nutbean

The only question mark is the ability to get on the ground often enough.

I do find it interesting - besides Paul Roos the balance were hardly world beaters as footballers and whilst I applaud anyone who can play any games of AFL let alone 100 plus it does go to show that you dont need to make a great footballer to be a good coach ( aka - how can you teach others if you havent done it yourself...). What looks much better is Paul Roos instead of Mark Neeld.

I heard from a reliable source that Ling, despite his protestations is locked in. Oh crap...I heard it on Demonland....as you were......

My main issue has always been that we roll over far too easily. Whilst I see all the injustices mentioned, on far too many occasions we dont even raise a whimper in the face of these injustices. We need that to change. edit - I was envious of the Ross Lyon coup by Fremantle - whilst we played it by the numbers with Lyon, Freo identified what they wanted and went out and got it. They havent looked back since that day - it sent a very strong message about how they wanted to be perceived. That is why I was so adament about Roos - dont move on when he mumbled "I am not interested in coaching at this stage" ( not sure how much this was a rouse anyway). I hope this change which is in no small part a PJ thing will continue. Aim for and get what you want without compromise.

I disagree with those comparing him to Dawes - They both share a similar trait of being a "hit up" CHF but Dawes is a cleverer footballer who makes right decisions ( when he aint injured) - Miller - not so much. You could not fault Millers endeavors and from all accounts displayed good leadership on the ground and off. Like all assistants and development coaches, we have little idea of who are good bad or otherwise so if it Brad is good enough for PR then thats good enough for me. Welcome aboard. ( a perfect example of our lack of knowledge on who we think would make a good or bad assistant - I am sure not many would have picked Brett Allison at the end of his career as good coaching material but from all reports he is meant to be excellent)

Nearly every assistant at Carlton went when Malthouse went there. The cleanout has everything to do with the new coach bringing in his own people which has always been the norm and little to do with your theory.

Here is a dead certainty - I am stoked we have Roos onboard and he will make the MFC a much more attractive destination - but lets not all get carried away. We look at our destination with rose coloured glasses. Here and now, if the likes of Adams has the reported choice of Collingwood, Geelong, Richmond or us - we would rank 4th choice. It will take "overs" to get the likes of Adams to have us choice one. And that goes for other recruits as well.

and cementing of relationships. (sorry)

Wasn't Mitchell going to be the next big thing ?

Never in my life have I been so disheartened at the offerings of leaders and policies that both major parties put before me at an election.

I think you can question when a player is dumped by one club but I'm figuring that something is going on when you are dumped by your second.

And it shows how much of football is played between the ears - we saw glimpses in two or three games showing that he could be valuable - it is a shame he has been unable to commit to his football.

I shudder at even being thought of as an imitation - pale or not.

I am with you. I have no doubt that Neeld was detrimental to the players performances and development but they didn't fair all that much better under Craig. At the end of the day it is the players responsibility for kicking the damn footy and blaming the coaching for the players putrid efforts is giving the players a get out of jail free card.

I still maintain that the average supporter ( and even not so average supporter) are just not in a position to judge assistant or line coaches. Pure and simple but I'll let it go. I am interested in the above on Craig. For the life of me I can't work out why people are so quick to judge personnel that they have little insight to enable good judgement but continually give enormous latitude to Neil Craig . (actually I do know why - he comes across as a good bloke). $400K a year for a mentor with vague role description and no real power ? He was brought in specifically to lend experience and guide an untried coach and coaching panel. By that KPI alone he failed miserably.

You mean right coaches with the right experience. You mean coaches like Dale Tapping who is VFL coach for Collingwood - who only has had TAC cup experience ? You mean coaches like Brendan Bolton a Hawthorn Assistant who only has VFA coaching experience ? These 3 guys that were not renewed were assistants to the assistants whose resume was working with younger footballers which is basically all we had left at the MFC !!!! Most on here were also praising the appointment of Leigh Brown at the time. By the criteria you are marking his appointment on you would give suggest that Cameron Ling is a bad choice to pursue as he has had no coaching experience like Leigh Brown at the time. I also find it interesting that you suggest it may have been a bad decision by Schwab/Neeld - you dont think that Craig had any input at all or is he too nice a guy to pot ? Go through the assistant coaches and development coaches at other clubs and they are littered with personnel that did not play at the highest level (AFL) which basically means they get their start somewhere and at some stage had no AFL coaching experience. The structure we had was ultimately a spectacular failure but to say that assistants to the assistants were "out of their depth" is guesswork at best.

