CC on his last legs?

[Leysy Days]

Once its all on the plate in front of dH,He should have the final say.

& that can leave you open to situations like Terry coaching for a contract extention last season & nothing else. Don't forget he was making noises last season about trading pick 8 for Daniel Kerr. How would that look now if he had the final say & was able to go ahead with it.

The list manager is there to override things where necessary because his goal is the longer term future of the club. Whereas the coaches concern is often just the length of his contract.

 

[Scoop]

Like i said the whole football dept will have input including more importantly FJ,s input which both CC and DH would be well aware of when it came to making a decision to go recyled or kid.
Once its all on the plate in front of dH,He should have the final say.

I see your point but I still think that the coach is only in it for the short term view. We have to already be planning a list beyond the DH era. That is CC's job.

 

[Tigers_06]

Good thread this. Good points.

I am still with Leysy on this one. It is CC's job to be aware of what the best long term choice will be for the RFC when it comes down to list management.

"Thats just it. Whoever makes any trading calls needs to be across juniors to know what we are giving up in young talent to do any trade or take a recycled. Coaches aren't."

That sums up perfectly in my book.

I believe CC would have done that last year, would have realised we would get KPPs with our first 2 picks which is what we wanted. I also believe that they would have sat down last year and taken a look at the players who were around at the picks used for Thomson & Hislop and judged whether they would have been able to have the same impact on our push for finals as these 2 were supposed to. Obviously after discussing it the decision was made that they offered more than the kids did.

 

[IanG]

Direct quotes as per Emma Quayles book.

Gary Buckenara put the case forward for two players - Hugh Sandilands & Dan McKenna. - then excerpts -

After length discussion 20 seconds were left to make the call.

"After hearing all that do you still want Dewy? Pelchen asked Clarkson. Clarkson did.

"Ok then:. said Chris. "Lets go with him".

Pelchen drove the discussion & placed trust in his coach in this one. But at the end of the day it certainly wasn't demanded from him & it was certainly Pelchens making the final call to go side with his coach.

Sounds to me more like Pelchen giving in.

I agree that the List Mgr should operate the way you say but IMHO its naive to think that Wallace wouldn't have wielded enormous influence on the List Mgt committee regarding existing players.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

I see your point but I still think that the coach is only in it for the short term view. We have to already be planning a list beyond the DH era. That is CC's job.

Short term view in certain circumstances can reap benefits.RE:Bris/Voss.
In our case Hardwick thankfully is looking long term,hence the non-chasing of Fevola and Bradshaw.As long as Hardwick keeps a level head i see no reason why you wouldn,t trust him to make the right calls.

 

[Leysy Days]

Sounds to me more like Pelchen giving in.

I agree that the List Mgr should operate the way you say but IMHO its naive to think that Wallace wouldn't have wielded enormous influence on the List Mgt committee regarding existing players.

If we Wallet too much power & influence as you suggest then that is no-one's but CC's fault being TW's superior & person running that committee. Ergo CC is responsible.

Short term view in certain circumstances can reap benefits.RE:Bris/Voss.
In our case Hardwick thankfully is looking long term,hence the non-chasing of Fevola and Bradshaw.As long as Hardwick keeps a level head i see no reason why you wouldn,t trust him to make the right calls.

Wouldn't call Voss' moves a success. Certainly not yet, that could certainly swing either way. Leysy believes the latter.

On Hardwick, thats all fine for now. He has comfort. What happens in two years time when he is going into the last year of his contract if the knives are out from the media & supporters. What if he starts going into "save my coaching career" phase. Its human nature to do it.

We then have to suck it up. Because by your way its already written into his contract he has final say on list decisions.

 

[Tiger74]

Sounds to me more like Pelchen giving in.

tend to agree - the Pelchen quote was hardly an enthusiastic endorsement

sounds like a conversation I had recently (identity hidden to prevent domestic turmoil ;D):

person X: I need to buy these shoes

me: you don't need to buy them, you want to buy them.

person x: okay, I want to buy them. do they look good?

me: well.....they are not my taste, but you're the one who has to wear them. I thought the others looked better, are you sure you don't want them?

person x: you're taste is so boring, I want these

me: okay, we'll buy them then

 

[johnson2richo2003]

On Hardwick, thats all fine for now. He has comfort. What happens in two years time when he is going into the last year of his contract if the knives are out from the media & supporters. What if he starts going into "save my coaching career" phase. Its human nature to do it.

