Hannebury Hurts Sometimes.....

[skeptic]

Then why extend his contract?
Why play him at all?
Why is he written off when on form he is performing to a similar standard as others.


So this is what I don’t get. It’s very clearly odd. I’m not saying it’s the wrong outcome but the process doesn’t appear completely logical or fluid and you seem absolutely hell bent on denying it.

Are you really saying that there is not even one part of this process with Freeman that doesn’t seem off.

Extending his contract
Not playing him for ages when his form deserved it
Then playing him for a game and a half and dropping him though his form held up

No part of that seems even a little bit hard to rationalise?

[Cairnsman]

Then why extend his contract?
Why play him at all?
Why is he written off when on form he is performing to a similar standard as others.


So this is what I don’t get. It’s very clearly odd. I’m not saying it’s the wrong outcome but the process doesn’t appear completely logical or fluid and you seem absolutely hell bent on denying it.

Are you really saying that there is not even one part of this process with Freeman that doesn’t seem off.

Extending his contract
Not playing him for ages when his form deserved it
Then playing him for a game and a half and dropping him though his form held up

No part of that seems even a little bit hard to rationalise?

Maybe look at it another way if it helps you get out of the loop you're stuck in: look at all the VFL players that have recently been recruited by various clubs based on thier VFL form and come in and immediately looked comfortable at AFL level. Using this as a recruiting template why didn't another club recruit Nathan if his VFL form warranted selection. 17 other clubs had the chance and passed yet you claim his form held up, all the recruiting experts at 18 clubs disagree with you.

With regards to your claim that the process was odd, you are forgetting a bloke called Simon Lethlean joined the club in the time Nathan was at the club and possibly changed the process. Maybe had this not happened Nathan might still be on the list. Maybe Alan and Simon were in furious disagreement, maybe Alan was told he was flogging a dead horse. He probably only got an AFL game as a parting gift, we were in a position to do so.

Even Dal is on the record as saying his papers were probably stamped before he was selected for an AFL game.

[skeptic]

Then why extend his contract?
Why play him at all?
Why is he written off when on form he is performing to a similar standard as others.


So this is what I don’t get. It’s very clearly odd. I’m not saying it’s the wrong outcome but the process doesn’t appear completely logical or fluid and you seem absolutely hell bent on denying it.

Are you really saying that there is not even one part of this process with Freeman that doesn’t seem off.

Extending his contract
Not playing him for ages when his form deserved it
Then playing him for a game and a half and dropping him though his form held up

No part of that seems even a little bit hard to rationalise?

Maybe look at it another way if it helps you get out of the loop you're stuck in: look at all the VFL players that have recently been recruited by various clubs based on thier VFL form and come in and immediately looked comfortable at AFL level. Using this as a recruiting template why didn't another club recruit Nathan if his VFL form warranted selection. 17 other clubs had the chance and passed yet you claim his form held up, all the recruiting experts at 18 clubs disagree with you.

With regards to your claim that the process was odd, you are forgetting a bloke called Simon Lethlean joined the club in the time Nathan was at the club and possibly changed the process. Maybe had this not happened Nathan might still be on the list. Maybe Alan and Simon were in furious disagreement, maybe Alan was told he was flogging a dead horse. He probably only got an AFL game as a parting gift, we were in a position to do so.

Even Dal is on the record as saying his papers were probably stamped before he was selected for an AFL game.

You may be right but that to me doesn’t sound like a very good process.

It’s just like I said before, His contract was extended in 2017 and apparently his papers may have been stamped early 2018. Doesn’t seem likely.

If I may ask, why do you think Simon Lethlean is involved in the coaching process ?

[Cairnsman]

Then why extend his contract?
Why play him at all?
Why is he written off when on form he is performing to a similar standard as others.


So this is what I don’t get. It’s very clearly odd. I’m not saying it’s the wrong outcome but the process doesn’t appear completely logical or fluid and you seem absolutely hell bent on denying it.

Are you really saying that there is not even one part of this process with Freeman that doesn’t seem off.

Extending his contract
Not playing him for ages when his form deserved it
Then playing him for a game and a half and dropping him though his form held up

No part of that seems even a little bit hard to rationalise?

