Watters is a very poor coach!

[plugger66]

We didn't get rid of RL, he got rid of us and that is one of the things that strongly suggests that he himself doesn't believe he is capable of coaching a side with a weak list. Mick Malthouse is probably one of the few coaches that has proved he can coach a team at different levels in the equalisation cycle.

We didnt sign him when we could have. We helped get rid of him. The same with BJ. Both the right calls IMO.

Well if you want to put that spin on it then maybe the club knew that he had some major flaws as a coach and didn't think that he could coach a side that wasn't chock full of super stars and maybe they were a little bit disappointed that he'd neglected to develop the list properly.

Have no idea. All I know he is a great coach and great coaches can make a difference just as poor coaches can stuff up a side. Stupid to think only players make a difference.

[Cairnsman]

We didnt sign him when we could have. We helped get rid of him. The same with BJ. Both the right calls IMO.

Well if you want to put that spin on it then maybe the club knew that he had some major flaws as a coach and didn't think that he could coach a side that wasn't chock full of super stars and maybe they were a little bit disappointed that he'd neglected to develop the list properly.

Have no idea. All I know he is a great coach and great coaches can make a difference just as poor coaches can stuff up a side. Stupid to think only players make a difference.

I never think it's only players as I think it's the sum of all its parts but until RL wins a flag at a club he will never be able to wear the tag "great coach". All he has proved so far is he's a good coach when he takes over a good list list but would probably be a crap coach at Melbourne or GWS or at the Saints.

[plugger66]

Well if you want to put that spin on it then maybe the club knew that he had some major flaws as a coach and didn't think that he could coach a side that wasn't chock full of super stars and maybe they were a little bit disappointed that he'd neglected to develop the list properly.

Have no idea. All I know he is a great coach and great coaches can make a difference just as poor coaches can stuff up a side. Stupid to think only players make a difference.

I never think it's only players as I think it's the sum of all its parts but until RL wins a flag at a club he will never be able to wear the tag "great coach". All he has proved so far is he's a good coach when he takes over a good list list but would probably be a crap coach at Melbourne or GWS or at the Saints.

So the figures mean nothing to you. fair enough. great coach who needs to win a flag for some to see it. Have no idea what this has to do with my point that coaches matter.

[Cairnsman]

[

Have no idea. All I know he is a great coach and great coaches can make a difference just as poor coaches can stuff up a side. Stupid to think only players make a difference.

I never think it's only players as I think it's the sum of all its parts but until RL wins a flag at a club he will never be able to wear the tag "great coach". All he has proved so far is he's a good coach when he takes over a good list list but would probably be a crap coach at Melbourne or GWS or at the Saints.

So the figures mean nothing to you. fair enough. great coach who needs to win a flag for some to see it. Have no idea what this has to do with my point that coaches matter.

Not sure what figures you are referring to but coaches need the cattle to determine how much they matter is my point and I seem to recall some great coaches saying something similar along those lines. RL wouldn't make one little difference at Melbourne but maybe could work at say West Coast or North. So another point I make is that a list has to be in its premiership window for coach to matter.

[plugger66]

So the figures mean nothing to you. fair enough. great coach who needs to win a flag for some to see it. Have no idea what this has to do with my point that coaches matter.

Not sure what figures you are referring to but coaches need the cattle to determine how much they matter is my point and I seem to recall some great coaches saying something similar along those lines. RL wouldn't make one little difference at Melbourne but maybe could work at say West Coast or North. So another point I make is that a list has to be in its premiership window for coach to matter.

The first figures I mentioned or is that the list all of a sudden a great list. Melbourne would be a much better side if RL coached them. They wouldnt make the finals or even win many if any more games. he would make them competitive. I have no idea why you even mentioned premiership window. My point and i have said it many times is coaches can make a difference. Pure and simple.

[Cairnsman]

Not sure what figures you are referring to but coaches need the cattle to determine how much they matter is my point and I seem to recall some great coaches saying something similar along those lines. RL wouldn't make one little difference at Melbourne but maybe could work at say West Coast or North. So another point I make is that a list has to be in its premiership window for coach to matter.

The first figures I mentioned or is that the list all of a sudden a great list. Melbourne would be a much better side if RL coached them. They wouldnt make the finals or even win many if any more games. he would make them competitive. I have no idea why you even mentioned premiership window. My point and i have said it many times is coaches can make a difference. Pure and simple.

That doesn't make sense. How could Melbourne be a much better side if RL coached them but they wouldn't make the finals or even win many if any more games. Maybe you should think about that a bit more. I have no idea how that would make them more competitive.

