no. 2. Can't see why Sayer's would tell Lyon that Clarko has the job, even if they are working towards that conclusion. Cards will be held close to the chest until wet ink is signed onto paper, Sayers is 20 something years in corporate administration, if he hasn't learnt how badly the footy world leaks, moreso than corporate world even, then he's learnt nothing. (In fact leaks was something raised in an interview he did last week and he said that the board are on it in no uncertain terms, it has to stop).
no. 3. if Lyon was made to leave Freo for any reasons you can be sure it was significant enough to convince the majority of their board and/or football dept that it wasn't something that could be simply apologised for and excused away. We don't know why he left or was pushed though, only time will tell.

My take on Teague's game plan.

Bolton Years: A full List rebuild

Bolton's charter was to develop a young group of high daft picks over 60 months.
Bolton wasn't measured by wins, the focus was on kids to get 50 games under their belt asap.
So deep were the cuts to the list, the kids leaned their craft in the Seniors against seasoned bodies.
Defense was the mantra for the first years till it became instinctive.
Over the years Bolton introduced new layers on his defense first development. Too complex for some
The strategy stifled all forward play, and very low scoring losses was typical, week in week out.
The monotony of a defensive plan lost the players' interest and maybe love for the game.

Bolton Sacked, Interim Coach: Emancipation from Bolton's Ultra defense development

Players were sick of losing and defensive mindset. Won 4 from last 40 games with Bolton.
Teague knew the players had a defensive mindset, and that they were not enjoying their footy.
Teague doesn't change anything given only 11 games to play.
Teague tells them to go out and play freely and enjoy the game.
Players have a defensive mindset but led by MVP Cripps to attack the goals, win 6 and lose 5.
Success was due to a blend of the defensive development of Bolton years and newfound freedom to attack

Teague given the job as Head Coach: Selection driven by players

Driven by wins, not development, Teague plays the older players (Ed 30 Murph 32) with Kreuzer No 1 ruck.
Teague's Game plan was an all out attacking game plan with 3 key forwards who can mark:
Harry, Charlie, and Gov.
Teague recruits 25yo Martin and 32yo Betts for more firepower in the forward line.
Kids are dropped to the reserves to develop their craft (pandemic stops reserves season)
Defense not given any oxygen. Kick a higher score against opponent was the mantra.
Players forgot the defensive mindset drummed into them in Bolton years.
5 goal runs against aka "Teagues Gift" was a feature in 50% of the games next 2 years.
Players lose all defensive nouse they once had, in a game with no defensive focus.

Conclusion re Teague

Teague's success in 2019 came on the back of Bolton's already developed defensive mindset.
Teague neglected the defense and was lambasted by media, and internally.
Whilst Teague kept losses to less than 5 goals for most of the 2 years, the losing margins were increasin in the latter part of the season.

Teague's Game plan was questioned and difficult to understand other than unbalanced all out attack.

Teague was out of his depth taking on a Head Coach role which was given to him due to player demand.
The lack of proper process to find a coach is most likely the reason the club didn't have a grip of Teague's philosophy of all out attack.

Review shows some players felt Teague was outcoached.

"Teague's Gift" was too regular to be considered ad hoc.

Teague is not good enough. It was time to get a new coach with a balanced Game plan.

Clarkson, if he's available or a senior assistant who has done the hard yards and has fresh ideas that include Defence as well as Attack: Kingsley, Caracella, Yze, Gia...get the best available to work wonders with the list we have, and move forward.

A new coach has plenty of cattle to work with.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Brilliant post and the only thing I Would add is Bolton in hindsight was a club man and the Board wanted him to rebuild and they knew there were to going to significant losses and bolts would always be the scapegoat…

Our List has a foundation, now they need a coach who can bring them out their shells

_________________
#sayerscouldbetheman!!

_________________
"IF YOU FAIL TO PREPARE, YOU'RE PREPARED TO FAIL" - Mark Spitz

Actually it shows nothing meaningful in terms of how teams perform on any given week, nor a coaches ability, nor their tactics, hence why over 50 games, all teams are experiencing it frequently enough for it to have happened at minimum 20% of the time, and at maximum 50% of the time.


If you want to see something truly meaningful, have a look at the ladder in terms of who has had the most stability in the coaches chair and how they have performed over time.

That's a meaningful indicator.

Ill give you a clue. Less coaches = more time near the pointy end of the ladder, and more finals appearances (what a shock) oh and just to really show you about your indicator or performance and how meaningful it is, have a look at this. Starting with the Mick Malthouse appointment of 2013:



26 - STK - 3 - Watters, Richardson, Ratten - 2019 to present
25 - GCS - 3 - Mckenna, Eade, Dew (4 if you count Solomon as interim) 2018 to present
24 - ESS - 4 - Hird, Thompson, Woosha, Rutten (6 if you count Egan and Goodwin as interim 2021 to present
23 - CARL - 3 - Malthouse, Bolton, Teague (4 counting Barker as interim) 2019 to present
22 - ADEL - 4 - Sanderson, Walsh, Pyke, Nicks (5 counting Camporeale) 2020 to present
21 - FREM - 2 - Lyon, Longmuir (3 if you include Hale as interim) 2020 to present
19 - HAW - 1 - Clarkson (2 if you include Bolton as an interim) 2005 to present
16 - COLL - 1 - Buckley (2 if you include Harvey as interim) (2012 to present)
16 - NTH - 3 - Brad Scott - Rhys Shaw - David Noble - 2021 to present. (this is what an outlier looks like, but Brad Scott was largely the culture setter there for the previous period).
15 - SYD - 1 - Longmire - 2011 to present
14 - WCE - 2 - Woosha, Simpson 2014 to present(3 if you count Graham as an interim)
14 - RICH - 1 - Hardwick - 2010 to present
13 - GWS - 2 - Sheedy, Cameron 2014 to present
11 - BRIS - 3 - Voss, Leppitsch, Fagan 2016 to present(4 if you count Harvey as interim)
11 - MELB - 3 - Neeld, Roos, Goodwin 2017 to present (4 if you count Craig as interim)
11 - PORT - 1 - Hinkley - 2013 to present
9 - WBD - 2 - Mccartney, Beveridge 2017 to present
7 - GEEL - 1 - Chris Scott - 2010 to present


