Questions mounting at Whitten Oval

[Mantis]

Rodney Eade knows the questions are mounting at Whitten Oval, and most of them so far are unanswerable.

On Saturday night he was asked who might kick the goals in Barry Hall's absence next year, a large enough question in itself.

He couldn't answer because he doesn't know if he will be there, but that is only the first on a list of unknowns.

The Dogs face considerable list management decisions in the coming months, ahead of what shapes as a period of unprecedented change.

Barry Hall will not be at the club next year, and Callan Ward is increasingly likely to depart for Greater Western Sydney.

Ben Hudson, 32 continues to be a warrior for this club but he has been dropped this year at times and is no certainty to play on.

Read on here (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/questions-mounting-at-whitten-oval/story-e6frf9jf-1226114816226).

[LostDoggy]

Not a lot to disagree with here

[azabob]

Well summed up by Jon Ralph.

We all know things are going to get worse before they get better, but it reading it all one block like that makes you wonder how hard is it going to be.

Does Eade have the temperament and know how in rebuilding a young list?

Will Eade be able to tap the older blokes on the shoulder and tell them their time is over?

Can Eade cope with the pressures from front office once the members start and perhaps sponsor ship dollar drops away as we are a middle of the road club for a few years?

Having said all that does a younger coach have the all the tools needed to do the above?

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Well summed up by Jon Ralph.

We all know things are going to get worse before they get better, but it reading it all one block like that makes you wonder how hard is it going to be.

Does Eade have the temperament and know how in rebuilding a young list?

Will Eade be able to tap the older blokes on the shoulder and tell them their time is over?

Can Eade cope with the pressures from front office once the members start and perhaps sponsor ship dollar drops away as we are a middle of the road club for a few years?

Having said all that does a younger coach have the all the tools needed to do the above?

I think Eade has demonstrated his abilities to do this previously when he first took on the job. For me the question is does the Bulldog Coach Review Panel think that Eade has the ability to do it again?

[OLD SCRAGGer]

I STILL think Rocket IS the man for the job!!!!!

I'm REALLY scared If we go for an UNTRIED coach & fail ( like we did with Rhode) our membership numbers will fall. We had 8000 members fail to join this year for what ever reason and we played in the Prelim last year, how many will drop off if we drop furher in 2012.

I still believe injuries have been the major reason for our bad season!!!!

[Desipura]

Are we close to a premiership? Is Rocket the man to do it?
If we are not close, do we save the money that Rocket would command and choose a young coach with reputable Assistants?
Plenty of questions...............

[LostDoggy]

If we are not close, do we save the money that Rocket would command and choose a young coach with reputable Assistants?
Plenty of questions...............

You get what you pay for though. Skimping on the most important job in the club is penny wise pound foolish for mine.

[bornadog]

You get what you pay for though. Skimping on the most important job in the club is penny wise pound foolish for mine.

That was the reason why we chose Rhode.

[Greystache]

That was the reason why we chose Rhode.

We chose Rhode because he was cheap and we were slashing footy department spending. No one is suggesting we do that, the suggstion is spreading money wider in the coaching department on more/better credentialed assistants rather than investing a large chunk of it on an experienced senior coach who may or may not do a better job

[LostDoggy]

We chose Rhode because he was cheap and we were slashing footy department spending. No one is suggesting we do that, the suggstion is spreading money wider in the coaching department on more/better credentialed assistants rather than investing a large chunk of it on an experienced senior coach who may or may not do a better job

Generally speaking, the senior coach is the key to the whole shebang -- 80/20 rule. If we are getting great assistants and a middling senior coach, maybe one of those 'great assistants' should be senior coach. Besides, the better quality assistants you get, the better your senior coach needs to be, not the other way round -- good assistants would either be gunning for the senior job if they head man is someone they can't respect, or won't stay for very long.

The exception to the rule that several clubs are trying out with less experienced coaches is someone with a big profile (you know, Hird, Buckley etc.) being backed up by a senior assistant, usually a formerly successful senior coach who doesn't want the hassle of the top job. Neil Craig is the one being talked about in footy circles, but I imagine there'll be a couple of others out there who could do as good a job as Bomber Thompson has done for Essendon this year. A Chris Grant, Scott West (or Chris Bond, for that matter) with a Neil Craig or Leigh Matthews backing him up would be an interesting prospect.