[plugger66]

The first figures I mentioned or is that the list all of a sudden a great list. Melbourne would be a much better side if RL coached them. They wouldnt make the finals or even win many if any more games. he would make them competitive. I have no idea why you even mentioned premiership window. My point and i have said it many times is coaches can make a difference. Pure and simple.

That doesn't make sense. How could Melbourne be a much better side if RL coached them but they wouldn't make the finals or even win many if any more games. Maybe you should think about that a bit more. I have no idea how that would make them more competitive.

Is a loss a loss. melbourne are losing by a huge averages. he wouldnt let that happen. Obviously thinking beyond wins and losses isnt a strong point with you. I suppose you think we played just as badly against North as WCE because we lost both. neeld was sacked because they werent competitve. My guess is he wouldnt have been sacked if they were just losing. Stop it now. coaches can improve sides as can players but to just say it is players proves they dont actually watch or understand the game.

[Cairnsman]

That doesn't make sense. How could Melbourne be a much better side if RL coached them but they wouldn't make the finals or even win many if any more games. Maybe you should think about that a bit more. I have no idea how that would make them more competitive.

Is a loss a loss. melbourne are losing by a huge averages. he wouldnt let that happen. Obviously thinking beyond wins and losses isnt a strong point with you. I suppose you think we played just as badly against North as WCE because we lost both. neeld was sacked because they werent competitve. My guess is he wouldnt have been sacked if they were just losing. Stop it now. coaches can improve sides as can players but to just say it is players proves they dont actually watch or understand the game.

come on princess don't get all sooky and try not to get off track by telling me what I think. I'll ask you this question. Which was the last coach that took a bottom 4 side to premiership. As you continually suggest, you don't think SW will be around in a few years time or still be the coach when we are in a position to push for a flag. Now if RL was still our coach I would suggest that would still be the same situation because that's how things work in AFL coaching. I'm suggesting it is a time thing for coaches and not just how good they are. Unless they are either handed a decent list or given time to develop one through to a premiership it is impossible to be considered a great coach. RL is a good coach and has only proved that he can get results with a good list.

I'll answer the question I posed earlier...Mick Malthouse. Now he delivered one flag in 12 years at a club. A club that had massive resources and a club that gave him time. He was considered a great coach because he'd won two flags at another club and then one at another club. Both those clubs gave him resources. Would he have delivered the Bulldogs a flag. Nup IMO. Would he be able to deliver Melbourne a flag? I don't think he would because Melbourne needs more than a great or good coach.

[gringo]

I'm with Cairnsman- Ross walked into another very good list. Not sure it's going to make make any difference with Ross or Watters just probably still trying to top up with recycled players.

[On the Ball]

There is no indication at all that Watters is a good coach. No game plan at all or consistency in style of play from one week to the next. Stanley plays defence for 8 weeks and now is playing forward. List management is a joke. Kossi, Milera, D-Lane - shouldnt be in the team. Stanley may as go as well as he, like Jones. actually play and dont want the footy to come to them. Stanley is sh1t scared of any physical contact, and Jones cant kick. The ball came towards him a few times last night and he actaully ran away from it. We dont have the cattle or team rules to carry someone who simply cannot kick.

[Buckets]

There is no indication at all that Watters is a good coach. No game plan at all or consistency in style of play from one week to the next. Stanley plays defence for 8 weeks and now is playing forward. List management is a joke. Kossi, Milera, D-Lane - shouldnt be in the team. Stanley may as go as well as he, like Jones. actually play and dont want the footy to come to them. Stanley is sh1t scared of any physical contact, and Jones cant kick. The ball came towards him a few times last night and he actaully ran away from it. We dont have the cattle or team rules to carry someone who simply cannot kick.

Ok then Coach...

Who do you replace Kosi Milera TDL Stanley and Jones with...


Waiting with baited breath for your wisdom.

[ShanghaiSaint]

Is a loss a loss. melbourne are losing by a huge averages. he wouldnt let that happen. Obviously thinking beyond wins and losses isnt a strong point with you. I suppose you think we played just as badly against North as WCE because we lost both. neeld was sacked because they werent competitve. My guess is he wouldnt have been sacked if they were just losing. Stop it now. coaches can improve sides as can players but to just say it is players proves they dont actually watch or understand the game.

P66 point is proven CM.... just look at Freo he has turned that rabble around and now they're top 3, with major outs atm. the .RL game plan is proof (soild proof of what P66 is saying)

[Cairnsman]

Is a loss a loss. melbourne are losing by a huge averages. he wouldnt let that happen. Obviously thinking beyond wins and losses isnt a strong point with you. I suppose you think we played just as badly against North as WCE because we lost both. neeld was sacked because they werent competitve. My guess is he wouldnt have been sacked if they were just losing. Stop it now. coaches can improve sides as can players but to just say it is players proves they dont actually watch or understand the game.

