well come the end of the season, or whenever it comes, one, or both, have to go. personally, i'm not even sure as to who it will be. Im starting to lean towards Mitchell being given the nod over denis. Not a personal preference but everything that has happened would indicate that this is what will happen.

Think about it, there is disharmony after Mitchell was ASKED to present his case for the top job. Once that was deemed unsuccessful by the powers that be, Denis took offence and is refusing to communicate with mitch, or so we are led to believe.

One would think that if the head coach of the senior side is unhappy enough with one of his colleagues then this would either be sorted out on the spot or one would leave.

It would be a fraction of the cost to pay out barry mitchells contract compared to that of Denis Pagan, so the obvious choice to the board would be to tell Barry that due to disharmony in the ranks and due to the fact that we need the senior and reserve coaches to have an amicable and open communicative relationship and that barry is lower in the pecking order, then his time has come to leave.

This hasn't happened, which suggests to me that the blues are hanging on to Mitch, keeping him close so another club doesnt snap him up, and then at the end of the year, when things have passed and it is a little cheaper to give Denis the flick, then mitch is ready to step into the position.

Moving him out to preston may be more for mitch than for Denis. Keep him away, dont let him get annoyed about the way the team is run, let him do his own thing out there without outside influence to hone his leading skills a little more before the end of the year and the so called "head" job.

just my thoughts on the matter.
probably way off the mark.

_________________
Back like a raging case of pubic lice

It was reported on KB's show on SEN this morning that a Board Meeting was held last night where it was resolved to keep the status quo.

Hmmm, well I heard most of the story yesterday, Warbs. I guess it is old news, but it looks like they are sitting on the fence for now. Maybe waiting till the old bull and the young bull stop fighting over the calves.

_________________
2002:> "In their Masters Chambers
They Gathered for their Feast
They Stabbed us with their Steely Knives
But They Just Can't Kill The Beast!" <2016

THE BLUEBAGGER BEAST IS BAACKK!!

If that had been all that happened or all that Pagan believed had happened, it's most unlikely things would be as bad as they are now.

But you can take from the reaction that Pagan believes that Mitchell was working against him throughout last year and particularly in the lead-up to the October meeting. Remember that Sticks and Gleeson are close friends of his, and they were the ones who prepared the review that was submitted to the Board meeting.

KB and Greg Denham received a call from someone who asked why Pagan would react this severely when it was the Board that invited Mitchell to make a prestentation. Both were very clear that Pagan wouldn't have reacted in this way if he thought that was all that happened. Denham said that Pagan believed that Mitchell had been knifing him for much of 2006.

On Footy Classified one of them said that the Board had created a massive problem by inviting Mitchell to present, and Caro asked "What makes you think that Mitchell was the victim?".

Sticks has denied this, but then again he would even if it were true.


Noone is going to snap him up. He tried for an assistant's position at St. Kilda and didn't get it. He's been at Carlton for 10 years now in various roles. If someone had been interested, something would have happened by now.

Pagan has to get us into the top 8 to have any hope of seeing 2008.

Mitchell is gone regardless.

Ratten will be senior coach.

Pratt has stated that he would like us to finish 10th - well that is DP's KPI which means there needs to be 6 teams worse than us!!! Not this year so I would say DP is coaching for his career as he would need 8-10 wins to finish there...

2008

SENIOR COACH - BRETT RATTEN

ASSISTANTS- MICHAEL VOSS
GAVIN CROSSICA
CRAIG BRADLEY
?
ME HOPES!

_________________
They coud'nt.....could they?

I still think both should go maybe mid year in the break i think both are equally tainted in the affect that this situation is creating in the media / supporters ect. That to me would prob not constitute both Mitch and DP being removed .... but the affect it may have on our playing list and developement definately justifies the removal of both.
Another reason they both need to go is to have a clean slate ... remove all the favorites that exist between both coaches on players and also any backlash from players that feel that why one is rempved and the other remains.

Also we have done half the job

President - new Pratt
Ceo - new Swan
Operations manager - new Icke

New Additions in coaching Corsica / Braddles / Ratten

New player developement in Ashman

New Media relations - Defolo

So last in that sequence are DP and Mitch which have made it easy to remove to to there destabilising squabble and wouldnt be surprised that Pratt will act sooner than later as so far he has sussed out Swan and Icke with out any issues

Who to promote Ratten for caretaker for 2007 players seem to like him from what i hear thats a good start ... Libba to take of Bullies and we should be able to get someone else in maybe a peter dean for assistant working with Ratts and Corsica.

Anyway the situation above is becoming rediculous and if it has impact on the players and player develpoement both need to be rempved sooner than later and dont care who maybe right or wrong both are now tainted in some negative way

_________________
CFC TAC Squad everyone over 25 must be traded sounds like Loguns Run

Dumb comment. Sporn and Davies were generally considered senior players and had limited involvement with Barry. Livingston failed under senior coaching and actually improved under Mitchell but the powers that be had already written him off.

The rest were nowhere near AFL standard with the possible exception of Beasy.

_________________
Hey Rocky; there are too many rabbits ... in China.

Sadly there is a lot of truth to that quote, and CFC are coming out the loser.

_________________
1. Walker,
2. Menzel,
3. Murphy,
4. Gibbs,
5. Judd.

RR, you see much more of the Ants than anyone else on here, do you rate Mitchell?

From a distance I reckon he is eminently replaceable. I just reckon he is dull an uninspiring. But then I see the Ants about 3 times a year. Would he be hard or easy to replace if he went?

