bing181

Just looking for the Time To Go Chaplin thread. If someone could help a brother out …

Sack the stand-in coach. Obviously need a fresh voice.

Except I didn't just refer to weather did I. Cherry picking. But heh, if that's the hill you want to die on, be my guest: "Daniher said the environment at the Lions and the lifestyle away from football was a perfect combination. "It's been a beautiful change," he said. "It's 30 degrees and blue sky and sunny outside, it's an enjoyable place to be. A great city and a great place to play football."

Going by tonight's AFLW results, Daisy Pearce.

Just to comment on my own post (probably not permitted in Demonand, for good reason ...), a great negative example of this is David Noble at North. From an outsider's perspective, it seems that they looked at what happened at the Lions with Fagan and tried to find a clone: David Noble had a very similar background to Fagan. The bit they got wrong though is that Fagan is an all-round nice-guy and people-person (relationships, relationships, relationships), whereas Noble seems to have been something of the opposite. Not to mention the Queensland weather/lifestyle and the role it played in attracting the best of the best (Cameron, Neale, Daniher, Dunkley etc. etc.), plus some handy Academy picks (Hipworth, Harris Andrews). Plus, of course, a very good off-field operation.

Even a week or more down the track, still feel that the Board have gone off half-cocked here. The "fresh voice" discourse is weak and flawed, almost laughable. The litmus test for me will be what OTHER changes they make, including to themselves. Changing the coach without seeing consequential changes elsewhere is just a deck-chair-moving exercise. I suspect (without any inside knowledge), that they were spooked by a) commercial considerations (sponsorship, membership) for which they would have had figures and feedback and b) the possibility of other clubs moving on their own coaches, leaving us to play catch-up if we were to go down this path post-season. That b) also includes not just other coaches, but players, assistants and other FD staff - with a new coach there's not enough time for any negatives to stick, so we can sell nothing but positives: yes, we know you're a key forward who likes the ball delivered out in front, and yes the kicking into the forward line has been abysmal, but we have a new coach who's going to fix it yadda yadda. There's also a c) here that could be part of the board's thinking: if they recognised a need for wholesale change across the FD, list and club, then it needed a circuit breaker to start the Jonedominos falling. And there's no bigger circuit breaker than sacking the head coach. Much easier to move on a Petracca, Fritsch, Jones, Green or Richardson if you've done Goodwin first.

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.