Is Alan Richardson doing a good job?

[magnifisaint]

There were reasons. Few of the boys were pretty crook after the game. Bruce had been unwell leading up to the game and on reflection shouldn't have played. And of course Roo. And Collingwood aren't that bad.

Was Newnes crook tony74? Watching and listening to him on the video interview after the game on the Saints.com site Newnes (his voice) sounded very much like a person suffering from a cold or virus.

They should be put to bed and fed chicken soup.

[thejiggingsaint]

Yes. Alan Richardson is doing a good job. Next question?

[plugger66]

Seems like a nice bloke, but I get the feeling he is one of those guys who is an excellent assistant coach in many areas but not necessarily a great senior coach, as I think they're a different animal altogether. I would be disappointed in this his second season, not see more wins over last season. I don't think he has the tactical strengths I would like to see, especially defensive and midfield structures and systems.
I don't consider Collingwood to be a 12 goal better side than us at this stage of the season, so AR needs to figure out quickly why his planning and preparation for that game went so wrong to the point of being totally uncompetitive for three quarters of the game.

Do you consider us a 4 goal better side than the GC because I don't. Things happen in games and we also didn't have Rooy at the last minute. Im not sure you can pick one game to give an opinion one way or the other.

[saintspremiers]

Yes. Alan Richardson is doing a good job. Next question?

Why don't you hate Carlton like the rest of us?

[saintspremiers]

Seems like a nice bloke, but I get the feeling he is one of those guys who is an excellent assistant coach in many areas but not necessarily a great senior coach, as I think they're a different animal altogether. I would be disappointed in this his second season, not see more wins over last season. I don't think he has the tactical strengths I would like to see, especially defensive and midfield structures and systems.
I don't consider Collingwood to be a 12 goal better side than us at this stage of the season, so AR needs to figure out quickly why his planning and preparation for that game went so wrong to the point of being totally uncompetitive for three quarters of the game.

There were reasons. Few of the boys were pretty crook after the game. Bruce had been unwell leading up to the game and on reflection shouldn't have played. And of course Roo. And Collingwood aren't that bad.

Why did Paddy play not someone else, or was that another selection mistake like Bruce?

[plugger66]

Seems like a nice bloke, but I get the feeling he is one of those guys who is an excellent assistant coach in many areas but not necessarily a great senior coach, as I think they're a different animal altogether. I would be disappointed in this his second season, not see more wins over last season. I don't think he has the tactical strengths I would like to see, especially defensive and midfield structures and systems.
I don't consider Collingwood to be a 12 goal better side than us at this stage of the season, so AR needs to figure out quickly why his planning and preparation for that game went so wrong to the point of being totally uncompetitive for three quarters of the game.

There were reasons. Few of the boys were pretty crook after the game. Bruce had been unwell leading up to the game and on reflection shouldn't have played. And of course Roo. And Collingwood aren't that bad.

Why did Paddy play not someone else, or was that another selection mistake like Bruce?

A tall went out and a tall was an emergency. Why wouldn't he play?

[cwrcyn]

2014 was a tough initiation. Heaps of games missed by quite a few players (Fisher, Gilbert, Schneider, Geary, Hickey, Wright, Templeton missed most of the season). Had a few others who battled hard while carrying injuries, too (Steven, Montagna, Armitage, Roberton).

Came in after the controversial sacking of the previous coach, and it would have been very difficult to bed down his own game plan with all those injuries.

The 2014/2015 pre-season was where he's had the time to do it more on his terms, so it'll be better to view team performance after about 14 rounds of this season.

It's way too early to make a judgement, and coaching is not just about on field tactics. None of us here are in a position (except Tony74) to be able to know what goes on between the coach and his players.

I have heard from a couple of people, who are better placed than me to make a call, that there is a good relationship between coach and players and it is overall a happy group.

[spert]

Ultimately it's all about success at this level, and I guess if we manage to win more games than last season, then AR is safe and whatever he is doing is working, but if it goes the other direction....

[plugger66]

Ultimately it's all about success at this level, and I guess if we manage to win more games than last season, then AR is safe and whatever he is doing is working, but if it goes the other direction....

But on paper our side is probably a little worse than last year. Certainly not any better.

[cwrcyn]

Games won won't be a measure of his coaching this year. We are at or near the bottom of the curve in relation to where our lists sits (about 18 months behind the Bulldogs). i'd expect it would be more about the cohesiveness of team performance and the incremental development of the youngsters. There will be a few more smashings this year, buy that doesn't mean that the coach and the club is on the wrong track.

[spert]

Games won won't be a measure of his coaching this year. We are at or near the bottom of the curve in relation to where our lists sits (about 18 months behind the Bulldogs). i'd expect it would be more about the cohesiveness of team performance and the incremental development of the youngsters. There will be a few more smashings this year, buy that doesn't mean that the coach and the club is on the wrong track.

I don't think the corporate sports world has a lot of patience like it once had, and like the corporate world, you need to get success happening pretty quickly, and if the results are not up to scratch, heads roll. While its a nice warm and fuzzy feeling to think that we might be developing a finals team for some time in the future, the reality is that improvement needs to be seen and needs to be seen quickly like it or not, so this year needs to be a demonstrative improvement year where last year's efforts are improved on.

