timD

rpfc, I think we've had the conversation about coaches rather than kids, but I might well have forgotten. Either way, I think that the data needs to be used for what it says reliably and validly. I have no idea what it said about darling and neither do you. To suggest that we used data to stay away from darling when neither of us know what it says, who at melbourne looked at it if anyone at all, what they know about psych testing etc is far fetched. I'll say it again: the best single predictor for performance in a job - any job - is IQ. IQ + relevant personality predicts more about job performance than other measure - including interviews, bio-data, job trials, assessment centres etc. This is settled. No-one is arguing. I have faith in Jimmy T. More than i do in Trengove.

The simple answer is that I don't know. I know that certain tests are used and made available AFL-wide after draft camp. I have no idea what the MFC makes of the data, whether they mine it for more info etc. The other important point is that I have no evidence as to whether the data is a useful predictor of long-term performance - it might well be but that is a bit harder to find. Certainly there is nothing published. The better question from my point of view if whether the MFC know what their environment is like and what types generally flourish under it?

THIS+++ The change = maturity. It will take time. He's got the physical/footy skill set. Needs the mental side. I'm very confident he'll get it.

I've seen him present well in defense and try to start or engineer play. HOWEVER it is clear that he is a pretty emotional guy. It will take him time to stop feeling pressure and relax into the roll. I'd guess that we'll see a steady improvement for 1-3 years and then a marked improvement 4-6 years from now. Like Garland. The problem with emotional types is that they make decisions when 'emotional'. Too much emotion = not great decisions. Not necessarily evident as a junior because the environment = less demanding. And yes, all of this is evident on testing and tests are made available to afl clubs post draft camp.

I like that you start off saying that the only stats that matter are the scoreboard and then argued a few points using stats to support your argument. If you'd finished that off by confirming that 'stats are useless', i think it would have been the perfect post - where the introduction and the conclusion were passionately ignored by the majority of content.

That is awful. Please no more.

I think the previous board did a lot that was very good and a few things that did not work. CEO's and money making were things that they struggled with in a difficult environment. The current group are better at the moneymaking but worse at executive control, they leak like a seive and suck at being responsible.

A few easy steps. Note that this is guesswork and a lot of filling in the blanks with "wot I rekon..." 1. AFL agitate for change and encourage Jimmy to form a board and run. 2. Jim convinced by AFL and G Lyon that club is in strife and thinks he can save it; gathers board; 3. AFL and Jim persuade incumbent board to leave; they do; smooth handover; 4. AFL encourage Jim to appoint CS; 5. Board fail to understand difference between watching/judging versus doing - so jim is getting involved in decisions at the club as well as evaluating how the decisions get made; 6. Jim gets too sick to then do his job and no-one replaces him...the board fiddle while the FD begins to burn; 7. 186 + gary lyon + sick Jim = bad decision making that gets entrenched in context of dying Jim and jock-sniffing board; 8. Neeld appointed by shocking process that lacks any integrity; board rubber stamp GL's decision; 9. Ongoing failure of board to evualute schwab, or monitor FD progress etc. 10. Players ruined by MN; Board watching helplessly; Or in simple terms, we replaced a board of good decision makers with bad decision makers lead by a charismatic, physically compromised leader. The AFL helped agitate for much of this behind closed doors. This is as much their mess as it is ours.

I'm really not sure who you are arguing with Jack. Nowhere have I argued that the players should be treated poorly. I've already argued about man management at Melbourne. I've written about the need to psych test applicants so that the right qualities (EQ and related ) get selected for with multiple lines of evidence for their existence. I've argued about how Jim dismissed Bailey; or how Neeld treated players; or how the board treated players. I wrote letters to Mark Neeld in his first and second years stressing the need to not lose the players while still instituting what needed to be done to help them grow a collective spine. Do you reckon that I'd abandon all of that to chase player candy? Do you think that anyone who reads these boards really doesn't care about player treatment given everything we've seen?

I agree completely. So tell me how me get a midfield without trading? Tell me what we should do with five marking forwards when we can only accommodate three? Where is the loyalty is keeping blokes as spare parts rather than doing something that furthers their career and the club at the same time? Sure, let's not treat players like cattle. i think a happy balance can be struck between the mechanical thinking and respectful treatment.

I love the idea of speccies. Let's get Jurrah back. He can do that. We need to win games. A better midfield will win us games. How do we get a better midfield? We trade what we have surplus of. Howe is surplus. He isn't a mid and I bet he'd get defended out of big contests. Bodying him takes him out and he is not very useful when the ball hits the ground. I want to win games. We need a midfield. We do not need Howe. We need three midfielders and two decent crumbers. Howe is not any of these things. I do not want to lose him. Where are the better options? Who else gets us what we want?

What's flippant? We have 5 marking forwards next year. Five. We need mids. Howe is not a mid; what he does can be done by others; he cannot do what we need him to do up the ground. His defensive efforts on saturday night were poor IMO. Loose doggies players had to be pointed out to him several times - he just sorta stood around looking vague and frankly unaware of what was required and the state of the game. When Clisby is telling him where to run then that says that his head goes a wandering. He might well be leading our goalkicking but who else has played forward? Clark has been out; Dawes out; hogan prevented; fitzpatrick earning it and Watts playing back mostly. He's had more opportunity than most - good that he has made something of it. He has worth - we might as well use it when we can. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to trade him. I just think he is an option that other teams would go for and it would be a win win. Best type of deal.

