Ratts went ok getting the Saints into the finals but coaching them is no different to coaching us, especially culture-wise and they eventually got him. Saints gave him a new contract then took that away a month later to get Lyon, who has done bugger all. They are as bad a club to coach as us. Ratts got to coach the two worst possible side culture-wise. Could have done alot worse performance-wise.
Whether or not this is true, Ratts has to wear a fair bit of blame IMO. He would know the Carlton culture like the back of his hand. No one put a gun to his head. I imagine he knew what he was getting himself into. At the Saints, he had several months under Richardson prior to being appointed caretaker, then full time. It's a toss of the coin whether you could cut him some slack at St Kilda, but he certainly wasn't coming in cold, like most of our recent coaches.
He is an exceptional talent and great to watch when he is in the groove. Hopefully he can overcome his demons have a great life. Would still love him back with us when ready. Fingers crossed for the young man.
Hmmm, Baggers, this discussion could unravel fairly quickly, but I'm not sure about your hypothesis. I would as a general rule separate out the older era from the professional era. I suspect the chance for an individual to make a difference was greater in the amateur era, with smaller football departments, no real coaching groups and the like. The coach probably was the man in those days. But IMO, times have changed. Selecting some of those names purely at random, Parkin was sacked at least twice, if not more, so I'm not sure he had an impact across his career, and the recent Geelong and Hawthorn names that you mention are always part of a larger group that collectively have an impact. Brian Cook is now at Carlton, and you can see it's only taken a few years of his tenure before the standard CFC behavior rears its head. Same person, different organization, which is kind of my point.
That is the unknowable, Pauly, and such an assumption would be illogical to the extreme. But what we do know is that under Fly in this hypothetical, we would have had a different game plan and a different kind of leadership, and from there... who knows.
I disagree Baggers. In a complex system like a football club, one person cannot make that much of a difference. We’ve seen this often enough. There is an interplay between the individual and the group/ organisation. They affect and transform each other to varying degrees. I’m not suggesting in any way that a coach makes no difference, but the balance of power is very much with the organisation, and the organisation shapes the individual a lot more than the other way round.
I should also add that I don’t believe our culture is c r a p. I think we’ve built some good foundations in the last few years, but there are clearly some pieces of the puzzle that are missing.
After 9 or 10 separate attempts, the “wrong bloke” ship has well and truly sailed. Are people seriously believing that if McRae was our coach we would be sitting 13-2 on the ladder?
A coach's previous record is one factor among several that need to be considered. That's obvious. What is much harder is to evaluate the weighting that one gives to such a record, taking into account several other variables.
Denis Pagan's record before Carlton was outstanding. Not just the NM seniors, but their U/19's, Essendon reserves, Yarraville. It's literally one premiership / finals appearance after another. Then one day it seems his unerring navigational sense deserted him, and he got stranded in the Bermuda Triangle for a few years, where capsizings, disappearances, lost players and other mysterious events have people to this day scratching their heads.
Baggers, a couple of my own thoughts in relation to this :
- I'd suggest like all senior coaches, Voss' apprenticeship started as a player, and progressed from there : Robert Walls, then Leigh Matthews, then Worsfold for a couple of years, then Hinkley. It's not a bad group. Voss has been quite open about his close and excellent relationship with Mathews, and the influence on his career as a player and coach - Also worth comparing his win/loss at Brisbane and Carlton, it shows the capacity to grow, improve and learn from one's mistakes, unlike Ratts for example. - I would suggest that another sacking is not just about perception and bad optics, but rather, is a root cause of the limited success we've experienced in the last 20 years.
see, you're an optimist just like this sucker little black duck.
Okay, let's get our recruiting team to locate some Catholic priests, Orthodox Greek, Russian and Jewish priests, hec, throw in a Sharman or two, coupla Buddhist monks... mmm, maybe not our recruiting team
We all get the s h i t s and get disillusioned from time to time, but in the long term being optimistic and hopeful is the only way IMO.
I really don't have anything to add to what has already been said. There's a number of reasons why we have gone so pair shaped, it's not a simple fix. Whoever can fix this mess deserves the keys to the city and a bronze statue outside PP.
If you know any good exorcists, now might be a good time to get in touch.
Although not all his fault, this does not bode well: FACT: Michael Voss has coached 194 games for 88 wins, 104 losses, and two draws. His 45.88% win percentage is the second-worst among active coaches who have coached at least 40 games. I didn't actually realise his he's record was that bad.
You could look overall, or focus only on his record at Carlton. Both are reasonable IMO. As I type, Carlton only it's 53.53%, better than Ratten.
We arent good enough so the reason we arent good enough isnt because we arent good enough, some external factor is imposing an artifical restraint to make us look bad.
Remove the restraint, and all will be rosy.
Same old Carlton arrogance thinking we are or entitled to be, better than we are.
Thing is, its sometimes as simple as, we are not going well (theres enough evidence there to say we arent in good condition) and rather than accepting that, we need to "fix it" because old Carlton knew how to fix things, and in our hubris, we can fix it.
Thing is, game plans are game plans. There are finite things you can do in tactics. Everything old will become new again, and right now, the run and gun game style is "modern footy" with scores off intercept and rebound currently being the way to hit the opponent.
Who played like that? Ratten.
We dont play like this, because our squads outside game is significantly hindered by players being broken down. All our creative and running types are well down on their best so we have to stick with what our strength is, and try and generate scores that way, because we dont have another mode we can go to.
Also Teague.
So it's a kind of retro revival thing ?
IMO, you play whichever way gives you the best chance of winning regularly. Part of that is list, part is coaching, part is injury etc. If we managed to hit our targets and get more efficient, and more cohesion with players being on the park for longer, our game style would be fine. The idea that Voss doesn't understand "the modern game" or is too stubborn to embrace it, is IMO, nonsense.
There's no doubt that changes in players physical attributes, skills, endurance over time, changes in rules etc., will undoubtedly have a downstream effect to how the game is played. Beyond that, I'm not sure there's such a thing as the "modern game" that sits in opposition to or in conflict with the "outdated" game.
Interestingly from Nick Haynes - not just the usual it’s on us but a step further to say vfl time…. Maybe he’s a leader…?
The veteran defender believes it’s up to the players – himself included – to execute Voss’ gameplan better and for longer. And if they can’t, then a stint in the VFL might help ram the message home.
He's been a good pick up IMO, and dirt cheap too I would imagine.
I agree but it will take a miracle for them not to act. It’s not the first sign of trouble IMO.
IMO, we need to break this cycle which has only produced minor improvements, and we may as well start with the coach that has given us our best results in 20 years, and a certain amount of success, albeit rather modest.
I would defy anyone to make a compelling case for why Horse or Simpson or anyone else will have more success, why the players won’t “switch off” after a couple of years with them etc. They won’t be able to, because a case doesn’t exist, unless of course your strategy is “we have to try something “, which isn’t actually a strategy.
