Rodney Eade the right man to coach the Bulldogs

[bornadog]

Mark Robinson From: Herald Sun July 05, 2011 10:20am (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/the-tackles-round-14-all-australian-team/story-fn5937w8-1226085457619)

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/Rocket316bb.jpg

If THE Western Bulldogs are looking for a coach, the search is already over.

Rodney Eade should be reappointed, if not soon then certainly at the end of the season.

Before the whackos start shrilling about Eade being a media darling, those same whackos clamouring for Eade's head should start analysing what Eade is accomplishing in the final year of his contract.

Facts first, Eade is a very good coach.

His overall win/loss record is 168 wins and 137 losses, including three preliminary finals.

In movie-speak, three times he has been invited to the Oscars, while most of the rest have been forced to settle for the Logies.

So season 2011 should not be singular on the minds of Bulldogs officials.

If it is, bare in mind the injury list, the selection of next generation players and the evolution of game strategy, ie, the defensive press, that seemingly has found strength and consistency over the past six weeks.

Eade is not Bambi, however.

While the rest of the football world, save for Melbourne, were imploring the press, Eade was reluctant, believing he had the personnel to win the premiership. Personnel and strategy wins flags, not personnel alone, and Eade has rectified that.

The Bulldogs have won their past three matches, and before that scrapped itself to a 24-point loss against the Saints.

Friday night's win against Melbourne was the best consistent, four-quarter effort of the season.

So, strategy is slowly becoming a tick.

Importantly, attitude has propelled Eade to new levels of respect.

In an expansive interview on SEN on Saturday, Eade spoke about personal development in crisis.

At Sydney, crisis led to savage condemnation of his players and he was rail-roaded out of town, and replaced by Cool Hand Luke - Paul Roos.

This time round, Eade has shown he has learnt by his mistakes.

Clearly, it's Cool Hand Rocket.

He's even cooled on his criticism of Brian Lake, who might be his most important player and who might not play seniors again this year.

Then there's the rest of the players.

Not that they should be calling the shots in times of coaching appointments, but they are firmly in Eade's corner. Radio and newspaper interviews are telling. Each to a man they are saying the coach is educating, encouraging and developing.

What else can they say? Well, they could say it's up to the club to the make the decision and leave it be. But they aren't. It's a plus for the coach.

Along this hellish highway called 2011, Eade has exposed his playing list: Skinner, Schofield, Mulligan, Dahlhaus, Howard, Wallis, Barlow, Djerrkura, Reid, Markovic, Liberatore and Jones have made their debuts or have been given extended playing time.

It's a plus for the football club.

It is said the Bulldogs have lacked leadership in the past, but it's that quality shining from Eade's office at the moment.

He knows Whitten Oval needs a renovation, not a complete overhaul, and he is strong with his direction as coach.

Of course, the Bulldogs don't owe him anything, other than honesty and a common-sense approach.

And if they are honest and have common sense, their next coach is already in the building.

[comrade]

This won't be popular with some WOOFers who are convinced that a change will somehow magically bring us the success that has eluded us.

[ledge]

I agree with Robbo on this one, I just want to know if Robbo was one who was calling for his head a few weeks ago.

[bornadog]

I agree with Robbo on this one, I just want to know if Robbo was one who was calling for his head a few weeks ago.

I think he was. I recall many negative comments on Rocket by Robbo a few weeks ago when we were getting belted.

[ledge]

I think he was. I recall many negative comments on Rocket by Robbo a few weeks ago when we were getting belted.

The pleasures of being Robbo, jump on the bandwagon that suits or the one that seems right, maybe call him Mussolini :D

[DragzLS1]

Eade should stay I say.. Never doubted him just a bad run of injuries at the start of the year

[Greystache]

I agree with Robbo on this one, I just want to know if Robbo was one who was calling for his head a few weeks ago.

Yeah he was, but then we beat a team going like busteds, a team of kids, and a team playing 2009 football and he's now one of the forward thinkers that says Eade should be re-signed. Should we get belted this week I'm sure he'll be back in the sack Eade camp.

Personally I'm still firmly in the replace Eade camp, we looked great against a team playing an outdated style, it suited the way we play, but I think this week will be a different story. If I see something other than horrible skills under actual pressure, unaccountable rebound out of our forward line, and something more than just bombing the ball into our outnumbered forwards, then I'll believe we're catching up to the other teams.

[Maddog37]

Wait til the end of the year. Will changing coaches or keeping Rocket have any impact on what Ward does?

[Bulldog Joe]

Well I am an Eade fan and believe he has done everything possible with the cards that have fallen.

Considering how under- resourced we are in our Football Department spend, it is surprising that we have sustained our competitive position for as long as we have.

From taking on a list that actually did so badly we had a priority pick, we got to 9th in the first year and have finished top 6 in 4 of 5 subsequent years including 3 top 4 finishes. The missing year in 2007 was a year where we had such injury concerns we gave a game to a bloke (Josh Hill) who was basically a VFL seconds player at the time.

2011 is not over yet and we have introduced 8 first gamers so far, yet we are still a real finals chance.

The Carlton game may define a few things.
A bad loss will have people calling for heads, but a win would put us in a strong position to play finals. As a glass half full person I remain optimistic and I am excited by the prospects we have unearthed.

For all those glass half empty people out there -- just get yourself a smaller glass.

[Sedat]

Yeah he was, but then we beat a team going like busteds, a team of kids, and a team playing 2009 football and he's now one of the forward thinkers that says Eade should be re-signed. Should we get belted this week I'm sure he'll be back in the sack Eade camp.

Personally I'm still firmly in the replace Eade camp, we looked great against a team playing an outdated style, it suited the way we play, but I think this week will be a different story. If I see something other than horrible skills under actual pressure, unaccountable rebound out of our forward line, and something more than just bombing the ball into our outnumbered forwards, then I'll believe we're catching up to the other teams.
Melbourne had a forward press going, just that they weren't very good at maintaining it.

2010 has gone. In hindsight it was a wasted year of development in young personnel and a more appropriate game plan, but falling agonisingly short of the ultimate success the year before, I can forgive Rocket and the MC for rolling the dice. Before 2010, the forward press was an unknown quantity in comparison to the Geelong run-and-gun through the corridor game plan (which we copied in 08-09).