Maybe look at it another way if it helps you get out of the loop you're stuck in: look at all the VFL players that have recently been recruited by various clubs based on thier VFL form and come in and immediately looked comfortable at AFL level. Using this as a recruiting template why didn't another club recruit Nathan if his VFL form warranted selection. 17 other clubs had the chance and passed yet you claim his form held up, all the recruiting experts at 18 clubs disagree with you.

With regards to your claim that the process was odd, you are forgetting a bloke called Simon Lethlean joined the club in the time Nathan was at the club and possibly changed the process. Maybe had this not happened Nathan might still be on the list. Maybe Alan and Simon were in furious disagreement, maybe Alan was told he was flogging a dead horse. He probably only got an AFL game as a parting gift, we were in a position to do so.

Even Dal is on the record as saying his papers were probably stamped before he was selected for an AFL game.

You may be right but that to me doesn’t sound like a very good process.

It’s just like I said before, His contract was extended in 2017 and apparently his papers may have been stamped early 2018. Doesn’t seem likely.

If I may ask, why do you think Simon Lethlean is involved in the coaching process ?

Why wouldn't he be? He should be part of developing and implementing the coaching process, so should other people in the organisation with valuable expertise. The coaching process should be owned by the club and not an individual, it's how successful organisations are set up. The coach should just be a role player that executes the plan. It would also avoid the total upheaval and disruption when a coach is sacked because all of your investment in developing the process IP walks out the door with an individual...stupid, stupid, stupid way to run an organisation.

[skeptic]

Then why extend his contract?
Why play him at all?
Why is he written off when on form he is performing to a similar standard as others.


So this is what I don’t get. It’s very clearly odd. I’m not saying it’s the wrong outcome but the process doesn’t appear completely logical or fluid and you seem absolutely hell bent on denying it.

Are you really saying that there is not even one part of this process with Freeman that doesn’t seem off.

Extending his contract
Not playing him for ages when his form deserved it
Then playing him for a game and a half and dropping him though his form held up

No part of that seems even a little bit hard to rationalise?

Maybe look at it another way if it helps you get out of the loop you're stuck in: look at all the VFL players that have recently been recruited by various clubs based on thier VFL form and come in and immediately looked comfortable at AFL level. Using this as a recruiting template why didn't another club recruit Nathan if his VFL form warranted selection. 17 other clubs had the chance and passed yet you claim his form held up, all the recruiting experts at 18 clubs disagree with you.

With regards to your claim that the process was odd, you are forgetting a bloke called Simon Lethlean joined the club in the time Nathan was at the club and possibly changed the process. Maybe had this not happened Nathan might still be on the list. Maybe Alan and Simon were in furious disagreement, maybe Alan was told he was flogging a dead horse. He probably only got an AFL game as a parting gift, we were in a position to do so.

Even Dal is on the record as saying his papers were probably stamped before he was selected for an AFL game.

You may be right but that to me doesn’t sound like a very good process.

It’s just like I said before, His contract was extended in 2017 and apparently his papers may have been stamped early 2018. Doesn’t seem likely.

If I may ask, why do you think Simon Lethlean is involved in the coaching process ?

Why wouldn't he be? He should be part of developing and implementing the coaching process, so should other people in the organisation with valuable expertise. The coaching process should be owned by the club and not an individual, it's how successful organisations are set up. The coach should just be a role player that executes the plan. It would also avoid the total upheaval and disruption when a coach is sacked because all of your investment in developing the process IP walks out the door with an individual...stupid, stupid, stupid way to run an organisation.

I thought his experience was as an executive and management. Does he have any experience in coaching and development?

[Cairnsman]

Then why extend his contract?
Why play him at all?
Why is he written off when on form he is performing to a similar standard as others.


So this is what I don’t get. It’s very clearly odd. I’m not saying it’s the wrong outcome but the process doesn’t appear completely logical or fluid and you seem absolutely hell bent on denying it.

Are you really saying that there is not even one part of this process with Freeman that doesn’t seem off.

Extending his contract
Not playing him for ages when his form deserved it
Then playing him for a game and a half and dropping him though his form held up

No part of that seems even a little bit hard to rationalise?

