This can be the difference a new coach makes

[saintspremiers]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/soccer/ ... 4zj0y.html

I didn’t watch the game but read with interest re how the effect structural changes to a game plan can make a huge difference essentially with the same squad as before.

Australian soccer team appeared to be a bit like us - quite a bit of raw talent that was poorly directed/coached.

Imagine what we could do with a decent new coach next year??

Food for thought and worth bookmarking....

[samuraisaint]

Only if overall player development has been good - which on the face of it, ours has not.
Having said that, I will wait to see what the second half of the season brings before I make my final opinion of the coaching team. Don't want to go early.
Remember Hawthorn and the Swans last year, and the opposite side of the spectrum, North Melbourne, in the past four years.
I don't think simply sacking the coach will have any effect on our mid to long term future at all. It goes deeper than that and starts at the top.

[saintspremiers]

Only if overall player development has been good - which on the face of it, ours has not.
Having said that, I will wait to see what the second half of the season brings before I make my final opinion of the coaching team. Don't want to go early.
Remember Hawthorn and the Swans last year, and the opposite side of the spectrum, North Melbourne, in the past four years.
I don't think simply sacking the coach will have any effect on our mid to long term future at all. It goes deeper than that and starts at the top.

Sacking the coach will help, along of course with Trout and most of the assistant coaches.

A good old fashioned clean out could do wonders.

Keep the coach and which gun FA’s will come to us?

Why did they all say no last year??

[freely]

Yeah, it's all true - just remember the difference Timmy Watson made. For 9 games.

[rodgerfox]

Sacking the coach will help, along of course with Trout and most of the assistant coaches.

Sacking someone rarely helps.

Replacing them with someone better will almost certainly help though.


Personally, I see coaching in AFL circles kind of like politics. There's a strong tendency to 'vote someone out' as opposed to 'vote someone in'. And I feel strongly that that is wrong. Obviously there are scenarios where someone is so toxic that they have to get the arse regardless of who's coming in - but generally speaking, why 'vote someone out' if you're not convinced that the incoming person is not going to be better?

Taking the emotion out of it...

Ken Sheldon
Stan Alves
Tim Watson
Malcolm Blight
Grant Thomas
Ross Lyon
Scott Watters
Alan Richardson

Realistically, only two of them would have fallen into the 'just get rid of them as anyone will be better' category - Blight and Watters. Lyon quit, and Alves was sacked because Plympton had a man crush on Tim Watson. Some would say he was 'ruthless' in that decision. He had his man, and got him. Many others say would say he was reckless.

These big 'ruthless' decisions that many Saints fans crave as an answer to our woes, very rarely pay off.

If there is a coach out there that wants to coach the Saints, that we know is better than Richardson then we should move on it. But sacking him for an unknown rookie in my opinion, is just silly. I don't think we're at the 'he just has to go because he is so toxic' stage yet.
At this stage of the rebuild, there's no need to pull the trigger, unless someone is better out there.

[asiu]

"... no need to pull the trigger, unless someone is better out there."

agreed

[Life Long Saint]

If Clarkson is available then all bets are off!

[Yorkeys]

Taking the soccer analogy, Zinedine Zidane just took Real Madrid to a third straight UEFA Cup final then resigned to enable a new coach to add freshness - what a guy. Of course Real Madrid has a lot of top flight talent, nevertheless at the other end of the coaching scale Richo must be painfully aware of his record poor win loss ratio and have also considered resigning. The Club has been extremely loyal to Richo ( & a number of underperforming players) now it is up to him to pay back. The injuries this year and failed reassignments of assistant coaches together with cost penalties probably give him the benefit of the doubt for 2019. However he would be aware of his obligation to repay the club by getting wins or to get off the pot. I think he will quit before he is let go but give plenty of notice.