As for the remainder of this season, I think we are trending in the right direction and don't think we will be embarrassed again like we were against WC and Geelong. The game plan has undeniably changed and we are finally structuring up with the right mix of personnel to execute the revised game plan. I get a sense now that the playing group have collectively bought in to the changes as well.

As Rocket and the Dogs senior management have stated all along, let's wait and see how the season pans out before making a call one way or the other.

[Happy Days]

After the West Coast game I was ready for a chage; that was the most obvious case of a far superior gameplan beating a potentially superior group of players I can recall, especially by such a distance.

However, since then, it seems as if Eade is willing to change the game plan to a more contemporary style, actually training to the press and bringing in smaller players to increase forward pressure with (Dahlhaus) and, thus far, without (Hooper, DJ) success.

One of the main criticisms of Eade is that he has the tendancy to get stuck in his ways if plan A doesn't work. As long as he continues to show a preparedness to move forward, then he is still the man for the job.

[Go_Dogs]

It's a very tough decision and difficult to really speculate until the season is finished.

If Eade finishes the year well, continues to develop young players and the game plan then why not? The lack of a premiership and success against the best teams does work against him, but does he wear the full burden of this, or his game plans? I'm not sure.

This story will just continue to get bigger until seasons end.

[Greystache]

Melbourne had a forward press going, just that they weren't very good at maintaining it.

2010 has gone. In hindsight it was a wasted year of development in young personnel and a more appropriate game plan, but falling agonisingly short of the ultimate success the year before, I can forgive Rocket and the MC for rolling the dice. Before 2010, the forward press was an unknown quantity in comparison to the Geelong run-and-gun through the corridor game plan (which we copied in 08-09).

As for the remainder of this season, I think we are trending in the right direction and don't think we will be embarrassed again like we were against WC and Geelong. The game plan has undeniably changed and we are finally structuring up with the right mix of personnel to execute the revised game plan. I get a sense now that the playing group have collectively bought in to the changes as well.

As Rocket and the Dogs senior management have stated all along, let's wait and see how the season pans out before making a call one way or the other.

I can certainly see a change in our game style of late, and as I noted in the training thread, an effort to work on it at training. I guess it's an acknowledgement we got it wrong and are behind many of the other teams, which is positive in a way because had we stubbornly stuck to the out of date gameplan we could well be a bottom four finisher and another 12 months behind the curve. On the other hand, you also have to ask why our coaching group not see what so many others could, and if we're now frantically playing catch up is it realistic to think Eade and his current team can come up with the next evolution of "the press" or the new tactic to counter it and expose teams using it?

For me it's hard to see us catching up and then going past the other teams.

[bornadog]

in comparison to the Geelong run-and-gun through the corridor game plan (which we copied in 08-09).

.

I don't agree with this Sedat, Rocket introduced the run and gun style towards the end of 2005, when we made a bid to get into the finals. We played some incredible football with all out attack in our last 6 or so games. Geelong took this game plan to another level, but it was really Rocket who started it.

[Sedat]

I can certainly see a change in our game style of late, and as I noted in the training thread, an effort to work on it at training. I guess it's an acknowledgement we got it wrong and are behind many of the other teams, which is positive in a way because had we stubbornly stuck to the out of date gameplan we could well be a bottom four finisher and another 12 months behind the curve. On the other hand, you also have to ask why our coaching group not see what so many others could, and if we're now frantically playing catch up is it realistic to think Eade and his current team can come up with the next evolution of "the press" or the new tactic to counter it and expose teams using it?
Interesting discussion.

Geelong were still the reigning premier in 2010 and still regularly smashed opposition teams to smithereens. Even as late as preliminary final night, there were many pundits who thought Geelong's game style would withstand the manic forward press adopted by Collingwood. History shows that the 2010 PF was Custer's last stand for corridor footy, but until then the press was still not a clear winner over the run-and-gun.

[Greystache]

Interesting discussion.

Geelong were still the reigning premier in 2010 and still regularly smashed opposition teams to smithereens. Even as late as preliminary final night, there were many pundits who thought Geelong's game style would withstand the manic forward press adopted by Collingwood. History shows that the 2010 PF was Custer's last stand for corridor footy, but until then the press was still not a clear winner over the run-and-gun.

The interesting thing with Geelong was that they lost both finals to teams that pressed (albeit the St Kilda game could've gone either way) and Bomber Thompson was unhappy that his players wouldn't commit to his new game plan and that the prelim final should be a wake up call to the team. It would be interesting to know what his new game plan was.

As you said, the Geelong-Collingwood prelim appeared to spell the death of play on at all costs footy, yet inexplicably we then spent the next preseason trying to further tweek that some game plan.

[Remi Moses]

I don't agree with this Sedat, Rocket introduced the run and gun style towards the end of 2005, when we made a bid to get into the finals. We played some incredible football with all out attack in our last 6 or so games. Geelong took this game plan to another level, but it was really Rocket who started it.

Thinking the same thing and vividly recall the media wetting themselves.
Same thing Knights copied with a poorer list, it's interesting Clarkson's tried to beat the press by chipping precisely through it and failed.Bailey thinks you can play high forwards and handball your way through the corridor , failing badly.

[bornadog]

Thinking the same thing and vividly recall the media wetting themselves.
Same thing Knights copied with a poorer list, it's interesting Clarkson's tried to beat the press by chipping precisely through it and failed.Bailey thinks you can play high forwards and handball your way through the corridor , failing badly.

Watching the Geelong v Essendon match on the week end, I thought Essendon tried to handball too much and almost lost the game trying to handball out of the Geelong press. Lots of coaches trying different things to get out of the press.

[LostDoggy]

The issue with the press, Clarko's cluster, zoning, etc is that it's a 18 man job. Run-and-gun allows a few players to be off their game as long as the rest can carry the load. Therefore, given our current playing list, looking forward to 2011 at the end of 2010 without the benefit of hindsight, beating the press would've looked far more inviting, and achievable, than implementing it.

[Mantis]

Personally I'm still firmly in the replace Eade camp, we looked great against a team playing an outdated style, it suited the way we play, but I think this week will be a different story. If I see something other than horrible skills under actual pressure, unaccountable rebound out of our forward line, and something more than just bombing the ball into our outnumbered forwards, then I'll believe we're catching up to the other teams.

So are we catching up?

