Training 2019 Preseason

Remove this Banner Ad

Dr Spaceman said:
Injury worse than club is letting on :eek:

34repvd.jpg
Click to expand...
Non story. Has done a shit load of work pre Christmas and felt abit tight. Scans cleared him. He has a few weeks off and will be fine. They will just ease him through to the break now.

Coaches and fitness staff are stoked with his workload.
 
stavro#4 said:
Non story. Has done a shit load of work pre Christmas and felt abit tight. Scans cleared him. He has a few weeks off and will be fine. They will just ease him through to the break now.

Coaches and fitness staff are stoked with his workload.
Click to expand...

Don’t be sugar-coat it Stavro, we’ve all heard the stories of him being in a wheelchair and drowning his sorrows with cough syrup.
 
st_trav_ofWA said:
interesting thought process i would think regardless who the coach is its the performance of the players that ultimatly puts bums on seats so given our list issues say we are a 5-9 win prospect next season it wouldnt make a fiddlestick of differance if it was Richo in the box or if it was Ratten as head coach.. the main issue with gate takings was the fact we had 12 rounds of consecutive losses followed by a 6 game losing streak to round out the year..
a new coach makes a differance but realistically in their first year its not a massive differance so i dont think having richo still in the coaching seat changes our gate takings at all.. if we start winning more and if we start playing more attractive footy then we will see an improvment
Click to expand...

i disagree on that. i think you under estimate how on the nose richo is with supporters. its also under the assumption you would get a similar output from the side under richo as you would the new coach. i dont think thats true
 

Log in to remove this ad.

st_trav_ofWA said:
couple of things ... one no one is saying 2018 was a once off ... the fact is since round three the club have been very aware that things were not right ..
Click to expand...

see that's the thing. they are! they think we are a much better side than what 2018 and the backend of 2017 produced. you may disagree with that assessment but thats what they think.

st_trav_ofWA said:
the ying yang analogy is in the fact that when we had a stronger list that list strength carried the weakness in our coaching box 2018 when the list was not as strong and we had the slightest change to our best 22 performing at their potential the coaching box got exposed as being not strong enough ...
Click to expand...

this literally makes no sense. if this is what they truly think then god help us. it shows they can't read the performance of the football dept, the list or the coaches.

i was told they think 2017 was a good result and the performance in 2017 shows richo can coach and there were factors as to why 2018 was bad. i was also told that part of the problem was that the list had deficiencies. i was told richo is a good coach who didnt have the support he needed. so if they're now stating, months later, that in actual fact, the problem was the list was stronger in 2017 than it was in 2018, so in 2017 it covered up the weaknesses in coaching. then they're clearly changing their opinion at a whim, post the outcome of the review. theyve reverted their assessment of the list. they've reverted their assessment of the coaching. it's friggin all over the shop! extremely worrying. in fact i find it more troubling than extending richo's contract. it shows a club that is unable to standby the findings of a review that occurred literally 6 months back.

tbh it sounds like the message may have been misinterpreted, atleast that's what i'm hoping has happened here. i'd be shocked to hear they think they couldn't get a correct assessment on the coaching in 2017 because the list was stronger than it was in 2018. that just show's a club that is still incapable of assessing the performance of the football dept.

the reality is there wasn't a heck of change between the list in 2017 and 2018, not enough for it suddenly to be good one year and then poor the next. i mean i'd argue that the list was stronger in 2018 purely due to the age demographic and experience increasing, that goes for the best 22 and the depth. regardless of the outs vs ins. i think the clubs assessment in regards to the list is correct. its good but it has weaknesses that needs to be addressed. what i don't agree with is the observation you highlighted that it was good in 2017 but bad 2018. there hasnt been enough movement for that to occur.

i also don't agree that the performance of the side means you can't get a read on if the coaching is adequate or not. you should be able to determine that regardless of the onfield results. which is what the club has done and publicly stated. theyve basically made their own determination on who is performing and who is not regardless of the results. if it was based on the results, richo would have been sacked, end of story.

st_trav_ofWA said:
from that point the review was put on the entire football department ... first off the rank we identified that our list was well behind where we thought it was the fact that we had injury and nothing to cover that was alarming the fact we had out of form players with nothing pushing up from below to displace them was alarming .. Trout ultimatly copped it for that rightly/wrongly thats another discussion but he was seen as the issue .
Click to expand...