We then have to suck it up. Because by your way its already written into his contract he has final say on list decisions.

it shouldn,t matter what situation the coach or the club is in 2yrs time.The end of the day the coach should have the final say.If it goes pear shape then he dies by the very same sword he went in with.
Not sure where your going with the contract bit.Pretty sure it comes down to common sense.

Wouldn't call Voss' moves a success. Certainly not yet, that could certainly swing either way. Leysy believes the latter.

So you wouldn,t say the recruitment of Fevola won,t enhance Voss,s chances of landing a flag?

 

[Tigers of Old]

Direct quotes as per Emma Quayles book.

Gary Buckenara put the case forward for two players - Hugh Sandilands & Dan McKenna. - then excerpts -

After length discussion 20 seconds were left to make the call.

"After hearing all that do you still want Dewy? Pelchen asked Clarkson. Clarkson did.

"Ok then:. said Chris. "Lets go with him".

Sounds to me more like Pelchen giving in.

Reckon so too.

 

[Freezer]

In your example yes Pelshen could bring in a player who the coach doesn't want in his team. But it would never happen. A list manager is not going to bring a player in who the coach doesn't believe in. It would be no help to anybody.

In the up-coming draft, it appears we are going to take either Trengrove or Martin - whoever is left over. Clearly they represent the best available talent in the eyes of CC and FJ (and probably DH).

But hypothetically speaking, what if Hardwick was desperate, and I mean desperate, to sure up the spine and wanted to take Daniel Tahlia, for example. (Remember this is hypothetical, but not beyond the realms of possibility.)

Would he get his wish, or would CC/FJ overrule him?

 

[TigerMasochist]

it shouldn,t matter what situation the coach or the club is in 2yrs time.The end of the day the coach should have the final say.If it goes pear shape then he dies by the very same sword he went in with.

For the very reason you posted above the coach should never have control of the final say over players.
The coach is nothing more than a paid employee hired to try and "COACH" a team of players to win premierships.
He certainly should be able to advise the list/football manager of the type of game style and player structures he requires to achieve that aim but.
It's human nature to try and patch perceived holes or shortfalls to try and protect your arse when the pressure comes on. Far to easy for a coach to manipulate his list with one eye on the length of his contract.
As has been shown repeatedly building a strong list from scratch takes not the three or four years of a coaches contract but around seven to ten depending on the strength of your recruiting and developing structures, that is the job of the list/footy manager. With input obviously from the coach. The list/ footy managers job is to build a team that is consistently capable of playing finals with a view to winning premierships and regenerating itself continously while as often as possible remaining in finals contention.
Over the last forty years I can think of only one club that had the formula down pat. Essendon under Kevin Sheedy. They had all their structures and systems as right as you could get them and played constant finals for most of Sheeds twenty seven years.
Every other club has bounced around, dominated for a short period then faded to mediocrity or worse. It's only in recent years that clubs have started to genuinely look at putting in proper list management and overlapping coaching structures for consistent performance rather than allowing the coach to blaze away at a flag in the couple of years given on his contract.
Geelong, Scumwood and Crowbaits appear to be working on the basis of continuous consistent excellence of performance. The rest are still scratching and patching.

 

[Leysy Days]

Sounds to me more like Pelchen giving in.

Reckon so too.

Of course. Because Pelchen is known to cave in when things get to a stand off. Would use the rolly eyes if leysy didnt hate that smiley.

C'mon you blokes, he's a very strong individual who doesn't care what people think. He's backed his coach on this one. Remember, He's the same guy who has limited Clarkson's influence to just coaching his players more than just about anyone in history.

In any event, even if he did cave in. It doesn't change the FACT that he was the one who gave the final OK to the Dew trade. NOT Clarkson.

In the up-coming draft, it appears we are going to take either Trengrove or Martin - whoever is left over. Clearly they represent the best available talent in the eyes of CC and FJ (and probably DH).

But hypothetically speaking, what if Hardwick was desperate, and I mean desperate, to sure up the spine and wanted to take Daniel Tahlia, for example. (Remember this is hypothetical, but not beyond the realms of possibility.)

Would he get his wish, or would CC/FJ overrule him?

Should be overruled. Unequivequally.

In this hypothetical, how can DH, who has been coaching Hawthorn all season & not have the time to watch juniors overrule CC/FJ who have had staff scouring the country week in week out finding the best talent to take the club forward.

In your example why then have a recruiting dept reporting through to CC freezer lad.

