TalkingCarlton :: View topic - Old Coaches v The New Generation

Don't adhere to that theory - the coach combined with the cattle make the difference, not one or another singularly.

Could a guy like Worsfold have more success getting through to a guy like Fevola?

I sense a good old fashion Pagan Bashing thread here - It must be Christmas.

Its not the age of the coach its the style of coaching that makes the difference. The younger generation coming through have never faced tough discipline in their life to all of a sudden have someone ranting at them is a bit of a shock to the system. The ranter will soon be a thing of the past if society keeps going the way it is as they will just lose playing group after playing group.

Sydney Blue wrote:

I don't think Bainuzz's intention was to be a Pagan-bashing, as you put it. I think he was just trying to see if there really is a difference in the effectiveness of "Old-school" coaches v the "younger" ones. I think there is some merit in asking the question. Whether there is a way of finding the answer, beyond personal opinion, I'm not sure.

Personally, I think the most effective is a combination of the 2. A coach who talks to the players, and understands them, and gets into their heads and tries to find the most effective way of working with the player, rather than against them to get the most out of them, but every so often blows crap out of them, which should have some effectiveness, especially with shock value.

I think the kids might think know "what does this old bloke know". It happens to all of us some time, whether it's the music we listen to or the clothes we wear, eventually we get out of step with the 17 and 18 year old age bracket. I just wonder whether a guy like Pagan who is at the wrong end of that age spectrum knows how to get through to them anymore. Not his fault at all, and not looking to beat him up.

Personally, I think the most effective is a combination of the 2. A coach who talks to the players, and understands them, and gets into their heads and tries to find the most effective way of working with the player, rather than against them to get the most out of them, but every so often blows crap out of them, which should have some effectiveness, especially with shock value.

Kaptain Kouta wrote:

Apparently Roos can give a bake as good as any going around... its just not advertised much.

Question - How many times in the past 3 years, when we have been thrashed by 100 plus points, were our (in particular) senior playing group concerned about how they embarressed the coach with an insipid performance? I'd say, none? Does that make Pagan yesterday's coach? Maybe for some. Not for others.

Some interesting points preacher. I would think that the football department would look to the coaching staff as a team. It seems from the training reports that Terry Daniher is a bit more hands on then Denis. Maybe the club identified this as a weakness and took steps to address it?

I don't think we will be able to really critique Denis' job for another couple of years. With our recruiting and trading mistakes, retirements and the draft penalties there was a real shortage of talent on the list, and at the end of the day you can't teach that.

Until we have had a few more years in the draft, and some of the talent starts to develop in the team, i can't see how we can really judge DP's effectiveness...

Author:	Bainuzz [ Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:27 pm ]
Post subject:	Old Coaches v The New Generation
When I went to my school reunion last year we were talking to our old school marshall. He was the guy who gave detentions for whatever we were doing wrong at the time and gave kids the cane for the serious stuff. He was lamenting the fact that you can't belt kids anymore and that you have to put your arm around them and ask them what's wrong. It got me thinking about AFL coaches, and how seemingly the more succesful at the present time are the younger brigade. Williams at Port was the first, Roos obviously got the flag this year and has them playing as a champion team, Wallace first at the dogs and Richmond were ok this year. Worsfold is obviously coaching well too. Not sure what bracket Grant Thomas is in, I'm not sure how old he is, but I don't regard as a good coach because he has more talent at his disposal than any other coach in the AFL and still can't get them over the line. At the other end we have Pagan, Malthouse and Sheedy coaching three of the bottom four. Clarkson is maybe a flaw in the argument, although he seems to have them heading in the right direction. I know Matthews had alot of success but he also had a shit load of draft picks and the best players from the merge. Is there any merit to this? Can the old coaches get through to the kids these days? Do kids respond to the "we lost so lets flog them on the track" mentality?. Could a guy like Worsfold have more success getting through to a guy like Fevola? I'm not sure but I think in every sporting position, not just the 30 year old midfielder who has lost his pace, the game can pass you by.

Author:	The Tyrant [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:40 am ]
Post subject:
I reckon there's something in that. How much of Pagan's work is development, and how much of it is old school "put-in-son-and-you'll-be-right".... A lot of our older draft picks have stalled under Pagan.

