bing181

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.

Hard to see Brad Green staying either once Smith is in charge.

Absolutely this. Also Tassie in the wings.

Surprising (understatement!) news. I haven't seen any commentators saying "I saw this coming", quite the reverse, so pretty clear that there's been a bit going on behind the scenes. Quite what that might entail we don't know and may never know, but seeing everyone is having their 2 cents, here's mine: - getting rid of Goodwin is not in itself a fix for anything. Whatever the problems are, they still have to be addressed, presumably by the incoming coach and FD. - Steven Smith is going to be a very different kind of president to what we've had of late. He's obviously very proactive, and isn't prepared to accept second best, which is going to have ramifications right through the club from the top down. (This predicated on commentaries around the place that Smith was very much behind this.) - It looks like this has been in the works for a while — see earlier reports of an approach to Luke Beveridge. Perhaps Smith wasn’t as willing to accept last year’s review as Roffey and Pert. So why now when they could’ve left Goodwin in place for two more rounds then staged a smoother exit? Why the urgency? Is there (new) info around re other coaches (Voss/Carlton?) and has a race for a coaching candidate forced our hand? You don't make these kinds of decisions without a pretty good idea of what you want as an outcome, presumably there are names. - The board has access to info we don’t — commercial concerns might have played a big role. Membership and sponsorship pressures? Replacing the coach may be seen as a short-term fix, a way to reset the optics and buy some clean air, regardless of results. - As above, but more consequential, there may have started to be a certain shall we say resistance to coming to Melbourne from players and e.g. assistants and FD staff. Everyone acknowledges the holes in our list, but if player managers are starting to say to Tim Lamb that "Player X is looking for a new club but doesn't want to come to Melbourne" that might have set off a few alarm bells. Perhaps same discourse internally: McVee contract hold-up? (but who knows ...) - If there is now a perception that the FD needs a reset, it might as well start at the top. Regardless of who comes in, Troy Chaplin now has the "assistant coach who takes over as interim head coach" kiss of death, and will almost certainly be leaving at the end of the season, so that's one gone. But he won't be alone. Alan Richardson will surely follow, though as with Goodwin, will be catastrophic for our soft cap as he's also contracted for 2026. (Rumours that we're looking at Adam Simpson as head of football?) - But I think my biggest take-away in all this has little to do with Goodwin's capabilities as a coach (as Brad Green acknowledged), but centres on the relationship between Goodwin and the players. A kind of a reverse "the coach has lost the players" where the tail is now wagging the dog. That in an attempt to address issues within the playing group, we've gone too far the other way.. As in my point above, this may be coming from a new no-nonsense President putting his foot down. Expect to see at least some collateral damage in the playing group. Across all that, I really wonder if we'd be here if it wasn't for losing Angus Brayshaw. He was our future captain, the glue that held the team together and as a player, someone who led from the front. Only one player, but the team has been out of kilter on-field and off ever since he was carried off the field at the start of our 2023 finals campaign. Caveat: All of the above could be completely wrong, I don't know the full story. But none of us do. PS. Sorry this got so long. Feel free to ignore.

Laughable. Jason Taylor: "Duties include Managing the National/International Recruiting and Talent Identification programs, member of the List Management Committee ..."

Agree wholeheartedly with everything else, but not sure about this. Grundy is coming home like a house on fire.