[loris]

Only if overall player development has been good - which on the face of it, ours has not.
Having said that, I will wait to see what the second half of the season brings before I make my final opinion of the coaching team. Don't want to go early.
Remember Hawthorn and the Swans last year, and the opposite side of the spectrum, North Melbourne, in the past four years.
I don't think simply sacking the coach will have any effect on our mid to long term future at all. It goes deeper than that and starts at the top.

Oh samuraisaint............ your avatar, so, so evocative of the days at The Junction Oval. Please tell me that’s one of the gates....... just

[asiu]

If Clarkson is available then all bets are off!

if i didnt agree with that as well ,
i'd up ramp my medication

[asiu]

meditation !

i meant meditation

what a dud

[rodgerfox]

Taking the soccer analogy, Zinedine Zidane just took Real Madrid to a third straight UEFA Cup final then resigned to enable a new coach to add freshness - what a guy. Of course Real Madrid has a lot of top flight talent, nevertheless at the other end of the coaching scale Richo must be painfully aware of his record poor win loss ratio and have also considered resigning. The Club has been extremely loyal to Richo ( & a number of underperforming players) now it is up to him to pay back. The injuries this year and failed reassignments of assistant coaches together with cost penalties probably give him the benefit of the doubt for 2019. However he would be aware of his obligation to repay the club by getting wins or to get off the pot. I think he will quit before he is let go but give plenty of notice.

I'm going to go against the grain here, and look at it from a different angle....

When Lyon and Watters were doing their thing, we should have seen this coming. Add in the 'compromised draft' when we should have been beginning our rebuild, and really, it's no shock that we're still trying to build our list.


In 2010 we played in a GF.
In 2011 we played finals, and clearly were on the way down. This is where the rebuild started. However as luck would have it - we found ourselves in a compromised draft period and had our first pick at 25.
In 2012 we finished 9th, and again due to the compromised draft, when we were rebuilding for our future - had our first pick at 24.


This is when our current rebuild started. We took Wright, White, Murdoch, Saunders, Pierce, Ross, Markworth, Newnes, Webster, Jay Lever in those two years.

That right there, is why we find ourselves in the situation we're currently in. Combine that, with the fact that during our 'tilt at the flag' we didn't bring through a young generation outside of Steven and Armitage that would have right now, been our senior guys.

So in 2018, we don't have a senior core of good, solid players. We have Armo, Steven, Geary, Brown and Gilbert. Our mid-tier in terms of experience, is the guys we drafted in '11 and '12.

And we sit here and scratch our heads as to why we suck??!


The guys we brought in in 2013 onwards, will be good. How good? Don't know. But because of the incredibly poor senior group we have, plus the very weak middle tier that we drafted during the original rebuild years - they're doing most of the heavy lifting themselves.

We're very much still rebuilding. It'll be 2-3 years before we've rebuilt.

[asiu]

i thought we were already on the fall in 2010

was very suprised we got another go at it

[spert]

I think the playing group were mentally shot after losing 2010, and then 2011 just came and went without a whimper. Then Lyon suddenly shot through, which wouldn't help the morale of any playing group who travelled together through a successful period where they almost got the prize but fell over three times.

I think anyone who took on coaching after that- Watters or not, would have struggled to get that senior group in the right mindset to get back up for a shot at finals. We would have been better off just trading off some of those senior players earlier and getting more youth through, and I suspect that's what Watters probably had in mind, but it was never going to happen.

I know from my playing days, not just footy but other sports, that a new coach can really make a difference if the playing group get behind him. I can't help thinking that Richo may not be the best communicator with our young group.. a good coach can get in the heads of players and that's where things start to happen.

[rodgerfox]

i thought we were already on the fall in 2010

was very suprised we got another go at it

We were.

However in hindsight, the only way to do anything it during that Gold Coast compromised raft would have been to trade into it. Instead, had our first pick at 24 and picked up Cripps, some kid called Sam Crocker and Tom Ledger.


Interestingly, the teams that did the best out of that draft appear to be Richmond and West Coast..