Author:	Wild Blue Yonder [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:51 am ]
Post subject:
Don't adhere to that theory - the coach combined with the cattle make the difference, not one or another singularly.

Author:	The Tyrant [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:55 am ]
Post subject:
Wild Blue Yonder wrote: Don't adhere to that theory - the coach combined with the cattle make the difference, not one or another singularly. but there has to be a synergy for maximum success

Author:	Sydney Blue [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:06 am ]
Post subject:
I sense a good old fashion Pagan Bashing thread here - It must be Christmas. Its not the age of the coach its the style of coaching that makes the difference. The younger generation coming through have never faced tough discipline in their life to all of a sudden have someone ranting at them is a bit of a shock to the system. The ranter will soon be a thing of the past if society keeps going the way it is as they will just lose playing group after playing group.

TalkingCarlton http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/

Old Coaches v The New Generation http://www.talkingcarlton.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7402	Page 1 of 3

Author:	Kouta [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:17 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Old Coaches v The New Generation
Bainuzz wrote: Could a guy like Worsfold have more success getting through to a guy like Fevola? Did Wayne Brittain get through to a guy like Fevola? Was Wayne one to flog them on the track like Wallsy did? Since Fev has kicked more goals in his best season under Pagan than his three seasons under Parkin and Brittain, I say bring back the scarecrow!

Author:	Kaptain Kouta [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:40 am ]
Post subject:
Sydney Blue wrote: I sense a good old fashion Pagan Bashing thread here - It must be Christmas. Its not the age of the coach its the style of coaching that makes the difference. The younger generation coming through have never faced tough discipline in their life to all of a sudden have someone ranting at them is a bit of a shock to the system. The ranter will soon be a thing of the past if society keeps going the way it is as they will just lose playing group after playing group. I don't think Bainuzz's intention was to be a Pagan-bashing, as you put it. I think he was just trying to see if there really is a difference in the effectiveness of "Old-school" coaches v the "younger" ones. I think there is some merit in asking the question. Whether there is a way of finding the answer, beyond personal opinion, I'm not sure. Personally, I think the most effective is a combination of the 2. A coach who talks to the players, and understands them, and gets into their heads and tries to find the most effective way of working with the player, rather than against them to get the most out of them, but every so often blows crap out of them, which should have some effectiveness, especially with shock value.

Author:	TheGame [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:45 am ]
Post subject:
Old coaches, young coaches depends on how each individual adapt to change. Paul Roos got the Swans the flag playing a brand of footy that is borderline cheating. A lot of holding off the ball, turning every game into a scrap produced some of the most ugly footy I've ever seen. No big surprise that now after the Swans get the flag the AFL and rules comittee are looking at penalizing the off the ball stuff, trying to speed up and free up the game.

Author:	Bainuzz [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:53 am ]
Post subject:
Kaptain Kouta wrote: Sydney Blue wrote: I sense a good old fashion Pagan Bashing thread here - It must be Christmas. Its not the age of the coach its the style of coaching that makes the difference. The younger generation coming through have never faced tough discipline in their life to all of a sudden have someone ranting at them is a bit of a shock to the system. The ranter will soon be a thing of the past if society keeps going the way it is as they will just lose playing group after playing group. I don't think Bainuzz's intention was to be a Pagan-bashing, as you put it. I think he was just trying to see if there really is a difference in the effectiveness of "Old-school" coaches v the "younger" ones. I think there is some merit in asking the question. Whether there is a way of finding the answer, beyond personal opinion, I'm not sure. Personally, I think the most effective is a combination of the 2. A coach who talks to the players, and understands them, and gets into their heads and tries to find the most effective way of working with the player, rather than against them to get the most out of them, but every so often blows crap out of them, which should have some effectiveness, especially with shock value. Thanks Kaptain, far from being a Pagan basher. I like Dennis alot, I think it will test his mettle though now to be honest. Some interesting points, I liked Wayne Brittain, top bloke, but clearly not up to it. Interesting point though Syndey Blue about the kids never having faced discipline, I reckon there may be something in that too. I think the kids might think know "what does this old bloke know". It happens to all of us some time, whether it's the music we listen to or the clothes we wear, eventually we get out of step with the 17 and 18 year old age bracket. I just wonder whether a guy like Pagan who is at the wrong end of that age spectrum knows how to get through to them anymore. Not his fault at all, and not looking to beat him up.