[Greystache]

Generally speaking, the senior coach is the key to the whole shebang -- 80/20 rule. If we are getting great assistants and a middling senior coach, maybe one of those 'great assistants' should be senior coach. Besides, the better quality assistants you get, the better your senior coach needs to be, not the other way round -- good assistants would either be gunning for the senior job if they head man is someone they can't respect, or won't stay for very long.

The exception to the rule that several clubs are trying out with less experienced coaches is someone with a big profile (you know, Hird, Buckley etc.) being backed up by a senior assistant, usually a formerly successful senior coach who doesn't want the hassle of the top job. Neil Craig is the one being talked about in footy circles, but I imagine there'll be a couple of others out there who could do as good a job as Bomber Thompson has done for Essendon this year. A Chris Grant, Scott West (or Chris Bond, for that matter) with a Neil Craig or Leigh Matthews backing him up would be an interesting prospect.

How do you know that someone will be a middling coach simply because their salary expectations are lower? Salaries are paid commensurate to experience, Eade commands a larger salary because he has substantial senior experience, a first time coach could well be leaps and bounds ahead of Eade in 2 years yet still be on half the wage. Eade himself was an untried coach at one point.

[LostDoggy]

How do you know that someone will be a middling coach simply because their salary expectations are lower? Salaries are paid commensurate to experience, Eade commands a larger salary because he has substantial senior experience, a first time coach could well be leaps and bounds ahead of Eade in 2 years yet still be on half the wage. Eade himself was an untried coach at one point.

Genuine question: do you think senior coach salaries are related to experience or to supply and demand? A coach in demand will command a higher salary, a coach on the scrapheap (or a first-time punt) will command a lower salary, regardless of experience, surely. I would imagine that performance bonuses and renegotiations/extensions after good performance knocks a coach's salary up, not simply experience.

I would also argue that no coach is being paid below his market value -- a good coach being severely underpaid would be poached sooner rather than later.

[LostDoggy]

ps. I'm not saying that an untried coach will not be better than Eade, but there's a reason untried coach's are paid less than a proven coach -- it's basically a risk discount. Are we the type of club that can take the risk of another debacle like Rohde? Would we survive an untried coach turning out to be shite? Of course he may turn out to be great, but it's a gamble and I'm not sure we're the right kind of club to be trying that kind of gamble.

[LostDoggy]

The key question is this: Are we getting rid of Rocket to improve some specific, measurable aspect of the team, or just for the sake of getting rid of him because it's an easy fix.

Much of the debate I've heard so far, even here on WOOF, consists of people mostly trying to convince themselves and anybody who'll listen that he needs to go because we've had a shit year and he's at the end of his contract.

The facts are, he has great experience, proven ability (albeit unfortunately no flags YET) and his record with us over the entire journey is superb. He's taken a club well-known as perennial underdogs and transformed them into a professional force worthy of respect. Twice. Once at Sydney, and now with the Dogs. Perseverance is needed. For once in our history we need to give a bloke the time needed. Mick “The Greatest Coach In The World” Malthouse took 10 years to get the Pies there.

I firmly believe Rocket will win a flag before he retires from senior coaching. The question is, will he win it with the Bulldogs?

[Desipura]

You get what you pay for though. Skimping on the most important job in the club is penny wise pound foolish for mine.

Skimping on Assistants is penny wise and foolish as well.
Assistants play a key role more so these days.

[Greystache]

Genuine question: do you think senior coach salaries are related to experience or to supply and demand? A coach in demand will command a higher salary, a coach on the scrapheap (or a first-time punt) will command a lower salary, regardless of experience, surely. I would imagine that performance bonuses and renegotiations/extensions after good performance knocks a coach's salary up, not simply experience.

I would also argue that no coach is being paid below his market value -- a good coach being severely underpaid would be poached sooner rather than later.

A coach who's had previous experience who wasn't an abject failure will command more than an untried coach regardless of who turns out to be better. It's the same in every industry, an untried manager in a bank who gets a promotion into the role will command a lower salary than an experienced manager brought in from somewhere else. if the untried coach proves to be a success then their next contract is on significantly improved terms (eg Clarkson at Hawthorn), does that mean they're suddenly a better coach? No, it means they're being paid in accordance with their experience.

Supply and demand comes into it because there's only a finite pool of experienced candidates to draw upon and not everyone is prepared to give a rookie a chance.

[azabob]

A coach who's had previous experience who wasn't an abject failure will command more than an untried coach regardless of who turns out to be better. It's the same in every industry, an untried manager in a bank who gets a promotion into the role will command a lower salary than an experienced manager brought in from somewhere else. if the untried coach proves to be a success then their next contract is on significantly improved terms (eg Clarkson at Hawthorn), does that mean they're suddenly a better coach? No, it means they're being paid in accordance with their experience.

