"Your greatest appeal as a coach is to ensure that you've always got spirits handy," - Alastair Clarkson

Roos fails.

Hope Goodwin is better.

Edit: For accuracy sake or a laugh take your pick

Riddle me this.

At the last meeting before the draft Roos argues for Parish and Goodwin argues for Curnow.

Who's view prevails? This is not a question about the players but who is holding the reins.

The more I think about it the more I fail to see how Roos will be much different to any interim coach holding the reins until the "real" coach takes over - Barker/Bolton, Campo/Pyke, Craig/Roos. The only difference is we know who is the successor and that should work in our favour.

Given that Goodwin is the destination and Roos is the facilitator surely Roos should just sit back and mentor Goodwin this year as Goodwin sets game plan, player selection, approves training programs and has the final say in team selection. I think Roos job is done as senior coach and Goodwin's starts now.

Riddle me this.

At the last meeting before the draft Roos argues for Parish and Goodwin argues for Curnow.

Who's view prevails? This is not a question about the players but who is holding the reins.

The more I think about it the more I fail to see how Roos will be much different to any interim coach holding the reins until the "real" coach takes over - Barker/Bolton, Campo/Pyke, Craig/Roos. The only difference is we know who is the successor and that should work in our favour.

Given that Goodwin is the destination and Roos is the facilitator surely Roos should just sit back and mentor Goodwin this year as Goodwin sets game plan, player selection, approves training programs and has the final say in team selection. I think Roos job is done as senior coach and Goodwin's starts now.

I read somewhere the other day that Roos will be doing the cultural coaching and Goodwin will be putting in place the game plan etc. Roos was bought in as more as a culture changer than anything and he has done well at that, will be interesting to see how much Goodwin does the game day coaching this year. By the end of the year I would hoe he is doing the vast majority and taking on far more media responsibility as well. Roos should be the guiding hand this year as he was with Horse at Sydney.

Riddle me this.

At the last meeting before the draft Roos argues for Parish and Goodwin argues for Curnow.

Who's view prevails? This is not a question about the players but who is holding the reins.

The more I think about it the more I fail to see how Roos will be much different to any interim coach holding the reins until the "real" coach takes over - Barker/Bolton, Campo/Pyke, Craig/Roos. The only difference is we know who is the successor and that should work in our favour.

Given that Goodwin is the destination and Roos is the facilitator surely Roos should just sit back and mentor Goodwin this year as Goodwin sets game plan, player selection, approves training programs and has the final say in team selection. I think Roos job is done as senior coach and Goodwin's starts now.

I would be very very surprised if there is much debate about where the list is at overall and what is needed. Whether it be midfielders, outside runners, KPF's etc etc. I'm sure either of them would then rely on Jason Taylor and Co who spend years watching the kids coming through to pick either the best talent outright or the best players for needs. It seems pretty clear they traded hard to get pick 3, so you'd be pretty confident that whoever they get there will have been decided before they went chasing the pick.

Roosy has done the transition before with Horse. He knows how to do it better than anyone. It's been his team for two years, he's not just in there for a few months like other interim coaches. He'll be guiding and leading as he sees is required. In his last couple of years at the Swans you'll recall he went down to the bench to coach individual players and left the overall coaching to Horse who stayed up in the box with all the line coaches. I'm sure we'll see more of that in 2016.

There is no difference between a caretaker coach overlooked for the job and Roos?

For one thing - Roos instigated this transition, he is the architect of it, and the one with experience on how it has worked in the past.

If the point is to subtly say that Roos is a 'lame duck' and all the irrelevance that comes from being one - I doubt the players would see it that way.

It's Paul Roos.

If the point is that more and more responsibility will transfer to Goodwin to the point where he is the head coach by the end of next season - then that is the actual point isn't it?

I don't know whether it will be successful but Roos would be able to point to his experience in doing this as a successful one - a very successful one...

There is no difference between a caretaker coach overlooked for the job and Roos?

For one thing - Roos instigated this transition, he is the architect of it, and the one with experience on how it has worked in the past.

If the point is to subtly say that Roos is a 'lame duck' and all the irrelevance that comes from being one - I doubt the players would see it that way.