Author:	steve [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:18 pm ]
Post subject:
Bainuzz wrote: I think the kids might think know "what does this old bloke know". It happens to all of us some time, whether it's the music we listen to or the clothes we wear, eventually we get out of step with the 17 and 18 year old age bracket. I just wonder whether a guy like Pagan who is at the wrong end of that age spectrum knows how to get through to them anymore. Not his fault at all, and not looking to beat him up. This comes back to the attitude of the kids we recruit. With the right attitude the new players should just listen to the coach and try and do everything to make it. That's what pleases me about the recruiting this year. Sure, some of the kids might not make it, but at least they will sdo everything possible to try and make it.

Author:	bluechucky [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:14 pm ]
Post subject:
Kaptain Kouta wrote: Personally, I think the most effective is a combination of the 2. A coach who talks to the players, and understands them, and gets into their heads and tries to find the most effective way of working with the player, rather than against them to get the most out of them, but every so often blows crap out of them, which should have some effectiveness, especially with shock value. Apparently Roos can give a bake as good as any going around... its just not advertised much.

Author:	Synbad [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:32 pm ]
Post subject:
I reckom Pagans job is to build a platform into the future. forget finals and premierships for the next couple of years. If he can develop the kids he has done his job. If he cant.. he hasnt. Results on the ladder mean nothing.... Dont want results by closing down opposition into a dour game.. or because we had no injuries and kept playing the same 20 faces ... I want them enjoying themselves... and learning the game.

Author:	Bainuzz [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:12 pm ]
Post subject:
bluechucky wrote: Kaptain Kouta wrote: Personally, I think the most effective is a combination of the 2. A coach who talks to the players, and understands them, and gets into their heads and tries to find the most effective way of working with the player, rather than against them to get the most out of them, but every so often blows crap out of them, which should have some effectiveness, especially with shock value. Apparently Roos can give a bake as good as any going around... its just not advertised much. I saw the same Chuck in a story during GF week last year. They reckon that several players, Nick Davis amongst others have emerged from Roos office with tears in their eyes after a spray that could have taken the paint off the walls.

Author:	Synbad [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:17 pm ]
Post subject:
Roos had them peeling onions for the family day sausage sizzle...

Author:	Wild Blue Yonder [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:07 am ]
Post subject:
yep - absolutely - Mathews and Brissy case in point. Hard coach, hard man, respected by a team he put together and of course full of champions. Of the "new age" coaches I only have respect for Roos because I think he has longevity in his methods whereas the others I think (ie Williams) are one hit wonders.

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC + 10 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	dannyboy [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:01 pm ]
Post subject:
chicken egg stuff. But Malthouse got an average side into the GF twice. DP was touted as a serious contender for the best coach after our 10 wins 2 years ago. Matthews has 3 wins in a row - thats a lot to do with coaching as well as talent. Williams should have played in more GF's but hasn't. Roos has a flag, Worsfold, Eade, Wallace etc have none. The guard must change at some point but is this the point?

Author:	preacher [ Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:12 pm ]
Post subject:
When the team is travelling well, you can do all sorts of stuff and get away with it. You can ask guys to train without a football (as Worsfold did this year) whist simulating a passage of play or you can ask an ex player to training - sit him in the stand and have him commentate over the loud speaker etc etc etc. People will turn around and call you a modern day genius. All because the team is winning. Pagan has his flaws. Probably the first to admit it. He is set in his ways - no doubt. I believe the club doctor this year, upon his retirement, whispered to Denis that perhaps he should mix things up a bit especially during pre season - to add a bit of 'something different' to the training regime. You know Denis, "things can become a bit stale". Denis responded that his methods are tried and true.........."they have worked in the past so they will work now". Some of the younger guys were disappointed with a lack of communication at times during the year. Especially those who were banished to the two's - some went months without speaking to Denis one on one. But then again, perhaps Denis expects Mitchell to do the talking to those blokes? Who knows???? I must say, I am both a Worsfold fan and a Roos fan simply because they seem to really be a players man/coach whereas Denis is a bit more distant. It doesn't help when you have 'clowns' amongst the playing group who snipe the coach. It would have been very hard to coach with guys like Norman, Angwin and Fev in the team. I like the Swans recruiting philosophy of 'not recruiting flower/troublemakers' to the club regardless of talent. I'll sum this up with the words of Dean Cox when he was interviewed whilst still on the ground immediately after this years GF loss. I'm paraphrasing but he said, "I hope the coach is proud of our effort and I hope we haven't embarassed him today". It wasn't, "I hope we haven't embarassed ourselves or the club today", but the coach. He was more concerned about the coach which indicates (to me at least) that the West Coast Eagles play for the coach. Question - How many times in the past 3 years, when we have been thrashed by 100 plus points, were our (in particular) senior playing group concerned about how they embarressed the coach with an insipid performance? I'd say, none? Does that make Pagan yesterday's coach? Maybe for some. Not for others.

