Matthew Knights sacked

[Scraggers]

Caroline Wilson
August 29, 2010 - 3:29PM


Essendon coach Matthew Knights has been sacked.

The coach of the past three years was told shortly after 1pm today that his time at the club was finished in a meeting with Bombers chairman David Evans.

Knights and his manager Daniel Richardson met Evans earlier this afternoon and it is understood the decision came after an 8am board meeting.

Essendon now faces a two-year payout which could reach $800,000.


Full Story (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/matthew-knights-sacked-20100829-13xdi.html)

[The Coon Dog]

To paraphrase Mike Sheahan when referring to Terry Wallace, he was a dead man walking.

[bornadog]

The worst coach since Rhode?

[LostDoggy]

Did he coach the dogs? :p

[angelopetraglia]

They didn't waste any time. 8am board meeting they day after the last game.

At least that takes away all the speculation and games.

[GVGjr]

Someone from the board should go as well. They extended his contract and a year later it's all gone pear shaped. Classic case of the board appointing someone because he told them what they wanted to hear not what they needed to hear.

[Flamethrower]

Someone from the board should go as well. They extended his contract and a year later it's all gone pear shaped. Classic case of the board appointing someone because he told them what they wanted to hear not what they needed to hear.

Peter Jackson is gone leaving the current board with a $800,000 mess.

We are becoming the coach killers. Knights and Wallace coach their last game against us, while Choco Williams jumped ship the week before playing us. :D

[The Pie Man]

Someone from the board should go as well. They extended his contract and a year later it's all gone pear shaped. Classic case of the board appointing someone because he told them what they wanted to hear not what they needed to hear.

Playing finals seriously flattered them last year

Knights was awful at selling his message.....everyone is critical of their defence - I've never once heard Knights say something like 'young emerging defenders need to learn to play one on one on the best forwards, and once they do, we'll reap the benefits' which could've bought him some time developing the list.

How they went for him over Hardwick is astounding - all because Hardwick was a little more realistic on where the list was at - BS can only take you so far I suppose

[LostDoggy]

Hopefully they replace him with someone equally as crap. I do enjoy watching Essendon struggle.

[Remi Moses]

One thing about those Bomber fans they stick through thick and thick!!
A couple of things went against Knights
1)No game plan to stop other sides getting a run on
2)He's inadequate treatment of Lucas and Lloyd
3)He's continual chopping and changing every week!

[ratsmac]

One thing about those Bomber fans they stick through thick and thick!!
A couple of things went against Knights
1)No game plan to stop other sides getting a run on
2)He's inadequate treatment of Lucas and Lloyd
3)He's continual chopping and changing every week!

4)Shit coach

[Remi Moses]

4)Shit coach

5)He comes from Richmond who have done F*** all for 30 years!

[Bulldog Revolution]

Classic case of the board appointing someone because he told them what they wanted to hear not what they needed to hear.

That said, Knights IMO took very few short term decisions and I thought he did the right thing in not bowing to the pressures for Lloyd and Lucas.

Most of his decisions were to blood kids and provide opportunities to kids. The only one glaring, and ridiculous decision was to trade for Mark Williams.

However, I dont think he is a good coach, and I would have been very disappointed had a club I supported appointed him Senior Coach.

[Go_Dogs]

How they went for him over Hardwick is astounding - all because Hardwick was a little more realistic on where the list was at - BS can only take you so far I suppose

Doesn't paint too good a picture of the Essendon board does it?

Matthew Knights says our current list is good enough to play finals and win a flag in 3-5 years, whereas Hardwick doesn't, so therefore we'll go with Knights because it is obvious our list is in fact good enough. :rolleyes:

[LostDoggy]

Hopefully they replace him with someone equally as crap. I do enjoy watching Essendon struggle.

Hear! Hear!

Typical of the arrogant bastards. As others have said they were consumed by Knights' appealing to their egos and picked him ahead of Hardwick who gave them a realistic assessment.

All the news in Adelaide is that Mark Williams is past the post - they offered him heaps in 2007. I sure hope this is the case given it would guarantee them another three years in Nowheresville.

Their other hopeful is James Hird - Tim Watson in the making.

[mjp]

Just on another note, what do we actually know about Hardwick yet?

Depending on the next couple of years, the decision to select Knights might turn out to be astute! Talk about the honeymoon period.

[LostDoggy]

Just on another note, what do we actually know about Hardwick yet?

