Sin City wrote:
Synbad wrote:
Thats ok.... you keep supporting Ratts... Hughes.. etc.....
But theyre all gone.. and more to go....
Would they be gone if up to the task???Fair question.
Who else do you think needs to go from the coaching panel Synbad? And what do you think their replacements need to bring that these guys haven't done?
One thing that out situation under Ratten has shown me is that on a coaching panel, it's no use having the tail wag the dog. We appointed an untried coach with minimal experience as an assistant, and surrounded him with assistants with no experience. The Board should have resigned purely on that. We then realised the problem, and surrounded Ratten with a bunch of very experienced, and from all reports, very good assistants (certainly Brown, Richardson and even Williams came highly credentialed and with great reputations). But at the end of the day, the assistants cannot make the coach.
What a coaching department needs is a good, strong, talented coach, who can stamp game plan and leadership and culture, surrounded by talented assistants, experienced or not, who can communicate and teach the coach's message and plans. To that effect, the assistants are only really as good as the senior coach (and the senior coach's game plan, leadership etc) allows.
That doesn't answer your question Sin City (and I'm certainly not trying to answer for Synbad, I'd be interested to read his thoughts), but I think that who Malthouse appoints as assistants will have as much to do with his relationships with those people as perceived or known ability. With a strong coach like Malthouse, it will pretty quickly become clear whether or not an assistant is able to teach the game plan, leadership etc to his group, or not.