nutbean

I'll open up old wounds. Im not sure whether or not Bennell has talent - but we are already seeing this year, with a few our "spuds" - that a decent coach/football department should be able to bring out the maximum amount of talent in a player. I am a firm believer that this has been missing in the past.

He was caught - I prefer he continued this approach - you win games by taking it the game on on certain occasions and he will learn when to and when not to. But cudo's to him for backing his own ability.

History re-writing does my head in !

I have no problem with you not rating him. What does irks me is making up blatant nonsense. Toumpas may not have been the obvious choice for YOU at the time but was rated top 3 by all the TAC watchers. Go back and do some homework.

With no insight at all - I also feel that PJ, when he decides to pull the plug, won't say - that's it - I'm off. I think (hope) like Roos - he will exit on his own timetable after ensuring we have someone in place to take over from him. Pretty hard for him to land Roos by hard selling him on the idea of a succession plan and then not do the same himself ?

For the last 5 years I have gone into games with hope. This season I go into games with optimism. Now THATS progress.

spot on

I have a question. Firstly - I haven't been to any Casey games nor have I have ever heard Welsh speak. All I can base my question on is a few reports on here and the article that was posted on this thread. From this article alone I feel that Welsh, as a coach, overstepped on his comments ( whether they were taken out of context - I dont know). There are ways to deliver a message and I felt his comments were not professional at all. I gather you have seen him up close live and if you have been to Casey games would have heard him in action. Looking at his comments in this article - is this how you perceive him live and in person ? Are his comments as per the article his modus operandi ?

I think it shows the real difference between two men - both can create a game plan , both were probably closely aligned on their strategic philosophy - they were light years in motivating players and having the players respond appropriately. The simple test is to hear the Neelds pregame address last year and then hear Roos speak.

I wonder how high Dawes will finish. He is the sort of player coaches love for their pure devotion to the contest. Reminiscent of Laurie Fowler taking B&F's off Robert Flower. Flower was pure genius - Fowler was not polished but suicidal crazy at the contest for the full game.

Definite conflict of interest. I understand the cost component but how much pull does the MFC have in ensuring that Casey is a development ground for our senior team. Roos wants to turn Fitzy into a CHB would Welsh play him there at Casey ? Roos sees Hogan as a ruckman would Welsh play him 1st ruck or opt to use him as KP forward and kick a winning score ?

I have seen it happen in business twice but its a bit more discreet than it would be for an AFL coach. The two successors to CEO positions I know of, moved on to explore other opportunities before taking over the CEO positions ( the other opportunities were how to get the giant boot marks out of their arses). It would be a bit uglier with a succession plan with a coach as there usually aren't many other opportunities - nevertheless, you would hope that Roos and Co would not proceed to hand over if they were not happy with the successors progress. I remember at the time of Collingwoods succession plan it was reported that Malthouse was pumping more for Neeld to follow after him rather than Buckley - I am not sure if that was because he thought that Neeld was a better coach or he just didn't like Buckley. I wonder how that would have turned out ?

You don't need gaurantees that he will be a good coach - you only need to assume ( and do your due diligence) with any of the candidates that they COULD be good coaches. Thats why there is a two year hand over period. Would you suggest that after the two years, that Roos ( who wants to be part of the club ongoing) seeing that his heir apparent hasnt got what it takes would say " what the hell - lets give it a fly anyway". I have seen succession plans in business be called off because after a few years as the annointed understudy, the board and CEO have deemed the understudy not up to the next step. Roos being somewhat a visionary and full of integrity would certainly not hand over to a coach that he thought wouldnt make the grade - he has a track record with Longmire. I would think - worse case scenario - if he wasnt very confident that his successor could take us to the next level he would go to the CEO and board and say - "go out and get the best available coach - this bloke aint got it"

I don't think many of us are fooled by the various other reasons. Once the money box is ticked then other factors are considered. I do wonder on Franklin if GWS had offered say $50K more a year over 10 years whether he would have gone with GWS. Its still about money - but once you are up to $1M per year on salary alone I guess you can weigh up $50K more against playing in finals. Edit - on Judd - if the Melbourne offer and the Carlton offer were roughly the same - even if Carlton was little less - at that stage - I would have gone with Carlton for many of the reasons he expressed. Its easy to consider other options once financial demands have been met)

I agree to an extent. Absolutely clubs show no loyalty therefore i have no problems with players looking at their options. But it is demand and value. Players of value and demand hold the whip hand - more money - better terms - alternative clubs. Players who have little value - it is all in favour of the club.

