bing181

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.

"I really rate 'Goody'. I spent a year with him last year and he helped me a lot to see the game differently, think about it differently. "He's a terrific coach, great person, and I've got no doubt he will senior coach a football team again. ‘ Andrew McQualter

You would hope so, but I'm not sure where the trade capital is going to come from on our end. You look at what the likes of May and Lever cost us, but we don't have any of those picks anymore. Free agents perhaps, but apart from that ... ?

I think that that's only the case if it's a coach who's not currently in the AFL system. Otherwise, it has to wait till the end of the finals. Thought it was something like that, perhaps someone could confirm.

I think that's the million-dollar question and what this all turns on. If you believe media reports, the Board thinks we are, at least to some extent - that we won't win a flag for the next 2 years, which would have rendered Goodwin's future untenable, so they've moved now rather than wait a year or three. Personally, I don't know that we're much better at the moment than what we're showing - regardless of the list, there's been too much chaos and too much change. Whether that makes us a struggling club, not sure, but it doesn't help and won't help going forward unless we do something about it, regardless of who the coach is.

There's also a counterfactual to the above: if the board hadn't sacked Goodwin and we did badly next year, people would be calling for their heads for not acting. On the other hand, if we'd kept Goodwin and made finals in 2026, no-one would be praising the board for NOT sacking Goodwin. In other words, if they don't sack Goodwin they're on a hiding to nothing.

What a John Longmire buys you is the possibility to lose. If we go into next year and it's as bad as this one, you won’t see members microwaving their cards. That, more than anything, is probably why the powers that be will lean toward an experienced coach. If we do badly no-one will blame it on the coach and by association, the club and its directors. But if we do well (finals) everyone involved in shafting Goodwin comes out smelling like roses. Bring in Longmire, and it’s a win-win for the board.

If there aren't changes anywhere else at the club, there's very little reason to believe that anyone would be successful.

How Demonland sees statistics: Surgeon: Hi, I'm your surgeon, I'll be performing your open heart surgery. Demonlander: It's a very complicated operation, what's your success rate? Surgeon: Excellent. I've done a dozen of these, I had one patient where I turned his life around, added 25 years to it. Demonlander: And the others? Surgeon: They all died on the operating table. Demonlander: Sounds good, let's do it. But heh, it'll be different this time.

No it's not. Read the original post. A team that has consistently played in finals and maybe has one off year (Pies, GWS) is not what I would call a struggling team. Also, was only talking about the last few years. But been here before. People can't help themselves in looking at all the times a particular coaching path has led to success, while ignoring both a) other factors that might have contributed to success but in particular, all the times that same path has not had a significant impact on a clubs trajectory. Essendon, North and St Kilda have been through numerous coaching changes without any real change in their fortunes. But that's the norm. Outliers are just that.

For me, we do as well. established key position forward skilled ball-users/midfielder(s) Also issues with our back line, which is about to fall off a cliff with the aging of May, Lever and McDonald.

FWIW, I don't really care who the new coach is. They'll be competent. Like Goodwin was. The change that's needed has to be elsewhere, from admin/governance to football department to playing list, and unless there's real change in those areas we're going to be just another Essendon or St Kilda.

Over the last few years, if you look at every struggling team that changed coaches, except for GCS they're all still struggling - or languishing. Changing coaches is not the fix xmany here seem to think it is, and the "fresh voice" line trotted out by the board is so demonstrably flawed as a business strategy that I'm surprised they had the gall to use it. The human species often confuses change for progress.

Not sure if this is meant as a joke. If I had a penny for every organisation, government or company that has been run off a cliff because "it will be different this time" ...

Hmm. The word that he used first in that sentence wasn't "love", it was "respect". "We always respected him and loved him as a coach, so if that's what the board thinks, then that's what the board thinks." Also, it's "respect him as a coach", not just "respect him as a person", it's a professional/football relationship and that respect has to be earned. Also perhaps worth noting, Langdon played the first part of his career under Ross Lyon, so he at least has a reference point.