Toast Brad Lloyd - Head of Football

[branedotorg]

... The tigers old board most definitely leaked things to social media and gauges the responses as part of the decision making...

Then and almost every club, league and player agent in pretty much every professional sporting league.

The AFL is pretty insular but to assume leaks aren't tactical or strategic and from any number of interested parties is incredibly naive, especially with the 24 hours news/outrage cycle.

 

[Arr0w]

Some areas of concern have been articulated already, so the discussion is occurring.

I prefer people articulate their concerns, it leads to healhly debate

And so we can only speculate, as is also occurring.

I agree nothing wrong with speculation, it drives varied opinions

As someone who had a career in this field, you'd be amazed at the size of organisations who failed this basic step. In fact, after complete negligence, it's the largest cause of any system failure.

Also been involved in the field, but as outsiders, we don't know if the club/people are neglect in these areas, hence the speculation

But, if people just want Lloyd sacked based on the outcome of our season, that's their prerogative

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

Many organisations do this

To an extent. Not as a major part of decision making as I was saying happens.

I have no idea how good he is but questions need to be asked

Last year we finished less than 3 goals from a GF. This year we weren’t close and feel away dramatically.

That is a major concern as at the moment we are going backwards

Freo with Lloyd - useless. They've recovered pretty quickly since he left considering they bleed talent to other clubs endlessly too.

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

“Don’t know what really happens in there”.

You don't need to directly observe something to understand how it works either. Something worth remembering. Science is full of things we can't look at but know everything about due to the phenomena's influence on its surroundings.

Football departments are not as complex as supernovae. So when these discussions happen I don't think you can argue we don't know the KPIs or the role - it's pretty easy to surmise tbh.

 

[Arr0w]

It's now becoming a standard thread, overlapped by Russell, Voss, players, etc

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

It's now becoming a standard thread, overlapped by Russell, Voss, players, etc

The only constant is Carlton's underperforming expectations (25 years). The rest is simple fallout

 

[SurreyBlue]

This is where Cook starts to earn his money and shows his value. Let's see if he's worth the multimillion-dollar salary.
2025 will be a very enlightening year for us as a club.

 

[jj1978]

We kept Barker for about 100 years, takes a century to figure out if it’s worth keeping someone at the club these days.

 

[I bleed Blue]

Lloyd should not be off limits to be discussed.

Been in the role 6 years.

During that time our injury list / fitness department issue have not been resolved.

He was a key part of selecting Teague, which in hindsight was a mistake.


Hard to know how well he is performing in his role. However there have been enough underperorming departments and poor decisions to have his role scrutinised.

 

[Abers]

- Been head of football for six seasons, during only one of which the club met on field expectations

- Oversaw a high performance department that constantly had one worst injury rates in the league and eventually resulted in the sacking of the head thereof

- Has the entire coaching panel under contract, despite only one year of meeting expectations, meaning zero flexibility to make changes this year

- Headed a match committee that constantly made bizarre selection decisions, including selecting an unfit Curnow which resulted in him seriously injuring himself and being out for the year as well as constantly picking an underdone Cerra

I can go on but there are a few highlights

 

[jj1978]

- Been head of football for six seasons, during only one of which the club met on field expectations

- Oversaw a high performance department that constantly had one worst injury rates in the league and eventually resulted in the sacking of the head thereof

- Has the entire coaching panel under contract, despite only one year of meeting expectations, meaning zero flexibility to make changes this year

- Headed a match committee that constantly made bizarre selection decisions, including selecting an unfit Curnow which resulted in him seriously injuring himself and being out for the year as well as constantly picking an underdone Cerra

I can go on but there are a few highlights

So putting on my Sayers and Cook hat of stability you’re suggesting we extend his contract?

 

[BlueJet]

You know, nobody has to actually say those words, right?

Talking of dartboards being brought out, as an attempt to denigrate concerns people have is an attempt to shut down discussion.