To close off the Pagan/Mitchell thing, Mike Sheahan having talked to Swann believes that everything has been finalised now, so move along and nothing to see here. He takes the opposite view to Carolyn Wilson about the newsworthiness of this issue. This may be just a Hun vs Age thing, but we'll see how things go.

Regarding the performance of Mitchell, I would say it's hard to assess.

For a start, the Bullants rely upon the Carlton listed players. To the extent that they train mostly with the Carlton boys, their performance must mostly reflect the development effected by the Carlton coaching staff (and it has to be conceded that Mitchell was up until this year one of those coaches). In the 1 training session that some of the players might have under Mitchell, just how much can he achieve?

Then to a large degree the way the Carlton players are played would be influenced if not dictated by the Carlton coaching staff. For instance, who was responsible for moving Setanta to the backline in the VFL last year? I don't know, but I'd guess it would have been a consensus amongst the coaches with Pagan pulling the trigger. That in itself was one of the major steps in his development. Then you look at where he would have gained his advice about techniques and tactics to use as a backman, and I'd guess that mostly Daniher was responsible for that.

Then you have to look at the availability of quality VFL players who were available to Mitchell over the last couple of years.

We've been fairly lucky with injuries, so Mitchell has been able to draw on perhaps a larger pool of AFL players than other clubs. A number of players such as Stevens and Bentick played on with injuries in the seniors, reducing their effectiveness there but not depleting the pool for VFL selection.

Over the last couple of years we've had a number of experienced but peripheral senior players who've spent quite a bit of time in the VFL - McGrath, Teague, Livo, Prenda, Bryan, TLo, Chambers, and many others. Though they found it hard to consolidate a senior spot, they were excellent players at VFL level. They had mature bodies and considerable experience, so they could best talented youngsters who had far more potential than them. In the last 2 years, we've only won one game last year against a standalone club that was unable to call on AFL quality players. But other sides like Sandringham played their best AFL listed/VFL qualified players, and the advantage of experience and mature bodies disappeared.

Conversely, this year Mitchell won't have the benefit of those experienced players, but the talented boys that Hughes has picked up over the few years are not far from securing senior spots. Blokes like Hartlett, Edwards, Bower, Blackers, Anderson, and Hampster. To what extent will success reflect the quality of Hughes' selections?

Our big win against Coburg Tigers has to be put down mostly to Hughes and the coaching panel, doesn't it? The preparation of the boys was mostly effected by Carlton, and the fact that the Tigers were badly affected by injuries had to help greatly. Essentially, Mitchell had a Carlton reserves side as the 12/10 rule didn't apply. It will be more of a test to see how he goes when the 12/10 rule applies as he would be primarily responsible for the development of the younger Bullants.

Digby last year gave Mitchell his support and said that Mitchell did particularly well in integrating demoted AFL players and keeping their spirits up. He said that Mitchell was able to unite the Carlton players and the Bullants players and have them all embracing the gameplan for the weekend. Maybe that's an area of strength.

But I can't see how Livo would be judged a success for him. Livo was clearly a player who had talent, but who was not up to the rigours of AFL football. He had massive injury problems throughout his time at Carlton, the final one being a back problem which left one leg smaller than the other at the start of last year. But just because he wasn't able to make it as an AFL player doesn't mean that he wasn't capable of playing well at VFL level. He was. But he still didn't display in the VFL that he was able to be the sort of rebounding tall defender that Scarlett is or Setanta should become, or the ability to play on smaller and taller forwards like Clement.

so we can classify players as afl standard and not afl standard.

should a reserves coach only be judged on what he can do with players who are afl standard?

isn't it a reserves coach to get them to afl standard or should we just look at the success stories and sweep the others under the grandstand?

they may have been senior players but they spent a lot of time playing for the bullants.

oranges and lemons
the bells of St Clemens.....

_________________
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!

The players seem to rate Mitchell highly.

Unless you can demonstrate an unbiased and logical reason to think otherwise (which the above isnt), I'm happy to believe the players.

_________________
Looking forward to seeing our potential realised.

I wouldn't expect you to be able to understand what I wrote BV. You only see what you want to see.

If you concentrate a bit on reading and comprehension as you go through Grade 5 again, you'd be able to tell that I was questioning how to assess a VFL coach's performance given that performance is intimately tied to Carlton's performance.

But I'll put my brain in neutral as everyone else can. You tell us that players rate him highly (without saying what the basis is for your assertion) and so he must be top notch - I hear and obey O Wise One.

If only you could make sure you always get in with the 2nd post in each thread, we won't have to worry about posting at all

_________________
There's so much I could say...

Or even....James Hird!

_________________
They coud'nt.....could they?

I am fortunate enough to have had an opportunity to observe Mitchell's performances at training as well as before and during matches and I rate him very highly in all aspects. He interacts with players in an instructive but authoritative manner - without getting them offside.

He is virtually the only coach during games and has to observe and react to game trends without the benefit of any significant input from umpteen assistant coaches. He has to rely on what he sees plus statistics and not much else.

His game plans are sound and his matchups - often based on last minute information regarding who might be playing for the opposition - are generally good. Despite having to accomodate Carlton listed players, who can often upset the team balance, he juggles the tasks well without acting in detriment to the development of those players.

_________________
Hey Rocky; there are too many rabbits ... in China.

If Denis is to blame for the success or failure of the senior team how is it that the Ants' success or failure depends on the senior coaches or Wayne Huhges?

Going back to your first comment, "Regarding the performance of Mitchell, I would say it's hard to assess", that just about sums it up.

_________________
Hey Rocky; there are too many rabbits ... in China.