Maybe look at it another way if it helps you get out of the loop you're stuck in: look at all the VFL players that have recently been recruited by various clubs based on thier VFL form and come in and immediately looked comfortable at AFL level. Using this as a recruiting template why didn't another club recruit Nathan if his VFL form warranted selection. 17 other clubs had the chance and passed yet you claim his form held up, all the recruiting experts at 18 clubs disagree with you.

With regards to your claim that the process was odd, you are forgetting a bloke called Simon Lethlean joined the club in the time Nathan was at the club and possibly changed the process. Maybe had this not happened Nathan might still be on the list. Maybe Alan and Simon were in furious disagreement, maybe Alan was told he was flogging a dead horse. He probably only got an AFL game as a parting gift, we were in a position to do so.

Even Dal is on the record as saying his papers were probably stamped before he was selected for an AFL game.

You may be right but that to me doesn’t sound like a very good process.

It’s just like I said before, His contract was extended in 2017 and apparently his papers may have been stamped early 2018. Doesn’t seem likely.

If I may ask, why do you think Simon Lethlean is involved in the coaching process ?

Why wouldn't he be? He should be part of developing and implementing the coaching process, so should other people in the organisation with valuable expertise. The coaching process should be owned by the club and not an individual, it's how successful organisations are set up. The coach should just be a role player that executes the plan. It would also avoid the total upheaval and disruption when a coach is sacked because all of your investment in developing the process IP walks out the door with an individual...stupid, stupid, stupid way to run an organisation.

I thought his experience was as an executive and management. Does he have any experience in coaching and development?

Part of Simon's role should be to oversee the development and implementation of the coaching "process". He then needs to find someone with the right experience to execute the process. Absolutely Simon's core skill is executive management, Alan's is middle management, both should be capable of contributing to the development and implementation of a process. Simon should have a foundation knowledge in coaching, Alan should have a very technical knowledge in coaching, both contributions are complementary and hugely beneficial to the process of developing a successful process. The process is the key to success, the individuals are just the soldiers, lose a soldier, bring another soldier in.

Hopefully we are moving away from the days of the coach having to be all things to everyone, it's unrealistic, impractical and a plan for failure in most cases.

You've probably heard the saying, "we are a process driven organisation, if we look after the process the results will take care of themselves", it's a proven system. I'm guessing the Lethlean review started with the strategy, the system, the processes, the procedures and work instructions, the org chart, the job descriptions and then performance reviews of personnel. When he came to review the head coach he more than likely engaged the services of specialist consultants, more than likely coaches and even coaches with AFL experience.

He doesn't necessarily need to have been Kevin Sheedy, Mick Malthouse or Alastair Clarkson to rubber stamp the coaching processes, he just needs to know how to access their knowledge and expertise and I'm guessing he's well connected in that space.

Does it make you warm and fuzzy that the club might have employed someone that knows what he's doing?

[skeptic]

Then why extend his contract?
Why play him at all?
Why is he written off when on form he is performing to a similar standard as others.


So this is what I don’t get. It’s very clearly odd. I’m not saying it’s the wrong outcome but the process doesn’t appear completely logical or fluid and you seem absolutely hell bent on denying it.

Are you really saying that there is not even one part of this process with Freeman that doesn’t seem off.

Extending his contract
Not playing him for ages when his form deserved it
Then playing him for a game and a half and dropping him though his form held up

No part of that seems even a little bit hard to rationalise?

Maybe look at it another way if it helps you get out of the loop you're stuck in: look at all the VFL players that have recently been recruited by various clubs based on thier VFL form and come in and immediately looked comfortable at AFL level. Using this as a recruiting template why didn't another club recruit Nathan if his VFL form warranted selection. 17 other clubs had the chance and passed yet you claim his form held up, all the recruiting experts at 18 clubs disagree with you.

With regards to your claim that the process was odd, you are forgetting a bloke called Simon Lethlean joined the club in the time Nathan was at the club and possibly changed the process. Maybe had this not happened Nathan might still be on the list. Maybe Alan and Simon were in furious disagreement, maybe Alan was told he was flogging a dead horse. He probably only got an AFL game as a parting gift, we were in a position to do so.

Even Dal is on the record as saying his papers were probably stamped before he was selected for an AFL game.

You may be right but that to me doesn’t sound like a very good process.

It’s just like I said before, His contract was extended in 2017 and apparently his papers may have been stamped early 2018. Doesn’t seem likely.

