17 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Big Call that one....

Which is a big call,  the best team does not always win,  the dogs were not the best team but was the best team in the finals 

53 minutes ago, don't make me angry said:

Which is a big call,  the best team does not always win,  the dogs were not the best team but was the best team in the finals 

Considering their injury list they were superb. Very close to top 4. 

They were very good

5 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Considering their injury list they were superb. Very close to top 4. 

They were very good

Yes they were good but many of the injuries were back flankers

On 18 March 2017 at 11:50 AM, brendan said:

Was thinking about macca the other day and how much influence he had on bulldogs winning a flag, is beverage that good of a coach or was the Premiership won by some of the foundations macca built, maybe a bit of both I know no bulldogs fans give him any credit none that I have spoken too anyway 

Pretty sure he didn't hand over a list to Beveridge as poor as the one Roos' inherited.

 

9 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Big Call that one....

When we start playing like the bulldogs I might jump on the Macca the Mini Messiah bandwagon.

9 hours ago, don't make me angry said:

Which is a big call,  the best team does not always win,  the dogs were not the best team but was the best team in the finals 

Which is precisely when it counts. Who wants to be April to August champions?

7 minutes ago, dieter said:

Which is precisely when it counts. Who wants to be April to August champions?

In the last home and away round the Bulldogs were the second worst team in the competition for that round.

1 hour ago, america de cali said:

When we start playing like the bulldogs I might jump on the Macca the Mini Messiah bandwagon.

Agreed 100%

on a weekly basis

I know in other sports this is not the case but in Australian Rules you need to have played at the highest level to be a successful coach at that level.

This may change in the future with a more management based approach to coaching but for now I think it's still the case.

It's the reason I see Bolton ending up a failure at Carlton.

Is it the culture of the sport, the players attitude, the unique nature of the game?

Not sure and could only surmise but the record books show it to be the case.

22 minutes ago, rjay said:

I know in other sports this is not the case but in Australian Rules you need to have played at the highest level to be a successful coach at that level.

This may change in the future with a more management based approach to coaching but for now I think it's still the case.

It's the reason I see Bolton ending up a failure at Carlton.

Is it the culture of the sport, the players attitude, the unique nature of the game?

Not sure and could only surmise but the record books show it to be the case.

Still early days to even make that call. Carlton need to keep recruiting well but he had them united and playing for them last year.

 

I hope you're right as I hate the blues but time will tell and you have to give him 3 years to know.

3 hours ago, america de cali said:

When we start playing like the bulldogs I might jump on the Macca the Mini Messiah bandwagon.

In the world of footy coaches must prove themselves again and again, the dogs are a good contested side, our Team has a huge emphasis on contested footy so we are already playing like the dogs,  weather we become a great side like the dogs is up to the players to carries out how they have been developed.

20 hours ago, rjay said:

I know in other sports this is not the case but in Australian Rules you need to have played at the highest level to be a successful coach at that level.

This may change in the future with a more management based approach to coaching but for now I think it's still the case.

It's the reason I see Bolton ending up a failure at Carlton.

Is it the culture of the sport, the players attitude, the unique nature of the game?

Not sure and could only surmise but the record books show it to be the case.

The record books show it the case because until recently the sport has been full of nepotism and a long continuous boys club. Very few people from outside the system get a shot - you only have to look at the number of players who go immediately from playing in to AFL level coaching - there's a pretty huge queue of coaches they get the privilege of skipping.

The reason you can't pinpoint the reason why AFL coaches must come from the pool of players is because just like with other elite sporting codes: there isn't a reason.

1 hour ago, Nasher said:

The record books show it the case because until recently the sport has been full of nepotism and a long continuous boys club. Very few people from outside the system get a shot - you only have to look at the number of players who go immediately from playing in to AFL level coaching - there's a pretty huge queue of coaches they get the privilege of skipping.

The reason you can't pinpoint the reason why AFL coaches must come from the pool of players is because just like with other elite sporting codes: there isn't a reason.

Funnily enough I think you may have come up with the reason 'Nasher'...

...and because of this nepotism players are loathe to except anyone from outside the club.

As soon as things start to turn they are more likely to turn on the outsider.

On 3/18/2017 at 10:09 PM, Sir Why You Little said:

We are part of a $2 Billion Media Broadcast deal and we cannot attract a major Sponsor a week before the new season?