[dragit]

this year needs to be a demonstrative improvement year where last year's efforts are improved on.

Only if you have no idea what's going on...

Luckily the club understands that our list development is in it's infancy and right now is behind 17 other clubs. No amount of sulking, sooking or stamping your foot is going to speed up our development.

[thejiggingsaint]

I concur.

[saintspremiers]

Seems like a nice bloke, but I get the feeling he is one of those guys who is an excellent assistant coach in many areas but not necessarily a great senior coach, as I think they're a different animal altogether. I would be disappointed in this his second season, not see more wins over last season. I don't think he has the tactical strengths I would like to see, especially defensive and midfield structures and systems.
I don't consider Collingwood to be a 12 goal better side than us at this stage of the season, so AR needs to figure out quickly why his planning and preparation for that game went so wrong to the point of being totally uncompetitive for three quarters of the game.

There were reasons. Few of the boys were pretty crook after the game. Bruce had been unwell leading up to the game and on reflection shouldn't have played. And of course Roo. And Collingwood aren't that bad.

Why did Paddy play not someone else, or was that another selection mistake like Bruce?

A tall went out and a tall was an emergency. Why wouldn't he play?

Because he clearly isn't ready. Perhaps a different tall should've been an emergency

[plugger66]

Seems like a nice bloke, but I get the feeling he is one of those guys who is an excellent assistant coach in many areas but not necessarily a great senior coach, as I think they're a different animal altogether. I would be disappointed in this his second season, not see more wins over last season. I don't think he has the tactical strengths I would like to see, especially defensive and midfield structures and systems.
I don't consider Collingwood to be a 12 goal better side than us at this stage of the season, so AR needs to figure out quickly why his planning and preparation for that game went so wrong to the point of being totally uncompetitive for three quarters of the game.

There were reasons. Few of the boys were pretty crook after the game. Bruce had been unwell leading up to the game and on reflection shouldn't have played. And of course Roo. And Collingwood aren't that bad.

Why did Paddy play not someone else, or was that another selection mistake like Bruce?

A tall went out and a tall was an emergency. Why wouldn't he play?

Because he clearly isn't ready. Perhaps a different tall should've been an emergency

AR said he would play the ones in form and he had the best form. It makes complete sense to me.

[The Fireman]

Too early

[bergholt]

Seems like a nice bloke, but I get the feeling he is one of those guys who is an excellent assistant coach in many areas but not necessarily a great senior coach, as I think they're a different animal altogether. I would be disappointed in this his second season, not see more wins over last season. I don't think he has the tactical strengths I would like to see, especially defensive and midfield structures and systems.
I don't consider Collingwood to be a 12 goal better side than us at this stage of the season, so AR needs to figure out quickly why his planning and preparation for that game went so wrong to the point of being totally uncompetitive for three quarters of the game.

There were reasons. Few of the boys were pretty crook after the game. Bruce had been unwell leading up to the game and on reflection shouldn't have played. And of course Roo. And Collingwood aren't that bad.

Why did Paddy play not someone else, or was that another selection mistake like Bruce?

A tall went out and a tall was an emergency. Why wouldn't he play?

Because it was a wet night and he was a zero gamer?

[plugger66]

Seems like a nice bloke, but I get the feeling he is one of those guys who is an excellent assistant coach in many areas but not necessarily a great senior coach, as I think they're a different animal altogether. I would be disappointed in this his second season, not see more wins over last season. I don't think he has the tactical strengths I would like to see, especially defensive and midfield structures and systems.
I don't consider Collingwood to be a 12 goal better side than us at this stage of the season, so AR needs to figure out quickly why his planning and preparation for that game went so wrong to the point of being totally uncompetitive for three quarters of the game.

There were reasons. Few of the boys were pretty crook after the game. Bruce had been unwell leading up to the game and on reflection shouldn't have played. And of course Roo. And Collingwood aren't that bad.

Why did Paddy play not someone else, or was that another selection mistake like Bruce?

A tall went out and a tall was an emergency. Why wouldn't he play?

Because it was a wet night and he was a zero gamer?

Yep and then people would have said we went to small. Easy after the result and zero gamers have to start somewhere. Glad he played because he now knows where he is at and also him playing didn't hurt the result.

[tony74]

Coz if anyone had been a late withdrawal the likelihood was it would be Bruce. Like for like and not disturb the balance. Roo is a very difficult person to replace. Basically destroyed the movement and planning of the forward line.

[bergholt]

A tall went out and a tall was an emergency. Why wouldn't he play?

Because it was a wet night and he was a zero gamer?

Yep and then people would have said we went to small.

Maybe. But no-one would have said "Paddy should have played on that night where it was pissing down and we got flogged".

[Jacks Back]

Coz if anyone had been a late withdrawal the likelihood was it would be Bruce. Like for like and not disturb the balance. Roo is a very difficult person to replace. Basically destroyed the movement and planning of the forward line.

So what is the movement and planning of the forward line going to look like once Rooey hangs them up? Who will take over that type of role?