P66 point is proven CM.... just look at Freo he has turned that rabble around and now they're top 3, with major outs atm. the .RL game plan is proof (soild proof of what P66 is saying)

It is solid proof that he is a good coach however the point I am trying to make to P66 is that good coaches do make a difference but they need certain things to assist with them being successful and a healthy list is one and resources is another. If RL went to melbourne the thrashings may be by lesser margins but he would need just as much time as any other coach to get them into premiership contention and that is another point I was trying to make to P66. The AFL system doesn't afford coaches much time to deliver results, I'd say it's 3 years tops and less in some circumstances and I am certain that if RL went to a club that had a list at the bottom of the equalisation cycle that he would be just another good coach in the wrong place at the wrong time and that is my argument with Scott Watters. If Scot Watters went to West Coast next year where the list is in a healthy position and the club is rich with massive resources then he would be judged completely differently by his success or failure compared to how he will be judged at a club like ours where his first job is to try and get a list that he can do something with. His time and energy at the moment would be hugely heavily directed towards dealing with development whereas RLs time or Alister Clarksons time can me more focussed on setting up for this years finals campaign.

It is exactly the same way it works with management in business. If you poach a brilliant manager from a successful company and ask him to deliver certain KPIs but he doesn't have staff with the right skills and competencies or you don't give him a budget to recruit the required staff and/or give him the resources he needs for him and his staff then will more than likely fail. If RL was at Melbourne right now he probably would have lasted a little longer than Neeld but he would more than likely go the same way eventually. Why because a good or great coach needs more than just a certain track record and in the case of the Saints and clubs like ours meaning the poorer ones, the main thing that you can give a coach is time.

[plugger66]

Is a loss a loss. melbourne are losing by a huge averages. he wouldnt let that happen. Obviously thinking beyond wins and losses isnt a strong point with you. I suppose you think we played just as badly against North as WCE because we lost both. neeld was sacked because they werent competitve. My guess is he wouldnt have been sacked if they were just losing. Stop it now. coaches can improve sides as can players but to just say it is players proves they dont actually watch or understand the game.

P66 point is proven CM.... just look at Freo he has turned that rabble around and now they're top 3, with major outs atm. the .RL game plan is proof (soild proof of what P66 is saying)

It is solid proof that he is a good coach however the point I am trying to make to P66 is that good coaches do make a difference but they need certain things to assist with them being successful and a healthy list is one and resources is another. If RL went to melbourne the thrashings may be by lesser margins but he would need just as much time as any other coach to get them into premiership contention and that is another point I was trying to make to P66. The AFL system doesn't afford coaches much time to deliver results, I'd say it's 3 years tops and less in some circumstances and I am certain that if RL went to a club that had a list at the bottom of the equalisation cycle that he would be just another good coach in the wrong place at the wrong time and that is my argument with Scott Watters. If Scot Watters went to West Coast next year where the list is in a healthy position and the club is rich with massive resources then he would be judged completely differently by his success or failure compared to how he will be judged at a club like ours where his first job is to try and get a list that he can do something with. His time and energy at the moment would be hugely heavily directed towards dealing with development whereas RLs time or Alister Clarksons time can me more focussed on setting up for this years finals campaign.

It is exactly the same way it works with management in business. If you poach a brilliant manager from a successful company and ask him to deliver certain KPIs but he doesn't have staff with the right skills and competencies or you don't give him a budget to recruit the required staff and/or give him the resources he needs for him and his staff then will more than likely fail. If RL was at Melbourne right now he probably would have lasted a little longer than Neeld but he would more than likely go the same way eventually. Why because a good or great coach needs more than just a certain track record and in the case of the Saints and clubs like ours meaning the poorer ones, the main thing that you can give a coach is time.

So you are basically think coaches make no difference but figures suggest some can. I used RL as an example. You can use anyone you like. This started because Con tried to prove coaches dont make a difference by using identical twins to prove something. Surely that proves jack. I then used RL record at Freo to prove Con was talking a bit of rubbish. RL would improve every side because of his game plan. RL would not be able to improve certain sides enough to get anywhere near the finals. The Saints got rid of RL at the right time or he got rid of us at the right time. It is to early to say SW can or cant coach.