If I may ask, why do you think Simon Lethlean is involved in the coaching process ?

Why wouldn't he be? He should be part of developing and implementing the coaching process, so should other people in the organisation with valuable expertise. The coaching process should be owned by the club and not an individual, it's how successful organisations are set up. The coach should just be a role player that executes the plan. It would also avoid the total upheaval and disruption when a coach is sacked because all of your investment in developing the process IP walks out the door with an individual...stupid, stupid, stupid way to run an organisation.

I thought his experience was as an executive and management. Does he have any experience in coaching and development?

Part of Simon's role should be to oversee the development and implementation of the coaching "process". He then needs to find someone with the right experience to execute the process. Absolutely Simon's core skill is executive management, Alan's is middle management, both should be capable of contributing to the development and implementation of a process. Simon should have a foundation knowledge in coaching, Alan should have a very technical knowledge in coaching, both contributions are complementary and hugely beneficial to the process of developing a successful process. The process is the key to success, the individuals are just the soldiers, lose a soldier, bring another soldier in.

Hopefully we are moving away from the days of the coach having to be all things to everyone, it's unrealistic, impractical and a plan for failure in most cases.

You've probably heard the saying, "we are a process driven organisation, if we look after the process the results will take care of themselves", it's a proven system. I'm guessing the Lethlean review started with the strategy, the system, the processes, the procedures and work instructions, the org chart, the job descriptions and then performance reviews of personnel. When he came to review the head coach he more than likely engaged the services of specialist consultants, more than likely coaches and even coaches with AFL experience.

He doesn't necessarily need to have been Kevin Sheedy, Mick Malthouse or Alastair Clarkson to rubber stamp the coaching processes, he just needs to know how to access their knowledge and expertise and I'm guessing he's well connected in that space.

Does it make you warm and fuzzy that the club might have employed someone that knows what he's doing?

So the extent of his football experience is playing for the Hawthorn reserves for 5 years and coaching Old Xavier.
Beyond that, his experience is working as a commercial solicitor before 2004 when he joined the AFL league, where he was involved in the legal department, broadcasting, fixturing, and game development.

That’s from wiki.

Again, I have to emphasise that this discussion started specifically with regards to what happened with Nathan Freeman as opposed to the broader structural elements that you keep introducing into the conversation to explain the Freeman situation... which now appears to have been out of Richo’s hands, and again you’re going with the line that every failing of the club is being directed at Richo, which from what I can see is a myth perpetuated by you and another forumite here.

So you’re post in the context of what we’re actually discussing (specifically Freeman), the possible scenario that could have happened is as follows...

In his fourth season as coach, Alan likely drives the decision to extend Freeman’s contract, a player that the club invests significant time and resources into to overcome injury.

In his 5th season as coach, Freeman finally gets on the park consistently and is seemingly playing well. Then in the early part of the season Lethlean joins the club and despite not really having a strong history in player development and coaching and not being previously involved with the Saints he overrides Richo’s decision making and makes stops him from playing Freeman or flogging a dead horse in your words.

Or if not Lethlean directly, he puts ppl into place that override Richo’s decision making

That’s despite the fact that our season was going nowhere and numerous players previously listed players got repeat chances despite poor form.

Regardless, at the end of the season Freeman does get selected and despite a good showing in said game, he then gets selected for only a half and delisted.

And you would look at this type of scenario and consider it closer to good management as opposed to sabotage? I mean there could be something to this because it feels to me that team selection was markedly worse in 2018 then the seasons before it I guess (though 2017 had some howlers too... but prior to that i hadn’t noticed it with Richo)

I would hope that whilst Richo is not “all things to everyone” that he does have the majority of control when it comes to actual match day, selection and broader team/developmental issues.

You’re taking the piss here right? I mean could you imagine Alistair Clarkson bring overidden in team selection by Jeff Kennett? Is Lethlean also telling the fitness staff how they should be managing stress fractures, the goal kicking coach what the players techniques should be and the recruiters who to select.
Why would he be overriding Richo on specific coaching/match day decisions?

We’ve debated this from a few different angles in different threads and whilst I’ve enjoyed the discussion/debate etc I simply can’t follow your rationale in decision making (or potential interpretation of it). If anything you’re suggesting that the process is too convoluted now and Richo is in a position where he has 100% accountability but little autonomy.