Not being a smart arse... just interested in your thoughts.

[Greystache]

So are we catching up?

Not being a smart arse... just interested in your thoughts.

We are, I mentioned in the training thread that we've been working on implementing a press properly, which also has the added benefit of giving our players a chance to practice trying to move the ball effectively against it. It's pleasing to see Eade put his hand up and acknowledge he got it wrong and is now trying to fix it.

[Mantis]

We are, I mentioned in the training thread that we've been working on implementing a press properly, which also has the added benefit of giving our players a chance to practice trying to move the ball effectively against it. It's pleasing to see Eade put his hand up and acknowledge he got it wrong and is now trying to fix it.

While it is pretty evident that we have changed some things up it's also a big help when we have some players in our team who are able to implement some of these changes. As good as the likes of Hahn, Johnson & Higgins can be (were) there defensive efforts are (were) lacking so bringing in someone like Dahlhaus is a god-send.

Also helps when your best players are playing well as you can have all the structures & plans that you like, but if your best players are out of form or out of the side you aren't going to see the same output from there replacements.

[Greystache]

While it is pretty evident that we have changed some things up it's also a big help when we have some players in our team who are able to implement some of these changes. As good as the likes of Hahn, Johnson & Higgins can be (were) there defensive efforts are (were) lacking so bringing in someone like Dahlhaus is a god-send.

Also helps when your best players are playing well as you can have all the structures & plans that you like, but if your best players are out of form or out of the side you aren't going to see the same output from there replacements.

Agree, Cooney playing well makes a huge difference.

We knew for years what Hahn, Johnson, Higgins, and Gia were going to bring (or not bring), but we still went with them regardless.

[bornadog]

Agree, Cooney playing well makes a huge difference.

We knew for years what Hahn, Johnson, Higgins, and Gia were going to bring (or not bring), but we still went with them regardless.

Yep and we didn't have anyone else to replace them, plus they got us into three prelims (not a GF) and they kicked more goals then any other team in the past 5 years.

All past history anf football has moved on.

[Mantis]

We knew for years what Hahn, Johnson, Higgins, and Gia were going to bring (or not bring), but we still went with them regardless.

As per earlier posts in this thread these guys almost got us to a couple of GF's so it wasn't all bad.

I guess it's all water under the bridge now and as the pollies say we are moving forward.

[Bulldog Revolution]

Rocket has done a good job re-casting the team, injecting some new players in and getting us back up and running

That said, and he would likely admit it, the next 7 weeks are very important, and we haven't achieved much yet

I really respect that he hasn't ruled a line through our players the way some of our supporters have. His selection of Josh Hill on the weekend was a case in point. Josh may never reach his potential with us, or anywhere else, and may not be with us next year, but Eade has given him another opportunity to show he can be part of our future.

Coaching is a tough game and its foolish to ever completely write someone off, particularly if they are good enough to make an AFL list. By the same token it would be foolish to write rocket off.

[Desipura]

Agree, Cooney playing well makes a huge difference.

We knew for years what Hahn, Johnson, Higgins, and Gia were going to bring (or not bring), but we still went with them regardless.

Agree, some players can only take you so far as harsh as it sounds.

[Happy Days]

We are, I mentioned in the training thread that we've been working on implementing a press properly, which also has the added benefit of giving our players a chance to practice trying to move the ball effectively against it. It's pleasing to see Eade put his hand up and acknowledge he got it wrong and is now trying to fix it.

This.

It also helps to have small forwards who can play as small forwards, rather than lead up targets.

[Before I Die]

We are, I mentioned in the training thread that we've been working on implementing a press properly, which also has the added benefit of giving our players a chance to practice trying to move the ball effectively against it. It's pleasing to see Eade put his hand up and acknowledge he got it wrong and is now trying to fix it.

Aren't you putting words into Rocket's mouth, or have I missed an interview somewhere? Rocket acknowledged that the coaches had been slow to recognise the impact the lack of run from defence, due to the absence from injury of key defenders, was having on the ability of the side to implement its game plan. This has now been addressed by putting Higgins back to help out Murphy, Gilbee and Wood. Added to this has been the improved form and fitness of Cooney and the side is now able to implement the desired game plan and achieve positive results. Bringing in Dahlhaus, possible due to Hill's long term injury, has also added vitality to the forward line and made a significant difference to the forward pressure.

The most significant factors in Sunday's win were the defensive match ups, Hudson's form and, to a lessor degree, Barry's return to some decent form. I don't see anywhere in this Eade saying he got it wrong. I think Sunday's win simply confirms what Eade has been saying in his interviews and re-affirms the direction he has been taking. To infer that this win is evidence that "Eade got it wrong" is unjustified and a touch petty.

[Before I Die]

Agree, some players can only take you so far as harsh as it sounds.

Would that be North Melbourne and Fremantle talking about Leigh Brown?

[anfo27]

I'm delighted to see Rocket finally changing with the times. Since i've been back I've seen 4 wins and I've liked what i have seen.
As posters will remember I have not been happy with Eade for a while and doubted he could turn this group around. I'm loving our intensity and tackling pressure and its made a huge difference. Having some fit and firing guns back also helps but the game plan helps more.
After watching the way we are playing the last few weeks I keep thinking why has Rocket waited so long to change our style? That is the biggest question we should be asking and thats the biggest reason I still feel disappointed with Eades coaching. We need to be the first to change and not the last.

[GVGjr]

At the end of the season is still the right time to see if Eade should be given a contract for another 2 years or not and nothing much has changed except that I do believe he is in a vastly better position than he was 6 weeks back.

The challenges for the club is to learn from the mistakes of others and not make a Port Power type reappointment only to see a subsequent failure shortly after and for the club to assess the playing list to see if a grand final is still a realistic possibility within the next 2 seasons.

The concerning part is that we still have a lot of our better players in the twilight of their careers and I'm not sure if a quick rebuild might be the best course for the club to follow.
If that is the case, then the question around if a coach going beyond 7 years in charge of the players without a premiership or even a grand final berth to fall back on is the right man to start another rebuild.
I don't question Eade's credentials in the slightest but the stone cold facts are that not many coaches would be given another opportunity to rebuild the playing group.

