Horse

[Roadrunner]

I started following South in 59 at the old Lakeside oval in Albert Park. We were the only ground that had lights and while the top 4 teams played finals, the bottom 8 played for the Night Premiership. We won it as we were used to playing under lights- though we always had a few champion players like Skilts, we never had a very good team. Then we became the Sydney Swans and under Tommy Hafey of blessed memory an Edelsten( who was a mad Carlton supporter but knew his football) we brought in some great players like Capper, Healy, Williams, Nagle, Touhy ,Bolton etc and played terrific and exciting footy: we kicked 200 points many times and were rarely defensive. We could and should have won a flag or 2 with that team
After that era we went through very tough times until Plugger came, and we played exciting footy again and came so close in 96.
We then we needed to rebuild and succeeded with Roosy, culminating in our first flag in 2005
2006 and 2016 we could have and should have won the flag again, playing attractive, pressure football,
I don’t think there are any fundamental issues with our coaching staff- Horse’s record speaks for itself but Stevie J needs to show what he brings to the table.
I’m confident that the current rebuild will be for this year and maybe next only and then we will challenge again. But history proves we need a top ruckman, as play starts there! This must be addressed ASAP.
Long post but I feel for Horse as the buck stops with him, and he needs to stop being so defensive!

[Mel_C]

His response to Rohan's comments was unconvincing too.

What did he say about Rohan's comments?

[liz]

Re 1), I don't think it's that unusual to hear coaches explain plans that didn't work, or aspects of the game where their team was beaten, or things that need to improve. I don't listen to opposing coaches all the much, but I reckon I've heard Brad Scott, Buckley and Clarkson offer that kind of analysis.

I've also been following the Philadelphia 76ers basketball team quite closely, and Brett Brown often gives analytical reasons the team loss and, in particular, things he us responsible for changing.

How many of those comments you recall from Scott, Buckley or Clarkson came on the back of their team losing 6 matches out of 7 (and never really looking like winning any of those they lost)? After isolated, competitive losses I agree that tactical explanations might be relevant. But if Horse pondered tactical reasons for our current plight, he would quite rightly have a finger pointed at him and asked why he doesn't implement those tactical changes, rather than talk about them.

I have little doubt he and the other coaches are racking their brains trying to work out how to fix the issues. But, as I've commented previously, if there were simple solutions the team wouldn't be sitting where it is.

[Markwebbos]

I'm probably stating the obvious, but I think that this dip in performance (a dip, although not to this extent) was planned for and anticipated by the club. Although not communicated to the fans. And I have no idea how you handle rebuilding with the playing group.

The club's actions only make sense to me on the basis that they analysed the list, at some point last year, realised it wasn't going to win us another premiership, and got the axe out. They could have kept some or all of Hanners, Rohan, Newman, Towers, Marsh, etc and I thing it's almost certain, if they'd done that, we'd be doing better this year, with an older list, more players in the "zone" etc. Who knows, we might even have made the eight.

That we didn't do that implies a choice was made to start a clean out of those-who-won't-play-in-the-next-premiership and give more opportunities to the kids, in a side with a couple of experienced players on every line. Due to injuries - particularly in defence, it hasn't worked out that way.

I'm sure they'd be aware that the upside of having a down year, would be (1) a high draft pick (2) a soft draw. There's also the money they've saved on Hanners and others, which they may invest in a couple of handy players. They got in a couple of moneyball players in Clarke and Menzel (more for his experience I think).

I could be a wild conspiracy theorist. Or a wild optimist. The fact that Horse keeps citing "this isn't the same team" as a reason why its underperforming, surely means he's not totally perplexed by it. Although I'm sure we didn't expect to go quite this badly in 2019.

Another alternative is that they totally buggered up the salary cap. I hope not and noises from the club about there being money for players says not too.

[Merdo5555]

I'm probably stating the obvious, but I think that this dip in performance (a dip, although not to this extent) was planned for and anticipated by the club. Although not communicated to the fans. And I have no idea how you handle rebuilding with the playing group.

The club's actions only make sense to me on the basis that they analysed the list, at some point last year, realised it wasn't going to win us another premiership, and got the axe out. They could have kept some or all of Hanners, Rohan, Newman, Towers, Marsh, etc and I thing it's almost certain, if they'd done that, we'd be doing better this year, with an older list, more players in the "zone" etc. Who knows, we might even have made the eight.

That we didn't do that implies a choice was made to start a clean out of those-who-won't-play-in-the-next-premiership and give more opportunities to the kids, in a side with a couple of experienced players on every line. Due to injuries - particularly in defence, it hasn't worked out that way.

I'm sure they'd be aware that the upside of having a down year, would be (1) a high draft pick (2) a soft draw. There's also the money they've saved on Hanners and others, which they may invest in a couple of handy players. They got in a couple of moneyball players in Clarke and Menzel (more for his experience I think).

I could be a wild conspiracy theorist. Or a wild optimist. The fact that Horse keeps citing "this isn't the same team" as a reason why its underperforming, surely means he's not totally perplexed by it. Although I'm sure we didn't expect to go quite this badly in 2019.

Another alternative is that they totally buggered up the salary cap. I hope not and noises from the club about there being money for players says not too.

I think we buggered the salary cap up, getting Tippett followed by Buddy put too many eggs in the forward basket. Either deal by itself could have been absorbed in the cap not both. It was especially unwise when we have been heading towards a midfield dominated game for years. There is no doubt signing both cost us Mitchell. Whilst Mitchell has probably improved more than expected he was always a keeper because he added quality midfield depth where the game is generally won and lost.

My view is it also had a detrimental impact on the bloods culture which had been built on team. Compare with Hawthorn whose payers took a pay cut at the time to continue their success.