Author:	GWS [ Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:00 pm ]
Post subject:
preacher wrote: Question - How many times in the past 3 years, when we have been thrashed by 100 plus points, were our (in particular) senior playing group concerned about how they embarressed the coach with an insipid performance? I'd say, none? Does that make Pagan yesterday's coach? Maybe for some. Not for others. Maybe it makes the senior players "yesterday's players"?

Author:	steve [ Sat Dec 24, 2005 2:47 pm ]
Post subject:
Some interesting points preacher. I would think that the football department would look to the coaching staff as a team. It seems from the training reports that Terry Daniher is a bit more hands on then Denis. Maybe the club identified this as a weakness and took steps to address it? I don't think we will be able to really critique Denis' job for another couple of years. With our recruiting and trading mistakes, retirements and the draft penalties there was a real shortage of talent on the list, and at the end of the day you can't teach that. Until we have had a few more years in the draft, and some of the talent starts to develop in the team, i can't see how we can really judge DP's effectiveness...

Author:	jim [ Sat Dec 24, 2005 5:24 pm ]
Post subject:
steve wrote: Some interesting points preacher. I would think that the football department would look to the coaching staff as a team. It seems from the training reports that Terry Daniher is a bit more hands on then Denis. Maybe the club identified this as a weakness and took steps to address it? I don't think we will be able to really critique Denis' job for another couple of years. With our recruiting and trading mistakes, retirements and the draft penalties there was a real shortage of talent on the list, and at the end of the day you can't teach that. Until we have had a few more years in the draft, and some of the talent starts to develop in the team, i can't see how we can really judge DP's effectiveness... Hopefully you're right. A good 2004 though and an outstanding pre-season win indicates we're not duds. Might not have a premiership list, but at the same time something there to work with and build on for for a good coach. Preacher has some points, I've heard exactly the same things from a couple of sources such as players housemates, relatives. More to do with man-management skills. If a team's not playing for the coach you're in trouble before you start. Hopefully some late season improvement was a sign of things changing such as player communcation, sharing of workload amonst the coaching staff, freedom of game plan allowing the players to be more creative. If that continues things may start to look up for the club. Time will tell. Couldn't handle 3 more years of what we have been getting. The disinterest at times and lack of committment must have been demoralising for any supporter. Looking at the draft, National, PSD, Rookie F/S and you'll find we came out a little better than you think given our circumstances. For example, in 2002, we missed out on Goddard (lucky for us) but got Fisher at 72, a real bonus. We be happy to have him in a top 10. Got Simmo at 45, who is now starting to come on well. Wells would've been handy though. In 2003 compared to other sides, we still got a PP (Walker) and Stevens as a bonus. That's more than the equivalent of the average sides first and second picks so we did get out of that lucky. On top of Waite as an F/S and some rookie selections such as Thornton , Bentick Carrazzo, as well as Betts in the PSD we can't put our predicament down to drafting alone. The draft excuse is a cop-out to take the heat off the coach. As for the age of the coach, probably irrelevant. Depends on the person themselves. As long as the older coach can continue to re-invent himself and continue to adapt to changes in the game from all angles (game plan, man-management etc..) then age shouldn't be a problem. As for using the argument about Worsfold, Eade, and Wallace not winning a premiership, look at the sides they coached and where they took them from. They have been terrific. They've done well and their players really want to play for them. I would prefer anyone of them to our current coach at this point. Hopefully I get to change my mind over the next 3 years.