[Greystache]

Aren't you putting words into Rocket's mouth , or have I missed an interview somewhere? Rocket acknowledged that the coaches had been slow to recognise the impact the lack of run from defence, due to the absence from injury of key defenders, was having on the ability of the side to implement its game plan. This has now been addressed by putting Higgins back to help out Murphy, Gilbee and Wood. Added to this has been the improved form and fitness of Cooney and the side is now able to implement the desired game plan and achieve positive results. Bringing in Dahlhaus, possible due to Hill's long term injury, has also added vitality to the forward line and made a significant difference to the forward pressure.

The most significant factors in Sunday's win were the defensive match ups, Hudson's form and, to a lessor degree, Barry's return to some decent form. I don't see anywhere in this Eade saying he got it wrong. I think Sunday's win simply confirms what Eade has been saying in his interviews and re-affirms the direction he has been taking. To infer that this win is evidence that "Eade got it wrong" is unjustified and a touch petty.

Not at all, I don't need to hear a half arsed press confrence to know we've changed our position. You only need to attend training (like I do) to see it clearly, plus the obvious tactical change on match day (not just yesterday BTW but the past month). You can judge things however you like, and you're to you opinion regardless of how you formed it.

[Go_Dogs]

At the end of the season is still the right time to see if Eade should be given a contract for another 2 years or not and nothing much has changed except that I do believe he is in a vastly better position than he was 6 weeks back.

The challenges for the club is to learn from the mistakes of others and not make a Port Power type reappointment only to see a subsequent failure shortly after and for the club to assess the playing list to see if a grand final is still a realistic possibility within the next 2 seasons.

The concerning part is that we still have a lot of our better players in the twilight of their careers and I'm not sure if a quick rebuild might be the best course for the club to follow.
If that is the case, then the question around if a coach going beyond 7 years in charge of the players without a premiership or even a grand final berth to fall back on is the right man to start another rebuild.
I don't question Eade's credentials in the slightest but the stone cold facts are that not many coaches would be given another opportunity to rebuild the playing group.

Agree with all this.

It's a tough one, because whilst we have a few aging players, we also have a pretty strong core that are in or are getting close to hitting their primes. I would never advocate going trade-crazy and topping up the list chasing a flag, and I'm more of the view that our list, fit and healthy with some continued natural development of players and the game plan we can be around the mark again fairly quickly.

Continuing to add quality kids through the draft is a must and besides perhaps being a bit more ruthless with our list management our squad and depth on a whole isn't too bad.

As you say, at the end of the season the club should be in a better position to decide what path to take, and performance on-field for the remainder of the season probably plays an important part.

[Topdog]

Not at all, I don't need to hear a half arsed press confrence to know we've changed our position. You only need to attend training (like I do) to see it clearly, plus the obvious tactical change on match day (not just yesterday BTW but the past month). You can judge things however you like, and you're to you opinion regardless of how you formed it.

Agreed, it started against the Saints but has gotten progressively better each week.

[LostDoggy]

At the end of the season is still the right time to see if Eade should be given a contract for another 2 years or not and nothing much has changed except that I do believe he is in a vastly better position than he was 6 weeks back.

The challenges for the club is to learn from the mistakes of others and not make a Port Power type reappointment only to see a subsequent failure shortly after and for the club to assess the playing list to see if a grand final is still a realistic possibility within the next 2 seasons.

The concerning part is that we still have a lot of our better players in the twilight of their careers and I'm not sure if a quick rebuild might be the best course for the club to follow.
If that is the case, then the question around if a coach going beyond 7 years in charge of the players without a premiership or even a grand final berth to fall back on is the right man to start another rebuild.
I don't question Eade's credentials in the slightest but the stone cold facts are that not many coaches would be given another opportunity to rebuild the playing group.

Whilst I agree with the main substance of your post, both Malthouse and Worsfold were given the time, and it's paid off. Thompson also — they wanted him gone, if you remember, just before Geelong found the summit.

I'd put the “realistic possibility of a grand final” timeline you mention at 3 or 4 years. I just don't see a better coaching option out there than Rodney Eade to get us there before this time. Nobody is going to come in and win us a flag in 2012. Not going to happen. 2013 is just as unlikely, unless the troops to do it are already here, in which case, it begs the question doesn't it? I think if we're talking a playing group rebuild, we're talking 2014-15 as a realistic time frame to be pushing for the P.

You're excluded from my next point because you don't do this at all, but I must say I find it hard to pot one man: It's not Eade's fault we haven't won a flag, it's not Josh Hill's or Gia's or Johnson's or Smorgon's, or whoever… it's the whole lot of them, as a team.

The only question that needs to be answered at the end of the year: Is Rocket the best man to lead the troops to the next battlefield? Whether he won the last battle is irrelevant to my view — it's about leadership and who's going to implement it in the best fashion for the club.

Anything else is sacking for sacking's sake.

[GVGjr]

Whilst I agree with the main substance of your post, both Malthouse and Worsfold were given the time, and it's paid off. Thompson also — they wanted him gone, if you remember, just before Geelong found the summit.

I'd put the “realistic possibility of a grand final” timeline you mention at 3 or 4 years. I just don't see a better coaching option out there than Rodney Eade to get us there before this time. Nobody is going to come in and win us a flag in 2012. Not going to happen. 2013 is just as unlikely, unless the troops to do it are already here, in which case, it begs the question doesn't it? I think if we're talking a playing group rebuild, we're talking 2014-15 as a realistic time frame to be pushing for the P.

You're excluded from my next point because you don't do this at all, but I must say I find it hard to pot one man: It's not Eade's fault we haven't won a flag, it's not Josh Hill's or Gia's or Johnson's or Smorgon's, or whoever… it's the whole lot of them, as a team.

The only question that needs to be answered at the end of the year: Is Rocket the best man to lead the troops to the next battlefield? Whether he won the last battle is irrelevant to my view — it's about leadership and who's going to implement it in the best fashion for the club.

Anything else is sacking for sacking's sake.

I don't think he has another four year window to get us to a grand final and if the list needs to be rebuilt then we just about have to look elsewhere.
Wallace was forever in a rebuild mode and it certainly runs thin over time but at least he had the excuses of a poor training facility and having to work to a significantly reduced salary cap.

As much as I rate Eade as a match day coach I don't think he could be given another two or three years unless we are convinced he can take us to the next level.

