Are the chickens coming home to roost....?

[MH_Bomber]

I remember back in 2007 the tumultuous non re-signing of Sheedy and the constination that caused amongst the Bomber fraternity. If we are honest with ourselves I think everyone's first reaction as to the replacement appointment being Matthew Knights we could say we were shocked. Some of us were uneasy at how the end of the Sheedy era was handled but it was always going to a messy business.

If you recall the decision about Sheeds was made when it was floated that Voss would be on the coaching market. It was like the board acted at that time because they thought they miss out on one the new bright young things. We didnt appoint Damien Hardwick, a two time premiership player, an ex Essendon player, a bloke who had a pretty good resume as an assistant because the board didnt like what he had to say about our list and our prospects of being successful in the short term. Were Damien words to the interview panel correct ? - perhaps so !!!

Most of us positively embraced the new regime thinking that it was something that had to happen, that a change of direction was needed but at times, we initially questioned this all out attack game plan. We suffered through some awful drubbings and saw the departure of quite a few older players. Players like MJ, JJ, Rama, Pev, Mal Michael, Lucas and Lloyd. Now yes most of these guys were due for retirement but some probably should have played on because these kind of guys represent the life blood of a team. Players that go in fearless and unconcerned about their own welfare. The new coach had no room in the list for these blokes but recruits Hayden Skipworth for a year.

We were pleased with ourselves last year because we managed to beat our most hated rivals. But were we kidding ourselves ? We havent played a decent game since round 21 last year.

I cant rid myself of the awful feeling that the whole thing was a terrible mistake and we now reaping what was sewn back in 2007. Hindsights a beautiful thing I know.

[Rossoneri]

Thanks Windy

Sheeds had to go and we made the right call.

Look, Knights game-plan is actually a good idea. However, it is a gameplan that only Geelong, St Kilda and the Bulldogs can probably do at this stage, we are no where near it at the moment. This is the question I am asking myself and others:
Do we stick to a gameplan that will eventually work for us and bring us success and put up with the beating now, or do we change it and try and minimise the damage?

I know if we were to win a flag in 2012 or 2013, I would gladly get pumped by 100 points every ANZAC day. But I just don't see it at the moment. I remember when Clarkson took over and had a game-plan that was criticised all over the place, everyone wanted his head. They ended up winning a flag with that game plan.

[MH_Bomber]

I go a lot of views but no bites perhaps quite a few as they were reading this. However what I was trying to ask is anyone else feeling that the original decision of the board was wrong and more work should have gone into a peaceful transition from Sheedy to his replacement.

Perhaps a process like what happened at Geelong should have occurred where Bomber was nearly was gone but got a reprieve. They rebuilt the football department and got the coach only involved in coaching. Would that have solved the Sheedy transition ? Wasnt the original idea to have Mark Harvey take over ? If we'd had a transition process in place I am sure we wouldnt be the joke we are now.

I had a look at Melbourne on Saturday night and Richmond last night and we are will not beat either of those teams if this rot continues. They both looked competitive. Yesterday the sad thing is we did NOT LOOK competitive - we looked like a complete rabble.

[Rossoneri]

I think we did everything right. Sheedy had his chances but did nothing, his drafting from 1999- 2007 were abysmal and has cost us big time.

[billyduckworth]

As you say, MH, hindsight is a wonderful thing. My own personal opinion, for what it is worth...

(1) Sheedy had to go; his time was up (in fact probably should have gone around 2003-4).

(2) Sheedy's departure was not handled all that well, but then it is hard to say how else it could have been handled. It was always going to be messy.

(3) Sheedy would never have accepted a succession agreement with Mark Harvey (or GO'D or anyone else for that matter) along the lines of Malthouse/Buckley. It just isn't in Sheedy's makeup.

(4) Given the statements at the time about "best coach available", I expected we would choose Bomber Thompson or maybe Neil Daniher as experienced coaches. I was surprised we went for a rookie.

(5) If we had to go for a rookie, Hardwick seemed like a better choice, given his association with Essendon and perhaps even more importantly, his association with premierships. (But his record at Richmond so far doesn't say much - we will need to wait 2-3 years before we make a final call on this one).

(6) Not sure if Voss really ever was an option. He seemed keen on Brisbane and Brisbane only. Based on what we have seen so far, he is doing pretty well.

(7) Once Knights was appointed, I felt we should all get behind him, even if we were a bit surprised at his appointment.

(8) I think the Knights game plan is poorly thought through and does not seem to suit our current list.

