ESSENDON great Matthew Lloyd has revealed for the first time the angst that existed between former coach Matthew Knights and senior players at Windy Hill.
The relationship hit its lowest point after the club's Round 1 loss to Port Adelaide in 2009.
Leading into the game the leadership group had decided Jay Neagle and Kyle Reimers had to be privately told their approach to training needed to change.
But Lloyd writes in his autobiography, Straight Shooter, that in a team meeting after that game, Knights made public the senior players' concerns during an attack on the skipper.
"You want to put Jay Neagle and Kyle Reimers up like they're elephants in the room," Knights said. "At least they stick to the game plan."
Incensed, Lloyd waited until the leadership group meeting that followed before confronting Knights, telling him he was "disappointed" in the way he had handled the match review meeting.
As Spike said "Well, we're f..ked then" Prophetic words mate.
There were also concerns about the game plan. The midfielders said they didn't have enough licence to be bold; the defenders were too scared to leave their men.
There was a feeling among the players that things had become very robotic and the coach wasn't listening to their needs.
It was good to hear others had the same feelings, but I'd rather have been at a million other places
Am I the only one concerned that a former great of the club is using inside information and stuff that should be kept in the inner-sanctum in order to make a $?
And as for McVeigh, great leadership there.
What I don't understand is the comment about midfielders weren't able to be bold and defenders couldn't leave their man. It seemed as though all our midfielders were being too bold and running forward before we had the ball and the defenders were consistently leaving their man.
This is going to get interesting if we ever hear Knights side of the story. Matty should have just let it go rather than try and use it to make a $.
He kicks on the left
He kicks on the riiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt
That boy Hurley
Makes Riewoldt look shite!
Rover 7 wrote:Knights is fair game particularly from a club champion.
I couldn't give a shit about Knights, I am upset that some of our dirty laundry has been aired by a club champion to make a $.
It's in the past, and every man & his dog knew there were serious problems at the club. This isn't exactly hot of the press type stuff. He's just using a few more specifics. I say 'big deal'.
Dont think it airing dirty laundry at all. He is simply adding light to what was already being widely speculated. I dont think its being done in a vindictive manner either - more matter of fact.
What it does confirm is the complete loss of confidence the players had in the coach - rightly or wrongly.
Windy_Hill wrote:Dont think it airing dirty laundry at all. He is simply adding light to what was already being widely speculated. I dont think its being done in a vindictive manner either - more matter of fact.
What it does confirm is the complete loss of confidence the players had in the coach - rightly or wrongly.
True.
It does tell the few of us who "didn't mind Knights to a certain extent" (me) that he had to go. Obviously since what happened in October 2010 it was clearly the right decision, but even when he was sacked in August, I felt that it wasn't solely his fault. This may shed more light on it, however.
He kicks on the left
He kicks on the riiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt
That boy Hurley
Makes Riewoldt look shite!
Windy_Hill wrote:Dont think it airing dirty laundry at all. He is simply adding light to what was already being widely speculated. I dont think its being done in a vindictive manner either - more matter of fact.
What it does confirm is the complete loss of confidence the players had in the coach - rightly or wrongly.
And it shows the concerns a long way out as well. It went on for 2 seasons. It shows why there were plyers like Myers, Jetta, Davey etc that were going to walk at the end of last season.
Windy_Hill wrote:Dont think it airing dirty laundry at all. He is simply adding light to what was already being widely speculated. I dont think its being done in a vindictive manner either - more matter of fact.
What it does confirm is the complete loss of confidence the players had in the coach - rightly or wrongly.
True.
It does tell the few of us who "didn't mind Knights to a certain extent" (me) that he had to go. Obviously since what happened in October 2010 it was clearly the right decision, but even when he was sacked in August, I felt that it wasn't solely his fault. This may shed more light on it, however.
The concern is really the power the players have over the decision making - your earlier point about the players belieiving they were not allowed to "be bold enough" oe "leave their man" shows how deluded the players can also be.
I guess it all comes down to the relationship with the coach - I am sure there will be players that will disagree with Hird's methods but given the stature of the man, his people skills and leadership style, such isolated dissent will never get any real broader traction.
Rover 7 wrote:Knights is fair game particularly from a club champion.
I couldn't give a shit about Knights, I am upset that some of our dirty laundry has been aired by a club champion to make a $.
I take your point, Rosso, but I would rather know what actually happened to one of our great champions and why as supporters, we had to endure so much crap at the hands of the coach at the time. If it comes at the expense of the holy dollar, then so be it.
I believe that the club probably welcomes Lloydy's book as it vindicates their decision to get rid of Knights without the club having to make any statements.
For Knights to say the old farts had lost the respect of the youngsters is unbelievably bad people management.
Too far for Baker now he's on to it, now he’s got it, OPEN GOAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Dons are in front by one point at the 8 minute mark
Windy_Hill wrote:I guess it all comes down to the relationship with the coach - I am sure there will be players that will disagree with Hird's methods but given the stature of the man, his people skills and leadership style, such isolated dissent will never get any real broader traction.
Would that be worse? That they wont air their issues and consequently, their form (and the team) will suffer? Not saying they will sabbotage it, but you still have to question things (maturely) if you don't think it can work.
Well, time will tell. Bomber has gotten them working the right way, not only do we look more settled but you can see that with this game plan, it doesn't need to be executed 100% correctly for it to work.
He kicks on the left
He kicks on the riiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttt
That boy Hurley
Makes Riewoldt look shite!
Windy_Hill wrote:I guess it all comes down to the relationship with the coach - I am sure there will be players that will disagree with Hird's methods but given the stature of the man, his people skills and leadership style, such isolated dissent will never get any real broader traction.
Would that be worse? That they wont air their issues and consequently, their form (and the team) will suffer? Not saying they will sabbotage it, but you still have to question things (maturely) if you don't think it can work.
Well, time will tell. Bomber has gotten them working the right way, not only do we look more settled but you can see that with this game plan, it doesn't need to be executed 100% correctly for it to work.
No, it wont be worse, thats my point. With Hird, dissent will be dealt with through respectful dialogue thus avoiding the back corridor bitching. HIs style, from what I can gather, will allow for better communication.
Reading the articles on Lloyd's book, it would appear that players were being told not to mention things such as the game plan to Knights for fear of upseeting or alienating the coach