Gaff, Cripps, Darling, Lycett.

Prestia, Caddy, Conca, Batchelor.

[Bernard Shakey]

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/soccer/ ... 4zj0y.html

I didn’t watch the game but read with interest re how the effect structural changes to a game plan can make a huge difference essentially with the same squad as before.

Australian soccer team appeared to be a bit like us - quite a bit of raw talent that was poorly directed/coached.

Imagine what we could do with a decent new coach next year??

Food for thought and worth bookmarking....

I watched the game and it is totally irrelevant to our situation.
The Czechs were just going through the motions. It was a friendly and they had nothing to play for, they are not in the World Cup!

[SaintPav]

Sacking the coach will help, along of course with Trout and most of the assistant coaches.

Sacking someone rarely helps.

Replacing them with someone better will almost certainly help though.


Personally, I see coaching in AFL circles kind of like politics. There's a strong tendency to 'vote someone out' as opposed to 'vote someone in'. And I feel strongly that that is wrong. Obviously there are scenarios where someone is so toxic that they have to get the arse regardless of who's coming in - but generally speaking, why 'vote someone out' if you're not convinced that the incoming person is not going to be better?

Taking the emotion out of it...

Ken Sheldon
Stan Alves
Tim Watson
Malcolm Blight
Grant Thomas
Ross Lyon
Scott Watters
Alan Richardson

Realistically, only two of them would have fallen into the 'just get rid of them as anyone will be better' category - Blight and Watters. Lyon quit, and Alves was sacked because Plympton had a man crush on Tim Watson. Some would say he was 'ruthless' in that decision. He had his man, and got him. Many others say would say he was reckless.

These big 'ruthless' decisions that many Saints fans crave as an answer to our woes, very rarely pay off.

If there is a coach out there that wants to coach the Saints, that we know is better than Richardson then we should move on it. But sacking him for an unknown rookie in my opinion, is just silly. I don't think we're at the 'he just has to go because he is so toxic' stage yet.
At this stage of the rebuild, there's no need to pull the trigger, unless someone is better out there.

Disagree about Stan. He had clearly lost the players and was going through a personal hell with the death of his son.

We probably would have made the 8 in 2012 under Lyon but not sure it would have done us much good.

Agree with everything else.

[BringBackMadDog]

Yeah, it's all true - just remember the difference Timmy Watson made. For 9 games.

And Blight and Watters!!

[chico2001]

What part of "Richo is not a coaches arsehole" dont you understand? He's no good, his record is poor and getting worse every week.

[David-Lee]

[shanegrambeau]

Sacking the coach will help, along of course with Trout and most of the assistant coaches.

Sacking someone rarely helps.

Replacing them with someone better will almost certainly help though.

Sounds about right judging by Carlton’s tendency to do that too.

[Linton Lodger]

Sacking the coach will help, along of course with Trout and most of the assistant coaches.

Sacking someone rarely helps.

Replacing them with someone better will almost certainly help though.


Personally, I see coaching in AFL circles kind of like politics. There's a strong tendency to 'vote someone out' as opposed to 'vote someone in'. And I feel strongly that that is wrong. Obviously there are scenarios where someone is so toxic that they have to get the arse regardless of who's coming in - but generally speaking, why 'vote someone out' if you're not convinced that the incoming person is not going to be better?

Taking the emotion out of it...

Ken Sheldon
Stan Alves
Tim Watson
Malcolm Blight
Grant Thomas
Ross Lyon
Scott Watters
Alan Richardson

Realistically, only two of them would have fallen into the 'just get rid of them as anyone will be better' category - Blight and Watters. Lyon quit, and Alves was sacked because Plympton had a man crush on Tim Watson. Some would say he was 'ruthless' in that decision. He had his man, and got him. Many others say would say he was reckless.

These big 'ruthless' decisions that many Saints fans crave as an answer to our woes, very rarely pay off.