Agree with this.

Hopefully we don't allow money to dictate which way we go.

[Desipura]

We chose Rhode because he was cheap and we were slashing footy department spending. No one is suggesting we do that, the suggstion is spreading money wider in the coaching department on more/better credentialed assistants rather than investing a large chunk of it on an experienced senior coach who may or may not do a better job

Thanks Greystache, you understood what I was suggesting.

[LostDoggy]

if the untried coach proves to be a success then their next contract is on significantly improved terms (eg Clarkson at Hawthorn), does that mean they're suddenly a better coach? No, it means they're being paid in accordance with their experience.
.

No it doesn't. It means that they're being paid in accordance with their success. A coach that is proven to be shite after three years isn't going to be paid more because he's more experienced. The reason Clarkson gets more in his second contract is because he's proven to be a GOOD coach, not just because he's more experienced. Heck, there are coaches that take pay cuts with contract extensions because they haven't met performance indicators.

Market factors also come into play -- if Hawthorn hadn't offered Clarkson a contract to his satisfaction there would have been no shortage of suitors.

[bornadog]

No it doesn't. It means that they're being paid in accordance with their success. A coach that is proven to be shite after three years isn't going to be paid more because he's more experienced. The reason Clarkson gets more in his second contract is because he's proven to be a GOOD coach, not just because he's more experienced. Heck, there are coaches that take pay cuts with contract extensions because they haven't met performance indicators.

That means Rocket will be cheaper this time around:D

[LostDoggy]

Supply and demand comes into it because there's only a finite pool of experienced candidates to draw upon and not everyone is prepared to give a rookie a chance.

As I mentioned above, though, are we a club that can take that chance knowing that it could very well turn out to be a failure? Can we survive another Rohde era in this cutthroat environment with new clubs and free agency coming in? Port may well go to the wall in the next couple of years with little to play for, we aren't that far behind financially. Make a mistake here, and we could very well be signing our death sentence.

The cowboy in me would love nothing more than to go for an untried coach and hope that he turns out to be the second coming of Barass, but if we can't attract good senior coaches, we won't be attracting good assistants either.

[azabob]

Skimping on Assistants is penny wise and foolish as well.
Assistants play a key role more so these days.

Would Eade allow an experienced assistant coach come and take "more of the load" and give up some of his responsibility?

I would like to think he would, but Im unsure.

[Desipura]

Would Eade allow an experienced assistant coach come and take "more of the load" and give up some of his responsibility?

I would like to think he would, but Im unsure.
If we were to get an experienced Assistant, I would think we would not be able to afford Eade as well.

[LostDoggy]

That means Rocket will be cheaper this time around:D

If there wasn't Adelaide and Melbourne on the horizon, his currency was shot, and he was still desperate to coach, and we decide to keep him, then surely yes, a "pay cut" would not be out of the realms of possibility. The way it would be structured would probably be to word his contract with a greater percentage of his pay being performance-based, so that he COULD still earn himself the same amount if the team improves or performs. Doesn't happen very often because usually clubs just start afresh.

[Greystache]

ps. I'm not saying that an untried coach will not be better than Eade, but there's a reason untried coach's are paid less than a proven coach -- it's basically a risk discount. Are we the type of club that can take the risk of another debacle like Rohde? Would we survive an untried coach turning out to be shite? Of course he may turn out to be great, but it's a gamble and I'm not sure we're the right kind of club to be trying that kind of gamble.

That's an all together different discussion. The Rhode debacle can't be blamed on anyone but the club itself, he wasn't an unknown gamble, he was already at the club, if we couldnt tell he was inept already then that's our fault. I don't think the club thought he'd be a good coach, it was simply about hiring the cheapest option. Rose was on a mission to cut costs, Rhode just happened to be there, he also realised after 2 years if you can't win a game then it's going to cost the club more than just a higher footy department wage bill.

We're a club that takes the conservative option, always have, and most likely always will. We've had 6 coaches in the past 27 years, only one was an untried coach from outside the club (Malthouse), 2 have been experienced coaches sacked by other clubs (Joyce and Eade), and 3 have been untried coaches promoted internally. Never do we chase a well credentialed outsider who could be the next big name, nor do we headhunt a coach in demand.