Hi rjay. I'd do it because Howe doesn't look like he is developing much as a mid, doesn't play back well because his attention and manning up sucks and will be one of five marking forwards next year. He doesn't play the crumbling role at all and fades out of games completely. His speccies are good but I'd trade the odd speccy for a good mid without feeling much regret.

I'd do it for Howe in a heartbeat

But our thomas is neil craig and I'm willing to be that there is a fair character difference in there... Maybe Jackson is giving leg room. He has to Craig. Craig has the anger, energy and good history of performance. Does he have the EQ? Does he have the footy cred to win the players? He has been with them for the last 18 months. The more time goes, the more Craig could find that his determination and 'want' are matched by a clarity of purpose - which to this point he can not have had as he was Neeld's support. I reckon Neil burns for a chance to do it again - to prove a few blokes wrong and to climb the mountain. He loves footy, is a footy person and is at the base of the biggest mountain in AFL. I reckon the size of the challenge and the chance to tell everything (time, fate, the media) to [censored] off and watch this resurrection will seduce him. My bet is that he will coach us next year because he'll know he wants it and the players will fall for the harness + care that he brings.

Hi Adam - sorry I missed your reply. My opinion would change based on observed behaviour - I'd hope that relevant information would influence every decision I make! As for Roos, I'd be less concerned, but not happy. After all the eff ups we've made, I need to see a hall of lot to believe. I've said my piece about Roos. From afar, I think he is a 'bloods' man and he has no drive for us. That is ok - if the Dees dropped out of the competition I would not follow AFL. I get it. I guess we'll see how it plays out... Have I said that I hate this?

Ross lyon has already demonstrated a commitment to more than one club. Roos has not. Lyon has demonstrated a willingness to move away from the club he loved. Roos has not. Don't take one thing in isolation. Add them up. He loved the Swans. Played there ages. Coached there. Wanted by the players there. Left, burnt out and appears to not want to coach again. Appears on TV with...variable analysis regularly - as if he is not paying attention. Why? Perhaps because life is easy and that is how he wants it? Compare that to Lyon - coached at several clubs, shown the ability and want to bond with (and shape) different groups, actively pursued opportunities. Ruthless, competitive, hard in how he operates. Just on their observed behaviour, Lyon is more driven, passionate and competitive. Now let us be REALLY clear that all we have to make decisions off is observed behaviour. Who actually sounds like they want the job? Who behaves as if they love coaching and could transfer their emotionality to bond with a damaged group? Sure Roos is smart and can coach. Who cares? Beyond that basic application criteria, what are key characteristics? Does he want it and is he motivated to do the work - the emotional, interpersonal work - of a senior coach? We all saw Neeld butcher his initial bonding with the group. We want someone keen to get in there with them and lead them in equal measure. So who comes across as someone who wants to do that? I've seen and heard nothing positive re: Roos on that front at all. Now, I'm sure I have less than 1% of the relevant info. So , as we all assess applicants, keep in mind what qualities they must have. Caring and leading are two and to do them you must be competitive and engaged. If Roos shows that, then great. Right now he's shown squat and 'Land sounds desperate - like a nerdy kids hoping for a look in with the school hottie, ignoring that the school hottie is, well, just not that into us.

No I don't think he is competitive enough, and if he is, he sounds uninterested in coaching generally and in us particularly. I'm not concerned that he is mad but rather that when things get tough he will just leave - sign on for two years, get paid heaps, do an ok job and wonder off. His commentary about footy is largely uninspiring and I wonder really how much attention he actually pays. He has a very good record at a very good club. I think he loves that club more than anything. He competes for that club. Mathews, Williams, Eade, Craig have all shown a love for the game and a passion for footy people and players for a long time and to a greater degree across situations/clubs. Again, if it is passion that is necessary (but not sufficient) I just do not see it in Roos at all. I see irritation and he sounds tired all the time. Out of interest, why not Craig?

So? Leigh is a competitive animal - with the emphasis on animal. Is Roos? I'm not convinced he is. He played for Sydney and then coached them. I think his passion lies in that club. Not the game, not coaching, not us. Matthews is competitive generally. I think they are different on this dimension. The more I think about it the more I want Williams or Craig only.

I think that the change in strategy I was talking about concerned the appointment of staff. For some time, the MFC have not appointed people on the basis of them being the best. Maybe we need someone else to do that - like a consultancy. I'm very uncomfortable with a takeover but I'm conscious we've got it wrong a lot and I don't know how to do it right.

I don't know about how the sponsorship team was assembled. But it sounds pretty amazing and I've seen other posters remark that De La Rue can be hard to deal with - but hell, I just don't know! I'll add that to a very long list that, disturbingly, is getting longer and longer... I'm stuffed if i know what the board does. Maybe Howcroft does get involved in the marketing stuff. Maybe the Board-led review of itself will release its findings?

And I'm not upset about the bump - in finals, the instinct to hurt blokes and remove them from the contest is what we want.

DA, I heard him at the MBC breakfast and he said there that appointing the two jacks was the right decision, but, that it was the right decision was the problem - they should not need to be in that position.

I thought he did really well - used the ball, marked it, beat mcEvoy physically, involved himself and won possessions, applied pressure, chased, tackled (or tried to). Easily the most involved performance from ruckman at MFC that I have seen this year - not the best, but the most involved.

I'd be cautious before believing everything in the article. Having been at the recent MBC breakfast and hearing how the sponsorship team (assembled under cam schwab) tries to create synergistic relationships between sponsors, I'd be wary about believing that Schwab acted in a blantantly stupid way to annoy one of our only sponsors. The whole thing sounds paranoid and far-fetched to me.