. The same can be said for few (any?) of the recruits brought in three years ago under previous regimes.

The man is no fool; and if he reckons someone like Ling is the man for the job, we can only trust him, even if Ling's credential list for coaching is nonexistent.

On somewhat of a tangent, it's interesting to sit back and watch Malthouse's decline (not without some pleasure...), given how highly-rated assistants of his went. These men (thinking of Neeld and the former Saints' coach, whose name escapes me) were leaders in their field, coming from what was considered the best coaching school in the sport. Of course, it wasn't entirely their fault---they had to work with teams unused to a winning culture---but they failed, completely and utterly. They were well-trained---but in a style of football which is almost antiquated. And we see the same with Malthouse now.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that, no matter how good your schooling, if you've learned everything you know in Latin, your knowledge is only going to tak you so far. Better to have someone schooled in modern football who is untested, than someone who has been an assistant for years and years in a team whose game style is prewar.

(I'll not even mention Sheedy).

An experienced assistant coach is exactly that, and there are multiple examples of failures.

Voss and Hird probably have everyone edgy which is understandable. Ling is a different kettle of fish.

Unfortunately no one has invented a way to polish a turd. Machsy?

Unfortunately no one has invented a way to polish a turd. Machsy?

Nope, Machsy can't be polished..

Unfortunately no one has invented a way to polish a turd. Machsy?

While I am not referring to Machsy, your statement is not entirely correct RTG. Archeologists and anthropologists study coprolites. Coprolites are fossilised turds. I believe these could be polished but I will defer on this point if someone better advised on the subject can correct me.

There is no "right" choice except in hindsight. Take a punt you could end up with Clarkson or Neeld; headhunt for experience and you could end up with Pagan/Malthouse or Roos.

The difference between an assistant coach and someone coming straight out of the media is that an AC has been in the system and has been exposed to the man management involved both in scope and nature. What would happen if we signed Ling, he did his 2 years under Roos and then at the end of it it was felt he wasn't ready or wasn't the right person? Does Roos still disappear after that? Do we then go out and sign another coach with Roos in the "head of football" Eade/Thompson role?

I don't like this whole successor thing and havent since the start, we need to be working on keeping Roos until his job is finished no matter how long it takes, we can't just be forced to make it happen in a limited timeframe and then handover to someone else regardless of if its right or not. The successor role at Sydney worked because Longmire was already there and was able to be groomed after they had already recruited him and then identified him as suitable. They didn't recruit him with the successor role in mind.

the stupid thing was they said about him coaching melbourne next year. Sorry melbourne have a coach for next year. Roosy.

the stupid thing was they said about him coaching melbourne next year. Sorry melbourne have a coach for next year. Roosy.

Assistant coaches at a club also coach at that club...

I like the idea,

As crazy as it sounds, I don't think being able to "coach" in the traditional sense of the word is necessarily a high priority for afl coaches these days. You have development coaches, people who assist with the game plan, forward, back and midfield coaches, recruiting staff and scounts, fitness people etc.... the key is being able to manage people. From what we've heard, this was one of Neeld's biggest weaknesses (although admittedly he didn't have the right structures of PJ, experienced assistant's etc around him)

Obviously you have to have the passion, drive, knowledge of the game etc

Most of us here have no idea about who's best suited as we don't see the inner workings of the foot club or know the potential candidates personally. However, looking from the outside, given where both Ling and Kirk have come from in the early stages of their careers (as fringe players) to be premiership captains and galvanise their respective groups that were/are both seen as setting the standard for culture in the comp, they would seem to have as good a background as anyone around.

For me where the likes of Buckley, Hird, Voss never had to struggle (they were always stars), Kirk and Ling had to modify their game to become greats not only at their club but in the competition. I think they would well placed to relate to all members of a playign group. From what we know, they seem to manage relationships and people very well too.

You have to have the cattle we don't have them. Reckon Luke Hodge might make a coach.

I am scratching my head as how Ling untried as a coach and schooled in the free wheeling Geelong approach can fit in with the Roos highly structured style of play. I thought the concept of a successor coach was to maintain continuity and build on the established style. I see chalk and cheese here.

Edited July 12, 201411 yr by america de cali

I agree, ADC. Personally, I can still see Roos staying on for 5 years. He'll need to.

I am scratching my head as how Ling untried as a coach and schooled in the free wheeling Geelong approach can fit in with the Roos highly structured style of play. I thought the concept of a successor coach was to maintain continuity and build on the established style. I see chalk and cheese here.

Geelong might have played a free-flowing game, but Ling was certainly no free-wheeling player. He understands two-way running and defensive mindsets.

Yes, because Stewart Dew is in the system and has been for years, something Ling doesn't have.

I agree with you in that Jackson and Roos will have plenty of input into the selection and they know what they're looking for, and Ling may well be that man, but he still presents a greater risk than most. Doesn't mean he won't make it as, like you say, he ticks boxes. I'm just not sold on him yet and believe there would still be an element of risk in appointing him.

Nothing to the risk he'd be taking!

Got to admire a bloke starting out, pretty respected and likely to get a gig somewhere, who chooses to take on Melbourne. More faith than most of us have, I'd say - yet we pontificate our mingy little opinions about it... Oh that we should be so lucky as to get a Ling!

the rest was irrelevant

This bit isnt...can he coach?

The answer presently must be NO

What coaching experience did Longmire have before he took over Sydney, exactly..?

What coaching experience did Longmire have before he took over Sydney, exactly..?

he did a rather long apprenticeship from 2002 before taking the reigns.

Ppl think Ling can get there in 2 ?

Remember Tim Watson, great footballer, great bloke.

Great coach?

Remember Tim Watson, great footballer, great bloke.

Great coach?

And great media commentator. The fast track road to head coaching.

Edited July 12, 201411 yr by america de cali

What coaching experience did Longmire have before he took over Sydney, exactly..?

As a senior coach, none.

I could be wrong but those who don't want Ling to be the incumbent coach might need to get used to the idea.

Still think Kirk is in the box seat. Doubt it would be a past coach, perhaps Ratten would be the only possibility.

How Ling and Kirk compare have no idea.

As a senior coach, none.

I could be wrong but those who don't want Ling to be the incumbent coach might need to get used to the idea.

longmire did the hard yards first....learnt the job and only then was annointed the successor.

Remind me again what Lings done besides bits of commentary and a few adds.

There are better experienced options by far.