Toast Brad Lloyd - Head of Football

[Arr0w]

Just my opinion but if we had a strong, competent football boss, Sam Docherty would not have played

What we do have is "group-think"

I see that as undermining

If I'm Lloyd, my focus would be to ask certain questions of the football department

• Was Doc ticked off medically and from a fitness standpoint
• Who does he replace, why and or in what role and does it give us a greater chance of winning

If a resource is available, it cant be denied, ultimately, it's Voss's call as to team selection

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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

A similar tone such as this does nothing except dissuade others with a similar opinion from voicing it, least they be accused of merely throwing darts. Remember, nobody was quoted. It's almost a warning shot.

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

Correct. The evidence is more obvious. If they are carrying an injury, then that falls back on the selection committee.

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

We are not privy to capability. That in no way eliminates someone from criticism. If a problem is identified in a particular area, those within that area can all be subject to critique. The level of analysis shouldn't come down to 'we can't be sure, so best hold fire.' And yes, I know nobody is literally saying that, but it has been strongly implied many times in multiple discussions.

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

Also, were the strategies sound to begin with. If you make a plan, you make sure the plan is followed. If it is followed and it isn't working, revisit the plan and find out why it isn't working, and if it can work with the resources available.

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)

That's one area. As per above, making sure we have the right strategy to begin with is just as important, if not more.

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

Correct, but if the agreed action plan isn't working, where does responsibility lie? All of them since they are united behind it?

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

If you have a vote, then you can have a say or at least ask questions. There is no doubt, they all agreed that all of the injured players should play, and they all need to live or die by these decisions.

I didn't want to make it about coaching by itself, but the selection part is on everyone. Voss continuosly talks about our lack of consistency and how we need to get to work on the areas we have identified.

However, the players dropped this season have been Kemp, Hewett, Carroll, Binns, Moir, Lord, Pittonet, Young, Cincotta. A couple of others were lucky enough to be 'managed'. Were these all of our inconsistent players? Why are some players automatic ins after indifferent form and injury, but others have to prove themselves?

A coach has every right to play the team he trusts to get results, but you can't keep talking about what they are lacking, but not holding some accountable. If you do, you own those results. Someone like Lloyd should be asking those questions and getting those answers.

 

[Michael Jezz]

Apart from a couple of genuine ITK posters, no one here knows if he is ticking the boxes Cook set out for him, so none of us can answer it

Somewhat like assist coaches

Players - We can all see their strengths and weaknesses.

Austin - We can analyse his draft hits/misses and or list build. At this level, HP crosses over somewhat

Voss - Gauge and analyse his gameplan, tactics, perhaps get understanding if he can motivate/drive buy in

Beyond those 3-4 areas, it would be difficult to gauge succes or failure of role

Yes we do know Lloyd is not ticking the right boxes by what we see on the field.
Assistant Coaching, List Management, Fitness & selection are all sub par.
Therefore change is required and it usually starts at the top

 

[TheReal99prelim]

I see that as undermining

If I'm Lloyd, my focus would be to ask certain questions of the football department

• Was Doc ticked off medically and from a fitness standpoint
• Who does he replace, why and or in what role and does it give us a greater chance of winning

If a resource is available, it cant be denied, ultimately, it's Voss's call as to team selection

There's "undermining" and there's sheer stupidity

Sometimes (rarely of course), you just have to make the call as the boss

Forget the name Docherty and forget for a moment that he's undergone his 3rd ACL 6 months earlier

How many players have missed 24 weeks of football (at any level) and brought in to play a final?

 

[Arr0w]

A similar tone such as this does nothing except dissuade others with a similar opinion from voicing it, least they be accused of merely throwing darts. Remember, nobody was quoted. It's almost a warning shot.

This is becoming circular, somewhat the chicken or the egg. I don't want to dissuade any posters, regular or otherwise. The dart throwing comment goes both ways. "Lloyd is crap should be sacked" or "Lloyd is doing a great job". Same goes for "the usual suspects" which is directed at posters on the extremities of a view point

Correct. The evidence is more obvious. If they are carrying an injury, then that falls back on the selection committee.

Completely agree, but we are still non the wiser if that players is retained in the side

We are not privy to capability. That in no way eliminates someone from criticism. If a problem is identified in a particular area, those within that area can all be subject to critique. The level of analysis shouldn't come down to 'we can't be sure, so best hold fire.' And yes, I know nobody is literally saying that, but it has been strongly implied many times in multiple discussions.

