Barack Obama wrote:
Synbad wrote:
popeye wrote:
Synbad wrote:
Indie wrote:
Strange how Pagan can be accused of coaching for himself when Pratt had made a point of saying he wants to see 10 to 11 wins. He could have come out and said we were still in development, would play youngsters as the main priority, and that wins were not the main objective. But he didn't.
But apparently the coach should ignore the lead of the President.
I think what you're really saying is that Pratt was selfish and misguided when he set those goals for Pagan and the team.
The other thing is that Bannister was played because he deserved it. And few if any of the younger players did. In fact, the development of some may have been harmed.
One example is Bower. Even at VFL level, Mitchell is on his back about being accountable as a defender. Given the current outcry about unaccountable players, it would have been ironic if we'd rewarded a youngster for showing those same qualities. Of course, if he were dragged repeatedly on the AFL stage, there'd be much anguish about the mistreatment of a youngster.
I'm flabbergasted that there can be anger about the selection of a tall, athletic 24 year old in form good enough to shut out Brad Johnson and Chad Cornes in successive weeks. The kicker is the disappointment that the first of those was a match-winning performance.
Pratt might not be in tune with the complexities of modern day team building...
Finance and business might be more his thing.
Sticks and Pagan and now Swann and Icke too (i reckon to a lesser extent these two right now as theyre new) are in charge of team rebuilding while Dick is rebuilding the club.
So is Lance accountable???
Or Kouta???
At least Bower can run and rebound.
Pratt is building the right team - bringing Swann in probably the most important hire for the club. Team building today is the same as team building has always been - consultants tend to make it more complex than it actually is. Business is all about team building. He will make the decision on the coach - that will be the final piece. What Pratt is doing is assembling his team so he can leave a lasting legacy for the club.
Lance should be accountable, especially with his dumb statement about training intensity (or lack thereof) this week. That's his responsibility (along with coaching panel). And Kouta and the whole playing list must be accountable.
As long as Dick can overcome his being in awe of Sticks everything is fine.
The Mitchell / Pagan thing hasnt been fixed because there are elements on the board that have stopped Icke and Swann from fixing it.
One of Mitchell/Pagan will go at the end of the year. Ideally if Pagan stays, you would want Mitchell gone. But to get rid of him mid-year would be crazy, it would severely hamper the prospects of the kids in the Bullants. Can't really blame the board or "elements of the board" for it not being fixed. Since Pratt came on as President the board has functioned extremely well and are doing a good job.
You can't see anything wrong with Board Members interfering with the ability of 2 experienced and objective football people such as Swann and Icke to make such a vital decision?
The Board members could have merely made their views known to Swann and Icke. But if Swann and Icke had determined that it was in the best interests of the club to axe Mitchell, then that should have happened. Clearly that wouldn't have happened unless they were satisfied that an appropriate replacement was available.
It's safe to say that the Board members will have lost the ability to override Swann on such issues by the end of the year, and probably have already done so. Have a look at Molsey's announcement about the fact that Swann has now taken control of the various sub-committees and the Directors are now truly non-executive ones. Swann was picked for his ability to make hard decisions and make them well. He should have been left to do his job when he arrived.
The impact on the players would have been minimal. They didn't have anything to do with Mitchell during the preseason, and a new coach could have been in place before the start of the VFL season. The new recruits wouldn't have known him at all.
The biggest impact of axing Mitchell before the season started would have been borne by the non-Carlton Bullants players (who had been training under him) and the Bullants as a club. Though their welfare is not to be totally ignored, the decision had to be governed by the best interests of CFC. That much can be seen by Carlton giving serious consideration to ending the alignment at the end of the season.
But Mitchell's position is untenable either way. He has to get lucky from here to remain at Carlton. No one anticpates that he'll be in the running for the senior job - Pratt would be after a bigger fish than him. Ratts would be acceptable to the masses as the sernior coach, but would he stick around to be Mitchell's assitant? Would a new coach from outside the club be willing to take on the baggage of having Mitchell under him? It would be safe to say that everyone in the football industry now knows that Mitchell is accused of disloyalty by Pagan, and has the political connections on the Board to be above the senior coach's power. Wouldn't a new coach want to bring in someone "fresh" who doesn't pose such risks to him? Perhaps the only way Mitchell will be retained is if Ratts takes over as senior coach and is willing to retain him either because he wants him or because he accepts that as a condition of him taking the senior job.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