For the very reason you posted above the coach should never have control of the final say over players.
The coach is nothing more than a paid employee hired to try and "COACH" a team of players to win premierships.
He certainly should be able to advise the list/football manager of the type of game style and player structures he requires to achieve that aim but.
It's human nature to try and patch perceived holes or shortfalls to try and protect your arse when the pressure comes on. Far to easy for a coach to manipulate his list with one eye on the length of his contract.
As has been shown repeatedly building a strong list from scratch takes not the three or four years of a coaches contract but around seven to ten depending on the strength of your recruiting and developing structures, that is the job of the list/footy manager. With input obviously from the coach. The list/ footy managers job is to build a team that is consistently capable of playing finals with a view to winning premierships and regenerating itself continously while as often as possible remaining in finals contention.
Over the last forty years I can think of only one club that had the formula down pat. Essendon under Kevin Sheedy. They had all their structures and systems as right as you could get them and played constant finals for most of Sheeds twenty seven years.
Every other club has bounced around, dominated for a short period then faded to mediocrity or worse. It's only in recent years that clubs have started to genuinely look at putting in proper list management and overlapping coaching structures for consistent performance rather than allowing the coach to blaze away at a flag in the couple of years given on his contract.
Geelong, Scumwood and Crowbaits appear to be working on the basis of continuous consistent excellence of performance. The rest are still scratching and patching.

Very well said TM ol son.

 

[Freezer]

In your example why then have a recruiting dept reporting through to CC freezer lad.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you or anyone - it's a good discussion.

Perhaps the answer to this question might be that while DH might have seen Tahlia play and believe he has what it takes, CC/FJ might point him in the direction of a 195cm, 95kg, strong marking CHB from Burnie, who DH has never heard of.

DH gets what he wants and the Recruiting Dept have provided him with the best option.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Of course. Because Pelchen is known to cave in when things get to a stand off. Would use the rolly eyes if leysy didnt hate that smiley.

C'mon you blokes, he's a very strong individual who doesn't care what people think. He's backed his coach on this one. Remember, He's the same guy who has limited Clarkson's influence to just coaching his players more than just about anyone in history.

In any event, even if he did cave in. It doesn't change the FACT that he was the one who gave the final OK to the Dew trade. NOT Clarkson.

Without us being privy to either internal operations I'm still not convinced that's much different to the situation at our club.
Cameron still has to do the paper work on Cousins etc once the directive has come from the coach even if he didn't really agree with it.

 

[the claw]

So if DH says to CC,I believe i can get the best out of Luke Ball and he will be a perfect fit for my game plan,CC is going to knock him back?
On what basis would CC say no?
If he says no then he hasn,t got the confidence in DH,s ability as a coach.
That is why the coach should always have the final say.

if it was pelchen he would knock him back on pace footskills and recent overall performance.pekchen actually has a ating system he prettymuch sticks to. other things would be where the list is at and the price you have to pay
ie is he worth a first rounder 2nd rounder. interesting under pelchen they basically didnt trade for players at all.it was only when they had their list where they wanted it that retreads came into the equation. they can afford to go after retreads now they have one of the youngest lists in the comp if not the youngest.

imo coaches at the good clubs have little say in list management and recruitment and this is as it should be the coach is one of a team. as a group they might say yep we need a tall defender but in the main its the recruiting staff and list manager who will then have the say in who that player will be.

one thing for sure its the list managers job to work out list deficiencies and correct those balances and devise a way for smooth transitions to happen in the future. its also his job to ensure the right players and numbers are moved on in conjuncture with all other relevant parties.

its funny almost everyone is down on wallace apparently hes responsible for list management and recruiting blunders the last 5 yrs. if thats the case we had damn well better change the way we have done things and that means the coach is just one voice of a team all on the same page all pushing toward the one goal.

we pay a bloke to be our list manager we pay lots of people to be involved with recruiting but the recruiting manager is ultimately responsible for our recruting. as the ones in charge of those portfolios they are ultimately responsible and if they dont have systems and procedures in place that enables them to say no then thay should not be there.

what a pathetic lot we are noone it seems has the balls to put their hands up and say hey this is my job if we fail in this job i will put my hand up. its typical in so many things richmond its always someone elses or something elses fault.
what did the process say in regard this.

 

[GoodOne]

Did we have holland? gee i can't remember that... i must be getting old
What about Johnson, Brown, Polak, Gaspar, Simmonds, Stafford, Cameron, Broderick(okay stretcing a little with that one) they were all good recycled pickups.