[Cairnsman]

P66 point is proven CM.... just look at Freo he has turned that rabble around and now they're top 3, with major outs atm. the .RL game plan is proof (soild proof of what P66 is saying)

It is solid proof that he is a good coach however the point I am trying to make to P66 is that good coaches do make a difference but they need certain things to assist with them being successful and a healthy list is one and resources is another. If RL went to melbourne the thrashings may be by lesser margins but he would need just as much time as any other coach to get them into premiership contention and that is another point I was trying to make to P66. The AFL system doesn't afford coaches much time to deliver results, I'd say it's 3 years tops and less in some circumstances and I am certain that if RL went to a club that had a list at the bottom of the equalisation cycle that he would be just another good coach in the wrong place at the wrong time and that is my argument with Scott Watters. If Scot Watters went to West Coast next year where the list is in a healthy position and the club is rich with massive resources then he would be judged completely differently by his success or failure compared to how he will be judged at a club like ours where his first job is to try and get a list that he can do something with. His time and energy at the moment would be hugely heavily directed towards dealing with development whereas RLs time or Alister Clarksons time can me more focussed on setting up for this years finals campaign.

It is exactly the same way it works with management in business. If you poach a brilliant manager from a successful company and ask him to deliver certain KPIs but he doesn't have staff with the right skills and competencies or you don't give him a budget to recruit the required staff and/or give him the resources he needs for him and his staff then will more than likely fail. If RL was at Melbourne right now he probably would have lasted a little longer than Neeld but he would more than likely go the same way eventually. Why because a good or great coach needs more than just a certain track record and in the case of the Saints and clubs like ours meaning the poorer ones, the main thing that you can give a coach is time.

So you are basically think coaches make no difference but figures suggest some can. I used RL as an example. You can use anyone you like. This started because Con tried to prove coaches dont make a difference by using identical twins to prove something. Surely that proves jack. I then used RL record at Freo to prove Con was talking a bit of rubbish. RL would improve every side because of his game plan. RL would not be able to improve certain sides enough to get anywhere near the finals. The Saints got rid of RL at the right time or he got rid of us at the right time. It is to early to say SW can or cant coach.

Gee that is a massive red herring and again you verbalised me. Anyway all that aside I would also add that coaches are successful based on premierships won and that everything else they achieve is way down on the list of care factor so RL hasn't won anything yet and time will tell how history treats him. He could massively flop yet. Who knows how his team will perform in the finals this year. I think you are suffering a little bit of the "Cons" yourself...sorry Con...just trying to illustrate my point.

[spert]

Unfortunately in the AFL today, there's not a lot of time to prove yourself as a coach or player, and excuses don't really count for much..if you cant make an impression by year three, then you need to pull a rabbit out of the hat pretty quickly.

[Cairnsman]

Unfortunately in the AFL today, there's not a lot of time to prove yourself as a coach or player, and excuses don't really count for much..if you cant make an impression by year three, then you need to pull a rabbit out of the hat pretty quickly.

So based on that logic - which is pretty much how management of AFL clubs has been handled for the past 100 years - it is going to be impossible for any coach to survive at a club like Melbourne even RL.

The only way it is going to work is if the AFL step in and provide the necessary resources and that probably includes having a big say in the coach and it's management systems like it did with Sydney when Ron Barassi took over the swans. And the coach that does take over the job on will probably only be contracted to set the management system up and transition the club to a point where the next coach has a chance of being successful. So for example if Paul Roos takes on the job at Melbourne he will probably say I'm only there for 3 years and then I will hand it over and in that time Paul Roos and the AFL will have implemented the same system it did at Sydney and the GWS. There would be no discussion about premierships in that 3 period at all IMO. So my point is, coaches make a difference but there is a lot more to it than a messiah arriving at a club and having a bag of magical tricks that no one else has.

And so back on SW. His KPIs at the moment I would expect would be player development and improvement. So based on that I can see he has some big ticks there already and not only the new players that have been introduced but I reckon you could argue that there have been some established players that have improved under him such as Armo and Jack and Roo even seems to be playing better than he has for a few years. Throw in Rhys and Big Ben for arguments sake also.

[joffaboy]

There is no indication at all that Watters is a good coach. No game plan at all or consistency in style of play from one week to the next.

The highlighted part precludes you from any serious debate on Watters as a coach. Unbelievable statement.

As for Lyon. Freo sits 3rd on the ladder without Pavlich or Sandilands and a bunch of other seniors players.

Lyon is once again proving he is a terrific coach. Yes their is a debate as to werher he can develop players and he keeps his pet dud role players like Dawson and Silvangi, but his results speak for themselves.

Oh and if you go on flags alone, Alan Joyce and that Scott from Geelong are better coaches, so is Longmuir.

Hardly.