Elaborations aside... I can only summise that we’re at a complete impasse here and that it is perhaps best to leave the conversation as it’s unlikely that either of us will sway the other.

[dragit]

You've probably heard the saying, "we are a process driven organisation, if we look after the process the results will take care of themselves", it's a proven system.

Having "a process" doesn't guarantee anything and is only 'a proven system' after premierships have been delivered... 18 clubs have systems and processes in place, I'm really not sure why you are so excited by the concept.

Marketing weasel words do not equal success.

"If we look after the process the results will take care of themselves..." spare me

[Cairnsman]

Then why extend his contract?
Why play him at all?
Why is he written off when on form he is performing to a similar standard as others.


So this is what I don’t get. It’s very clearly odd. I’m not saying it’s the wrong outcome but the process doesn’t appear completely logical or fluid and you seem absolutely hell bent on denying it.

Are you really saying that there is not even one part of this process with Freeman that doesn’t seem off.

Extending his contract
Not playing him for ages when his form deserved it
Then playing him for a game and a half and dropping him though his form held up

No part of that seems even a little bit hard to rationalise?

Maybe look at it another way if it helps you get out of the loop you're stuck in: look at all the VFL players that have recently been recruited by various clubs based on thier VFL form and come in and immediately looked comfortable at AFL level. Using this as a recruiting template why didn't another club recruit Nathan if his VFL form warranted selection. 17 other clubs had the chance and passed yet you claim his form held up, all the recruiting experts at 18 clubs disagree with you.

With regards to your claim that the process was odd, you are forgetting a bloke called Simon Lethlean joined the club in the time Nathan was at the club and possibly changed the process. Maybe had this not happened Nathan might still be on the list. Maybe Alan and Simon were in furious disagreement, maybe Alan was told he was flogging a dead horse. He probably only got an AFL game as a parting gift, we were in a position to do so.

Even Dal is on the record as saying his papers were probably stamped before he was selected for an AFL game.

You may be right but that to me doesn’t sound like a very good process.

It’s just like I said before, His contract was extended in 2017 and apparently his papers may have been stamped early 2018. Doesn’t seem likely.

If I may ask, why do you think Simon Lethlean is involved in the coaching process ?

Why wouldn't he be? He should be part of developing and implementing the coaching process, so should other people in the organisation with valuable expertise. The coaching process should be owned by the club and not an individual, it's how successful organisations are set up. The coach should just be a role player that executes the plan. It would also avoid the total upheaval and disruption when a coach is sacked because all of your investment in developing the process IP walks out the door with an individual...stupid, stupid, stupid way to run an organisation.

I thought his experience was as an executive and management. Does he have any experience in coaching and development?

Part of Simon's role should be to oversee the development and implementation of the coaching "process". He then needs to find someone with the right experience to execute the process. Absolutely Simon's core skill is executive management, Alan's is middle management, both should be capable of contributing to the development and implementation of a process. Simon should have a foundation knowledge in coaching, Alan should have a very technical knowledge in coaching, both contributions are complementary and hugely beneficial to the process of developing a successful process. The process is the key to success, the individuals are just the soldiers, lose a soldier, bring another soldier in.

Hopefully we are moving away from the days of the coach having to be all things to everyone, it's unrealistic, impractical and a plan for failure in most cases.

You've probably heard the saying, "we are a process driven organisation, if we look after the process the results will take care of themselves", it's a proven system. I'm guessing the Lethlean review started with the strategy, the system, the processes, the procedures and work instructions, the org chart, the job descriptions and then performance reviews of personnel. When he came to review the head coach he more than likely engaged the services of specialist consultants, more than likely coaches and even coaches with AFL experience.

He doesn't necessarily need to have been Kevin Sheedy, Mick Malthouse or Alastair Clarkson to rubber stamp the coaching processes, he just needs to know how to access their knowledge and expertise and I'm guessing he's well connected in that space.

Does it make you warm and fuzzy that the club might have employed someone that knows what he's doing?

So the extent of his football experience is playing for the Hawthorn reserves for 5 years and coaching Old Xavier.
Beyond that, his experience is working as a commercial solicitor before 2004 when he joined the AFL league, where he was involved in the legal department, broadcasting, fixturing, and game development.

