-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Succession Plans - I don’t get it
- Thread starter year of the tiger
- Start date
The handover from Roos to Longmire also worked out for the Swans.
Talking about succession plans, you have to admire the Blues in this regard
Teague to ......................
Teague to ......................
Yep. No skin in the game. Didn't have to risk losing his 'master coach' title by potentially failing to make Melbourne any good.
The best thing Goodwin did with Roos' mentoring was realise how *smile* it was, and then take the team in the direction of a Dimma led team.
Roos game style should be banished from the the game.
Spewing Carlton didn't take R Lyon as coach because under Voss they might just have a chance.
Roos game style should be banished from the the game.
Spewing Carlton didn't take R Lyon as coach because under Voss they might just have a chance.
Totally agree. His last game was 5 years ago and a 111 point belting. Saw him getting interview by his media mates on the weekend and the were giving him credit and instead of deflecting and saying he hasn't been ener the joint in half a decade, he was lapping it up. Same as he did when Longmire won with the Swans. Would give the WA premier a run for his money in the smug stakes this bloke.
to coach you need ego and authority
at some point the coach either loses the players
or falls behind the game and his game plans or team selections don't work
trouble is due to ego they cant see it
so well intentioned Club administrators can try and orchestrate it
but the ego's of either the incoming or out going coach , or both wont allow a secession plan to work
Succession plans were a diplomatic experiment. PR, if you like. Most recently Clarko, or How to get rid of it.
You can't get rid of the coach - just punt him. It reflects on those who appointed him. And in the olden days there were journalists. And the one on the least gravy pointed to that chain of accountability. And pointed the finger at management. The CEO. The board. The president.
So presidents, CEOs, boards devised a way of shaping the narrative such that punting the coach was a progression. A thing they had in mind all along. And that would have been genius. Except even from the get go nobody believed it. And by its second iteration the unbelievers became vocal.
PR jumped the shark with its first coaching succession plan. We all blame those above the coach.
Succession plans offered a benefit, one, I think we all welcomed. They gave the coach a chance to move on with less prejudice.
It didn't work out. It was all euphemistic. The sacked coach was still pilloried. Nobody is as bad as Neeld was framed to be. (Except Roos. Who got the other kind of press, one not pretty - the other very.)
We've been asking for ages on PRE - How do you sack Alistair Clarkson? He'd *smile* up royally. Cost the club five years by plugging holes when he should have rebuilt. Kennett should have put that on the line at the time so there was a rope already dangling. And then punted him.
Here's the thing about succession plans. They were brought in to muddy who was responsible for the selection of the failed coach. And even now, are we sure who chose the replacement? On what grounds? It's still muddy?
If Alistair Clarkson chose Sam Mitchell whoever stamped that is up for immediate punting. Why would you let a bloke you're sacking choose anybody? He's gone. *smile* his opinion. This is bull *smile*.
Succession plans stink.
What if Sam Mitchell fails as a coach? Who wears the rap? If Clarko then whoever allowed Clarko to appoint him.
People can be punted. And move on. The media are all over the demonic narratives. That's a different issue. A very big issue. But the if the coach has something to offer he will make a compelling case somewhere else.
You can't get rid of the coach - just punt him. It reflects on those who appointed him. And in the olden days there were journalists. And the one on the least gravy pointed to that chain of accountability. And pointed the finger at management. The CEO. The board. The president.
So presidents, CEOs, boards devised a way of shaping the narrative such that punting the coach was a progression. A thing they had in mind all along. And that would have been genius. Except even from the get go nobody believed it. And by its second iteration the unbelievers became vocal.
PR jumped the shark with its first coaching succession plan. We all blame those above the coach.
Succession plans offered a benefit, one, I think we all welcomed. They gave the coach a chance to move on with less prejudice.
It didn't work out. It was all euphemistic. The sacked coach was still pilloried. Nobody is as bad as Neeld was framed to be. (Except Roos. Who got the other kind of press, one not pretty - the other very.)
We've been asking for ages on PRE - How do you sack Alistair Clarkson? He'd *smile* up royally. Cost the club five years by plugging holes when he should have rebuilt. Kennett should have put that on the line at the time so there was a rope already dangling. And then punted him.
Here's the thing about succession plans. They were brought in to muddy who was responsible for the selection of the failed coach. And even now, are we sure who chose the replacement? On what grounds? It's still muddy?
If Alistair Clarkson chose Sam Mitchell whoever stamped that is up for immediate punting. Why would you let a bloke you're sacking choose anybody? He's gone. *smile* his opinion. This is bull *smile*.
Succession plans stink.
What if Sam Mitchell fails as a coach? Who wears the rap? If Clarko then whoever allowed Clarko to appoint him.
People can be punted. And move on. The media are all over the demonic narratives. That's a different issue. A very big issue. But the if the coach has something to offer he will make a compelling case somewhere else.
I think they work if the incumbent is happy to leave a la Roos. Not if they are forced out a la Malthouse.
Dunno. I reckon the Dees record since Roos left suggests Goodwin has done a lot of learning on the job. The reports about some of his behaviour suggests he still has a lot of learning to do.
Of course, a coach will continue to learn after the mentor leaves. The flag is a pretty good marker of a successful succession IMO, if you'll pardon the expression.
I reckon the Dees fans are happy with the flag regardless of Goodwin's alleged behaviour.
of course they wouldnt complain, but it took the Dees the same time to win a flag from Roos taking over a mess as it did Hardwick.
it is all irrelevant really, but one could question what the Dees got out of paying Roos a shitload of cash, as opposed to just paying Goodwin a rookie coaches wage.
Yeah now we are in the realm of alternate history so who knows. I have a dim memory of the AFL maybe subsidising Roos's wage? Doesn't negate your point though.
TBF the Clarkson/Mitchell drama is a good counter-example - that was totally botched, mostly by Jeff Kennett, what a shame
Roos/Goodwin was something different to succession planning, and isn't a model for how we should inevitably hire a new coach after Dimma.
Melbourne's case was like hiring an external consultant to come in, correct course, then leave. Melbourne sacked their incumbent coach, and then failed to secure the best coach available. However, they found a way to compromise in order to obtain the temporary services of the best coach available. Roos was an external consultant hired to come in, hit reset, then leave. It was therefore possible for Goodwin to inherit a healthy club with a solid long-term foundation.
Succession planning is typically for clubs when a coach is already employed, and the club wants to snap up a young gun coach to politely replace their respected older coach. Melbourne's situation required the availability of a reluctant consultant coach who a club could throw exorbitant sums of money to sign a short-term contract with no long-term expectations. So in context of Richmond's next coach, Roos/Goodwin shouldn't be viewed as a parallel to Hardwick/young gun.
Well... unless Dimma becomes Sheedy and we need to find the next Paul Roos to help us hit reset.
Melbourne's case was like hiring an external consultant to come in, correct course, then leave. Melbourne sacked their incumbent coach, and then failed to secure the best coach available. However, they found a way to compromise in order to obtain the temporary services of the best coach available. Roos was an external consultant hired to come in, hit reset, then leave. It was therefore possible for Goodwin to inherit a healthy club with a solid long-term foundation.
Succession planning is typically for clubs when a coach is already employed, and the club wants to snap up a young gun coach to politely replace their respected older coach. Melbourne's situation required the availability of a reluctant consultant coach who a club could throw exorbitant sums of money to sign a short-term contract with no long-term expectations. So in context of Richmond's next coach, Roos/Goodwin shouldn't be viewed as a parallel to Hardwick/young gun.
Well... unless Dimma becomes Sheedy and we need to find the next Paul Roos to help us hit reset.
Last edited:
