Not sure why you're asking me? I've said all along that I'm on the fence regarding the 'sack the coach' debate. I simply don't know, from afar, who is to blame.chico2001 wrote: ↑Wed 27 Jun 2018 10:20pm Maybe one of "richo's" KPI's be that he ensures that the assistant coaches develop a good game plan and the various strategies that go with it. Could that be it? Where would "lethers" look then?
So what happens if the assistants are made redundant? what then Rodger? Would the new assistant coaches have KPI's? Nothing that would win games mind you but something, anything. Maybe win a "best dressed " award twice a year which is common on a corporate Friday now or....... front up to a team meeting with a funky hairstyle.
So who is accountable for defence to forward transition? Adam Kingsley is highly regarded isnt he? What about our "enry" he has a good record as well and coming from Sydney no less. Then there were 5 .....so who goes then?
Richardson must go though - unless the coaching structure doesn't allow him as much power and control as people think it does. I personally don't think it does, as modern coaching departments don't operate the way they used to. I think it's a myth that coaches run the show. Those that try to run the show, either get reigned in like Clarkson and Thompson, or they get sacked like Neeld and Watters.
Regardless of what Richardson is bringing to the table, if he is accountable for the game plan then he shouldn't be coaching an AFL club. If he isn't, but there is evidence that he is good at leading the players to carry out whatever the strategy is - then he should stay and those accountable for the design and implementation of the game plan should go.