No.. it has nothing to do with renewal or not renewal....getting cranky by you imagining that line coaches were " out of their depth" when I would dearly love to hear exactly what you base that opinion on ? Interested to hear your feedback on them. What were their strengths and weaknesses ? I am all ears. No experience to guide them ? I believe that was Neil Craigs role as Director of Sports Performance to mentor the coaches. No experience there ? I get cranky when guesswork without any thought masquerades as considered opinion. I would have preferred you went with BB's commentary that Roos was always going to bring in his own team as most new coaches do. (Jesus, I've turned into Ben Hur)

Correct - you imagine. Its bad enough that everyone believes they were insight as to the performance of assistant coaches - we are now passing judgement on line coaches ?

Nutbean here, there and everywhere. I understand history, tradition and legacy but if Dr Who doesn't allow free speech that is critical of the club the site dies completely. It's unfortunately that simple.

I am sure they do have input in consultation with the coaches (hence responsibility) - I am just perplexed with the non recognition of how crap our midfield talent is and shifting responsibility back to Royal without applying the same standard to other assistants. I keep asking the same question ( which highlights our lack of insight) - Over the past two years where Viney's title has been player development - exactly which players have developed so well that we would pat him on the back and say job well done. This is not a knock on Viney because we just dont know but I cant buy how some on here have jumped into Royal but wont apply the same measurements on reaching that conclusion to the balance of the coaching staff. My opinion has been a collective fail for all with all coaches with massive crosses against Neeld for setting the direction and agenda and a lot of recognition that an absense of talent makes coaching a difficult task, ( edit - and I love good argument !)

You havent spotted the major flaw in your argument ? Roos is head coach who sets direction, strategies and set ups.Royal is an assistant who implements those directions, strategies and set-ups. You are 100% right when you said only insiders know why he failed and by extension of that same argument those insiders would be the only people also to gauge why with a horrific back line and forward line and development Viney and Rawlings have been retained but Royal and Brown havent. As a collective basically the whole club failed including most importantly the players - we keep blaming ordinary footballers and a very ordinary senior coach on an assistant ! If we want to say from top to bottom that our football department was a fail then not a problem - but there are those on here who have been potting Royal and pointing to our deplorable midfield yet not holding the same standards against all the others from top to bottom whose KPI's have been just as poor. (someone even mentioned that Viney had the midas touch and our development of players has been ok - ye gods !) Apart from the head coach who takes ultimate responsibility I will not single out individuals under the head coach for more blame than others as we have zero insight.

In herein lies the problem ( and I somewhat think that RR and I are arguing this to death). Firstly the whole club went backwards whilst all our coaches were onboard so by your criteria every ass't and line coach had "a hand in it" and all failed. Lack of development means Viney had a large hand in it and the debacle of the whole footballing organisation means that Craig was spectacular failure. An assistants coach role is not to teach the players his game plan and strategies but to impart the head coaches strategies and game plan - I am sure that a good assistant will bring ideas to the table but they would certainly be ticked off by the head coach and not implemented without authority. So how do you judge a good assistant coach ? It is pretty simple. 1/ If he keeps getting a gig (which the head coach dictates) - he is probably ok 2/ If he gets the flick from a "Sitting" coach then he is either no good or the head coach has found someone better 3/ New coaches usually bring in new assistants So yeah - Royal had a hand in coaching the worst midfield in the AFL with players who wouldnt play for the head coach (apparently) and with a game plan from head coach that everyone is still scratching their head trying to figure out exactly what it was.

agreed...its beyond you.

I dont think it is self righteous at all. A tad delusional tis all. So the problem with our forwards was the midfield and the problem with our backs was the midfield..hmm ok... and over the past two years our players have developed reasonably ?? seriously ?? Our players have gone so far backwards it is mind boggling - Nathan Jones would be the only footballer you would consider has made good progress over the past two years and gone from an adequate to a really consistent performer and has won two B&F's ( remind me if he played in the midfield and if Royal coached him ? Maybe Royal got lucky with Jones). I absolutely get that Roos wants his own people - I also would agree that if you asked Royal himself how he would rate his years at the MFC he would rate them as a fail. Im sorry but if you want to judge these insiders with little insight then go for it but hold every one of them to the same standard and if you do every single one of the coaches would fail miserably and with no insight you would also conclude that Viney and Craig are miles away from a pass mark for their respective results of their areas of responsibilities

I believe the objection from the other clubs falls under the "don't give a sucker an even break" clause.