What this shows is as follows:

Coaches that coach longer, have less 5+ goal run ons on average but even the best of the lot hasnt ironed them out completely (Clarkson).

Teams that havent had a revolving door are more likely to have played finals footy in the last couple of years, and gone deeper into the finals series.

There are outliers that occur, where a team like North Melbourne, finished last, and second last in the last 2 seasons, and still dont concede 5+ goal run ons (which point to this indicator losing any real meaning).

Teams that have had 2 or fewer coaches in since 2013 have finished top 4 or played in a grand final/won one which is even more of a reason to back a coach in over a longer period of time if you want to achieve some real results.



THIS is how these sorts of indicators should be interpreted. Not the way you guys are applying that argument. We could still lose the exact same amount of games, moving where and when we scored, by the exact same scoreline, and these 5+ run ons vanish and are a misnomer.

I agree too.
Probably one of the most comprehensive posts regarding the last 3 years of the club.
The only thing I would add is, the biggest issue IMO with Teague's game plan (or lack of) was the requirement for key players over team structure and as soon as they were either injured or having a bad game we were vulnerable. This is why it all went pear shaped with injuries.

I suspect it is the other way around re no. of coaches: those teams who perform well are less likely to turnover their coaches


I also really liked Bondi's analysis. Great work Bondi...

Yep - that's exactly what I was thinking.

Good coaching = success = coach retention.

Poor coaching = no success = coach turnover.

There are many different ways to interpret stats and data, but not sure why thryleon thinks his way is right and everyone else's is wrong?

Sounds much like the way another poster tries to twist things. Are you sure that this is not Walsh's burner account?

_________________
"If everyone is moving forward together, then success takes care of itself" - Henry Ford

Pfft Clarkson and Hardwick could barely win a game in their first two years pretty much was the same with Bomber Thompson.

Buckley was pretty much the same as well sliding down the ladder and stopped the rot when he got his players in after giving up big draft capital.

Teague had a superior win/loss than anything Carlton has seen past 10 years and with a crippled injury list playing rookies for 10 games + a year would have been nice to see him given a chance.

These clubs have a superior culture to ours - end of story.

blah blah blah

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

Considering Mr Sayers isnt able to land his "best, experienced coach" I say we have deep cultural issues.

Walsh how do you know what Mr Sayers is doing ? Everything is in the media right now. Lyon is being lazy and things he is too good to go through a process. And Clarkson always wanted a year off. So is it Mr Sayers fault?

Don’t you get it ? Teague needed to go. He is obviously trying to shake trees so we will see what happens.

You just bang on so much about the same shit. Give it a rest. Just support another team if we are so so bad…..

He said it in the press conference we want the "best, experienced coach", if he had a half a clue then why would he even make that statement? He was supposed to be a smart guy... total dumbass amateur in my book.

Blame the media all you want but this board is putting us up in the lime light and festing on the carcass that was created by the board.

It hasn’t worked out the way it should my man was wrongly sacked so I want to blow the joint up
Because the President didn’t make the decision I want he is hopeless
Please we know what your view is give it a rest every thread is full of it
Sayers hopeless midfield hopeless we get it
Move on please

Well you might be happy - I am not one bit pleased with this cultural mess.

I am happy not everything perfect but I am more cbut we all knew you were not going to be happy if the consequence of the review was that Teague lost his job

Funny thing is the reason he lost his job is he was too attacking and not defensive enough.

Sayers said it...don't know why he called the review when it was his personal opinion in the first place. The guy is already shown to be a player in the shadows.

Sure, I also accept the game plan wasn't perfect but definitely needed his players in to make it work and surrounded with a strong supporting structure like a proper high performance club.

What I see from Sayers is anything but High Performance error after error.

Walsh you may be right, who knows. But you have your comments on fast dial. You have repeated yourself over and over again.

You saying something 100 times wont change things.

News flash, Sayers and Co are going to do what they see fit, so we will see how it pans out.

Far out we are all shut down and using this forum as an outlet to talk footy.

Don’t hijack everything. Make your point and move on.

The scum were worse than us! That was my most memorable takeaway from this set of stats…..

Expand it out further for another 10 years.

List the premiership victories, vs the number of coaches.

As far as the burner account, I am actually neither here nor there on coaching change. If the review shows Teague goes, he goes. The 5 goals run on is and will be a meaningless statistic that says more about where a team finished than where they didnt.

Extrapolating meaning from patterns if fraught with danger, for a variety of reasons but it smells of bias to me.

As for Bondi's analysis, are we really going to draw on Bolton laid the groundwork for Teagues success by achieving a win rate of 4 in 40 matches?

The increasing losing margins later... When rucking JSOS and De Koning in a tandem isnt worth the comparison test.