If there is a coach out there that wants to coach the Saints, that we know is better than Richardson then we should move on it. But sacking him for an unknown rookie in my opinion, is just silly. I don't think we're at the 'he just has to go because he is so toxic' stage yet.
At this stage of the rebuild, there's no need to pull the trigger, unless someone is better out there.

Disagree about Stan. He had clearly lost the players and was going through a personal hell with the death of his son.

We probably would have made the 8 in 2012 under Lyon but not sure it would have done us much good.

Agree with everything else.

There were idiots on the Board determined to sack Stan in 1995/96 because they wanted Trevor Barker. The only reason Stan Coached in 1997 was because of Barker's sad passing. Getting to the GF that year actually bred resentment for a couple of Board members. These idiots who Stan has never named and perhaps should, actually told him he was lucky we got to the GF as it saved his job. They were just waiting to pounce.

A disgraceful episode in our Club's history.

[SaintPav]

Interesting LL.

Always wondered what kind of coach Barks would have been like.

[thejiggingsaint]

Sacking the coach will help, along of course with Trout and most of the assistant coaches.

Sacking someone rarely helps.

Replacing them with someone better will almost certainly help though.


Personally, I see coaching in AFL circles kind of like politics. There's a strong tendency to 'vote someone out' as opposed to 'vote someone in'. And I feel strongly that that is wrong. Obviously there are scenarios where someone is so toxic that they have to get the arse regardless of who's coming in - but generally speaking, why 'vote someone out' if you're not convinced that the incoming person is not going to be better?

Taking the emotion out of it...

Ken Sheldon
Stan Alves
Tim Watson
Malcolm Blight
Grant Thomas
Ross Lyon
Scott Watters
Alan Richardson

Realistically, only two of them would have fallen into the 'just get rid of them as anyone will be better' category - Blight and Watters. Lyon quit, and Alves was sacked because Plympton had a man crush on Tim Watson. Some would say he was 'ruthless' in that decision. He had his man, and got him. Many others say would say he was reckless.

These big 'ruthless' decisions that many Saints fans crave as an answer to our woes, very rarely pay off.

If there is a coach out there that wants to coach the Saints, that we know is better than Richardson then we should move on it. But sacking him for an unknown rookie in my opinion, is just silly. I don't think we're at the 'he just has to go because he is so toxic' stage yet.
At this stage of the rebuild, there's no need to pull the trigger, unless someone is better out there.

Disagree about Stan. He had clearly lost the players and was going through a personal hell with the death of his son.

We probably would have made the 8 in 2012 under Lyon but not sure it would have done us much good.

Agree with everything else.

There were idiots on the Board determined to sack Stan in 1995/96 because they wanted Trevor Barker. The only reason Stan Coached in 1997 was because of Barker's sad passing. Getting to the GF that year actually bred resentment for a couple of Board members. These idiots who Stan has never named and perhaps should, actually told him he was lucky we got to the GF as it saved his job. They were just waiting to pounce.

A disgraceful episode in our Club's history.

I remember reading Stan’s book: “Sacked Coach” shortly after it was published. The fact that Stan was prepared to eventually reconcile with the club, speaks volumes about him both as a coach and as a person. In my humble opinion Plympton did the club NO favours in that period, which incidentally was WAY worse than our current situation, or have people forgotten already just how low morale sank from 98-2001?

[rodgerfox]

This is what we are reduced to....pecking feverishly over a loss and rejoicing we have morsels that prove all is not lost, we are spot on, we fought so well, got cheated by umps, if only we had another quarter ( we F@cking did...we had 3 of them), there's so much hope now, only positives from here on out....Grand Final 2022 for us baby!!!

I think we, like all clubs, are reduced to that type of thinking at various stages.

When you're rebuilding, and still at the stage of your rebuild where you are still 3-4 very good players off being decent - I think it's perfectly reasonable to see plenty of positives from last night's game. Particularly in terms of some of the young guys.