st_trav_ofWA said:
the coaching side where we were lacking yes im certain a big part of the decisions made was the contract situation of Richo thats just the way it is but that said if Clarko became available then the club would have worn that heat for it , the thing was Clarko wasnt available so the cost/improvment benifit action of removing Richo for the candidates available was seen as not worth the cost of removing him .
Click to expand...

correct and that is the clubs stance. problem is the outcome in 2018 will be the same. you have the same list of candidates available. that's not changing. only thing you are doing is delaying the decision, which causes issues from a list perspective.

it's not like clarko suddenly becomes available in 2020. reality is if richo is sacked. we end up going with an unproven coach. just like we could have done albeit 12 months sooner in 2019, which means if that coach doesnt work out, you can re-assess your options 12 months sooner.

st_trav_ofWA said:
once that was settled there was no point flogging that horse we either sacked him or threw support around him ... right or wrong we put support around him so the question put to Richo is simple what is being served up is unacceptable we admit our team we built isnt upto scratch so what does Richo need to change this unacceptable mess that is 2018 ... from the moves made im thinking Richo asked for better assistants around him, the guys we removed were not AFL quality (obvious by the fact no one grabbed them) the guys we got were ...
so while its not expected to be a magic bullet to see us suddenly be in finals contention its a move in the right direction .. the thought is if Richo cant make improvment to the team with the improvment around him in the box then the issue is clearly him..
Click to expand...

if it takes richo until his 5th season to identify that he needs better assistants then he's cooked. but we all know that. you don't need 2019 to work that one out. the assessment on richo's coaching could have been solidly determined and finalised during 2016. which is what they did, they honestly think they have a good senior coach and they're not willing to concede in that assessment due to the fall out.

st_trav_ofWA said:
i cannot see Roo joining the board until his kids are school aged ... at the moment with his lifestyle he has the freedom to jet off to the US when he and his family feel the need to do so this doesnt bode well for a board member to be gone for extended periods so possibly when his boys are in school and the trips to the US need to be factored around school holidays then he may choose to be a bigger part in our club... i dont for 1 second think the coach of the club has any impact at all on that decision
Click to expand...

his boy would be very close to kindy would he not? in any case, being on the board isn't a fulltime activity. you attend what is it 12 meetings a year. people on the board are busy people. they have demanding jobs that often involve travel.

my take on his involvement was that he wasn't prepared to make judgement or be involved in judgement on his ex coach. so the timing wasn't right. i think you will see that change once the coach is removed.
 
StCicatriz said:
i disagree on that. i think you under estimate how on the nose richo is with supporters. its also under the assumption you would get a similar output from the side under richo as you would the new coach. i dont think thats true
Click to expand...
So you have proof that people will not attend because Richo is on the nose?

Tim Watson could return and if we were winning, people would turn up.

Anyway where's your proof?

Please take your conspiracies to the sack Richo thread.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Human Person said:
I’ll take those odds, I think clav went early cause he has hangtime, positioning, and slight reach advantage.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty obvious that the ball was kicked in the completely opposite direction and our three just jumped in the air together coz jumping up and down is fun

Saints only recruit spuds

:moustache:
 
st_trav_ofWA said:
ditto .... to say the coach is changing the attendance and club sales is very strange indeed ... i mean i recently purchased a new training shirt from the club .. i reckon i would have done so regardless of who is coach ... at last check we were still tracking about 25K members to this point of the year so still around the mark of previous years .. remember a few years back the big hype was us smashing membership numbers by getting 25K before the 25th of december
Click to expand...
I bought two, the singlet one and the one with sleeves, gave them to my missus and said there you go, you Xmas present to me.

Truth being, would have bought three if not for the fact that Richo is still coach

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
StCicatriz said:
i disagree on that. i think you under estimate how on the nose richo is with supporters. its also under the assumption you would get a similar output from the side under richo as you would the new coach. i dont think thats true
Click to expand...
well we are a bit lower than last year on membership numbers but that is most likly a reflection of the results of last year rather than the fact Richo is coach ... but that said we are still tracking ok for memberships so i dont think him being on the nose with members is really doing much at all ....
it depends greatly on who that new coach is .. from reports the new assistant coaches are alredy making their presence known and things are alrready differant so the Richo of last year could be considerably differant to the richo of 2019 ... either way i dont think from a commercial stand point Richo is changing anything for the club ..
so while the jury is still out on if he can coach he certainly isnt costing us members or sponsorship dollars
 


 
StCicatriz said:
see that's the thing. they are! they think we are a much better side than what 2018 and the backend of 2017 produced. you may disagree with that assessment but thats what they think.



this literally makes no sense. if this is what they truly think then god help us. it shows they can't read the performance of the football dept, the list or the coaches.

i was told they think 2017 was a good result and the performance in 2017 shows richo can coach and there were factors as to why 2018 was bad. i was also told that part of the problem was that the list had deficiencies. i was told richo is a good coach who didnt have the support he needed. so if they're now stating, months later, that in actual fact, the problem was the list was stronger in 2017 than it was in 2018, so in 2017 it covered up the weaknesses in coaching. then they're clearly changing their opinion at a whim, post the outcome of the review. theyve reverted their assessment of the list. they've reverted their assessment of the coaching. it's friggin all over the shop! extremely worrying. in fact i find it more troubling than extending richo's contract. it shows a club that is unable to standby the findings of a review that occurred literally 6 months back.

tbh it sounds like the message may have been misinterpreted, atleast that's what i'm hoping has happened here. i'd be shocked to hear they think they couldn't get a correct assessment on the coaching in 2017 because the list was stronger than it was in 2018. that just show's a club that is still incapable of assessing the performance of the football dept.

the reality is there wasn't a heck of change between the list in 2017 and 2018, not enough for it suddenly to be good one year and then poor the next. i mean i'd argue that the list was stronger in 2018 purely due to the age demographic and experience increasing, that goes for the best 22 and the depth. regardless of the outs vs ins. i think the clubs assessment in regards to the list is correct. its good but it has weaknesses that needs to be addressed. what i don't agree with is the observation you highlighted that it was good in 2017 but bad 2018. there hasnt been enough movement for that to occur.

i also don't agree that the performance of the side means you can't get a read on if the coaching is adequate or not. you should be able to determine that regardless of the onfield results. which is what the club has done and publicly stated. theyve basically made their own determination on who is performing and who is not regardless of the results. if it was based on the results, richo would have been sacked, end of story.





correct and that is the clubs stance. problem is the outcome in 2018 will be the same. you have the same list of candidates available. that's not changing. only thing you are doing is delaying the decision, which causes issues from a list perspective.

it's not like clarko suddenly becomes available in 2020. reality is if richo is sacked. we end up going with an unproven coach. just like we could have done albeit 12 months sooner in 2019, which means if that coach doesnt work out, you can re-assess your options 12 months sooner.



if it takes richo until his 5th season to identify that he needs better assistants then he's cooked. but we all know that. you don't need 2019 to work that one out. the assessment on richo's coaching could have been solidly determined and finalised during 2016. which is what they did, they honestly think they have a good senior coach and they're not willing to concede in that assessment due to the fall out.



his boy would be very close to kindy would he not? in any case, being on the board isn't a fulltime activity. you attend what is it 12 meetings a year. people on the board are busy people. they have demanding jobs that often involve travel.

my take on his involvement was that he wasn't prepared to make judgement or be involved in judgement on his ex coach. so the timing wasn't right. i think you will see that change once the coach is removed.
Click to expand...
"The reality is there wasn't a heck of change between the list in 2017 and 2018, not enough for it suddenly to be good one year and then poor the next."

No the reality is that there was a substantial change in the list between 17 and 18

2018 In -
Hunter Clark 0 games
Nick Coffield 0 games
Ben Paton 0 games
Oscar Clavarino 0 games
Doulton Langlands 0 games
Logan Austin 13 games

Out
Nick Reiwoldt 336 games
Leigh Montagna 287
Sean Dempster 222

And it only gets worse when you look at it 5 games into the 2018 season because then you add

Josh Bruce 91 games
Dylan Roberton 128 games
Koby Stevens 91 games

So that's 1142 games worth of difference between the lists of 2017 and 2018.
 
st_trav_ofWA said:
well we are a bit lower than last year on membership numbers but that is most likly a reflection of the results of last year rather than the fact Richo is coach ... but that said we are still tracking ok for memberships so i dont think him being on the nose with members is really doing much at all ....
it depends greatly on who that new coach is .. from reports the new assistant coaches are alredy making their presence known and things are alrready differant so the Richo of last year could be considerably differant to the richo of 2019 ... either way i dont think from a commercial stand point Richo is changing anything for the club ..
so while the jury is still out on if he can coach he certainly isnt costing us members or sponsorship dollars
Click to expand...


