-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Wallace's Fifth year of his Contract
- Thread starter Tiger Fang
- Start date
people talk about rebuilds what rebuilds.i havent seen a complete rebuild since the seventies. all this talk about stating again sheesh we have barely begun mainly because we have been so inept the last 4 yrs in the two most critical areas of any footy club recruiting and list management.
with so many early picks recruiting has been ordinary, list management has been nonexistant.
ask yourelves about player type while you are at it.
wallace has basically failed because he has ignored list deficiencies. we are still in full on rebuild mode because we keep on ignoring bloody list deficiencies.
its wallaces basic thinking and his inability to change his thinking that is killing us. a team full of lightweights does not work a team lacking height size and strength does not work. teams that lack basic kicking skills lose. its one thing to be bloody pacey its another getting your mitts on the pill in tight situations.
playing blokes who have chronic deficiencies does not work nor does it mean if you play them they will improve for the obvious reasons. instead of persevering with these players he should be culling them.
one reason why a review is badly needed or paramount is wallaces failure to adapt. the way hes going about it is clearly not working yet he perseveres. some one has to stand up and say your bloody wrong terry we need to change it around.especially if he is to stay.
this happened at geelong and it worked. although thompson was under the microscope because he was failing with a list that was clearly very good.
heres a list of players we could have taken thru the last 4 drafts if we had just used the picks we were originally given its done as always with me, with list structure primarily the objective.
a lot of these players i had pencilled in. a lot i pencilled in draft day as the draft progressed.and some are hindsight. all were available at our pick. and there was multiple options in most cases. anyway all up a ratio of something close to 12 kpps 4 rucks and 11 mids.depending on one or two variations.
1 deledio. 4 franklin lewis. 12 monfries bate. 16 wood. 20 rusling gibson. 36 sherman. 51 taylor. 64 m johnson.
8 hurn. 24 hughes. 40 warnock. casserly. 56 m west. 8 n brown. 26 mackenzie edwards . 42 houli. 51 putt. 58 allen. 60 connors. 73 collins. 2 cotchin. 18 rance. 19 selwood. 35 morton. 51 mcginnity. 67 gourdis.
anyway thats my ake wallace and miller have failed big time in the two most important areas of the club the two areas that ultimately decides if you sink or swim. the real sad thing is imo we have as many as 25 to turn over if not more if after 4 yrs this was down to 10 or 12 you could live with it. its because of this i ask have we really improved much at all.
with so many early picks recruiting has been ordinary, list management has been nonexistant.
ask yourelves about player type while you are at it.
wallace has basically failed because he has ignored list deficiencies. we are still in full on rebuild mode because we keep on ignoring bloody list deficiencies.
its wallaces basic thinking and his inability to change his thinking that is killing us. a team full of lightweights does not work a team lacking height size and strength does not work. teams that lack basic kicking skills lose. its one thing to be bloody pacey its another getting your mitts on the pill in tight situations.
playing blokes who have chronic deficiencies does not work nor does it mean if you play them they will improve for the obvious reasons. instead of persevering with these players he should be culling them.
one reason why a review is badly needed or paramount is wallaces failure to adapt. the way hes going about it is clearly not working yet he perseveres. some one has to stand up and say your bloody wrong terry we need to change it around.especially if he is to stay.
this happened at geelong and it worked. although thompson was under the microscope because he was failing with a list that was clearly very good.
heres a list of players we could have taken thru the last 4 drafts if we had just used the picks we were originally given its done as always with me, with list structure primarily the objective.
a lot of these players i had pencilled in. a lot i pencilled in draft day as the draft progressed.and some are hindsight. all were available at our pick. and there was multiple options in most cases. anyway all up a ratio of something close to 12 kpps 4 rucks and 11 mids.depending on one or two variations.
1 deledio. 4 franklin lewis. 12 monfries bate. 16 wood. 20 rusling gibson. 36 sherman. 51 taylor. 64 m johnson.
8 hurn. 24 hughes. 40 warnock. casserly. 56 m west. 8 n brown. 26 mackenzie edwards . 42 houli. 51 putt. 58 allen. 60 connors. 73 collins. 2 cotchin. 18 rance. 19 selwood. 35 morton. 51 mcginnity. 67 gourdis.
anyway thats my ake wallace and miller have failed big time in the two most important areas of the club the two areas that ultimately decides if you sink or swim. the real sad thing is imo we have as many as 25 to turn over if not more if after 4 yrs this was down to 10 or 12 you could live with it. its because of this i ask have we really improved much at all.
I know it's raking over old ground but it'd be curious to know if the coaching committee were at all aware 4 years ago that TW wasn't going to reprise his 'Year of the Dogs' approach in his next (this) appointment.
Agree Red. Was there 2 of him? or was it Strauchnie (got a clearance from collingwood did he?) ;DRedford said:
Redford said:
Yep. He had a shocker in round 1 but has got himself fit and rose to the occasion in Judd's absence(oh *smile* I just remembered he didn't play :-[).
That forward line smother on Newman and goal assist was top shelf.
After nearly 4 years, Wallace has not achieved what Frawley has in 4 years when it comes to final results considering we had more duds under Frawley (admittedly more experienced than our kids now).
I reckon a final decision on Wallace should be made more on what we do at season end with trades, delistings and draft picks, rather than ladder results. Unfortunately, this will make or break 2009 before it even starts.
I supported him last season when he took a more realistic view at where we're at and then publicly stated that we won't succeed until 2011, but after recruiting another skinny player for pick 19 later in the season, it clearly shows that he and Miller break more promises than governments do.
I reckon a final decision on Wallace should be made more on what we do at season end with trades, delistings and draft picks, rather than ladder results. Unfortunately, this will make or break 2009 before it even starts.