I can see why we went the way we did but i always thought it was too big a risk and that we were better off keeping and developing the players we had. Who knows what would have happened, maybe we wouldnt have played in 2 more Grand Finals. Even so I dont think the drop off would have been as great.

Hindight is wonderful but we have made some serious mis-steps that are now costing us dearly.

[Blood Fever]

I think we buggered the salary cap up, getting Tippett followed by Buddy put too many eggs in the forward basket. Either deal by itself could have been absorbed in the cap not both. It was especially unwise when we have been heading towards a midfield dominated game for years. There is no doubt signing both cost us Mitchell. Whilst Mitchell has probably improved more than expected he was always a keeper because he added quality midfield depth where the game is generally won and lost.

My view is it also had a detrimental impact on the bloods culture which had been built on team. Compare with Hawthorn whose payers took a pay cut at the time to continue their success.

I can see why we went the way we did but i always thought it was too big a risk and that we were better off keeping and developing the players we had. Who knows what would have happened, maybe we wouldnt have played in 2 more Grand Finals. Even so I dont think the drop off would have been as great.

Hindight is wonderful but we have made some serious mis-steps that are now costing us dearly.

Did you make your thoughts known at the time or is this another case of 'after the ball is over'?

[Snork]

I don't think any of us are unappreciative of the last 25 years of success, I just think before marking players papers, we need to give them a run in the senior side. How can we make a judgement on Cameron on the basis of one game? It was his first game of AFL and surely he had the right to be nervous? Kirky had a number of games where he didn't shoot the lights out but became a great? I believe Roosy giving him a run of consecutive games in the back end of 2002 was the making of him, so why not afford our current lads the same opportunity? I believe the frustration with Horse is that we seem to always defer to defence, why not use Millsy in the mids for a few games, full time and bugger his value in the backline, replace him with Stoddart and COR now Cunningham is out for a period, nothing to lose and have faith in the kids we have drafted? I actually think our game plan has changed markedly from the last few years and that is why we are turning it over, confidence is the problem not skill.

[mcs]

I think we buggered the salary cap up, getting Tippett followed by Buddy put too many eggs in the forward basket. Either deal by itself could have been absorbed in the cap not both. It was especially unwise when we have been heading towards a midfield dominated game for years. There is no doubt signing both cost us Mitchell. Whilst Mitchell has probably improved more than expected he was always a keeper because he added quality midfield depth where the game is generally won and lost.

My view is it also had a detrimental impact on the bloods culture which had been built on team. Compare with Hawthorn whose payers took a pay cut at the time to continue their success.

I can see why we went the way we did but i always thought it was too big a risk and that we were better off keeping and developing the players we had. Who knows what would have happened, maybe we wouldnt have played in 2 more Grand Finals. Even so I dont think the drop off would have been as great.

Hindight is wonderful but we have made some serious mis-steps that are now costing us dearly.

I get the point - but just how do you say no when the power forward of his generation comes a knockin' and says he wants to play at your footy club?

No doubt we never expected Buddy to come calling when we signed Tippett.

[waswan]

We have money, we offloaded Hannas and Rohan, brought in cheapies and threw money at Langdon and Moore.
We didnt get the last 2 and both those offers had to be at least 500k.
Mitchell leaving was ok at the time and people here are kidding themselves if you think he would have won a Brownlow under Horse.
He plays his own game at Hawks, never concerned about an opponent, Horse would have given him 20 instructions on gameday about what to and not to do.
Like i was saying with Walsh, if Sydney had him he would be a HFF for 2 yrs at least

Over coaching a poor defensive game plan

[Roadrunner]

I don’t know where you get that from waswan. Mitchell is a gun full stop. Clearly we wanted to keep him, and Horse said so at the time, but he wanted more money than we had. I don’t know if the players were asked if they would take a cut. Recruiting Tippet and then getting Buddy who wanted us were great moves and led to exciting football. Losing COLA was the problem, not the club’s management. I blame Eddie and AFL for the situation we’re in, and I hope our culture and our supporters will enable us to rise again!!

[waswan]

He was considered the 5th beatle at the time and was lowballed.
It was the right choice at the time, we just made a GF and something had to give.
Had he stayed Longmire would not had given him as long a leash as Clarkson

[caj23]

Whispers around the Murray where Horse grew up are that a mutual decision has already been made and Horse is heading back to Victoria next year

Not sure how reputable the rumours are (or whether locals are just parroting media reports) but have now heard from multiple sources

[Roadrunner]

Sorry waswan, I think you’re wrong there. He was good enough to get his own ball most of the time- no leash was ever needed or applied.
He left for more money-it was obvious- he was always an automatic pick in our team, not a 5th beatle!

[waswan]

He was always considered the 5th Midfielder and surplus. Which was the right call at the time
27 possessions a game 2015 and 2016 and highest Fairest and Best finish was 8th.
What we would now do in hindsight with a 22yr old that can get it 27 times

[MattW]

How many of those comments you recall from Scott, Buckley or Clarkson came on the back of their team losing 6 matches out of 7 (and never really looking like winning any of those they lost)? After isolated, competitive losses I agree that tactical explanations might be relevant. But if Horse pondered tactical reasons for our current plight, he would quite rightly have a finger pointed at him and asked why he doesn't implement those tactical changes, rather than talk about them.

I have little doubt he and the other coaches are racking their brains trying to work out how to fix the issues. But, as I've commented previously, if there were simple solutions the team wouldn't be sitting where it is.

Ok. I think we're debating at cross purposes a little bit. My original point, effectively, was the John is suggesting our faults are hardness and commitment, but seemed at a loss to address it. My observation is that there are signs suggesting the coaching is losing its effectiveness and direction a bit, from John down.

I don't want to become too critical, I know they're all trying and I want them to do well, obviously. Hopefully, we break through on Friday night.