Dont do it rockett

[barry]

Rodney eade is now being linked with the bulldogs.

Terrible move for Rockett. No chance of ever winning a flag with that lot (for list reasons, and money reasons), and they are only offering $180K

I think its madness that Terry Wallace is getting the pick of the coaching jobs ahead of Eade.

[Tilt]

However it's prob $180k more than he's earning now.

[Damien]

Originally posted by Tilt
However it's prob $180k more than he's earning now.

Eade is doing fine without coaching.

Dangerous job for him to take - but I think if he made them at least competitve, it would prove what a good coach he is.

[boroboy]

He won't get the Hawks, Tigers or Bulldogs job....in fact I'd go as far to say he won't coach a senior team again.

[cruiser]

Originally posted by boroboy
He won't get the Hawks, Tigers or Bulldogs job....in fact I'd go as far to say he won't coach a senior team again.

Why do you say that? Was he that unpopular with players and/or club officials at Sydney?

[boroboy]

I'm just not convinced he impressed too many people at the end of his tenure at the Swans, and some of the media work he did soon after...and whilst he's recognised as an innovative coach, he 's also recognised as one of the old school who 'motivates by fear - whereas more clubs are turning towards the 'Paul Roos' model of leadership.

My tip - which will no doubt be totally wrong - Pick 2 from Wallace, Harvey and O'Donnell to pick up the Tigers and Hawks with Ayres or Libba at the Dogs.

[NMWBloods]

I think he should take whatever senior gig he can get if he ever wants to resurrect his coaching career. For some reason people are quite negative on his coaching ability and he needs to change that. A few years at Bulldogs if he does well and changes his style to be a bit more moderate could do that. I think he has the potential to be one of the best coaches in the competition, but he perhaps needs to make a few changes of his style and his perception, which I think he can.

[Rob-bloods]

Originally posted by boroboy
I'm just not convinced he impressed too many people at the end of his tenure at the Swans, and some of the media work he did soon after...and whilst he's recognised as an innovative coach, he 's also recognised as one of the old school who 'motivates by fear - whereas more clubs are turning towards the 'Paul Roos' model of leadership.

My tip - which will no doubt be totally wrong - Pick 2 from Wallace, Harvey and O'Donnell to pick up the Tigers and Hawks with Ayres or Libba at the Dogs.

With all due respect, are Wallace and Harvey (plus O'Donnell I suppose mentored by the original hard man), "new school'? Wallace behind the scenes for the Dogs was supposedly brutal and not appreciated by everyone. Harvey is a hard football nut, hardly a Rhodes scholar.
Part of Eades problem is he is analytical and still based in Sydney. Wallace has been re-promoting himself through the media tirelessly. It is why Rohde could never survive?.coaching is now a cult of personality, second only to results. It is what Tim Watson did prior to getting the St Kilda job and stuffing that up, it?s easy to read the news and spout opinions (we all do that on RWO, well, not read the news) but it?s hard to get a 38 man list into the finals.

I would say I am not a great Eade fan even, but I just do not think Wallace is a much better prospect.

[Old Royboy]

Whoever takes the Footscray job is on a hiding to nothing ? under payed, understaffed and under resourced. I would be very surprised if Eade took that job, more likely a desperado like Royal or Libba.

Why the press keeps throwing up Eade and Ayres is beyond me ? both are failed and sacked coaches. For the last couple of years under Eade I felt we were a good team playing like @@@@, and Roos came in and proved that to be true. Anyone who takes Eade may have some short term success due to his tactical smarts, but long term pain because he is no man manager.

Wallace is a totally different kettle of fish ? whilst the guy is so up himself it?s not funny, he did get a pretty ordinary team to two prelim finals.

The only sacked coach worth approaching is Stan Alves (victim of St Kilda politics) but he was too traumatised by the Saints to ever consider coaching again, which I consider a great pity.

[Charlie]

It depends. If Eade sees this year as his last chance - and it may well be - he will take the Bulldogs job rather than miss out.

If he's being picky, he'll take the C'wood job and see what the climate is like in a couple of years.

[Rizzo]

Do you reckon Malthouse is under the pump Charlie? I think we'll see him at the helm again next year.

Eade is a more logical choice for Hawthorn given his playing history but I suspect Wallace is the favourite.....which raises the question about the two coaches records head to head. I'd be surprised if Eade was that far behind if at all. Stats people?

What to do about the Dogs? If you had the answers you'd be worth a bundle to Smorgan. I think they have lost the winning culture and need to clean out the older players so the younger guys realise the success (or failure) of the club is in their hands.

[boroboy]

Originally posted by Rizzo
Do you reckon Malthouse is under the pump Charlie? I think we'll see him at the helm again next year.

Eade is a more logical choice for Hawthorn given his playing history but I suspect Wallace is the favourite.....which raises the question about the two coaches records head to head.
What to do about the Dogs? If you had the answers you'd be worth a bundle to Smorgan. I think they have lost the winning culture and need to clean out the older players so the younger guys realise the success (or failure) of the club is in their hands.

There's some speculation that Mick may be gearing up for a 'move upstairs' with Eade slotting nicely in - I can't see it, Mick will be around for a long time yet and Eddie will back him even in the likelihood of the tough few years coming up. They're just in the fortunate position of being cashed up and able to spend....

Interesting with the Dogs - its only their older players that have given them anything this year - they're not the problem. I reckon a new coach coming could pick up the youngsters a notch and turn them into a mid table team next year.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Old Royboy
The only sacked coach worth approaching is Stan Alves (victim of St Kilda politics) but he was too traumatised by the Saints to ever consider coaching again, which I consider a great pity.

The way I understand it is that StKilda's rise had little to do with Alves and was mainly as a result of a number of players reaching some degree of maturity in their football. Alves was going to be sacked at the beginning of '97 and was lucky not to be. StKilda expected to do well in '97 and '98 given their list and their performance was not unexpected internally. Alves has forever since talked up his performance in the improvement of the Saints in those couple of years.

[Damien]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
The way I understand it is that StKilda's rise had little to do with Alves and was mainly as a result of a number of players reaching some degree of maturity in their football. Alves was going to be sacked at the beginning of '97 and was lucky not to be. StKilda expected to do well in '97 and '98 given their list and their performance was not unexpected internally. Alves has forever since talked up his performance in the improvement of the Saints in those couple of years.

Stan Alves did a fantastic job in 1997 and 1998. Ultra competitive and came very close to being a premiership side.

The problem at the Saints was the too many internal people believed that Alves coaching cost them the grand final. Some at the club never got over this and despite making the finals in 1998 he was gone.

A lot of people I know were involved heavily at the saints during that period- and many of them are still very bitter at the Alves sacking. It was very pointless and the club gained nothing from it at all.
(except priority picks thanks to next few years of being at the bottom)

[Nico]

Stan Alves was fired by the players.

My perception of Eade was that he could not develop young players. After 96 he started to recruit "pre loved" players rather than continue to recruit and promote youth.

He took for ever to play Crouch, and Bolton and Fosdike I believe rarely started on the ground and received limited ground time, yet
were top 10 draftees.

I reckon he tried to win a flag or stay competitive by playing experience which to a point worked, but was never going to win us a flag. He also took over a side that had the near perfect blend of you and experience. I often wonder if Ron Barassi had stayed, would Shannon Grant had stayed.

I still think that if Kickett had started on the ground in the GF we would have been that far in front it would not have mattered. He was so good during the season alongside Plugger and out of the centre that for mine he got it very wrong. So much for the master tactician.