That’s from wiki.

So let me get this right, the possible scenario that you’re suggesting could have happened as follows...

In his fourth season as coach, Alan likely drives the decision to extend Freeman’s contract, a player that the club invests significant time and resources into to overcome injury.

In his 5th season as coach, Freeman finally gets on the park consistently and is seemingly playing well. Then in the early part of the season Lethlean joins the club and despite not really having a strong history in player development and coaching and not being previously involved with the Saints he overrides Richo’s decision making and makes stops him from playing Freeman or flogging a dead horse in your words.

That’s despite the fact that our season was going nowhere and numerous players previously listed players got repeat chances despite poor form.

Regardless, at the end of the season Freeman does get selected and despite a good showing in said game, he then gets selected for only a half and delisted.

And you would look at this type of scenario and consider it closer to good management as opposed to sabotage?

You’re taking the piss here right?

You either didn't read what I posted or you don't have a foundation of understanding on some key attributes of a successful organisation. I apologise in advance if that sounds rude or conceited because it is not intended.

Ok so I'll see if I can stick the chisel in another crevice, do you think current day players, frequently described as the 'modern day player' ever sit around the locker room and groan, "what does the coach know anyway, he's never played the modern era", or he's never won a flag. Go back to the bit about Alan being middle management and him needing to possess significant technical knowledge as a middle manager, but not the exclusive holder of knowledge, and ask yourself, how does Alan cater to the modern player knowing his players are questioning him in this area, the answer is to engage some front line managers who can bridge the gap, aka assistants. Just like Alan doesn't need to have played the modern game to know how to coach the modern player, Simon doesn't need to have coached at the highest level to know how to rubber stamp coaching processes, not to be confused with programmes and procedures which should have more input from personnel with more technical knowledge.

So back on Freeman, is it possible Simon changed a flawed coaching process that concluded he wasn't going to achieve AFL standard, a set of fresh eyes with possibly access to best practice knowledge.

[Cairnsman]

You've probably heard the saying, "we are a process driven organisation, if we look after the process the results will take care of themselves", it's a proven system.

Having "a process" doesn't guarantee anything and is only 'a proven system' after premierships have been delivered... 18 clubs have systems and processes in place, I'm really not sure why you are so excited by the concept.

Marketing weasel words do not equal success.

"If we look after the process the results will take care of themselves..." spare me

...persecution complex? what did you mean?

[skeptic]

You either didn't read what I posted or you don't have a foundation of understanding on some key attributes of a successful organisation. I apologise in advance if that sounds rude or conceited because it is not intended.

Ok so I'll see if I can stick the chisel in another crevice, do you think current day players, frequently described as the 'modern day player' ever sit around the locker room and groan, "what does the coach know anyway, he's never played the modern era", or he's never won a flag. Go back to the bit about Alan being middle management and him needing to possess significant technical knowledge as a middle manager, but not the exclusive holder of knowledge, and ask yourself, how does Alan cater to the modern player knowing his players are questioning him in this area, the answer is to engage some front line managers who can bridge the gap, aka assistants. Just like Alan doesn't need to have played the modern game to know how to coach the modern player, Simon doesn't need to have coached at the highest level to know how to rubber stamp coaching processes, not to be confused with programmes and procedures which should have more input from personnel with more technical knowledge.

So back on Freeman, is it possible Simon changed a flawed coaching process that concluded he wasn't going to achieve AFL standard, a set of fresh eyes with possibly access to best practice knowledge.

Post wasn’t rude or conceited at all... mine was a bit snarky though

I read this initial point to infer that Lethlean specifically made the observation about Freeman and drove it himself. I see now that’s not what you mean/meant.

So following the timeline, how would you summise this occurred and when?

[Cairnsman]

Well I'm guessing Simon started reviewing all of the footy department the moment he got his feet under the desk, it's what most upper managers do when entering a new org, I watch it up closely from where I sit most days, it is usually part of the brief within the engagement, so I'd expect Simon would have refrained from making significant decisions until later in the season to give himself time to build relationships and get feedback on what was working well and what wasn't. In the case of Nathan it's possible he didn't make a decision until just before he played his first AFL game and the game itself was more about politics and PR. I'm guessing internally there would have been some emotive and vigorous discussions and debate about the topic. From all accounts he was a very likeable lad and his story would have made it almost impossible to make the hard decision. And that is probably why to the outsider the decision would have looked inconsistent and odd.