It's fair that you trust in a process of review at the club and those that conduct it, so don't have any opinion on a member of staff at the club.

It's also fair that on a discussion forum, where people presumably want to see the club progress, that people discuss amongst themselves what they see going wrong, and who they believe is responsible for that.

In the event that we don't know fully, the responsibilities someone has, because the role isn't well defined, then speculation is inevitable.

Fortunately, the club doesn't conduct their reviews based on BigFooty discussion points. As stakeholders under the club's constitution, critical analysis and comment is absolutely fair.

If someone tries to start a petition to oust a staff member, I'm not on board with that (regardless of my personal opinion), and would likely shut it down.

Given it was the basis of your response.. kinda.
The default position for a meaningful exchange should not be an extreme or, condescending one. It allows little good will or room to move to a conciliatory point.

I don't necessarily agree with the dartboard remark but I can understand the rationale behind it. If the entry point to the exchange had been simply questioning Lloyd's performance, it's extremely doubtful it gets made, as it is a completely reasonable question.

Personally, I'm open to all viewpoints. Some of the posters I consider must read I know damn well see things differently but I appreciate their differing takes & their thought process behind them, it's the fun part of bigfooty.

Simply trotting out : sakc <insert player/staffer here>, ain't it though, it's hardly conducive to a positive dialogue on the subject.
Surely we can do better overall, regardless of perspective?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Given it was the basis of your response.. kinda.
The default position for a meaningful exchange should not be an extreme or, condescending one. It allows little good will or room to move to a conciliatory point.

It was the first line of a more substantive post and it was a question towards one sentence that carried no room for discussion in itself. You have to really twist things to make my post the questionable one here.

I don't necessarily agree with the dartboard remark but I can understand the rationale behind it. If the entry point to the exchange had been simply questioning Lloyd's performance, it's extremely doubtful it gets made, as it is a completely reasonable question.

The entry point was:

"Just presided over one of the most poorly executed seasons by a football department possible, should be moved on asap."

It's a reasonable starting point that can be expanded upon when asked. The dartboard comment didn't quote anyone.

Personally, I'm open to all viewpoints. Some of the posters I consider must read I know damn well see things differently but I appreciate their differing takes & their thought process behind them, it's the fun part of bigfooty.

Simply trotting out : sakc <insert player/staffer here>, ain't it though, it's hardly conducive to a positive dialogue on the subject.
Surely we can do better overall, regardless of perspective?

There have been several opinions that are conducive to discussion, and open to question. Even those who say that he needs to be sacked leave room to be asked to expand.

Dismissing opinions as merely targeting someone isn't going to expand any discussion though is it, unless someone prods further, as I did ... and you took issue with.

 

[Arr0w]

It was the first line of a more substantive post and it was a question towards one sentence that carried no room for discussion in itself. You have to really twist things to make my post the questionable one here.



The entry point was:

"Just presided over one of the most poorly executed seasons by a football department possible, should be moved on asap."

It's a reasonable starting point that can be expanded upon when asked. The dartboard comment didn't quote anyone.


There have been several opinions that are conducive to discussion, and open to question. Even those who say that he needs to be sacked leave room to be asked to expand.

Dismissing opinions as merely targeting someone isn't going to expand any discussion though is it, unless someone prods further, as I did ... and you took issue with.

I think as long as we have consistency with differing statements, no one should take issue

"Person X should be sacked" should be just as viable as "Person Y should be retained"

Personally, I prefer more substance/detail as to a poster's views

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I think as long as we have consistency with differing statements, no one should take issue

"Person X should be sacked" should be just as viable as "Person Y should be retained"

Personally, I prefer more substance/detail as to a poster's views

Can you ask why, rather than suggest it's a just targeting for no reason? That would be helpful.

As I said though ...

"Just presided over one of the most poorly executed seasons by a football department possible, should be moved on asap."