I was wrong on Holland. Apologies there. But what is your point about these other players? They have not helped the Tigers longegitivity at all. In fact think you can prove that with an injury or two, their careers are basically over because of the age we recruit them at. Turns into a wasted pick. Trading for these players makes sense if you are premiership contenders. Trying to build a team around recycled 25-26yos will never work. I much prefer to see us trade for 20-21 yos if we are going to trade away picks.

 

[Freezer]

I was wrong on Holland. Apologies there. But what is your point about these other players? They have not helped the Tigers longegitivity at all. In fact think you can prove that with an injury or two, their careers are basically over because of the age we recruit them at. Turns into a wasted pick. Trading for these players makes sense if you are premiership contenders. Trying to build a team around recycled 25-26yos will never work. I much prefer to see us trade for 20-21 yos if we are going to trade away picks.

Goody, Cameron and Broderick weren't wasted picks by any measure.

 

[the claw]

I was wrong on Holland. Apologies there. But what is your point about these other players? They have not helped the Tigers longegitivity at all. In fact think you can prove that with an injury or two, their careers are basically over because of the age we recruit them at. Turns into a wasted pick. Trading for these players makes sense if you are premiership contenders. Trying to build a team around recycled 25-26yos will never work. I much prefer to see us trade for 20-21 yos if we are going to trade away picks.

agree but am prepared to go a little higher with the age bracket depending on list needs and the circumstances around those needs and the cost etc.

one thing for sure if we are to take a retread of any sort youung old tall short skinny big etc, they should pass a minimum rating system based on strengths and weakness, or they can fill a specific role that is integral to the team and its structure.and they should fit into list structure needs.
late picks and rookies are where you take a chance your picks in the first 3 rounds and recycled players should always be for well rounded players who have no chronic weakness.

ccs record is not great i would describe it as a mish mash some good plenty poor not as good as it should be.


finally an example of the footy dept having more say than the coach thompson at the cats in 06 he was told at the end of 06 change the style or he would be gone he changed and the rest is history. geelong have continually got the balance of talls both defenders and forwards ruckmen and mids onballers specialist players right. if not for salary cap pressure they would be even stronger thn they are now.

how about when they lost egan in 07 an aa. they immediately went and got taylor. the depth in their big defenders was amazing. even with egan gone they called on milburn to pinch hit scarlett rooke harley and even though more a running type mackie. and this does not include the young 2 or 3 kpds in their system.

 

[the claw]

Goody, Cameron and Broderick weren't wasted picks by any measure.

hmm lets just say we had kept the picks we gave up for cameron and we used them on who the dogs took hahn and hargrave would you still say they werent wasted.and yeah i hate throwing up who other sides took it doesnt mean we would have done the same we probably would have got them wrong.
the 99 draft was a good one everyone knew it yet we traded for a then 28 yr old even though we had just finished 12th.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

For the very reason you posted above the coach should never have control of the final say over players.
The coach is nothing more than a paid employee hired to try and "COACH" a team of players to win premierships.
He certainly should be able to advise the list/football manager of the type of game style and player structures he requires to achieve that aim but.
It's human nature to try and patch perceived holes or shortfalls to try and protect your arse when the pressure comes on. Far to easy for a coach to manipulate his list with one eye on the length of his contract.
As has been shown repeatedly building a strong list from scratch takes not the three or four years of a coaches contract but around seven to ten depending on the strength of your recruiting and developing structures, that is the job of the list/footy manager. With input obviously from the coach. The list/ footy managers job is to build a team that is consistently capable of playing finals with a view to winning premierships and regenerating itself continously while as often as possible remaining in finals contention.
Over the last forty years I can think of only one club that had the formula down pat. Essendon under Kevin Sheedy. They had all their structures and systems as right as you could get them and played constant finals for most of Sheeds twenty seven years.
Every other club has bounced around, dominated for a short period then faded to mediocrity or worse. It's only in recent years that clubs have started to genuinely look at putting in proper list management and overlapping coaching structures for consistent performance rather than allowing the coach to blaze away at a flag in the couple of years given on his contract.
Geelong, Scumwood and Crowbaits appear to be working on the basis of continuous consistent excellence of performance. The rest are still scratching and patching.

Interesting You brought up Kevin Sheedy TM.Sheedy practically ran the whole football dept.Why do you think he got away with keeping players like Walsh,Wallis,Baker and more recently [His name escapes me,Big blond f/fwd,the next messiah at Ess].He as coach had the final say.
BTW good reply