[dragit]

You've probably heard the saying, "we are a process driven organisation, if we look after the process the results will take care of themselves", it's a proven system.

Having "a process" doesn't guarantee anything and is only 'a proven system' after premierships have been delivered... 18 clubs have systems and processes in place, I'm really not sure why you are so excited by the concept.

Marketing weasel words do not equal success.

"If we look after the process the results will take care of themselves..." spare me

...persecution complex? what did you mean?

You could always phone a friend or try googling it if you're still struggling.

[Cairnsman]

You've probably heard the saying, "we are a process driven organisation, if we look after the process the results will take care of themselves", it's a proven system.

Having "a process" doesn't guarantee anything and is only 'a proven system' after premierships have been delivered... 18 clubs have systems and processes in place, I'm really not sure why you are so excited by the concept.

Marketing weasel words do not equal success.

"If we look after the process the results will take care of themselves..." spare me

...persecution complex? what did you mean?

You could always phone a friend or try googling it if you're still struggling.

You do realise you are appearing to channel your inner Con more and more.

Stay crazy angry...

Round 6 is fast approaching

[SaintPav]

I'm still angry about 1997.

[SaintPav]

You've probably heard the saying, "we are a process driven organisation, if we look after the process the results will take care of themselves", it's a proven system.

Having "a process" doesn't guarantee anything and is only 'a proven system' after premierships have been delivered... 18 clubs have systems and processes in place, I'm really not sure why you are so excited by the concept.

Marketing weasel words do not equal success.

"If we look after the process the results will take care of themselves..." spare me

Gold!!!

[dragit]

You do realise you are appearing to channel your inner Con more and more.

Stay crazy angry...

Round 6 is fast approaching

Maybe everyone who doesn't go along with your "process" narrative is turning into Con?

Round 6 has no significant meaning to me btw, but it does seem to be becoming another "they're all out to get us" delusions… keep on with it as a catch-phrase though if you think it is adding to the conversation.

[lewdogs]

When Lethlean reviewed our football club I think a big red-flag for him was the Freeman trade. We gave up a future second for a guy that had never played a game and had chronic hamstring injuries. To put it in perspective we just gave up similar for a 3-time All-Australian. The other red-flag would have been the Logan Austin trade. Realistically we should have gotten both of those players for nothing. Freeman wanted to come to us and his career had hit a huge wall. We should have gotten him for a 5th rounder or not worried about it. The trade turned out to be a disaster as he went on to play 2 games before being delisted.

In terms of Lethlean, I like the fact that he has come in and been critical about these types of moves. It can only improve the football club if we look at our past trading and go 'this should have been better'. The same goes for all areas of the football club - coaching, player development etc. I dare say the same thing happened in coaching and development because if you look at it we have turned over a large number of coaches which suggests we weren't doing our best at least in Lethlean's eyes.

Hannebery has been brought in to address another area that Lethlean identified; Leadership. Also why Slater has come in.

Now is this guy the messiah? Who knows but the fact is he is getting quality people into the club. Hannebery is a quality player and will be a godsend should he get back to his best. Ratten one of the best assistant coaches out there. Slater an Australian sporting legend. To me, that isn't re-inventing the wheel. It's just getting good people through the door.

The Freeman de-listing irked some but it seems obvious enough that he wasn't good enough, and good football clubs need to make hard decisions sometimes.

[realdeal]

Just wanna say how refreshing it is to read a balanced discussion in this thread...

We dont always have to agree, nor do we have to revert to baiting and put downs...

Keep it up people!

[Cairnsman]

When Lethlean reviewed our football club I think a big red-flag for him was the Freeman trade. We gave up a future second for a guy that had never played a game and had chronic hamstring injuries. To put it in perspective we just gave up similar for a 3-time All-Australian. The other red-flag would have been the Logan Austin trade. Realistically we should have gotten both of those players for nothing. Freeman wanted to come to us and his career had hit a huge wall. We should have gotten him for a 5th rounder or not worried about it. The trade turned out to be a disaster as he went on to play 2 games before being delisted.