Depending on the next couple of years, the decision to select Knights might turn out to be astute! Talk about the honeymoon period.

The point is that Hardwick was realistic in his assessment which according to the scribes led to his non-selection. They were the last two in the race.

The issue here is not whether Hardwick will make a successful coach but the basis upon which a Coach should be selected. The Essendon hierarchy fell for the idea that their time was nigh when the Drover's Dog could tell they were short of the mark.

No amount of information will prove the selection of Knights as being "astute"

[LostDoggy]

And at least Hardwick, being an Essendon man, would have been a softer landing for all your stakeholders after 27 years of Sheeds than some novice no-name coach (with all due respect) from Richmond -- he certainly would have had a lot more goodwill, and football clubs are emotional places. Strategic blunder after strategic blunder: it's the textbook case of how NOT to run a coaching transition (which makes Eddie's Malthouse/Buckley deal look even more forward thinking than ever).

And what was the deal with giving Knights an extension last year?

[The Coon Dog]

some novice no-name coach (with all due respect) from Richmond

Bit ironic really in a way, as that's exactly what Sheedy was in 1981. ;)

[LostDoggy]

Bit ironic really in a way, as that's exactly what Sheedy was in 1981. ;)

Haha, you know what they say about lightning striking twice. I thought about that when I wrote the line, but decided to leave it in... if the Essendon board thought that 2007 = 1981, well.

[mjp]

The point is that Hardwick was realistic in his assessment which according to the scribes led to his non-selection. They were the last two in the race.


Is this the truth or urban legend? I know this was what was rumored to have happened, but I am not sure Essendon have ever come out and said this was the case.

[LostDoggy]

Is this the truth or urban legend? I know this was what was rumored to have happened, but I am not sure Essendon have ever come out and said this was the case.

Only those involved know for certain but this was the view of all media outlets at the time.

It was commented that Hardwick had the job until Knights went in and told them their window of opportunity was now. The egos of the suit brigade liked what they heard.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Is this the truth or urban legend? I know this was what was rumored to have happened, but I am not sure Essendon have ever come out and said this was the case.

I'm bloody certain they're not going to own up to it now.

[The Underdog]

Is this the truth or urban legend? I know this was what was rumored to have happened, but I am not sure Essendon have ever come out and said this was the case.

I think there is some truth in it, although it may have been overplayed by the media.
It is fact though that Hardwick had a laptop failure in the final interview which destroyed his power point and made it hard for him to look overly professional. Knight's final presentation was much better in comparison which helped him win the job. So Knight's positivity wasn't the only deciding factor.

[LostDoggy]

I think there is some truth in it, although it may have been overplayed by the media.
It is fact though that Hardwick had a laptop failure in the final interview which destroyed his power point and made it hard for him to look overly professional. Knight's final presentation was much better in comparison which helped him win the job. So Knight's positivity wasn't the only deciding factor.

Haha yeah, PowerPoint tells you how good you'll be as an AFL coach. If anything, there's probably an inversely proportional relationship between your deftness at PowerPoint and your ability to be a gun coach. I wonder what Leigh Matthews' PowerPoint skills are like.

Stupid suits. It's like a Dilbert strip.

[comrade]

I wonder what Leigh Matthews' PowerPoint skills are like.


I just giggled thinking about Lethal putting the finishing touches on a pinwheel animation!

[mjp]

Haha yeah, PowerPoint tells you how good you'll be as an AFL coach. If anything, there's probably an inversely proportional relationship between your deftness at PowerPoint and your ability to be a gun coach. I wonder what Leigh Matthews' PowerPoint skills are like.

Stupid suits. It's like a Dilbert strip.

Not sure I agree.

Being able to clearly and coherently get your message across - using video and animations - to a generation that understands and expects things to be delivered via multi-media - is a key aspect of coaching.

Whether Matthews puts the presentations together himself or gets assistance from the IT Dept. to do it is largely irrelevant...he would certainly be experienced in mapping out a presentation and delivering it.

With the legend of the Hardwick powerpoint failure, I actually think it is a good test. How your presentation holds together when all the surrounding technology fails is a good measure of how clear it is...can you still get the concepts across?

Most of todays coaches would be spending a significant proportion of their time identifying what they want to show their players and figuring out how to show it most effectively.

