Steve_C7 wrote:
I think that it's pretty clear that there is a very shallow pool of quality assistant coaches out there
Really?
Seems hard to believe.
I think I tend to agree with DOC - the board really wasted a chance to interview more people and learn a thing or two.
Even if they knew they were likely to go with Teague all along, I'm sure there would still be some quality assistants who would back themselves to have a go at interviewing ... the Board had nothing to lose really.
Anyway -
The more I think about Teague's experience, the more I Like it:
- Bullants (successful at managing his own team)
- West Coast (experience in an elite footy organisation with $$)
- Adelaide (experience in a team that built itself up)
- St Kilda (experience doing it tough in an underperforming club)
He basically ticks all the boxes you would want from an Assistant's resume.
Now we just trust him and go for the ride
Hopefully he doesnt say "we are on a journey"
We don't really know who the club interviewed and I would say that we called all the managers of coaches to get a gauge of which coaches were likely to take part in the formal process.
I find it interesting that North, Saints and Blues don't appear to have gone through a public process and interviewed a number of applicants. Did they do this behind closed doors?
I wonder if we have gone the 180 with coaching where years ago caretaker roles were considered a poison chalice and it was an honor to be interviewed for the top job. It seem now that if you are publically interviewed and don't get the job that you have some question marks against you for future interviews.