Yeah, roll over memberships mean the memberships keep ticking over regardless. We do have an issue with people turning up to matches but wining a few in a row will turn that around.
 
StCicatriz said:
see that's the thing. they are! they think we are a much better side than what 2018 and the backend of 2017 produced. you may disagree with that assessment but thats what they think.



this literally makes no sense. if this is what they truly think then god help us. it shows they can't read the performance of the football dept, the list or the coaches.

i was told they think 2017 was a good result and the performance in 2017 shows richo can coach and there were factors as to why 2018 was bad. i was also told that part of the problem was that the list had deficiencies. i was told richo is a good coach who didnt have the support he needed. so if they're now stating, months later, that in actual fact, the problem was the list was stronger in 2017 than it was in 2018, so in 2017 it covered up the weaknesses in coaching. then they're clearly changing their opinion at a whim, post the outcome of the review. theyve reverted their assessment of the list. they've reverted their assessment of the coaching. it's friggin all over the shop! extremely worrying. in fact i find it more troubling than extending richo's contract. it shows a club that is unable to standby the findings of a review that occurred literally 6 months back.

tbh it sounds like the message may have been misinterpreted, atleast that's what i'm hoping has happened here. i'd be shocked to hear they think they couldn't get a correct assessment on the coaching in 2017 because the list was stronger than it was in 2018. that just show's a club that is still incapable of assessing the performance of the football dept.

the reality is there wasn't a heck of change between the list in 2017 and 2018, not enough for it suddenly to be good one year and then poor the next. i mean i'd argue that the list was stronger in 2018 purely due to the age demographic and experience increasing, that goes for the best 22 and the depth. regardless of the outs vs ins. i think the clubs assessment in regards to the list is correct. its good but it has weaknesses that needs to be addressed. what i don't agree with is the observation you highlighted that it was good in 2017 but bad 2018. there hasnt been enough movement for that to occur.

i also don't agree that the performance of the side means you can't get a read on if the coaching is adequate or not. you should be able to determine that regardless of the onfield results. which is what the club has done and publicly stated. theyve basically made their own determination on who is performing and who is not regardless of the results. if it was based on the results, richo would have been sacked, end of story.





correct and that is the clubs stance. problem is the outcome in 2018 will be the same. you have the same list of candidates available. that's not changing. only thing you are doing is delaying the decision, which causes issues from a list perspective.

it's not like clarko suddenly becomes available in 2020. reality is if richo is sacked. we end up going with an unproven coach. just like we could have done albeit 12 months sooner in 2019, which means if that coach doesnt work out, you can re-assess your options 12 months sooner.



if it takes richo until his 5th season to identify that he needs better assistants then he's cooked. but we all know that. you don't need 2019 to work that one out. the assessment on richo's coaching could have been solidly determined and finalised during 2016. which is what they did, they honestly think they have a good senior coach and they're not willing to concede in that assessment due to the fall out.



his boy would be very close to kindy would he not? in any case, being on the board isn't a fulltime activity. you attend what is it 12 meetings a year. people on the board are busy people. they have demanding jobs that often involve travel.

my take on his involvement was that he wasn't prepared to make judgement or be involved in judgement on his ex coach. so the timing wasn't right. i think you will see that change once the coach is removed.
Click to expand...
im not going to go through each point as honestly we go around and around in circles so its a pointless activity ...
i will though state that from a very relaible source the reson Rooey didnt take up a board position had nothing at all to do with Richo being coach it was 100% a family decision .. the fact Rooey is the only person at fox footy that has a period of off time to travel with the family during the season writen in his contract is testimate to the fact he values his freedom to be with his family highest of all .. Rooey has said he only would join the board if he could throw 110% behind doing it where he is in life now with his charity and fox footy comitments and family he doesnt feel its in either parties best interest yet ... nothing to do with richo
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Training 2019 Preseason

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top