bing181

For me, yes and no. The head coach would be regularly presenting to the board as part of his job/role, both formally and informally. Doesn't mean he was under review per se. Equally, in a result-oriented field like sports, everyone is always under review, which he would know and which he acknowledged in his 360 interview.

True to form for this poster.

All over the world sports teams hire and fire coaches. With various levels of success. Given that at the highest level (= $$$) these are key decisions, it's an area that has been studied to death (so much so that people seem to have pretty well stopped studying it). And overall, what those studies show is that if you have a competent coach who is good at managing and motivating people (personal relationships etc.), the key factors to achieving success are, in no particular order: list fitness and medical staff assistants and specialist coaches admin from the executive down list If that's in order and your coach is OK, you'll see success (Fagan at the Lions is a good example for me, more recently Nicks at the Crows). If not, not even a good coach is going to help (or hinder) - see Clarkson and any number of half-decent coaches at Essendon or St Kilda.

Finally the penny starts to drop. Selections: not just Goodwin.

Maybe (work with me here ...), selection choices weren't just down to Goodwin?

Why? Massive amount of experience, industry-wide respect.

The one who's already in the leadership group is Chandler. Mightn't resonate with many here, but it's what he does in/around the club that matters. Losing ANB hasn't helped either, would have been a good workhorse captain.

We did. Angus Brayshaw.

If you want to improve basic skills across the whole squad, bring in players with better skills. The kicking of the likes of Petracca and Viney is not going to improve. Some of the younger players will improve with experience and maturity (disposal under pressure), but apart from that ... not how it works.

AGM is in December, so surely it would make sense to have that as the date for the hand-over.

Yes. He was specifically talking about the next 2 weeks.

Also widely respected in the industry. Ex senior coach at both AFL and VFL levels, senior assistant and director of coaching at Port under Hinkley, assistant across 5 AFL clubs, etc. etc.

The list. Better skills and smarts. Get that in place and the rest will follow. Without it in place, everything else is just rearranging the deck chairs.

Sparrow?

What we saw today (from us) is the difference between knowing how to play and knowing how to win.

May in for someone ... Adams presumably (even though that's a bit harsh)? Not sure who for Windsor unless it's Woewodin or Brown, and Billings has been pretty consistent at Casey. Cupboard is always bare at this time of year.

For starters they play different positions, but they've been building Culley as a wing over the last 10 weeks or so, he's only come on enough recently.

Nothing to do with fitness.

This. And has been this for the last few seasons.

Oh FFS, just leave it. Ridiculous.

Can't fault the effort, but same old same old when it comes to disposals and turnovers. Still, not blown out of the water which given the way the Dogs are playing, is something. Forward line looking almost the best it has all year, but getting cut up around the stoppages.

A year of image-building in the media then back into it.

"He'll get another opportunity, he's a brilliant coach". Troy Chaplin

You'd think McVee sub. Makes sense, was probably between him and Howes given the need for height down back. Pretty clear though that with only one change the coaches and FD have been more or less on the same page. The opposite of wholesale change.

It doesn't show anything except your confirmation bias. For all any of us know, this could have been thrashed out in coaches meetings/selection committee on Monday, or even last week. Given the absence of May and Lever, and the makeup of the Dogs forward line, a third tall was always going to come into consideration.