Why?

There you are banging on about it again (and you deny doing so !)

22 hours ago, rjay said:

I know in other sports this is not the case but in Australian Rules you need to have played at the highest level to be a successful coach at that level.

This may change in the future with a more management based approach to coaching but for now I think it's still the case.

It's the reason I see Bolton ending up a failure at Carlton.

Is it the culture of the sport, the players attitude, the unique nature of the game?

Not sure and could only surmise but the record books show it to be the case.

I imagine there are plenty examples of coaches being successful that haven't played the game. Not senior coaches perhaps if that is what you are referring to but certainly assistants. Someone like Ric Charlesworth comes to mind. He was instrumental in changing the way West Coast play.

5 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I imagine there are plenty examples of coaches being successful that haven't played the game. Not senior coaches perhaps if that is what you are referring to but certainly assistants. Someone like Ric Charlesworth comes to mind. He was instrumental in changing the way West Coast play.

Talking senior coach here...

...and Charlesworth worked with the Dockers. Doubt there is any residual influence on a Lyon coached team.

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

There you are banging on about it again (and you deny doing so !)

I haven't denied anything. 

I have had experience in the advertising caper so i find this all a little disturbing. 

The way I read the article, there is an element of McCartney putting his name out there to the footy world again, acknowledging that he has learnt from some mistakes. Clearly that means he would do things differently if given the opportunity again. I recall he was said to have interviewed for the main coaching job I believe at the essendon

Had a mate speak to Macca during the week, he rates the current MFC kids better than the Geelong kids from their premiership era at the same stage of their career...

2 hours ago, Vineytime said:

Had a mate speak to Macca during the week, he rates the current MFC kids better than the Geelong kids from their premiership era at the same stage of their career...

Welp. We had a good thing going but it’s obviously jinxed now.

Relax we got this

2 hours ago, Vineytime said:

Had a mate speak to Macca during the week, he rates the current MFC kids better than the Geelong kids from their premiership era at the same stage of their career...

It's hard to dislike this post.

 

It's an interesting discussion about coaching in general.

There is another thread which is discussion coaching in the afl - and i agree it is a very boys club industry.

At the end of the day what drives success at a club? Roos or Jackson. My thoughts would be Jackson in setting up the system for coaches etc to flourish. But a lot of credit for the current tem needs to goto roos as well.

Which brings me back to Macca. Why doesn't the afl coaching industry allow for second chances? Would Macca get another senior coching gig?

If someone clearly develops and  learns from the failures why couldn't they jave a second chance at the senior job.

I personally love Macca at thr mfc to continue to nurture oliver, brayshaw etc but i think it's an interesting discussion 

3 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

It's an interesting discussion about coaching in general.

There is another thread which is discussion coaching in the afl - and i agree it is a very boys club industry.

At the end of the day what drives success at a club? Roos or Jackson. My thoughts would be Jackson in setting up the system for coaches etc to flourish. But a lot of credit for the current tem needs to goto roos as well.

Which brings me back to Macca. Why doesn't the afl coaching industry allow for second chances? Would Macca get another senior coching gig?

If someone clearly develops and  learns from the failures why couldn't they jave a second chance at the senior job.

I personally love Macca at thr mfc to continue to nurture oliver, brayshaw etc but i think it's an interesting discussion 

Seems like there is very few second changes at head coaching level, unless you're Rocket Eade. 

Coaches like Knights, Ratten etc who hindsight would suggest did a reasonable job and have continued to learn and develop are they getting interviews?

One good thing we've seen recently is guys like Richardson, Bolton and Fagan who have started at the bottom rungs of coaching and been in the system for a long time get a gig.

5 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Seems like there is very few second changes at head coaching level, unless you're Rocket Eade. 

Coaches like Knights, Ratten etc who hindsight would suggest did a reasonable job and have continued to learn and develop are they getting interviews?

One good thing we've seen recently is guys like Richardson, Bolton and Fagan who have started at the bottom rungs of coaching and been in the system for a long time get a gig.

Definitely.

Ratten is a very interesting case. Im not sure what club he's (is he still with the hawks?) at the moment but is another who if wanted to you'd think could get another go at it.

I suppose it comes down to the club and what they want to achieve.