Correct - most games plans are visible and obvious - the trick is playing to the gameplan at 100% capacity - both intensity and skill.

I agree - but look at back at thrust of Neelds messages - non negotiables and defensive efforts - not so different from Roos. The ability to make players hear the messages, understand the messages and be motivated to perform the message - light years of difference.

Controversial opinion - I don't think that gameplans vary so greatly these days - Sydneys has been tweaked with big forwards up front. Certain clubs revolve game plans around their strengths - big forwards - small forward - goal kicking mids but th plans are not acres apart - two way running - emphasis on defensive efforts and keep possession. The difference in clubs is not their gameplans but the coaches ability to teach and get players to play to their full potential and the gameplan. Neeld was huge on defense and two way running as is Roos but he either couldnt teach it or they way he delivered message, the players didnt listen or understand.

No argument at all. Franklin got offered huge bucks from both Sydney and GWS. He absolutely factored in going to that cesspool

Firstly - Bomber is also big on defense but as you say is more attacking than Roos. Could you imagine taking the Roos plan and incorporating more attacking elements - thats what Longmire did to Roos gameplan.

I wonder what Malcolm Turnbull thinks of all this. I always considered him on the moderate side of the conservatives. I understand that there is towing the party line but then there also "wtf "???? He surely must be thinking "wtf" ???

I think there is probably four variables. 1/ Most players that are happy at their club and see a future would probably stay for a little less money but if offered significantly more bucks move on. - Travis Cloke is an example of player who was offered bigger dollars from Essendon but the difference between the Dons offer and Collingwood was not significant enough for him to move. Franklin, Judd, Ablett and Goddard - significantly more. 2/ A player like Frawley may leave if he doesn't see a future for the same money. 3/ Certain players will leave for more opportunities to play senior football - I think Cross chose the MFC because he knew he would be a starting fixture 4/ Certain players will leave at the end of the career for the chance to play finals for less money - Bruce and Rivers. My general view is that the struggling clubs ( us over the past years ) have overpaid our players - as RPFC points out - we have to pay someone. It is hard for our better players to get bigger money elsewhere. ( except Voldemort). The better clubs because of cap restraints can struggle to hold onto players - Dawes came to the MFC because he was offered much more money than Collingwood were prepared to offer. But their marquee players have to decide for the sake of a little money if they want to move on to a club that may not be as successful.

All good analysis - but nah - its always primarily about the money and I don't have problem with that. The payback is that I have more love for players that turn their back on bigger pay packets to stay at their club.

I know you need to practice what you are taught at training during games and you need the a Casey coach on the same page as Roos but you look at the criticisms of Allison of the players and there are two consistent themes - poor disposal and not enough respect given to defense. Doesnt matter what club or what coach we are talking about - they would all be preaching the same message. The one thing I have learned from Neeld vs Roos - is I would think that both coaches are and were saying 95% the same thing. The difference is how it was said - how messages and learnings are delivered. The Neeld/Roos message wouldn't be all that different. You can see though that the players are hearing the Roos messages and enjoying an environment where they can deliver on his messages - Neeld messages - weren't heard and werent acted on - it appears his messages and the environment became toxic .My problem with Welsh is the very limited window we have to see his player management (ie comments in the media) remind me of last years coach.

Its interesting to see that the backdowns are already starting. Brandis after getting 8 gazillion negative submissions on the repealing of 18c is backing away from the changes. After Tony's huff and puff about no compromise on budget measures, we now have Chris Pyne, Minister for Gov't Business and C bombs saying of course they will negotiate. Ummm Chris - you will negotiate because you have the choice of two - a double dissolution election based on the toxic budget or negotiate.