[Mantis]

I don't think he has another four year window to get us to a grand final and if the list needs to be rebuilt then we just about have to look elsewhere.
Wallace was forever in a rebuild mode and it certainly runs thin over time but at least he had the excuses of a poor training facility and having to work to a significantly reduced salary cap.

As much as I rate Eade as a match day coach I don't think he could be given another two or three years unless we are convinced he can take us to the next level.

The question that also needs to be factored in is in our current financial state can we ever get to the next level?

It just seems that it is getting harder and harder every year to compete with the 'power' clubs both on & off the field.

[Desipura]

The question that also needs to be factored in is in our current financial state can we ever get to the next level?

It just seems that it is getting harder and harder every year to compete with the 'power' clubs both on & off the field.

I bloody hope so otherwise I am wasting my time waiting for a premiership to come.

[LostDoggy]

I bloody hope so otherwise I am wasting my time waiting for a premiership to come.

I'm not wasting my time. Yes, I want to see a flag. As much as anybody. But I also just love rocking up and watching the game, so I wouldn't see my time as wasted.

EDIT: Oh no! Am I accepting mediocrity? ;)

[Desipura]

I'm not wasting my time. Yes, I want to see a flag. As much as anybody. But I also just love rocking up and watching the game, so I wouldn't see my time as wasted.

Mate, I love going as well even after 33 years (28 as a paid up member). If I do not see a flag in my time on this earth, it will be very disappointing.

[Bulldog Joe]

I don't think he has another four year window to get us to a grand final and if the list needs to be rebuilt then we just about have to look elsewhere.
Wallace was forever in a rebuild mode and it certainly runs thin over time but at least he had the excuses of a poor training facility and having to work to a significantly reduced salary cap.

As much as I rate Eade as a match day coach I don't think he could be given another two or three years unless we are convinced he can take us to the next level.

I strongly disagree on Wallace as he was always looking to top up, giving us players like Hunter and Bandy and failing to give opportunity to the drafted youngsters. All those good players drafted by Scott Clayton never really got extended chances until Eade came on the scene. I know Murph, Gia and Gilbs plus Hargraves had a few games but it was generally the last option for Terry.

The only player that developed significantly with Wallace was Nathan Brown.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I bloody hope so otherwise I am wasting my time waiting for a premiership to come.

Get used to it. Free agency isn't going to make it any easier for clubs like us

[bornadog]

I strongly disagree on Wallace as he was always looking to top up, giving us players like Hunter and Bandy and failing to give opportunity to the drafted youngsters. All those good players drafted by Scott Clayton never really got extended chances until Eade came on the scene. I know Murph, Gia and Gilbs plus Hargraves had a few games but it was generally the last option for Terry.

The only player that developed significantly with Wallace was Nathan Brown.

This is so true, yet every chance Terry gets he wants praise for drafting the 1999 players.

[GVGjr]

The question that also needs to be factored in is in our current financial state can we ever get to the next level?

It just seems that it is getting harder and harder every year to compete with the 'power' clubs both on & off the field.

A coach (like any other manager) needs to work within the constraints of the club and if there comes a time that he can't deliver the required results then the club needs to find someone who can possibly do better.

I don't accept yet that the limitations our club has in the way of finances should lower our expectations because with a salary cap in place and a draft that evens things out significantly for our competition (as compared to the EPL for example) I still believe that if you work smart you can get the rewards.

[Greystache]

A coach (like any other manager) needs to work within the constraints of the club and if there comes a time that he can't deliver the required results then the club needs to find someone who can possibly do better.

I don't accept yet that the limitations our club has in the way of finances should lower our expectations because with a salary cap in place and a draft that evens things out significantly for our competition (as compared to the EPL for example) I still believe that if you work smart you can get the rewards.

So do I, and I would be extremely disappointed if I heard that anyone involved with the club thought otherwise.

[ledge]

I strongly disagree on Wallace as he was always looking to top up, giving us players like Hunter and Bandy and failing to give opportunity to the drafted youngsters. All those good players drafted by Scott Clayton never really got extended chances until Eade came on the scene. I know Murph, Gia and Gilbs plus Hargraves had a few games but it was generally the last option for Terry.

The only player that developed significantly with Wallace was Nathan Brown.

Liberatore??

[bornadog]

Liberatore??

That was a reinvention.

[ledge]

That was a reinvention.

From being dropped off a list to a Brownlow falls in the significant development to me:)

[Greystache]

From being dropped off a list to a Brownlow falls in the significant development to me:)

He won a Brownlow in 1990, Wallace was appointed coach in 1996. Where is the connection?

[ledge]

Oops i must be getting old and senile

[Sockeye Salmon]

A coach (like any other manager) needs to work within the constraints of the club and if there comes a time that he can't deliver the required results then the club needs to find someone who can possibly do better.

I don't accept yet that the limitations our club has in the way of finances should lower our expectations because with a salary cap in place and a draft that evens things out significantly for our competition (as compared to the EPL for example) I still believe that if you work smart you can get the rewards.

6 teams spend significantly less on their football departments than the AFL average. All 6 are currently outside the 8.

Not impossible, but a hell of a sight harder.

[Remi Moses]

Mate, I love going as well even after 33 years (28 as a paid up member). If I do not see a flag in my time on this earth, it will be very disappointing.

I agree . I 'll be inconsolable if we don't snag one!

[GVGjr]

6 teams spend significantly less on their football departments than the AFL average. All 6 are currently outside the 8.

Not impossible, but a hell of a sight harder.

I think we still have a number of opportunities to improve things within the club without necessarily needing to spend more money so whilst the investments by some of the bigger clubs might make it more challenging now we are far from being out of contention.

[Mantis]

I agree . I 'll be inconsolable if we don't snag one!

I've got my sense of humour back and LMAO to this comment.

If I make to the age of 80 I'll probably be in convolutal care and be happy just to make it through the day without soiling myself. I doubt very much that I will lose sleep knowing the Dogs hadn't won a flag, but each to their own.

[The Pie Man]

I vaguely remember seeing some old men in tears walking out of the 97 prelim (I was 19) muttering 'I'll never see one now'

*It doesn't define life, though I can imagine if in 40 odd years time I'm terminal and in full knowledge the end will come within days, I do hope one of the memories I'll chat about with family is that year/s we won a flag. I'll be a touch sad if the conversation with loved ones goes something like 'gee we were close in 85, 97 & 09....'