(9) I think Knights could be a good developer of young players (and maybe that is why he was chosen) but clearly is a very poor match day tactician. We have been out coached so many times in the past 2-3 years it is not funny.

(10) If we had to go for a rookie coach, then we should at least have tried to surround him with experienced assistants. Maybe Neil Daniher could have been put into a Neil Balme type back room role. Maybe Dean Laidley could have been recruited as a match day tactician. Maybe Robert Shaw could have been brought back to study the match ups (something we OBVIOUSLY do not bother to do at the moment).

So, yes, I think in hindsight we have buggered it up.

Now the question is, what to do about it now?

(1) It is too late to bring in ND or Laidley as they have already been snapped up, but maybe we could entice Robert Shaw still??

(2) We do not want to become a Richmond or Carlton that sacks coaches mid season, but then again we do not want to become a laughing stock languishing down the bottom of the ladder.

(3) Maybe give it until mid season. If we have recovered and scraped a few wins, fine. If we have not and are sitting at 1-10 or 2-9 then Knights has to go (preferably by being persuaded to fall on his sword/go quietly). We then put in GO'D or Robert Shaw or someone as a caretaker until the end of the year.

(4) The caretaker coach must be given express instructions to work on two things: defensive skills (no explanation necessary!) and confidence (with such a young side, their confidence will need some repair work if we really are sitting at 2 wins 9 losses or something similar).

(5) The caretaker coach, if he does a good job, could be given the job permanently next year, but perhaps only on a two year deal initially.

(6) This time we must REALLY search for the "best coach available". See if we can get Matthews (even though I personally hate him) or Roos or even Malthouse (even though I hate him too).

(7) Even though I love Hirdy to death, I think making him coach (or Lloyd) runs the risk AGAIN of a rookie coach. Hird would make a very good President or Chairman or whatever it's called and Lloyd seems to have found his spot in the media.



Final word:

We must at least do SOMETHING. We cannot tolerate the present situation.
Whatever we decide to do, whether it is along the lines of my thoughts above, or something completely different or even the exact opposite, I will support this club through thick and thin no matter what.

End of treatise.

[Rossoneri]

Agree BD, but I do not agree with Thompson or Daniher as being the best available.
Daniher was good tactically, but wasn't that flash as a coach. Thompson wouldn't have coaches us with Jackson at the helm. or we can hope for is that he changes his mind after coaching Geelong and decides to coach us instead of retiring.

[Rover 7]

No hindsight here.
A monumental stuff up from the start.The bloke is not respected by too many people and without it the cause is lost from the start.
What Knight's has proved to have exceptional talent in is Power Point Presentations and navigating his way around Peter Jackson's famous approintment "process" and cannot be be blamed for that.It's a feather in anyone's cap to successfully bulldust your way around an elongated nonsense like that and triumph.
Trouble is,just like in his playing days,real pressure has found him out for what he always was.
OK a mistake can be made but you don't compound it and the club did.
Peter Jackson,attempting to justify both his process and newly minted five year plan with all it's bullet points extends the contract by two more years.Then Pontius Pilot like puts it on a brand new Robson to endorse. Unbelievable.
Never let accountants take control of crucial Football appointments.
It's a real mess.

[chummy]

As you say, MH, hindsight is a wonderful thing. My own personal opinion, for what it is worth...

(1) Sheedy had to go; his time was up (in fact probably should have gone around 2003-4).

(2) Sheedy's departure was not handled all that well, but then it is hard to say how else it could have been handled. It was always going to be messy.

(3) Sheedy would never have accepted a succession agreement with Mark Harvey (or GO'D or anyone else for that matter) along the lines of Malthouse/Buckley. It just isn't in Sheedy's makeup.

(4) Given the statements at the time about "best coach available", I expected we would choose Bomber Thompson or maybe Neil Daniher as experienced coaches. I was surprised we went for a rookie.

(5) If we had to go for a rookie, Hardwick seemed like a better choice, given his association with Essendon and perhaps even more importantly, his association with premierships. (But his record at Richmond so far doesn't say much - we will need to wait 2-3 years before we make a final call on this one).

(6) Not sure if Voss really ever was an option. He seemed keen on Brisbane and Brisbane only. Based on what we have seen so far, he is doing pretty well.

(7) Once Knights was appointed, I felt we should all get behind him, even if we were a bit surprised at his appointment.

(8) I think the Knights game plan is poorly thought through and does not seem to suit our current list.

(9) I think Knights could be a good developer of young players (and maybe that is why he was chosen) but clearly is a very poor match day tactician. We have been out coached so many times in the past 2-3 years it is not funny.

