on the couch

[Elmer]

Clarkson actually does have a fair bit of influence over the Hawks drafting, he was behind Dew and supposedly Franklin

But in general I support the view that their is no need for the coach to necessarily have full control over recruiting. If you look internationally they have been examples where the dual coach/personnel manger role has worked when they are 'special'. But in other cases really successful coaches have been disastrous personal managers.

Often successful coaches can get control of personnel management as a contract clause. But Terry is no Alec Fegerson, we don't need to offer him anything other than a salary for coaching.

You're right. Coaches should have limited input, List Managers should be planning for long term, coaches may be coaching for "tomorrow" hence the demarcation between the two.

Despite all the hoopla about Hawthorn and their recruiting guru I don't really buy this separation theory.

International football (soccer) is not really comparable so not sure why it is applied? However in keeping with the argument line, many of the Premier League clubs that adopted the continental format of separate manager and director of football (list manager) are now dumping it. It hasn't helped them, however with no draft system and without significant spending power why would it? (Hence it not being applicable.)

Harry Redknapp previously turned down the Tottenham job as he wasn't prepared to let "someone else" pick his side. Harry joined only on the proviso they ditch the list manager, let him bring in his own players and live or die his way. And Harry aint no Fergie.

A key sticking point for Benitez to sign his new contract was this same issue. Try telling me Ferguson, Wenger or even O'Neil let others select the squad for them to choose the team. When Abromovitch started sticking his nose into recruitment/team selection with Mourinho he walked.

Back to AFL, who bought in Guerra and Chunk to Hawthorn? How could Chunk have fitted into any recruiters strict parameters? Unless that was to upset opposition shots at goal by changing the local gravitational pull and earths orbit.

The head coach/manager needs the backing of his football department to bring in the players he needs/wants to meet his vision. Otherwise what's the point? It is equally important however for the club to have strong leadership - football manager/head of football/list manager to set some parameters to avoid a myopic approach from the coach or long term damage to the list. (Obviously the board decision that the coach's vision is correct is the starting point)

An example here might be a JON. I bet Terry was all for a quick, super-agile speedy player and he fitted his run and carry vision. However he must rely on the head recruiter to ensure JON has the basic skills requirement: hit a target by foot, general awareness required etc to make it at AFL .

So do you blame Terry for fitting into his vision? Frank for saying he doesn't have the required skill set? Greg for saying he's a flanker that didn't meet either KPP or midfield long term requirements? Does the list manager provide the answer here?

If I remember correctly, the mail prior to the 2004 draft selection was Deledio, Tambling, Griffen, Roughead, Franklin etc. If it ran that way Hawthorn was getting the perceived 2nd best midfielder and second best KPP. (The dogs were committed to Griffen). It didn't take a genius to work out if they picked Roughead first at minimum they would get the best KPP and either the second best mid or second best KPP. A no- brainer.

In hindsight Franklin is the best KPP and Tambling ain't a gun midfielder but an element of luck always plays it part. We got dudded but how would a seperate list manager helped here? Most thought we got the two best mids. Hawthorn the two best KPP. It turned out Hawthorn did get two gun KPP, we didn't get two gun mids.

How would it have helped us not picking JON? Being able to hit a target and not being a nuffy on the field was presumably a minimum skill parameter. How did someone with such skill shortfalls make it into our top 10 potential draft chances anyway? Is this recruiter or list manager?

Running to copy Hawthorn's format is follow the leader stuff and destined to fail IMO. Hard to gain an advantage copying others when they’re further down the road.

We've been run on the smell of an oily rag for too long, too much left to too few. Richmond needs better leadership, higher calibre staff and much more of them. We've made some gains here lately. A strict list manager won’t solve these problems.

 

[TigerFurious]

I can't see how the senior coach can be kept at arms length from recruiting decisions. They live or die by the performances of the players they put on the park and because of this, deserve a say in recruiting.

Having said that, when it doesn't work they should be held accountable.

FWIW, I don't think the recruitment of Tambling in the 04' was a huge mistake. Most clubs would have picked him within the top 5 picks. What really hurt was taking Meyer at 12 (delisted), Pattison at 16 and Polo at 20. 5 picks inside 20 and only one decent player.

 

[benny_furs]

The RFC needs someone detatched, from a successful background that knows what it takes and will get instant respect from the youngsters not Wayne Campbell.

Also they must be a tough, relentless player who played in multiple premierships with a successful club and if possible, would be nice if they have a history of taking teams deep into finals playing rough, tough football.

Where did Terry Wallace come from again?

 

[Tigermad2005]

Who said you have to have success as a player to have success as a coach.
Clarkson did not have success as a player.
I have been saying now for a while that our players do not play for the coach but have been shot down.
So what does it matter if we have a coach who does not come from a background of success.
Maybe just maybe we should look away from football all togehter for our next coach.
But in saying that i hope Terry is at the clubs for years to come because that would mean that he and the club started winning.

 

[wayne]

I can't see how the senior coach can be kept at arms length from recruiting decisions. They live or die by the performances of the players they put on the park and because of this, deserve a say in recruiting.

McMuffin for pick 19 is reason enough to keep Wallet away from any recruiting/trade decisions.

 

[IanG]

I can't see how the senior coach can be kept at arms length from recruiting decisions. They live or die by the performances of the players they put on the park and because of this, deserve a say in recruiting.

They need a say, obviously there has to be some, or even a lot, of consultation, but they shouldn't be making the decisions. As has already been said McMahon is a clear reason why.