In terms of Lethlean, I like the fact that he has come in and been critical about these types of moves. It can only improve the football club if we look at our past trading and go 'this should have been better'. The same goes for all areas of the football club - coaching, player development etc. I dare say the same thing happened in coaching and development because if you look at it we have turned over a large number of coaches which suggests we weren't doing our best at least in Lethlean's eyes.

Hannebery has been brought in to address another area that Lethlean identified; Leadership. Also why Slater has come in.

Now is this guy the messiah? Who knows but the fact is he is getting quality people into the club. Hannebery is a quality player and will be a godsend should he get back to his best. Ratten one of the best assistant coaches out there. Slater an Australian sporting legend. To me, that isn't re-inventing the wheel. It's just getting good people through the door.

The Freeman de-listing irked some but it seems obvious enough that he wasn't good enough, and good football clubs need to make hard decisions sometimes.

And so he's pulled a few levers and you have to be careful not to pull too many at once, especially if you want to get accurate feedback on cause and effect.

Incremental improvement is a lower risk approach.

[dragit]

I don't mind what Lethlean has brought, but I don't think it was that difficult a job to come in and basically kick heads when we were very much a basket case. I also have no doubt that he would have chopped Richo in the review process but for the contract extension, I imagine AFL HQ would have told him to hold fire for financial reasons. However I appreciate that he has brought in some experienced heads which we were in desperate need of.

You could argue that we paid too much for Hannebery as he was a serious salary dump for Sydney and his form has been down for 2 years and wasn't entertaining joining any other club.

I don't mind the Freeman delisting, but would have liked a little more info before the call was made in the form of a few more games when we had absolutely nothing to lose.

Ironically if we are talking about form being the deciding factor, Freeman & Dan's numbers were eerily similar if you look at 2018, so the form we thought was not good enough for a contract for Nathan is essentailly the same as the current form of a player we decided to recruit on a 5 year, 4 million dollar deal, clearly Hannebery has the runs on the board in the past, but can he re-gain the form that has alluded him for over 2 years?

[dragit]

Also I think the only way a well structured organisation functions properly is if each position is given the power to fulfill what they are employed to execute, as experts in their field.

If Lethlean is making calls on player contracts, and draft selections as reported, what is the point in having expert list managers, talent scouts, recruiting teams if someone is going to ride roughshod on all the big calls?

Did Liberatore really want Rozee and Lethlean made the call to take king instead? James Gallagher is head of list management, does he also get overruled if Simon disagrees with his decisions?

If these decisions turn out to be poor ones, I can't see Lethlean being around in 3 or 4 years time to answer for them.

[Cairnsman]

Apples and oranges comparing DH and NF.

[Scollop]

Apples and oranges comparing DH and NF.

Are you saying the experienced orange was carrying injuries and had niggles or was it the apple that had the physical and mental scarring from years of injury as well as a shoulder that needed surgery?

Personally I think people are quick to come up with meaningless cliches when they can't defend indisputable facts.

If you don't get rated as a player for your marks, goals, possessions, and tackles then what do you get judged on?

Hang on...I know...DH has a stronger voice, years of finals experience, plus he knows how to point and direct traffic better than NF. We are paying him to be a defacto captain coach aren't we?

No! Ok, so we are paying him because Lethlean said so. Let's wait and see how it all works out

[lewdogs]

Apples and oranges comparing DH and NF.

Are you saying the experienced orange was carrying injuries and had niggles or was it the apple that had the physical and mental scarring from years of injury as well as a shoulder that needed surgery?

Personally I think people are quick to come up with meaningless cliches when they can't defend indisputable facts.

If you don't get rated as a player for your marks, goals, possessions, and tackles then what do you get judged on?

Hang on...I know...DH has a stronger voice, years of finals experience, plus he knows how to point and direct traffic better than NF. We are paying him to be a defacto captain coach aren't we?

No! Ok, so we are paying him because Lethlean said so. Let's wait and see how it all works out

Just looking through DHs games from 2018, a lot were injury affected. Plenty with 40, 50, 60% game time. Now obviously he had a down year as well and his stats were well down on previous years, but it's a bit disingenuous to compare his stats to Freemans two games of footy.

2017 he had a down year too but still averaged 28 possessions a game.

I mean to compare the two is quite ludicrous when you really think about it.