(10) If we had to go for a rookie coach, then we should at least have tried to surround him with experienced assistants. Maybe Neil Daniher could have been put into a Neil Balme type back room role. Maybe Dean Laidley could have been recruited as a match day tactician. Maybe Robert Shaw could have been brought back to study the match ups (something we OBVIOUSLY do not bother to do at the moment).

So, yes, I think in hindsight we have buggered it up.

Now the question is, what to do about it now?

(1) It is too late to bring in ND or Laidley as they have already been snapped up, but maybe we could entice Robert Shaw still??

(2) We do not want to become a Richmond or Carlton that sacks coaches mid season, but then again we do not want to become a laughing stock languishing down the bottom of the ladder.

(3) Maybe give it until mid season. If we have recovered and scraped a few wins, fine. If we have not and are sitting at 1-10 or 2-9 then Knights has to go (preferably by being persuaded to fall on his sword/go quietly). We then put in GO'D or Robert Shaw or someone as a caretaker until the end of the year.

(4) The caretaker coach must be given express instructions to work on two things: defensive skills (no explanation necessary!) and confidence (with such a young side, their confidence will need some repair work if we really are sitting at 2 wins 9 losses or something similar).

(5) The caretaker coach, if he does a good job, could be given the job permanently next year, but perhaps only on a two year deal initially.

(6) This time we must REALLY search for the "best coach available". See if we can get Matthews (even though I personally hate him) or Roos or even Malthouse (even though I hate him too).

(7) Even though I love Hirdy to death, I think making him coach (or Lloyd) runs the risk AGAIN of a rookie coach. Hird would make a very good President or Chairman or whatever it's called and Lloyd seems to have found his spot in the media.



Final word:

We must at least do SOMETHING. We cannot tolerate the present situation.
Whatever we decide to do, whether it is along the lines of my thoughts above, or something completely different or even the exact opposite, I will support this club through thick and thin no matter what.

End of treatise.

Agree 100% BD

[robbie67]

Good post Maz, but to be honest the writing has been on the wall since the start of the Century. Too many people at the club started to believe their own publicity, and that as long as you put guys in Red and Black you could turn them in to champions. Sheedy was the worst culprit, but he wasnt alone. Guys like Judkins left, and took their excellent eye for talent with them. Knights is just the latest in a long line of failures that started with the drafting of guys like Henneman, D-Mac, Bolton etc etc through the recruiting of all the Carlton duds on retirement plans, and now peaking with the worst team I have seen in our colours since the 70's.

[dodgey]

. However what I was trying to ask is anyone else feeling that the original decision of the board was wrong and more work should have gone into a peaceful transition from Sheedy to his replacement.

No... and Yes

IMO the time was "past" right to get rid of Sheedy but I was as surprised as you were when they appointed Knights... A skillful player but a failure as a coach both with Bendigo and Port Adelaide and IF the club had bothered to even speak to some former players who played under him ( especially in SA) , they might have formed a slightly different opinion which may have lead to a Wider search being conducted

On seeing the Loss of Geelong today I think that their "air of invincibility" has gone and they will fall back into the pack in the next year or 2... and THAT is the moment we need to stike and grab Mark Thompson...... Forget this "Hird for Coach" crap. He is too busy doing media and Gemba and jetsetting around the world in the off season to even contemplate coaching at the moment

[j-mac31]

Look, Knights game-plan is actually a good idea. However, it is a gameplan that only Geelong, St Kilda and the Bulldogs can probably do at this stage, we are no where near it at the moment. This is the question I am asking myself and others:
Do we stick to a gameplan that will eventually work for us and bring us success and put up with the beating now, or do we change it and try and minimise the damage?

Is it/will it?

St Kilda are the best defensive team in the comp.

Geelong and the Doggies are not shit defensive teams. FFS, they each only have one (admittedly very good) good tall defender and in the case of Geelong, a bunch of hacks and for the Bulldogs, a bunch of midgets.

1. Knights game plan has no defensive aspect as of now.
2. We do not have a particularly quick team. Lovett was the only one who ran fast through the middle with the ball. Now he is gone, Winderlich sucks and Dyson and Dempsey haven't had a chance to replace Lovett, as they only play in the backline now.

[hillchaser]

Agree Billy... everything you said makes a lot of sense. I'm glad we didn't go for Neil D ... I was always hoping for Hardwick but like others was willing to give Knights the benefit of the doubt. I'm over him and would love to have Buckley, Mathews or Brad Scotts .... someone with a plan b, some analytical ability and someone with a bit of hardness about them.