It's Paul Roos.

If the point is that more and more responsibility will transfer to Goodwin to the point where he is the head coach by the end of next season - then that is the actual point isn't it?

I don't know whether it will be successful but Roos would be able to point to his experience in doing this as a successful one - a very successful one...

So who gets their way with the player they want? Who has the casting vote?

So who gets their way with the player they want? Who has the casting vote?

Probably Jason

So who gets their way with the player they want? Who has the casting vote?

Jack Watts. He get blamed for everything anyway ...

FFS coaching is a not a one man band. Who gives a stuff if Roos isn't there for every minute of training.

I'm very happy with our structures - there is no reason to doubt Roos commitment or his value to our progress.

Probably Jason

Definitely agreed. And as I have posted before - I don't think Roos should have input, coach input should come from Goodwin now.

Definitely agreed. And as I have posted before - I don't think Roos should have input, coach input should come from Goodwin now.

The hypothetical is based on the fact that Taylor can't split them. This isn't about the player but about the responsibility.

The hypothetical is based on the fact that Taylor can't split them. This isn't about the player but about the responsibility.

well, if taylor can't split them, it would seem to be a win:win type of situation so it's hardly likely to be some great square off

roosy and goodsy will probably toss a coin - lol. or tell taylor to do his job and decide

I see the question is either too hard or I've not explained it.

Lets go with the second and move on.

The hypothetical is based on the fact that Taylor can't split them. This isn't about the player but about the responsibility.

then the hypothetical is a nonsense...a contrivance . Do you honestly think these blokes couldnt sought it out. They arent the amateur Neeld was..nor do we have a lame-brained footy dept anymore

I see the question is either too hard or I've not explained it.

Lets go with the second and move on.

Your question is simply about power. Who holds sway. Its based upon the notion that some form of adversarial climate would exist. Id say it doesnt.

The hypothetical is based on the fact that Taylor can't split them. This isn't about the player but about the responsibility.

If it comes down to responsibility, Goodwin would have the final say. Roos has made it clear that our game plan will be evolving from his first 2 years, and the evolution has to be in sync with Goodwin's gameday coaching philosophy. And you can't have a successful gameday coaching philosophy without appropriate players.

being higher ranked doesn't mean that you have to have the final say in all matters

there are many situations where a manager legitimately acquiesces to a subordinate

this is not a competitive situation. roosy is mentoring someone to replace himself and he has done it before....successfully

i don't think your hypothetical would pose any problems for roosy, just part of the job

Your question is simply about power. Who holds sway. Its based upon the notion that some form of adversarial climate would exist. Id say it doesnt.

It's based upon the notion of differing opinions which are common in any organization.

If it comes down to responsibility, Goodwin would have the final say. Roos has made it clear that our game plan will be evolving from his first 2 years, and the evolution has to be in sync with Goodwin's gameday coaching philosophy. And you can't have a successful gameday coaching philosophy without appropriate players.

So does that mean Roos is second in charge?

The hypothetical is based on the fact that Taylor can't split them. This isn't about the player but about the responsibility.

I'll give you a different hypothetical outcome.

Roos has been at pains to point when it comes to Goodwin that they basically share the same views and philosophies on football and how it should be played. I'll put it to you that they wouldn't disagree on much.

However if you want to present the scenario that they are diametrically opposed and Taylor and co rank the draftees equally - I would suggest that Roos would say that anything you get out of a first year player is a bonus - it is about setting up the team for years to come - I won't be here - it's your call Goody....

It's based upon the notion of differing opinions which are common in any organization.

So does that mean Roos is second in charge?

I would say not - with draftees it is long term.

It would be a more interesting question to pose about someone like Dangerfield - Roos may be incentivised to get us into the finals. If Adelaide said that you can hav Dangerfield but we want the first two picks for the next two years Roos may think that this is the difference between making the finals and not this year ? Again I would think that Roos would opt for sustained success rather than quick glory and therefore defer to Goodwin.

This doesn't make Roos second in charge - it just recognises that drafting is for the long term and therefore the person with the most invested should have the biggest say - and that's Goodwin

Nut in my OP I highlighted "his is not a question about the players but who is holding the reins."

Pose any question you like, my question is about who has the casting vote/final say if Roos and Goodwin have differing views.

It's based upon the notion of differing opinions which are common in any organization.

So does that mean Roos is second in charge?

There is a lot more to coaching that just the game plan, so no Roos is still in charge.

If you watch the interview with Macca that was done near the end of the season he talks about having the wise heads around to ensure the changes are sustainable, wise heads to tame the exuberance of youth if you like. That is where having Roos and Macca on board is a great thing, Goodwin gets to run with his game plan and slowly take over the reigns while these two provide a guide and quell any unsustainable short term fixes Goodwin may want to put in place.

Nut in my OP I highlighted "his is not a question about the players but who is holding the reins."

Pose any question you like, my question is about who has the casting vote/final say if Roos and Goodwin have differing views.

well obviously, if they really couldn't agree, the more senior one

but that's only if there is a stalemate and only if each one thought (strongly) that the other was wrong

i really don't know where you are going with this hypothetical

at the moment roosy is the head coach

goodwin is an assistant coach and coach-in-waiting at roosy's express wish and agreement

roosy will no doubt delegate areas to goodwin and deciding a choice where taylor "can't split them" may well be one of those areas. or maybe not. we don't know

roos is still the head coach and accountable

Riddle me this.

At the last meeting before the draft Roos argues for Parish and Goodwin argues for Curnow.

Who's view prevails? This is not a question about the players but who is holding the reins.

The more I think about it the more I fail to see how Roos will be much different to any interim coach holding the reins until the "real" coach takes over - Barker/Bolton, Campo/Pyke, Craig/Roos. The only difference is we know who is the successor and that should work in our favour.

Given that Goodwin is the destination and Roos is the facilitator surely Roos should just sit back and mentor Goodwin this year as Goodwin sets game plan, player selection, approves training programs and has the final say in team selection. I think Roos job is done as senior coach and Goodwin's starts now.

Given this is your riddle, my answer would be Goodwin. Besides the point, that it would probably be Taylor&Viney. But for the sake of the riddle, Goodwin.

And I'm pretty sure that your next response would be, "So that makes Roos second in charge"

Therefore opening the way for probable discussion on ...well why should we have Roos there for the 3rd year when he's costing us a packet.... .

Of which I would probably respond with ...well you see there's this thing called transition, Roos and Horse did it quite well, and it was successful. Roos was on the boundary, Horse was up in the box calling the shots in preparation for Horse as outright senior gig on his own.

Then we may or may not lead a merry go dance and bring in other factors and points of view; chew the fat on the pros and cons of the benefits of a Roos/Goodwin 2016 or a outright Goodwin 2016 coaching stint.

Anyway, I hope I've solved your riddle. But I am expecting part II of this riddle, knowing that you found it very intriguing a few weeks ago when you heard that the transition and responsibilities had already changed for Goodwin.

Good discussion anyway BB.

Nut in my OP I highlighted "his is not a question about the players but who is holding the reins."

Pose any question you like, my question is about who has the casting vote/final say if Roos and Goodwin have differing views.

As others have said, I can't see this scenario ever happening. However, you are asking what would happen if it did.

The first question Is whether it is the coach that decides this anyway. Perhaps it is the List Manager or the Head of Football, Mahoney, or the Head of Recruiting, Taylor.

If it is down to the coach, logic would suggest that after next year the players will be executing Goody's game plan so you would think that he would have a strong voice and it would be surprising for him not to be able to convince Roosy. However, Roosy is the Head Coach, Goody an Assistant until the end of next season. If Roosy thought Goody was making a terrible mistake then I would have thought he would be duty bound to step in. That's the point of the arrangement. Neeld made some shocking decisions against the advice of others including the mentor the Club put in place, Craig. He couldn't be stopped. Goody could be if Roosy thought he was making such a monumental mistake but I'm sure list management, recruiting, Head of Footy even PJ would be involved if there was such an extreme conflict before the final decision. I just can't see that happening.

Does that answer your question.