BigKev wrote:
ThePsychologist wrote:
redback wrote:
Paul Roos’s very methodical and unemotional criteria of how the board should assess Ratten’s position for next year.
Some key points were:
How far up the ladder should we have finished with our best 22?
To assess the team’s performance based on personnel at the coach’s disposal?
If we win the last two games we finish with 13 wins, 1 less than last year.
The board should look at the last five years at a whole.
Factors would be player development, management style, player leadership and the most important is the team better off than when he took over.
The final decision is can he take them to a premiership?
In his view the board will not replace Ratten if it makes a rational assessment on his tenure at the club.
IMO that is what it is all about. Simple!
There is a MASSIVE difference between coaching a team to finals than coaching them to a Premiership. It is just so much harder and you have to be so much better.
If there is a decision to be made that has to be the criteria.
I'm not so sure about the implications of this though pysch. Malthouse took the Pies to two failed GF's and lost a few prelims before he finally jagged a
flag with them, (and that after a draw). Ignoring for a moment his flags at WC, prior to 2010 it would have been very easy to make such a statement
about Malthouse -- that he was a very good coach but just didn't have it in him to win a flag. Similar to Bomber. Do you think that Ross Lyon and
Eade haven't got it in them but Chris Scott has because he scored a flag in his first year?
I don't know mate. I think that you make some very interesting points about Rattens game plan, (even though we disagree on his retention for 2013).
I guess the only way we can say for sure that someone's "got it" is if they actually get that flag.
Alright then Ratts - how 'bout it please!
Trouble is, you can't 'ignore' Malthouse's two flags at WC. He got leeway at Collingwood because he had already proven he had what it took to take a team all the way. Not to mention taking a fairly ordinary collection of Collingwood players to 2 GF's early in his term. Runs on the board, where Ratts really has none... all he's managed to do so far is carry a team along a reasonably natural progression curve, given he inherited it at the end of a rebuild.
None of us is Bear Gleeson and Sticks Kernahan, so we get no say in this... And we're not in board meetings with them, so we don't know how the club really rates Ratts.
And can anyone say with 100% certainty a coach who hasn't got to the top yet has what it takes? Maybe not, but I also think it's pretty easy to spot the ones with the personal attributes up that are likely to stand them in good stead.
Of the unproven ones, IMO Brad Scott and Buckley impress me greatly. Their personalities seem well attuned to success in what is a crazily difficult profession, and I'd be surprised if they both don't do very well.
Ratten, over 5 years, has consistently demonstrated a personality that seems I'll-suited to success as a senior AFL coach. He presents as unsure of himself, he vacillates, he shifts position too often, he delivers mixed messages to the public, he doesn't inspire confidence that he has confidence in himself and in his methods.
And unless there are two very different Brett Rattens (one for the public and one for the club) You'd have to think the players would pick up on this too. Everyone trying to do something great in an organisation wants and needs a strong leader to take them there.
In short, Brad Scott and Nathan Buckley present as leaders. Brett Ratten doesn't. I think he has the wrong personality to lead a club... And make no mistake, the senior coach's job now is to be The Man at the club. He sets the tone, he leads the way. Ratts is more your 'yeah this week is probably sort of a bit of a line in the sand kind of game, maybe' kinda guy.
If I gambled, I'd be prepared to put a thousand down on Ratten never winning a flag. If he does, it'll be as a very atypical coach.
Login
Register
FAQ
