Pay attention Roos

[Sanecow]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm with Roosy

Originally posted by Young Blood
That's not the point. I'm saying that Roos, Craig and Worsfold would do better with any given team than Pagan or Sheedy would with the same
group.

But it's just opinion, not like the cold, hard fact of Premierships in the cabinet.

[SimonH]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Nonsense. Pagan and Sheedy could coach the 2006 Sydney, Adelaide or West Coast lists to victories over Carlton or Essendon any week you want to try it out. Moreover, Sheedy has coached his rabble to multiple victories over Sydney this year.

1. Your statement doesn't rebut the point you were responding to. The fact that I would back myself to coach Sydney to a R22 victory over Carlton, doesn't mean that I'm a better coach than Roos (or Pagan). Hint for argument construction: your statement would be valid if you could prove that a Pagan-coached Swans would beat a Roos-coached Carlton by a greater margin than if they were sitting in their usual seats.

2. The 'more premierships = better coach' formula is appealingly simplistic, and like most things that are appealingly simplistic, it doesn't withstand analysis. It demonstrates a huge bias in favour of the long-serving coach, which in turn favours those who:
a) don't want to go in, do a job for a few years, and leave, and
b) are able to work the internal politics of their club to avoid sacking.
Neither of which are good guides of a given person's likelihood of bringing Sydney a premiership in the, say, 2007-2009 period. If raw premiership numbers is the only criteria, then why shouldn't Sydney appoint Jock McHale as its new coach? Oh, they have to be living, do they? Now you're just cluttering up the formula with unnecessary complications. Even within the realms of the simplistic, then the proportion of premierships:years coached is a far better measure. (Roos wins that one over Sheedy easily, with a ratio of 1:3 as opposed to roughly 1:6.25). But in truth there are so many other confounding factors (club finances, quality of cattle when the coach arrives, length and cost of contracts for existing cattle when coach arrives, level of control given to the coach in getting new cattle, injuries, etc etc) that it's an impressionistic exercise that can't be reduced to numbers.

3. You really are a huge fan of the pre-season cup, aren't you? Is it because you can see some correlation between results in it, and regular-season results, that isn't apparent to the rest of us? Or do you think it's just an important end in itself?

[Tuco]

Originally posted by liz
The Mooney and Davis situations are not identical. Geelong are frustrated with Mooney's onfield transgressions, relatively minor, though clearly of some consequence, acts of undisciplined aggression.

Although the "form and fitness" line was trotted out with Davis, it seems pretty clear that there was slightly more to it with Davis, and that he has not always adhered to club rules designed to ensure he and his team mates always front up in the best possible shape for a match. None of us - not the Davis apologists; not the Roos apologists - actually knows the extent or persistance of these issues but even Davis has acknowledged that they do (or did) exist.

Further, Mooney has been a consistently good onfield performer this year for Geelong. He would almost certainly be in their top 5 in their B&F this year. Notwithstanding the fact that Davis in undoubtedly capable of flashes of brilliance that few, if any, of the other Swans are able to produce, we saw it so rarely this year up to the point he was dropped that it is not a no-brainer that the team is currently better with him in than without him.

I think Liz sums this up well.

Geelong are a club under pressure. They've failed to perform to the expectations loaded on them in the pre-season. And Cam's suspension led to a lot of offield calls for the club to take a stance - especially as his latest infringement could potentially have ended their hopes of making the finals.

In Davis's case there wasn't a media campaign against him in particular. However, there was definitely a number of changes on the offing due to some below par performances by the team as a whole.

To say that the way Thompson handled Cam's suspension is a template for what should have happened in the Davis case doesn't really equate for mind

[Young Blood]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm with Roosy

Originally posted by Sanecow
But it's just opinion, not like the cold, hard fact of Premierships in the cabinet.

It's notoriously difficult to measure quality of performance.

If you choose to use number of premierships as your measure of 'current best coach', then you have to stand by Kevin Sheedy as #1 and Denis Pagan as #3. I think those results demonstrate that the measure is no good.

[Sanecow]

Since 2002, Leigh Matthews, Mark Williams and Neil Craig have better win % than Roos and Leigh Matthews and Mark Williams have the same number or more premierships. These coaches all have performed better than Roos over the same period.

Source

[FootyontheBrain]

So let me get this straight. Roosy's supposed to pay attention to the musings of Mark Thompson and the consistently underachieving Geelong Cats?