*That wasn't meant to be overly morbid if anyone read it as such - and I'm pretty sure the football conversation would only last a few minutes!

[Mantis]

I think we still have a number of opportunities to improve things within the club without necessarily needing to spend more money so whilst the investments by some of the bigger clubs might make it more challenging now we are far from being out of contention.

You have probably been over these before, but what sort of opportunities should we as a club be looking at?

[LostDoggy]

I think we still have a number of opportunities to improve things within the club without necessarily needing to spend more money so whilst the investments by some of the bigger clubs might make it more challenging now we are far from being out of contention.

I don't disagree, and we were close enough the last few years to suggest that we were just a bit of luck away from the big dance, but have any of the lower spenders/ smaller clubs actually won a premiership in the last ten years? I can only remember Port winning and getting to a GF (but I think they are a special case, and their first premiership was helped by AFL concessions they got upon first joining the comp), and the Saints have been close, but the other winners (Hawthorn, Geelong, West Coast, Collingwood, Sydney, Brisbane) are all big/high spending clubs.

North was probably the last 'small' club that had any kind of sustained success.

[Mantis]

North was probably the last 'small' club that had any kind of sustained success.

But back then everyone was training out of a tin shed.

Sport science and it's use has come on in leaps & bounds since then, but our partnership with VU is one area where a club like ours without big dollars can hold ground against the 'power' clubs.

[LostDoggy]

But back then everyone was training out of a tin shed.

Sport science and it's use has come on in leaps & bounds since then, but our partnership with VU is one area where a club like ours without big dollars can hold ground against the 'power' clubs.

Yep. All of the above -- the partnership with VU is really a competitive advantage that we simply have to exploit.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

At the end of the season is still the right time to see if Eade should be given a contract for another 2 years or not and nothing much has changed except that I do believe he is in a vastly better position than he was 6 weeks back.

The challenges for the club is to learn from the mistakes of others and not make a Port Power type reappointment only to see a subsequent failure shortly after and for the club to assess the playing list to see if a grand final is still a realistic possibility within the next 2 seasons.

The concerning part is that we still have a lot of our better players in the twilight of their careers and I'm not sure if a quick rebuild might be the best course for the club to follow.
If that is the case, then the question around if a coach going beyond 7 years in charge of the players without a premiership or even a grand final berth to fall back on is the right man to start another rebuild.
I don't question Eade's credentials in the slightest but the stone cold facts are that not many coaches would be given another opportunity to rebuild the playing group.

I am not sure that 7 years is all that relevant. Malthouse was 10 years at Collingwood before winning a flag and Thompson was almost tipped out at Geelong after several years before winning two flags. I think it is more the case that in Rocket's time we simply didn't have the extra class to make up the difference, in particular in key positions where apart from Lake at full back we were deficient in many key areas.
Injuries to Lake, Cooney, Wood,Hall, Higgins and Hargrave this year has been costly plus the loss of Harbrow who was one of our better players last year.
The turnaround in form in the past month should now see us play finals and if so I would suggest that Eade would be retained. At the end of the day it is talent that wins the day and compared with the depth of Collingwood and Geelong we still have a fair way to go.
I felt our win against Carlton was the best for a couple of years and on the day it was hard to fault Eade's coaching.

[GVGjr]

I am not sure that 7 years is all that relevant. Malthouse was 10 years at Collingwood before winning a flag and Thompson was almost tipped out at Geelong after several years before winning two flags.



The concerning part is that we still have a lot of our better players in the twilight of their careers and I'm not sure if a quick rebuild might be the best course for the club to follow.
If that is the case, then the question around if a coach going beyond 7 years in charge of the players without a premiership or even a grand final berth to fall back on is the right man to start another rebuild.
I don't question Eade's credentials in the slightest but the stone cold facts are that not many coaches would be given another opportunity to rebuild the playing group.

I've highlighted the point I believe is relevant.
Coaches who have a flag or have taken a club to a GF are typically given a bit more latitude and it's the problem that Port Power faced.
Malthouse, for example, was given a longer period at the Pies because he was regarded as a premiership coach and it's the same reason why Williams was given another go at Port.
The problem for Port was they had a premiership coach with a bottom 4 list.
The Malthouse reappointment worked but the Williams one didn't and it was a disaster for a financially strapped club.
This is what we need to be mindful of.

Assessing the quality of our playing list is a vital component when the club considers the merits of reappointing Eade.

He's a quality coach but if the club doesn't believe the list is good enough to have us back into the top 4 sides next season then they must also consider if he is the right man to start a rebuild.

[LostDoggy]

I've highlighted the point I believe is relevant.
Coaches who have a flag or have taken a club to a GF are typically given a bit more latitude and it's the problem that Port Power faced.
Malthouse, for example, was given a longer period at the Pies because he was regarded as a premiership coach and it's the same reason why Williams was given another go at Port.
The problem for Port was they had a premiership coach with a bottom 4 list.
The Malthouse reappointment worked but the Williams one didn't and it was a disaster for a financially strapped club.
This is what we need to be mindful of.

Assessing the quality of our playing list is a vital component when the club considers the merits of reappointing Eade.

He's a quality coach but if the club doesn't believe the list is good enough to have us back into the top 4 sides next season then they must also consider if he is the right man to start a rebuild.

You've been very considered in your views on this, Gary, and I have acknowledged previously the Williams parallel as a very good one to factor in.

However, Mark Williams WAS a loose cannon and an erratic personality in a way that Rocket never will be -- Eade is far more measured (and I believe simply more conventional personality-wise) than Williams; Williams' problems went beyond simply losing the playing group to problems with the fans and his board. Rocket has excellent relationships with most of the club's stakeholders, the playing group and the media, and has a very developed and good public profile which adds positively to the perception of the club (unlike Williams).

I would like one of these days to have a really good coach stay at our club for a long, long time a la Sheedy. Rocket may or may not be in Sheed's class, but there's no doubt he's a very, very good coach and ambassador for the club, and I think he is of a calibre that we can really build a culture and identity around and isn't just a good, temporary, run-of-the-mill coach (I would posit that he may very close to being the best coach we've ever had). I would also be very surprised if we're not up challenging at the top end of the table again very soon and give it a really, really good shake if he stays on for the next 5 or so years.