But it's implied both ways, which I don't have an issue with, if surrounded by further content

Also, were the strategies sound to begin with. If you make a plan, you make sure the plan is followed. If it is followed and it isn't working, revisit the plan and find out why it isn't working, and if it can work with the resources available.



That's one area. As per above, making sure we have the right strategy to begin with is just as important, if not more.



Correct, but if the agreed action plan isn't working, where does responsibility lie? All of them since they are united behind it?

Completely agree on these points

If you have a vote, then you can have a say or at least ask questions. There is no doubt, they all agreed that all of the injured players should play, and they all need to live or die by these decisions.

Not sure Lloyd would have a vote, moreso ensuring the decision making is sound, but he could also have a vote on selection. Absolutely Voss lives and dies by selection decisions, but if others were retained, we are merely guessing the likely result

I didn't want to make it about coaching by itself, but the selection part is on everyone. Voss continuosly talks about our lack of consistency and how we need to get to work on the areas we have identified.

However, the players dropped this season have been Kemp, Hewett, Carroll, Binns, Moir, Lord, Pittonet, Young, Cincotta. A couple of others were lucky enough to be 'managed'. Were these all of our inconsistent players? Why are some players automatic ins after indifferent form and injury, but others have to prove themselves?

I can't answer that, no one can, but it should be debated. We also see this competition wide, some players are automatic ins after injury, some are regularly demoted, etc.

A coach has every right to play the team he trusts to get results, but you can't keep talking about what they are lacking, but not holding some accountable. If you do, you own those results.

People should be changed on their decisions

Someone like Lloyd should be asking those questions and getting those answers.

I mentioned this exact same thing above

 

[Arr0w]

Yes we do know Lloyd is not ticking the right boxes by what we see on the field.
Assistant Coaching, List Management, Fitness & selection are all sub par.
Therefore change is required and it usually starts at the top

It doesn't work that way, not in strong organisations. No, one, person holds all the blame for failure, in the same vein as success

 

[Arr0w]

How many players have missed 24 weeks of football (at any level) and brought in to play a final?

Not sure, I don't have the stats

 

[Michael Jezz]

It doesn't work that way, not in strong organisations. No, one, person holds all the blame for failure, in the same vein as success

You seem to argue for status quo. Actually strong organisations need to absorb change, when results are sub-optimal.
Lloyd, Sayers, Austin & assitant coaches have had sufficient tenure to get things right. I would change things now but if results are poor next year, Lloyd and Austin will not last.

 

[Arr0w]

You seem to argue for status quo. Actually strong organisations need to absorb change, when results are sub-optimal.
Lloyd, Sayers, Austin & assitant coaches have had sufficient tenure to get things right. I would change things now but if results are poor next year, Lloyd and Austin will not last.

I have addressed this many times. I am not an advocate for a status quo, I am an advocate to address primary root cause.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

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'.

Plenty of discussion points amongst it Skadoosh. It really just needed the one post and even that was full of discussion points.

Where do you stand on the Footy manager position?

 

[Abers]

I have addressed this many times. I am not an advocate for a status quo, I am an advocate to address primary root cause.

What do you believe to be the primary root cause and how would you suggest it be addressed in the offseason?

 

[Pablito]

What do you believe to be the primary root cause and how would you suggest it be addressed in the offseason?

"I don't know, I don't have information from inside the club".

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

This is becoming circular, somewhat the chicken or the egg. I don't want to dissuade any posters, regular or otherwise. The dart throwing comment goes both ways. "Lloyd is crap should be sacked" or "Lloyd is doing a great job". Same goes for "the usual suspects" which is directed at posters on the extremities of a view point

That wasn't said though Arr0w.

Completely agree, but we are still non the wiser if that players is retained in the side

It's simple. If you play, you are fit enough to perform and you get judged accordingly. If you are not fit, and didn't claim to be, the coach is criticised. Maybe both should be, rather than neither?

But it's implied both ways, which I don't have an issue with, if surrounded by further content

Challenge it.

Completely agree on these points


Not sure Lloyd would have a vote, moreso ensuring the decision making is sound, but he could also have a vote on selection. Absolutely Voss lives and dies by selection decisions, but if others were retained, we are merely guessing the likely result

That's all we have. Someone is responsible.

I can't answer that, no one can, but it should be debated. We also see this competition wide, some players are automatic ins after injury, some are regularly demoted, etc.

I look forward to the debate in the Voss thread.

 

[Arr0w]

What do you believe to be the primary root cause and how would you suggest it be addressed in the offseason?