This gives a reason, even if it doesn't contain detail. It's a starting point to get a discussion going. You are not always going to get an essay straight up from each poster. You sometimes have to extract it out of them, just as I tried to do with you.

I'd rather move forward with the discussion now though. I've responded to each challenge towards my position and posts. I don't want the actual discussion to get lost in semantics.

I believe that the board and the CEO should have been asking the Football Manager what was happening at each stage where we seemed to let on field standards slip, and when the injuries were mounting. The Football Manager should have been getting responses from the coaches and the high performance manager and reporting back.

The issue is what has been reported back, and what has been pushed back on in order to get results. What are the players reporting?

I have a lot of issues with coaching in this regard so won't go too much into it in this thread, but suffice to say, things are going wrong and the Football Manager has a buck stopping firmly at his door.

Someone has responsibility, and usually it is a whole heap of someone's. Lloyd alone is not the issue here, but he is a part of it. He sets the department up as he sees fit.

 

[BlueJet]

It was the first line of a more substantive post and it was a question towards one sentence that carried no room for discussion in itself. You have to really twist things to make my post the questionable one here.



The entry point was:

"Just presided over one of the most poorly executed seasons by a football department possible, should be moved on asap."

It's a reasonable starting point that can be expanded upon when asked. The dartboard comment didn't quote anyone.


There have been several opinions that are conducive to discussion, and open to question. Even those who say that he needs to be sacked leave room to be asked to expand.

Dismissing opinions as merely targeting someone isn't going to expand any discussion though is it, unless someone prods further, as I did ... and you took issue with.

I'm hardly twisting things. I'm merely pointing out that the initial line wasn't beneficial to any meaningful argument or point.

As for the entry point, given they've had to come back & expand.. it probably indicates otherwise. It would have prevented the dialogue being sidetracked from the actual subject matter, BL's performance.

I didn't say that it would, as I've already indicated, both sides of the exchange could certainly be better.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I'm hardly twisting things. I'm merely pointing out that the initial line wasn't beneficial to any meaningful argument or point.

As for the entry point, given they've had to come back & expand.. it probably indicates otherwise. It would have prevented the dialogue being sidetracked from the actual subject matter, BL's performance.

I didn't say that it would, as I've already indicated, both sides of the exchange could certainly be better.

Given my initial line made the receiver come back to expand, it probably indicates otherwise ... correct? See how that works?

I had not much to go on with the dartboard comment, so I prodded with questions. A whole discussion has sprung from that. I'd argue it was on topic and very beneficial and the proof is in the pudding.

Did the entry point poster come back and expand because of the dartboard comment or because the discussion grew and questions were asked? They offered a reason, and expanded when asked. Exactly what I love about discussions in this forum. Nothing closed-ended.

I know why I was third man in ... because as a moderator, I want to encourage open discussion, and am wary of dismissive responses, and this is part of my role.

It would be good to carry on with the discussion now.

 

[Arr0w]

Can you ask why, rather than suggest it's a just targeting for no reason? That would be helpful.

As I said though ...



This gives a reason, even if it doesn't contain detail. It's a starting point to get a discussion going. You are not always going to get an essay straight up from each poster. You sometimes have to extract it out of them, just as I tried to do with you.

I'd rather move forward with the discussion now though. I've responded to each challenge towards my position and posts. I don't want the actual discussion to get lost in semantics.

I believe that the board and the CEO should have been asking the Football Manager what was happening at each stage where we seemed to let on field standards slip, and when the injuries were mounting. The Football Manager should have been getting responses from the coaches and the high performance manager and reporting back.

The issue is what has been reported back, and what has been pushed back on in order to get results. What are the players reporting?

I have a lot of issues with coaching in this regard so won't go too much into it in this thread, but suffice to say, things are going wrong and the Football Manager has a buck stopping firmly at his door.

Someone has responsibility, and usually it is a whole heap of someone's. Lloyd alone is not the issue here, but he is a part of it. He sets the department up as he sees fit.