Maybe we could set up a conference call with Grant Thomas and Chris Connolly for some of their pearls of wisdom while we're at it.

[Young Blood]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Since 2002, Leigh Matthews, Mark Williams and Neil Craig have better win % than Roos and Leigh Matthews and Mark Williams have the same number or more premierships. These coaches all have performed better than Roos over the same period.

i think you've identified the top 4 coaches of the period.
Matthews coached an all-star team to 3 consecutive flags. He got as much out of that group as you could hope for.
Williams took Port to 3 consecutive McLelland Trophies, but made it to only one GF, which they deservedly won.
Craig is developing a similar record in home and away matches, but the Crows failed in his only finals foray so far.
Roos' home and away record is not as strong as that of Williams or Craig, but he took his team to the flag in the first year they were genuine contenders.

I don't agree that Williams and Craig have performed better simply because they have better win %s.

[Sanecow]

Roos is best 'coz me and me mates reckon he's tops an' that.

Well, 0 / 10 for any facts backing your claim.

[Young Blood]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Roos is best 'coz me and me mates reckon he's tops an' that.

Well, 0 / 10 for any facts backing your claim.

Why don't you think about what people have said before diving in with putdowns? I didn't say I think Roos is the best, I just said that I'm not convinced by your use of statistics to suggest that he's not as good as others.

I don't think its clear whether Roos is a better coach than Craig or Williams, and I definitely don't think that you can prove it one way or another by using highly imperfect indicators of performance. In some areas of life, facts can only get you so far.

[Sanecow]

Well @@@@ me, if you don't consider win % or premierships as a measurement, then what is it he's meant to be doing exactly? Making good wise cracks at press conferences? Trotting around in tracky dacks?

[Young Blood]

Originally posted by Sanecow
Well @@@@ me, if you don't consider win % or premierships as a measurement, then what is it he's meant to be doing exactly?

Still going with the smart arse remarks?

The question you answered wasn't 'What is a coach's objective?' but rather 'How should his performance be assessed?'

Not long ago, you were saying that Pagan and Sheedy could coach the 2006 Sydney, Adelaide or West Coast lists to victories over Carlton or Essendon. Your point seemed to be that the strength of the playing list is relevant to determining how to assess a coach's performance. Now you seem to be saying that its only the results of the team that matter.

Let me ask you this: who has been the better coach in 2006: Terry Wallace or Mark Thompson?

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Young Blood
The question you answered wasn't 'What is a coach's objective?' but rather 'How should his performance be assessed?'

What is the difference? He is there to coach a team to wins and ultimately win Premierships. Therefore, the win % and number of premierships won are the only meaningful measurements of success. Paul Roos is not the best performer over the period of his coaching record.

Obviously team lists have an effect. Roos has not been around long enough for us to see how he would coach a poor team (and the current list is far from poor despite the spin he likes to give to impress upon everyone how great he is for getting a "blue collar" team to succeed).

This is why many rate career coaches with multiple premierships higher than a flash-in-the-pan who perhaps arses one early. Roos is no more a great coach than Ryan Fitzgerald was a great full forward (5 goals on debut, woot!)

[Young Blood]

Originally posted by Sanecow
What is the difference? He is there to coach a team to wins and ultimately win Premierships. Therefore, the win % and number of premierships won are the only meaningful measurements of success.

I'll finish where I started. I think these are reasonable measures when reviewing a coach's career, but not when determining who is the better coach at a given point in time.

BTW, if you do want to use your approach, it's a bit unfair to include the 2002 premiership in Roos' period, given we were out of contention for the flag by the time he took over. So Roos would be level with Matthews and Williams (on one premiership each) as the 'best coach' of his era. But I wouldn't use your approach.

And if you want to compare Roos to a player, then I think Chris Judd would be a better analogy: both performed extremely well in their first two years, before winning the highest possible accolade (Brownlow/GF) in year 3.

[Sanecow]

I'm yet to read any alternative method of rating a coach from the Paul Roos is #1 brigade.

[swannymum]

Originally posted by Sanecow
I'm yet to read any alternative method of rating a coach from the Paul Roos is #1 brigade.

Why the frequent attacks on Roosy?? He's doing a great job and nobody is perfect. And for that matter, why the attacks over recent weeks over our premiership players. We all have our off days!!

Can anyone here claim to be perfect??