All the talk this week of $800k for Buckley and young versus untried versus old versus experienced coaches got me to some thinking. (Yes, it hurts for us Territorians!).
I think there are some inherent risks in giving the gig to an untried coach with no coaching background. Freddie Fittler at the NRL Sydney Roosters is a perfect example. The club was battling and its one legend was retiring. He was viewed as a great fella, articulate and popular with the masses. He took the job with nothing to lose and his appointment inspired the team. The wins came amidst the euphoria of new energy and enthusiasm. But the improvement lacked substance and attention to the important stuff - team structures and disciplines. The enthusiasm waned and quickly Fittler was coaching a cellar dweller and fending off rumours that his career is in jeopardy. A false dawn - something we know a little bit about.
With the benefit of hindsight, we made the same mistake in choosing Wallace. We took the shiny, glittering object when our improvement required substance and grit. We fell for the trap of populism.
When thinking popular in AFL circles, almost nobody comes close to Buckley. Geez, for a Collingwood bloke I even like him! He makes sense on the tv and says the things that the average bloke in his armchair is thinking. But to be honest - it doesn't take a hard nosed genius to start bagging Jordan McMahon, but Bucks has drawn applause for it. Your mistakes aren't highlighted as a commentator, your creativity isn't tested, your relationship with those you chastise isn't important.
Many will make arguments for those who have made this work. Ratten is one - but has he ever had to maintain finals form in a team that isn't bringing in a raft of no.1 selections into their prime. Voss is another - but he's well and truly in honeymoon mode and is yet to face the Freddie Fittler test. Somebody recently noted that new coaches are judged on their 3rd year and not their 1st. I'd suggest that for every Ratten and Voss (as unproven and short term succesful as they have been) there's a Tim Watson and a Kevin Bartlett to counter it.
For these reasons, I think Buckley would be a poor choice. The last thing we should do in our desperation is to not learn from our mistakes. No more shiny, glittering objects I'd say.
Our preferred criteria needs to be:
1. Experience in coaching and/or assistant coaching in finals.
2. Exposure to more than one successful culture.
3. Psychological profile that shows determination, vision and a resistence to the temptation of populism.
4. Proven man management and communications skills (do not read as media skills) with a continual improvement purpose.
5. References that can attest to innovation and honest appraisal of performance.
For me, that leaves our major candidates as ...
1. Hardwick
2. Malthouse
3. Longmire
4. Daylight
It leaves out ...
1. Buckley
2. Cameron
3. Bond
4. Hinkley
Your thoughts?? Others that can be slotted into either the "in" or "out" categories??