More than one

• Move on Injury prone players - This disrupts continuity and cohesion which is a key indicator in success
• List composition - It’s unbalanced with too many similar types who are one-paced and lack athleticism, replacements need to have speed and xfactor
• More mongrel, harder edge
• Redefine aspects of the gameplan, considering the above changes

 

[Abers]

More than one

• Move on Injury prone players - This disrupts continuity and cohesion which is a key indicator in success
• List composition - It’s unbalanced with too many similar types who are one-paced and lack athleticism, replacements need to have speed and xfactor
• More mongrel, harder edge
• Redefine aspects of the gameplan, considering the above changes

Don’t disagree with any of those. I would suggest that Brad has some responsibility with 1, 2 and 4 however, with 4 being directly within his remit given he is, in my opinion, responsible for the composition of the coaching group and their strategy.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

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.

Look at the board member who is "Director of football"... another feel good story... does anybody actually think Diesel is in the condition to be sitting on the board making these decisions?

As for the CEO, I reckon he had his hands tied with the Russell situation, it blew up this year.

 

[Arr0w]

Don’t disagree with any of those. I would suggest that Brad has some responsibility with 1, 2 and 4 however, with 4 being directly within his remit given he is, in my opinion, responsible for the composition of the coaching group and their strategy.

Absolutely, everyone plays a role in success or failure

 

[The Bighouse]

More than one

• Move on Injury prone players - This disrupts continuity and cohesion which is a key indicator in success
• List composition - It’s unbalanced with too many similar types who are one-paced and lack athleticism, replacements need to have speed and xfactor
• More mongrel, harder edge
• Redefine aspects of the gameplan, considering the above changes

Yep, certainly need to address the “harder edge”, includes upstairs for the players and the likes of H with his game-killers and too nice in the contest. A will to win/mongrel.
Enter Inness to rebuild the fitness/bodies. Hopefully some targets on some players to hit their straps I.e. EH and the younger players to step up.

Then into the football;
Skills need to be top of the list to be refined by every player.

A forward line system found, including cohesion and roles understood, and adhered to.

Run out of the backline + Saad’s role to incorporate better output.

Stoppage and game nous improved. Same mistakes continually made.
^^
New ideas or replacements found to make these happen, or current coaches open their eyes to reoccurring issues.

Continuity with healthy players will assist immensely plus assist development of the younger players/VFL team/growth.

Austin & Co. need to impress with the right players to enter the club and at the right value.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

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

Look at our midfield, the setups, the mix... we've pretty much had the same midfield coach since 2015 bar a few years when he went to GC and had no impact there as forwards coach.

Clarke might be a top bloke, well liked etc. but there is evidence that it isn't working... and I highly doubt it's because Voss over rules him... he's worked under Bolton too... so it's not a dartboard approach.

Russell as forwards coach, our smalls continuously suck at getting into position, unable to win ground ball, unable to apply pressure to opposition when they exit their d50 they look completely and utterly lost out there... then we have Charlie wrestling all season instead of leading up to the ball carrier... Charlie and Harry getting in each other's way... if he's doing something right, what exactly is it?

We've only scored heavily this year off the back of Charlie and Harry's talent along with Owies having a career best year and the Williams and Cincotta moves catching opposition off guard.

Expect no different from these assistants next year.

 

[harmesy37]

Just my opinion but if we had a strong, competent football boss, Sam Docherty would not have played

What we do have is "group-think"

We value feel good stories like Doc’s rather than wins that make us feel good.

 

[harmesy37]

Just my opinion but if we had a strong, competent football boss, Sam Docherty would not have played

What we do have is "group-think"

We value feel good stories like Doc’s rather than wins that make us feel good.

 

[Michael Jezz]

I have addressed this many times. I am not an advocate for a status quo, I am an advocate to address primary root cause.

Lloyd, Sayers and Austin are primary root causes. You may beg to differ

 

[BluStreak]

Lloyd, Sayers and Austin are primary root causes. You may beg to differ

I do!

 

[AT97]

Lloyd is a low altitude flyer, needs to be upgraded

…All tip no iceberg, greatest L plater of all time…I thought you were a Collingwood ‘supporter’, Paul.

 

[plentyblckie]

Get rid of Llyod as next point of business.
All I've hard is totally garbage from the club re the role of Russell.
His whole tenure has been an abomination.
How the f after a review wasn't he booted last yr.
When u get 2yr players doing an 8 week hammy at training the day after a game I don't give a flying f..there's an issue.
Lloyd to sign this off needs 2 go now