[Bluthy]

I think Richo has been brilliant so far in really tough circumstances. He comes across as a Rock of Gibraltar which the players will pick up during these years where they are losing a lot of games and not always playing well. He seems a real "dad" type, tough but honest, which is important for young players to get encouragement to develop and take the game on and know exactly where they are. My worry is he might slide a bit into conservatism with player selection and game plan. He's got to remember its his job to get games into young players despite the pain and losses. That's why I liked Pelchen there as a bit of a yin/yang thing happening. Maybe they miss that at Port where Hinkley was the more bolder and pushing hard and Richo the common sense anchor for players.

I do wonder what would happen if Clarkson became available in a few years having achieved so much at Hawks and looking for a fresh challenge.

Pelchen should and hopefull never had any imput into selection. If he did then he needed to be told to get out or get out of the club. We have plenty of coaches to make sure the right side is picked. That certainly hasn't been an issue so far. Got to get a balance of young and old.

Pelchen was the Football Director - of course he was going to have input into the direction and approach of the club including player selection. He may not have had an official voice but you'd be naïve to think otherwise and its actually very healthy. You want those robust, thought provoking discussions about which is the best strategic, drafting and selection approach for the club to take and if it should change tack based on how the club is performing and young players (the biggest resource of the club) are developing.

The best clubs like Hawthorn and Cats have moved away from an autocratic Coach centred approach like Malthouse's to utilising a wide sweep of viewpoints from within the club, from President to Footy director to CEO to fitness staff to list manager, with healthy debate and being open to alternative viewpoints so the club becomes self-correcting, innovative and doesn't have too narrow views limiting it. The mantra of communication in organisations these days to be flexible and innovative is "you can't have too much input". Conflict can be very healthy and in fact a lack of conflict is a worry. It means alternative viewpoints aren't getting any airing.

[plugger66]

I think Richo has been brilliant so far in really tough circumstances. He comes across as a Rock of Gibraltar which the players will pick up during these years where they are losing a lot of games and not always playing well. He seems a real "dad" type, tough but honest, which is important for young players to get encouragement to develop and take the game on and know exactly where they are. My worry is he might slide a bit into conservatism with player selection and game plan. He's got to remember its his job to get games into young players despite the pain and losses. That's why I liked Pelchen there as a bit of a yin/yang thing happening. Maybe they miss that at Port where Hinkley was the more bolder and pushing hard and Richo the common sense anchor for players.

I do wonder what would happen if Clarkson became available in a few years having achieved so much at Hawks and looking for a fresh challenge.

Pelchen should and hopefull never had any imput into selection. If he did then he needed to be told to get out or get out of the club. We have plenty of coaches to make sure the right side is picked. That certainly hasn't been an issue so far. Got to get a balance of young and old.

Pelchen was the Football Director - of course he was going to have input into the direction and approach of the club including player selection. He may not have had an official voice but you'd be naïve to think otherwise and its actually very healthy. You want those robust, thought provoking discussions about which is the best strategic, drafting and selection approach for the club to take and if it should change tack based on how the club is performing and young players (the biggest resource of the club) are developing.

The best clubs like Hawthorn and Cats have moved away from an autocratic Coach centred approach like Malthouse's to utilising a wide sweep of viewpoints from within the club, from President to Footy director to CEO to fitness staff to list manager, with healthy debate and being open to alternative viewpoints so the club becomes self-correcting, innovative and doesn't have too narrow views limiting it. The mantra of communication in organisations these days to be flexible and innovative is "you can't have too much input". Conflict can be very healthy and in fact a lack of conflict is a worry. It means alternative viewpoints aren't getting any airing.

He should and would have had input into the direction of the club but no way should he have ever been involved in selection. And we can get robust discussions without the director of footy. We have about 7 coaches for that. SW wouldn't take direction from anyone and was moved on. Heard nothing to suggest AR doesn't listen to input. As for the best club like Hawthorn I can assure you Chris Fagan has no imput on selection night. That is left for the current coaches so if were following their model which you hope then Pelchen was also told to stay out of selection. Id be pretty sure Neli Balme is the same but that is a guess. Fagan isn't. And if you cant have to much imput where do we go down to? Andrew Thompson after all he played more footy than probably most of our coaches, certainly Pelchen.

[spert]

Pretty sure Clarkson has the ultimate say at the Hawks re how the team plays and is selected, and the board and players listen to and support him..sort of the opposite of our situation with Watters. Blight at Adelaide had continual run-ins with the board, assistants and some players, but they stuck with him and he delivered two premierships. I am hoping that AR has the strength to push his individual way and not be a corporate yes-man who has his strings pulled, as if he is, then don't expect much progress.

[gringo]

Brenton Sanderson was on SEN and he said that a coaches role is much less hands on and almost a political role. He said it's a lot about delegating tasks to the other coaches about what to do rather than a direct coach on players thing. He said he didn't spend enough time doing the sponsor lunches and the little bits that go towards being a coach. He was trying to be an old school coach. The difference is with the assistants they have a hands on teaching role. I think the general public still have an idea of how it used to be and probably like having a focal point for their frustrations.