Re: should we have taken clarkson ahead of wallace?
Realist, I'm pretty sure that's the only time I've ever mentioned the Zac Dawson thing. Of course there are positives and negatives for both coaches. Any move a coach makes can work or not work. My belief is that more of Wallace's ideas work and work well. I just don't see Clarkson coming up with something like our win over Adelaide. I see more of him accepting defeat so he can get his mits on more high draft picks - the Dawson episode was, imo, an example of this. I might be wrong, but I see Clarkson in the Grant Thomas mould - a good coach for recuilding but not good enough to take them anywhere when the building is done. Time will tell on all three coaches I suppose.realist said:hopper said:evanstone said:how about you guys take the question seriously for a sec
interms of matchday coaching terry is miles ahead of clarkson, although to be expected due to experience
but I respect clarkson for the fact that he traded thompson and the like and got quality first round picks, also not playing nick holland in his last yr etc
Your points on Clarkson's positives are valid. However, recruting/trading/drafting is only a part of the modern coach's job description. When it comes to actual coaching, Wallace is clearly superior - like by the length of the Stuart Hwy. All coaches lose to other coaches at some point,so I wouldn't think the last time the two teams met is a true reflection. But I do reckon the Zac Dawson massacre is.
Is that Zac Dawson thing the only thing with Clarkson you can talk about?
How about starting Roughead forward last week when everyone expected him to take an Essendon tall, Caught them off guard and he kicked 4?
Wallace left Ray Hall on Franklin when all you guys couldn't believe the decision. Instead you degrade Franklin say "he shouldn't have played on Hall", yet don't bag Wallace for doing that.