[GVGjr]

You've been very considered in your views on this, Gary, and I have acknowledged previously the Williams parallel as a very good one to factor in.

However, Mark Williams WAS a loose cannon and an erratic personality in a way that Rocket never will be -- Eade is far more measured (and I believe simply more conventional personality-wise) than Williams; Williams' problems went beyond simply losing the playing group to problems with the fans and his board. Rocket has excellent relationships with most of the club's stakeholders, the playing group and the media, and has a very developed and good public profile which adds positively to the perception of the club (unlike Williams).

I would like one of these days to have a really good coach stay at our club for a long, long time a la Sheedy. Rocket may or may not be in Sheed's class, but there's no doubt he's a very, very good coach and ambassador for the club, and I think he is of a calibre that we can really build a culture and identity around and isn't just a good, temporary, run-of-the-mill coach (I would posit that he may very close to being the best coach we've ever had). I would also be very surprised if we're not up challenging at the top end of the table again very soon and give it a really, really good shake if he stays on for the next 5 or so years.

The personalities don't come into as far as I am concerned it's more about having the right person to take the playing list forward. The loose cannon as you put it was considered the right man by the Port board because he had the GF credentials they thought they needed but they didn't assess the playing list and it ended up being a disaster.

To be honest I would be happy if Eade was reappointed but not if the club was also going to lower the expectation bar. I think Smorgon made a huge error in putting a GF pass mark on the club and the coach this year but if Eade is reappointed he actually needs to do it again.

[LostDoggy]

The personalities don't come into as far as I am concerned it's more about having the right person to take the playing list forward..

Oh, but surely it must when it comes to a club's profile? As a smaller club, we really need to make every post a winner when it comes to the off-field stuff (the on-field, playing list stuff goes without saying of course), and a stable, media-friendly coach with excellent relationships with all our stakeholders and an ability to connect with the community would surely be preferable to a crazy loose-cannon who burns every bridge he crosses?

Port's current financial predicament and completely shot brand as a club would not have been helped by an inaccessible, erratic personality at the helm.

I'm not saying hire a good guy who can't coach, and I agree that you don't lower the bar, but all things being equal, the off-field stuff is paramount. Some might even say it's as important as anything on-field; we could hire Malthouse, Sheedy, Roos or Matthews and we still may or may not win a premiership as it is a very even and difficult comp, but the right man can help ensure our brand maintains its attractiveness and upward trend (as long as we're still competitive on-field) while the wrong man can easily destroy our brand even while winning a premiership (see: Williams, again). It's a long-run play I'm talking about here... how do we change the landscape and perception of our club from a flakey, small club to a professional, stable, successful one? Port has proven that winning a premiership is not the silver bullet some of us think it is.

[LostDoggy]

I think we still have a number of opportunities to improve things within the club without necessarily needing to spend more money so whilst the investments by some of the bigger clubs might make it more challenging now we are far from being out of contention.

Exactly. My old man has always told me ad nauseum: “It's not how much money you earn that matters, son. It's how much you spend, and what you spend it on.”


The personalities don't come into as far as I am concerned it's more about having the right person to take the playing list forward. The loose cannon as you put it was considered the right man by the Port board because he had the GF credentials they thought they needed but they didn't assess the playing list and it ended up being a disaster.

To be honest I would be happy if Eade was reappointed but not if the club was also going to lower the expectation bar. I think Smorgon made a huge error in putting a GF pass mark on the club and the coach this year but if Eade is reappointed he actually needs to do it again.

A coaching decision shouldn't just be about the playing list. That's not even his job. It should be about how far he can take a player, how far he can develop them, and he has shown for 7 years a gift at getting the most out of guys like Lake, Murphy, etc.

[GVGjr]

Oh, but surely it must when it comes to a club's profile? As a smaller club, we really need to make every post a winner when it comes to the off-field stuff (the on-field, playing list stuff goes without saying of course), and a stable, media-friendly coach with excellent relationships with all our stakeholders and an ability to connect with the community would surely be preferable to a crazy loose-cannon who burns every bridge he crosses?



How many people were against getting guys with mixed on field and off field issues like Akermanis and Hall? What was your take on their recruitment?
I'd bet most supporters couldn't stand them (but respected their ability) when they were with Brisbane and Sydney but them embraced then totally when we recruited them because they were seen as a great chance to get us to a GF.
Now that Akermanis is gone from the club he's back again as being regarded as a knob and yet he's the same old Akermanis he was when we recruited him.

I don't want a loose cannon as a coach (I doubt there one actually out there) but it's marvelous what people will compromise if it's seen as a great chance to fast track some success.

The clubs profile is a consideration but how many loose cannons in the last 5 years actually get a coaching gig? (expect for Sheedy)

[LostDoggy]

Oh, but surely it must when it comes to a club's profile? As a smaller club, we really need to make every post a winner when it comes to the off-field stuff (the on-field, playing list stuff goes without saying of course), and a stable, media-friendly coach with excellent relationships with all our stakeholders and an ability to connect with the community would surely be preferable to a crazy loose-cannon who burns every bridge he crosses?

Port's current financial predicament and completely shot brand as a club would not have been helped by an inaccessible, erratic personality at the helm.

I'm not saying hire a good guy who can't coach, and I agree that you don't lower the bar, but all things being equal, the off-field stuff is paramount. Some might even say it's as important as anything on-field; we could hire Malthouse, Sheedy, Roos or Matthews and we still may or may not win a premiership as it is a very even and difficult comp, but the right man can help ensure our brand maintains its attractiveness and upward trend (as long as we're still competitive on-field) while the wrong man can easily destroy our brand even while winning a premiership (see: Williams, again). It's a long-run play I'm talking about here... how do we change the landscape and perception of our club from a flakey, small club to a professional, stable, successful one? Port has proven that winning a premiership is not the silver bullet some of us think it is.

Great post. How do we change our perception? By not howling at the moon every year when we don't win a flag, instead working our arses off to rectify, and then continuing to work our arses off no matter what, flag or not. Example? Sydney. One flag in 78 years. Respected club culture.

[GVGjr]

A coaching decision shouldn't just be about the playing list. That's not even his job. It should be about how far he can take a player, how far he can develop them, and he has shown for 7 years a gift at getting the most out of guys like Lake, Murphy, etc.