Eade's a decent coach, he's got teams into finals pretty regularly, but he's coached 13 seasons for one Grand Final (in his first season) and a finals record of 1 win from 11 games against top four teams. He is certainly not a great coach.

[the banker]

ps. I'm not saying that an untried coach will not be better than Eade, but there's a reason untried coach's are paid less than a proven coach -- it's basically a risk discount. Are we the type of club that can take the risk of another debacle like Rohde? Would we survive an untried coach turning out to be shite? Of course he may turn out to be great, but it's a gamble and I'm not sure we're the right kind of club to be trying that kind of gamble.

Why keep quoting Rhode. We also gave Mick Malthouse his start. Lets not get into a defensive frame of mind. We should be bold. I think Smorgon has the wits to assess the character of the man, are Garlick, Fantasia up to a sharp assessment of coaching credentials or should we have Leigh Matthews on the selection panel if Rocket is not reappointed?

[Ghost Dog]

Is it a case of boys mentality here? Can we make the right choices without external assistance? If Leigh Mat is able to be on hand, we would be mad not to ask for his advice.

[LostDoggy]

If there wasn't Adelaide and Melbourne on the horizon, his currency was shot, and he was still desperate to coach, and we decide to keep him, then surely yes, a "pay cut" would not be out of the realms of possibility. The way it would be structured would probably be to word his contract with a greater percentage of his pay being performance-based, so that he COULD still earn himself the same amount if the team improves or performs. Doesn't happen very often because usually clubs just start afresh.

This paragraph from today's news about Voss's contract extension would be the exact scenario I painted above:

Brisbane Lions coach Michael Voss is believed to be nearing an end to protracted talks with the club.

Although both parties unofficially agreed in theory some weeks ago to a two-year contract extension for Voss, a number of contractual sticking points have delayed a final decision.

Voss's manager Peter Blucher last night refused to discuss the disputed areas of Voss's original contract offer which is understood to have included a number of performance clauses.

(Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/eade-calls-on-dogs-to-sack-or-back-him-20110815-1iut4.html#ixzz1V9Ayy4bQ)


You don't get paid more just for 'experience'.

[LostDoggy]

Why keep quoting Rhode. We also gave Mick Malthouse his start. Lets not get into a defensive frame of mind. We should be bold. I think Smorgon has the wits to assess the character of the man, are Garlick, Fantasia up to a sharp assessment of coaching credentials or should we have Leigh Matthews on the selection panel if Rocket is not reappointed?

And how did the Malthouse reign at the Dogs end? Not exactly an unqualified success was it? It's like we have such short memories, and those of us who don't learn from our mistakes are doomed to repeat them. Also, Malthouse happened back in the '80s when it was the VFL and the world (nevermind footy) was a completely different place. It was also in an era that nearly took us to the wall and needed a tin rattling fundraiser that I hope I never see again.

Rohde is the most recent example of what could happen to the Dogs if we take a cheap punt and lose -- we essentially wasted three prime years of one of the best groups of top end players we've ever had (Granty, West, Darcy, Johnno, Smith et al. -- a better coach would have extracted what Lyon has been able to extract from his top 6 at St. Kilda over the last couple of years). Primus is another example, albeit from a different club.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't go for an 'untried' coach (most aspiring first-time coaches have impressive assistant coach CVs, and I mentioned Lyon above), but there is a way to go about this, and being last in line and paying peanuts isn't it. Boldness is one thing, being slow and cheap another thing altogether.

[LostDoggy]

A coach who's had previous experience who wasn't an abject failure will command more than an untried coach regardless of who turns out to be better. It's the same in every industry, an untried manager in a bank who gets a promotion into the role will command a lower salary than an experienced manager brought in from somewhere else..

I don't think this is the right analogy -- a senior coach isn't simply a middle manager that companies can take punts on and pay accordingly. It is the most important job in an AFL club -- akin to a CEO in a Fortune 500 (or a Silicon Valley) company (I know AFL clubs have "CEOs" but you know what I mean).

A wrong appointment can be fatal; history isn't kind to mistakes, and there are plenty of companies out there who have gone to the wall (or lost billions) after appointing the wrong person to the top job. In an era of free agency, expansion teams, 150 point beltings and a widening rich-poor gap, the recent reactiveness of our club doesn't fill me with much confidence that we can really compete with more proactive clubs on the cutting edge. Our equivalent of losing billions would leave us far behind the curve competitively, and we can kiss our premiership chances goodbye and settle for a couple of decades of being whatever North has been for the last 10 years.