I believe when people are stating they want someone sacked, especially when none of us know whether that person is competent in their role, it does feel like a dartboard approach

But, I'll take on board your suggestion, to request further details as to why they believe a sacking is warranted

 

[blues4flag]

As someone who had a career in this field, you'd be amazed at the size of organisations who failed this basic step. In fact, after complete negligence, it's the largest cause of any system failure.

Agree to an extent. Most people (and us as supporters in particular), are very quick to point the finger at an individual as the source of the problem. I work in tech, and every other week I'm fielding complaints about how technology X or product Y is the issue, how it doesn't do what we need, it'll never scale etc.

Almost invariably (assuming a level of competence), it's the way that tools are used, and the processes around them that determine success or failure. Might there be better people or tools out there? Perhaps, but there's risk associated with change, and the warts aren't apparent until someone is in place. A review might point out that we need change, as we did with Russell, but unless we spend the time to uncover why these competent individuals have failed, we're doomed to repeat the same mistakes.

Our history has been one of blaming individuals, kicking them out, starting again, and repeat ad nauseam. Cook's philosophy seems to be, hire competent individuals with high integrity (who can handle the stress that comes with high performance environments) and back them in to get the job done. Review consistently, support them and improve processes to help them succeed, and only once that has failed, move on the individual.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I believe when people are stating they want someone sacked, especially when none of us know whether that person is competent in their role, it does feel like a dartboard approach

But, I'll take on board your suggestion, to request further details as to why they believe a sacking is warranted

Get creative. Ask questions with an open mind.

I got from that post that there were issues in the football department, which I agee with, and as the head of the football department, the buck stops with Lloyd. Others got something different from it, and that''s fine.

I have a mantra. We support until given a reason not to support. We apply this to the players all the time, because we can see their results before us. We often don't know what their direction or role is, but we know when things aren't working. It's a very evidence based conclusion.

Coaching failings aren't always evidence based, but results driven.

Football manager is just a big unknown, but if it wasn't important, it wouldn't exist. I believe holistically, the position exists to provide the resources that the recruiting team, the coaching team, the players, the medical team and the high performance team requires to be successful. But it's not just a resource position. It is there to find out what is and isn't working and why.

If something is not working, there has to be an action plan to address it. Andrew Russell leaving goes some way to releasing pressure, but this was not all down to injuries.

My concern is that a lot of processes tend to weed out dissenting voices to maintain unity, but unity in the front offices doesn't always lend itself to harsh conversations. I'd like to know whether harsh conversations are taking place between workplace 'mates'.

The one thing I do know about Lloyd's role is that he is on the selection committee. Those selection issues supporters have can be aimed at him as well as the coaches.

 

[Soapy V]

Get creative. Ask questions with an open mind.

I got from that post that there were issues in the football department, which I agee with, and as the head of the football department, the buck stops with Lloyd. Others got something different from it, and that''s fine.

I have a mantra. We support until given a reason not to support. We apply this to the players all the time, because we can see their results before us. We often don't know what their direction or role is, but we know when things aren't working. It's a very evidence based conclusion.

Coaching failings aren't always evidence based, but results driven.

Football manager is just a big unknown, but if it wasn't important, it wouldn't exist. I believe holistically, the position exists to provide the resources that the recruiting team, the coaching team, the players, the medical team and the high performance team requires to be successful. But it's not just a resource position. It is there to find out what is and isn't working and why.

If something is not working, there has to be an action plan to address it. Andrew Russell leaving goes some way to releasing pressure, but this was not all down to injuries.

My concern is that a lot of processes tend to weed out dissenting voices to maintain unity, but unity in the front offices doesn't always lend itself to harsh conversations. I'd like to know whether harsh conversations are taking place between workplace 'mates'.

The one thing I do know about Lloyd's role is that he is on the selection committee. Those selection issues supporters have can be aimed at him as well as the coaches.