A coach is measured against the quality of his playing list and boards should consider it when appointing a coach especially when someone has been in charge for a long period of time.

[LostDoggy]

How many people were against getting guys with mixed on field and off field issues like Akermanis and Hall? What was your take on their recruitment?
I'd bet most supporters couldn't stand them (but respected their ability) when they were with Brisbane and Sydney but them embraced them totally when we recruited them because they were seen as a great chance to get us to a GF.
Now that Akermanis is gone from the club he's back again as being regarded as a knob and yet he's the same old Akermanis he was when we recruited him.

I don't want a loose cannon as a coach (I doubt there one actually out there) but it's marvelous what people will compromise if it's seen as a great chance to fast track some success.

The clubs profile is a consideration but how many loose cannons in the last 5 years actually get a coaching gig? (expect for Sheedy)

On Akermanis, you've got me. I respected that he spoke his mind but thought he was a knob before we recruited him, was dead against it. I changed my mind when all was going well. Now I think he's a knob again. So guilty as charged.

I've always admired Barry Hall, as much as I admire Adam Goodes. Every time we played Sydney, it was Hall and Goodes I'd love to watch. So my view on Barry hasn't (and probably won't change).

Flipping your question around from what he COULD bring: What specific issues warrant the cessation of Rocket's contract?

EDIT TO SAVE MULTIPLE POSTS:



A coach is measured against the quality of his playing list and boards should consider it when appointing a coach especially when someone has been in charge for a long period of time.

I didn't quite mean he's not responsible for the playing list, I meant he's not responsible for recruiting the player list, now and in the future.

[LostDoggy]

How many people were against getting guys with mixed on field and off field issues like Akermanis and Hall? What was your take on their recruitment?
I'd bet most supporters couldn't stand them (but respected their ability) when they were with Brisbane and Sydney but them embraced them totally when we recruited them because they were seen as a great chance to get us to a GF.
Now that Akermanis is gone from the club he's back again as being regarded as a knob and yet he's the same old Akermanis he was when we recruited him.

I don't want a loose cannon as a coach (I doubt there one actually out there) but it's marvelous what people will compromise if it's seen as a great chance to fast track some success.

The clubs profile is a consideration but how many loose cannons in the last 5 years actually get a coaching gig? (expect for Sheedy)

Oh I'm not saying that there are any coaching loose cannons around still, just that Williams being such a loose cannon makes his example maybe less relevant to whether we should keep Rocket.

Also I do think there's a slight difference between having a couple of crazies on the field and having a lunatic running the asylum.. if anything, the more crazies you have on the field, the steadier the hand you want in charge to be able to handle the on-field loonies (who are sometimes necessary to win stuff).

[ledge]

I think Aker worked in the opposite, loose cannons or wild ones can be good on the field if they are respected by the rest of the team,
Barry Hall was well respected he was even captain, big difference to compare Aker and Hall.

[GVGjr]

Flipping your question around from what he COULD bring: What specific issues warrant the cessation of Rocket's contract?



I'm not saying he shouldn't have the job because I think he is a very good coach but I don't think I can make my points any clearer than what I have.
My view is that unless we believe we have the playing list to get us to a GF in the next 2 years then we need to consider if he is still the right man to take the club forward.

If we make the eight and win a final I just can't see how he could lose the job. If we miss the eight then we need to consider a lot more. Limping into the eight becomes 50/50.

[GVGjr]

Oh I'm not saying that there are any coaching loose cannons around still, just that Williams being such a loose cannon makes his example maybe less relevant to whether we should keep Rocket.



I think it's very relevant so I'll try to make my points without mentioning Eade or Williams so their respective personalities aren't the issue.

- We are like Port in that we aren't financially strong.
- We had a disaster in the first half on the season like Port did in what was a contract year for the coach.
- Port looked at what their requirements were for a coach considered a premiership/GF experience as paramount.
- Port failed to consider the quality of their group in their search for a coach.
- The following season was another disaster and they had to make the move.

[ledge]

I believe our list is very good, we have great leadership in the board room and our coach isnt a nut, the players are still playing for our coach, we are in no way the financial basket case Port are.
Eade has playing premiership and grand final coaching experience.
Eade also wants to stay.
I think the two clubs are completely different to compare.

[Nuggety Back Pocket]

Exactly. My old man has always told me ad nauseum: “It's not how much money you earn that matters, son. It's how much you spend, and what you spend it on.”



A coaching decision shouldn't just be about the playing list. That's not even his job. It should be about how far he can take a player, how far he can develop them, and he has shown for 7 years a gift at getting the most out of guys like Lake, Murphy, etc.

Knowing Malthouse personally the playing list and coaching goes very much hand in hand.
A player would never be drafted in a Malthouse coached club unless it had his stamp of approval. I would be both surprised and disappointed if the same wasn't the case with Rocket. After all the Coach has responsibility for having the best players available at his disposal.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Knowing Malthouse personally the playing list and coaching goes very much hand in hand.
A player would never be drafted in a Malthouse coached club unless it had his stamp of approval. I would be both surprised and disappointed if the same wasn't the case with Rocket. After all the Coach has responsibility for having the best players available at his disposal.

Rocket has little say in it. The recruiter will fill him in about who he is interested in but Rocket lets him have his head.

Rocket told us before the draft last year that "we would like an early pick because we are looking at a kid called Dion someone (it was Prestia)". Rocket didn't even know his second name.

He did tell us that he has input into what type of player he would like. He asked Dalrymple for small defenders in the 2009 draft (we took Howard and Tutt). Neither are close checking, lockdown defenders and that may have influenced us towards Schofield.

[LostDoggy]

Rocket has little say in it. The recruiter will fill him in about who he is interested in but Rocket lets him have his head.

Rocket told us before the draft last year that "we would like an early pick because we are looking at a kid called Dion someone (it was Prestia)". Rocket didn't even know his second name.

He did tell us that he has input into what type of player he would like. He asked Dalrymple for small defenders in the 2009 draft (we took Howard and Tutt). Neither are close checking, lockdown defenders and that may have influenced us towards Schofield.

This is exactly the type of input the senior coach should have, and no more. Put simply, Rocket doesn't have the time to adequately follow and assess junior talent.

I'd imagine Malthouse is the same. He would tell the recruiters what he wants, and he may run a ruler over their selections before draft day, but recruiting has to be left to the recruiters.