I supported him last season when he took a more realistic view at where we're at and then publicly stated that we won't succeed until 2011, but after recruiting another skinny player for pick 19 later in the season, it clearly shows that he and Miller break more promises than governments do.
TigerForce said:
THIS is the interesting one. Wallace is in the last year of a five year contract and MUST get enough wins to play finals to get an extension. If the club drafts kids then they will not have any impact until 2010 or later. So even though the club desparately needs big bodied kids for the future Terry needs players for the immediate impact.
Who will call the shots, Cameron or Wallace, the Board or Miller?
Will Wallace be allowed to get trades done, even for high draft picks, to gain experienced players to protect his job?
tiger12 said:
Tommy Hafey spoke about a similar thing on Saturday night. He said he really didn't want to coach Collingwood, and was actually headed to Perth, but he looked at the Pie list and thought it was too good for them to be on the bottom of the ladder. He took on the job and lifted them, in one season, from wooden spooners to grand finalists. A good coach can make a massive difference. A good coach and motivator with an understanding of the game and an ability to implement a game plan can make dreams come true.
AH Rosy I wish this long suffering tiger fan s dreams get fulfiled at some point.After saturday can things get any worse.I feel like the club is jogging on the spot.
Tommy is a legend who I wish the club would encourage to become more involved.All this talk about him being too old is pure "hog wash"if he can or is willing to contribute let him do it.he didnt coach 4 premierships because he was an idiot
Tommy is a legend who I wish the club would encourage to become more involved.All this talk about him being too old is pure "hog wash"if he can or is willing to contribute let him do it.he didnt coach 4 premierships because he was an idiot
evo said:
Still not blooding enough kids evo, and still recruiting some very ordinary players. And the half decent ones we recruit are stifled by an extremely poor development culture. And he's also still relying on proven failures and expecting different results. Isn't that the definition of insane? Doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result.
But the big thing is the style of play, the skill level and application in big games. None of these factors has really improved under Wallace, certainly not on a consistent basis. We're still watching the same indecisive, stop start, chip sideways and backwards *smile*. We're still watching duds who can't consistently hit a target 20 metres away under no pressure. We're still watching the same insipid and pitiful performances in big games on big occassions.
Wallace has had 4 years to make inroads into these key areas and also inroads into the losing culture and mindset of the club. I can't see any real evidence that it's happening. After nearly four years I think we're entitled to expect some improvement. It's disappointing as I really thought he was the right man for the job. The evidence so far says he aint.
Tigers of Old said:
There's your answers evo; doesn't make great reading does it. In some ways these categories can be very symptomatic of the character of a team and the way it approaches its footy. They seem a pretty good reflection for where we are at.
My biggest beefs with Waalace are as follows
1) Our style of play. Over his tenure the entire presmise of the Wallace footprint is the LMID. We are nothing more then a counter attack side. You get the ball give it back to us and we will (supposedly) run back past you at a rate of knots. Our entire attack is based on giving the ball up first to get it back. ANd we get it back through a turnover, not a chase or tackle or forward pressure. Not we will get the ball first. FOr our game plan to work we need to not get the ball at the clearance. Now that has changed a little this year but in the biggest and most important game of the year (forget the SHeedy 2007 game it had no bearing on anything, Saturday's game was a game that mattered for finals) we are three goals down and have a loose man in defence and are not trying to win the game when there is under 2 goals the difference. In year 4 expected us to have a attacking gamplan built on winning the ball and using it by foot with class and style. That is not happening. Why? See below
2) Every year we have to bring in a overpriced offcast instead of biting the bullet and using all picks on kids.
3) And then the kids we do pick we don't play and give games away to unless they are the exception to the rule like Deledio and Cothcin or our hand is forced (through poor list management and injury) like Pattison and McGuane. And then the ones we are forced to play are the wrong types because they don't allow us to play a classy style of football that wins games as I described in point 1.
It is one big unhappy circle of being a average side with no skill, no game plan and not enough classy youngsters coming through.
1) Our style of play. Over his tenure the entire presmise of the Wallace footprint is the LMID. We are nothing more then a counter attack side. You get the ball give it back to us and we will (supposedly) run back past you at a rate of knots. Our entire attack is based on giving the ball up first to get it back. ANd we get it back through a turnover, not a chase or tackle or forward pressure. Not we will get the ball first. FOr our game plan to work we need to not get the ball at the clearance. Now that has changed a little this year but in the biggest and most important game of the year (forget the SHeedy 2007 game it had no bearing on anything, Saturday's game was a game that mattered for finals) we are three goals down and have a loose man in defence and are not trying to win the game when there is under 2 goals the difference. In year 4 expected us to have a attacking gamplan built on winning the ball and using it by foot with class and style. That is not happening. Why? See below
2) Every year we have to bring in a overpriced offcast instead of biting the bullet and using all picks on kids.
3) And then the kids we do pick we don't play and give games away to unless they are the exception to the rule like Deledio and Cothcin or our hand is forced (through poor list management and injury) like Pattison and McGuane. And then the ones we are forced to play are the wrong types because they don't allow us to play a classy style of football that wins games as I described in point 1.
It is one big unhappy circle of being a average side with no skill, no game plan and not enough classy youngsters coming through.
Ridley said:
Unfortunately, Ridley is 200% correct.
4 years should be long enough to shape your list,
4 years should be long enough to teach your game styles,
4 years should be long enough to improve our bloody skill level,
4 years should be long enough to develop the youngsters,
4 years should be long enough to make the finals.
Looks like 4 is going to be Terry's unlucky number, because I can't see him lasting his 5th year.