Great post

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Our history has been one of blaming individuals, kicking them out, starting again, and repeat ad nauseam. Cook's philosophy seems to be, hire competent individuals with high integrity (who can handle the stress that comes with high performance environments) and back them in to get the job done. Review consistently, support them and improve processes to help them succeed, and only once that has failed, move on the individual.

Absolutely, and it terrifies me that we are going to lose his experience in 12 months.

We had a fade out in 2022, we had a midseason hiatus in 2023, and we had a fade out in 2024. We have enough evidence that something is not right. We have poured money into a handful of players who have been a part of those fade outs, and who have had form lapses themselves. As a result, we have a full gap and we are doing less than most clubs to improve in our offseasons. Our highly paid list is aging and we have not finished any higher than 5th (last year's finals run notwithstanding), in the home and away season in 24 years.

If you provide support, and you don't get results, at what point do you wonder if the strategies being used are correct?

 

[Arr0w]

Get creative. Ask questions with an open mind.

I do so, if I need greater clarity and understanding as to why a certain position is held by a poster. But if its clear and or a rhetorical statement/question especially definitive, then it might illicit a similar tone

I got from that post that there were issues in the football department, which I agee with, and as the head of the football department, the buck stops with Lloyd. Others got something different from it, and that''s fine.

I have a mantra. We support until given a reason not to support. We apply this to the players all the time, because we can see their results before us. We often don't know what their direction or role is, but we know when things aren't working. It's a very evidence based conclusion.

It is much easier to apply to a player, as we can determine characteristics, strengths and weakness, unless there are mitigating circumstances like carry an injury

Coaching failings aren't always evidence based, but results driven.

And so is the level of analysis at times, purely based on win/loss and individual expectations, rather than against capability as a whole

Football manager is just a big unknown, but if it wasn't important, it wouldn't exist. I believe holistically, the position exists to provide the resources that the recruiting team, the coaching team, the players, the medical team and the high performance team requires to be successful. But it's not just a resource position. It is there to find out what is and isn't working and why.

Agreed, but also to ensure people are adhering to agreed strategies, thats the first point of call before drilling down into what worked and what didn't

If something is not working, there has to be an action plan to address it. Andrew Russell leaving goes some way to releasing pressure, but this was not all down to injuries.

In this area, as a club we need to focus more on prevention (what do we do with the injury prone), before actioning a fix (which HP head do we employ next)

My concern is that a lot of processes tend to weed out dissenting voices to maintain unity, but unity in the front offices doesn't always lend itself to harsh conversations. I'd like to know whether harsh conversations are taking place between workplace 'mates'.

I hope that behind the scenes there are robust conversations taking place which lead to revised stategies. Unity comes with an agreed action plan, which is never unanimous, but can still be driven by the whole

The one thing I do know about Lloyd's role is that he is on the selection committee. Those selection issues supporters have can be aimed at him as well as the coaches.

Not sure his role is to agree on which players come in or out, moreso overseeing consistency in the approach and the decision making of others. Ulttimately, Voss would have the final say on the composition of the team

 

[skadoosh]

If the gatekeeping-related posts could be kept to a minimum or even discussed privately, that'd be great.

I want to read about actual footy rather than 'how one should properly discuss footy'.

 

[TheReal99prelim]

Just my opinion but if we had a strong, competent football boss, Sam Docherty

15

Sam Docherty

Age

31

Ht

187cm

Wt

87kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.3

5star

K

15.1

5star

HB

7.2

4star

M

6.6

5star

T

2.4

4star

CL

1.1

3star

D

22.6

5star

K

16.0

5star

HB

6.6

4star

M

7.0

5star

T

0.6

1star

CL

0.4

3star

D

11.2

3star

K

6.0

3star

HB

5.2

4star

M

2.4

3star

T

1.4

4star

CL

0.6

3star

would not have played

What we do have is "group-think"