The story has been well worn, Wallace left the Dogs to coach Sydney, after Eade had quit mid season and Roos took over as caretaker coach.
The Tigers played the Swans in Round 22 that year out at Homebush and gave us a nice old touch up. The crowd had banners everywhere pleading for Roos to be signed up as coach... people power won!
Wallace, allegedly, was paid for 2 years and worked in the media, before his amended agreement with Sydney ended and he took the job of coaching Richmond.
My question is, if the Swans had honoured the original agreement and kept Wallace as coach, would they have been as successful as they have been over the last couple of years?
They have made the finals in each of his 'full' seasons as coach, even losing a preliminary final to the eventual premiers the Lions in 2003.
The culture that Roos has instilled into the group and his gameplan are vastly different to that of Wallace, so how different would the Swans be if he had the job?
The Tigers played the Swans in Round 22 that year out at Homebush and gave us a nice old touch up. The crowd had banners everywhere pleading for Roos to be signed up as coach... people power won!
Wallace, allegedly, was paid for 2 years and worked in the media, before his amended agreement with Sydney ended and he took the job of coaching Richmond.
My question is, if the Swans had honoured the original agreement and kept Wallace as coach, would they have been as successful as they have been over the last couple of years?
They have made the finals in each of his 'full' seasons as coach, even losing a preliminary final to the eventual premiers the Lions in 2003.
The culture that Roos has instilled into the group and his gameplan are vastly different to that of Wallace, so how different would the Swans be if he had the job?