[spert]

Unfortunately in the AFL today, there's not a lot of time to prove yourself as a coach or player, and excuses don't really count for much..if you cant make an impression by year three, then you need to pull a rabbit out of the hat pretty quickly.

So based on that logic - which is pretty much how management of AFL clubs has been handled for the past 100 years - it is going to be impossible for any coach to survive at a club like Melbourne even RL.

The only way it is going to work is if the AFL step in and provide the necessary resources and that probably includes having a big say in the coach and it's management systems like it did with Sydney when Ron Barassi took over the swans. And the coach that does take over the job on will probably only be contracted to set the management system up and transition the club to a point where the next coach has a chance of being successful. So for example if Paul Roos takes on the job at Melbourne he will probably say I'm only there for 3 years and then I will hand it over and in that time Paul Roos and the AFL will have implemented the same system it did at Sydney and the GWS. There would be no discussion about premierships in that 3 period at all IMO. So my point is, coaches make a difference but there is a lot more to it than a messiah arriving at a club and having a bag of magical tricks that no one else has.

And so back on SW. His KPIs at the moment I would expect would be player development and improvement. So based on that I can see he has some big ticks there already and not only the new players that have been introduced but I reckon you could argue that there have been some established players that have improved under him such as Armo and Jack and Roo even seems to be playing better than he has for a few years. Throw in Rhys and Big Ben for arguments sake also.

I agree with me

[Cairnsman]

Oh and if you go on flags alone, Alan Joyce and that Scott from Geelong are better coaches, so is Longmuir.

Hardly.

The point I am trying to make is exactly this.

There is a lot more to measuring a good or great coach and in the modern world individuals to make a difference but they are usually one part of many other parts that are making a difference.

You mention Scott and Longmuir from Geelong which I think is a good example of my point. They are good coaches making a difference but they are part of very well organised and resourced systems.

Hypothetically if Lyon does not deliver Freo a flag and he leaves the club in a similar state to the Saints then I think he would be judged poorly. However from what I understand Freo have learned from the Saints and they are developing systems and providing resources to ensure they are managing the sum of all parts correctly. So this brings me back to Watters. Surely the club has also learned from the Lyons era/error and is working on putting in place a system that manages the sum of all parts and that Watters main focus can be on developing a list and not worrying about coming up with mind blowing structures and game day strategies that need players he hasn't got.

[Johnny Member]

Have no idea. All I know he is a great coach and great coaches can make a difference just as poor coaches can stuff up a side. Stupid to think only players make a difference.

Lyon isn't a great coach in my opinion.


Great coaches provide the plan, and have the ability to get the players to carry it out. That includes getting the best out of the players physically, and getting them to do achieve the results that the plan promises.


Lyon is clearly good at getting players to follow his plan. I'd say he's great at it.


The problem is that his plan is flawed and is yet to be successful. He's been a coach for quite a long time, and hasn't been successful. He's had masses of talent, and has been able to get that talent to do exactly what he wants them to.

The problem is, that what he's wanted them to do is flawed.



Therefore in my opinion he's isn't a great coach.



Likehthe full forward that can't kick straight. Or the backman that can't spoil. Or the midfielder that can't win a contested nut. The coach with a plan that falls over can't be considered great.

[Johnny Member]

Hypothetically if Lyon does not deliver Freo a flag and he leaves the club in a similar state to the Saints then I think he would be judged poorly.

There's pressure on Lyon in my opinion.


There's a strong feeling that he coaches for the now. History suggests that that feeling is correct.


So if you coach for the now, then you're expected to win now. He couldn't do it at the Saints with 3 legitimate chances over 5 years, and has already nearly notched up 2 years at Freo without a flag.

7 years in coaching is a long time without success, and 8-9 years is even longer! If he doesn't win the flag in the next year or two - then he'll be considered a big failure like hundreds before him.

[SainterK]

Freo are doing better than I expected, I do wonder if they are a bit like the Saints in 2011 when Roo was missing.

Pav comes back and then where does the unpredictability go?

Be interesting to see how they settle down once he returns, you even see that Tippett appeared to unsettle the Swans.

[bergholt]

7 years in coaching is a long time without success, and 8-9 years is even longer! If he doesn't win the flag in the next year or two - then he'll be considered a big failure like hundreds before him.

But not so big a failure as those many coaches who never even got to the finals, or the majority who never coached in even one Grand Final.

[Cairnsman]

7 years in coaching is a long time without success, and 8-9 years is even longer! If he doesn't win the flag in the next year or two - then he'll be considered a big failure like hundreds before him.

But not so big a failure as those many coaches who never even got to the finals, or the majority who never coached in even one Grand Final.

Garry Ayres anyone?