[Mantis]

Haha yeah, PowerPoint tells you how good you'll be as an AFL coach. If anything, there's probably an inversely proportional relationship between your deftness at PowerPoint and your ability to be a gun coach. I wonder what Leigh Matthews' PowerPoint skills are like.

Stupid suits. It's like a Dilbert strip.

After Wallet got the boot the choice for our coach was down to 2. Peter Rohde's PP presentation was excellent..... Brian Royal's was poor.

Guess who got the job.

[The Pie Man]

After Wallet got the boot the choice for our coach was down to 2. Peter Rohde's PP presentation was excellent..... Brian Royal's was poor.

Guess who got the job.

Wasn't that a sliding door?

I've heard Hawkins mention this in interviews before as well (something about him asking the board why Rhode was appointed, 'because his presentation was good')

[The Pie Man]

I'm watching a replay of On the Couch, and Hird predictably being grilled - but this I found really funny.

On the coaching job, Hird replies 'no I wasn't offered it, I didn't accept it'

Huh? You were offered that job James

[macca]

I'm watching a replay of On the Couch, and Hird predictably being grilled - but this I found really funny.

On the coaching job, Hird replies 'no I wasn't offered it, I didn't accept it'

Huh? You were offered that job James

Thats kevin Rudd like, ask a questions to him, he asks his own quesiton, gives his own answer, tells you what he wants you to hear. Knights should have been kept and got some decent more assistance to work the defensive side of their game.He made the tough call on some older players, he had to cut the list.

[LostDoggy]

Not sure I agree.

Being able to clearly and coherently get your message across - using video and animations - to a generation that understands and expects things to be delivered via multi-media - is a key aspect of coaching.

Whether Matthews puts the presentations together himself or gets assistance from the IT Dept. to do it is largely irrelevant...he would certainly be experienced in mapping out a presentation and delivering it.

With the legend of the Hardwick powerpoint failure, I actually think it is a good test. How your presentation holds together when all the surrounding technology fails is a good measure of how clear it is...can you still get the concepts across?

Most of todays coaches would be spending a significant proportion of their time identifying what they want to show their players and figuring out how to show it most effectively.

I largely agree with the gist of your post, mjp. However, having worked in businesses that are largely about presentations (architecture, management/strategy consulting, lecturing/tutoring at university), so often we see PowerPoint being a crutch for an inability to communicate.

I said last week to someone that Microsoft should be sued for creating a piece of software that makes the stupidest ideas look professional.

I would rather Leigh Matthews coach my club with zero powerpoints, then have Matthew Knights coach my club with the latest whiz-bang gizmos. I mean, when modern coaches complain that their players don't 'follow instructions', are they referring to some boring presentation they showed on Tuesday morning? And they then wonder why the 23-year-old with the attention span of a gnat can't remember it?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that PowerPoint is just a tool. You can get the message across in a variety of ways, and I seriously doubt that Ppt is the best format for delivering all, or even most, messages.

And I really don't think that Gen X/Y/Z are really more predisposed to watching a boring PowerPoint anymore than listening to a boring speech.. it's a bit of a furphy. I see my colleagues stick PowerPoint up in their lectures at uni and watch the eyes of the students glaze over. Instead, pull out something they've never seen before, something that they can relate emotionally or personally to, something that piques their interest, a photograph, a model aircraft, a comic book, an vintage instrument, an old leather football, challenge them personally, ask intriguing questions, make them think, speak with interest about the subject ... these things don't need electricity, but you usually end up with a roomful of engaged people talking, thinking for themselves, and coming back for more.

[Greystache]

I think there is some truth in it, although it may have been overplayed by the media.
It is fact though that Hardwick had a laptop failure in the final interview which destroyed his power point and made it hard for him to look overly professional. Knight's final presentation was much better in comparison which helped him win the job. So Knight's positivity wasn't the only deciding factor.

I can't comment specifically on the Essendon interview process but I have a family friend who was involved in the selection process at another club Hardwick was unsuccessful at, he said Hardwick was very impressive in his initial interviews and his pre-prepared presentations were very good.

He was pretty much over the line until the final interview where the panel asked him to represent his original presentation and they grilled him about their perceived weaknesses in it, their feedback was they were surprised how poorly he handled being put on the spot, and that he struggled to clearly present his thoughts. So they went with the coach who was second choice to that stage.

While it was a different club, there seems to be a similarity in that Hardwick struggled in the final interview, was it a computer issue at Essendon that undid him or did that just exacerbate a weakness already there.