Coaching Staff Former Coach Ben "Truck" Rutten - Sacked for real this time - 21/8

Remove this Banner Ad

IHurley said:
Bombadeer's point is compelling though.

Are we going to change the gameplan anytime there are a few injuries? We don't have a Wayne Carey in our team who is so good we need to revert to a Plan B anytime they're out. We need a gameplan where (given we don't have any superstars) everybody pulls their weight in defence.

If we are going to revert back to what we already know doesn't work in high pressure games, then not only can we write this season off (which we will anyway) we can pretty much say goodbye to any kind of real success in the next five years.

You don't win premierships by playing it safe - even if you have an amazing list (think GWS).

When it comes to footy doing the same thing over and over actually can lead to a different outcome.
Click to expand...
I wasn't contradicting his points, merely adding to them, and his concerns are the same as mine (it's why I brought it up).

I do think we need to consider all the possibilities before making up our minds and prosecuting one, which is the reason why I put forward an alternative scenario which is equally plausible on current knowledge (and maybe because someone else around here may have something else to add). I live in hope.

I am however personally leaning towards the idea that Rutten and Mahoney have been put under pressure by people at the club who are not part of the footy department to change the game plan, which is not really their role.

I am concerned about what that means for not only Rutten, but for our football success generally over the next few years.

I believe in Rutten and co. and that they have the right instincts and have a willingness to take the necessary steps towards that. Maybe the specific steps aren't the right ones, but they do not appeared to be married to a particular set of steps, they're capable of changing and willing to do their homework and engage with others who have suggestions, so I think ultimately that's a recipe for success.

But the thing that really bothers me is that the President said that they are all in on backing the GM Footy (Richardson at the time, Mahoney shortly thereafter) and Rutten, giving them the resources and support that they need. Now I'm not entirely convinced that that is true, if it ever was. It sounds like meddling.

So what I think is that Rutten and co actually need more support. They may need a mentor to bounce ideas off that is employed by the club (i.e. he can speak openly and honestly to that person without worrying about club IP leaking to other clubs or the media), but who isn't his boss in any way and cannot exert pressure on him at the risk of losing his job. That means: Not Kevin Sheedy. Not Simon Madden. Not Sean Wellman.

I know that there was some idea of Woosha doing something like that after his tenure as senior coach, which was apparently turned down. I hope that the director of coaching development moving on means that someone else is coming into that role to continue to support Rutten, and I hope that the rumour about Clarkson having some sort of business at Essendon means that they're looking a bit more broadly than the coteries' last letter to Santa.

So while at this stage it's not blatant, it is mildly concerning that the team in the footy department (coaches+Mahoney+auxiliaries) may not be fully supported to do what needs to be done. I do not want to Carlton our way into continued resets and shortcuts and more resets and more shortcuts. So it is something to keep an eye on, imo.
 
owen87 said:
I look at building the gameplan like building up a cake.

You add layer upon layer. At the moment it looks like they've tried to add a layer when the one below it isn't fully set. Perhaps that's due to injuries to key guys who help form the structure for what we do, or perhaps that jump to the next tier of expectations and complexity is too much for the current group who haven't 100% nailed down the first layer.

Peeling it back a step, isn't a sign of Rutten failing, or of the gameplan not working, or of the club not backing Rutten, or of Rutten looking to save his skin. It can simply be a sign that the playing group has tried and tried to get it down, but is failing to execute it each week for <reasons> and recognising that taking a step backwards to simply it now, will mean two step forwards in the future when those <reasons> are resolved.

Modern gameplans are complex, it's not just one layer of strategy (e.g. man-on-man) but multiple; where to run when you have the ball vs don't have the ball, where to run in x scenario versus y scenario when you have the ball, or z scenario or w scenario when you don't have the ball.

It gets increasingly complex, to handle increasingly more scenarios, until you're able to handle a sufficient number of scenarios to beat 17 other sides. Then those sides spend the off-season trying to come up with yet another lot of scenarios to beat your gameplan.
Click to expand...
Some game plans you can see progress, some are harder depending on what you're trying to fix or implement.

I often think of it as a software project in development.

One wrong letter/character in a million lines of code and it nothing works (doesn't compile and you can't run the software at all). It might be mostly developed and very close but anyone on the outside thinks everything is a mess. You get a project manager who doesn't understand or is susceptible to pressure from above/outside then they might scrap it or request a re-design when it doesn't need it. This can be the worst scenario because you've already spent a couple of years to get it to this point and might only be days or weeks away from getting it working at a base level.

If you get calm management then you may fix that and get it running so it can be tested and you can iron out the bugs/issues as different scenarios are presented/tested. At this point the managers can see some progress and relax a little.

At some point you get most issues ironed out if given time and the right resources. At this point if you've got the right developers (coaches) and resources (players), the software will run well and it can be deployed/released. There will always be some issues over time the more it gets tested by the public (opposition during games) but you can resolve them as they come. After some years it might require a re-design or to add major new functionality but generally if it's a good design it will get good results.

I see us as in the first part, we might be close but for various reasons it's not there yet and everything looks a mess. We need calm management to resist pressure. If they are starting to interfere when they aren't the experts (hearing they have requested game plan adjustments), we need an external review to ensure the management is appropriate because it sounds like they are not remaining calm and providing a shield to the pressure on the coach and players from above and outside.
 
Mr Mojo Risin said:
Some game plans you can see progress, some are harder depending on what you're trying to fix or implement.

I often think of it as a software project in development.

One wrong letter/character in a million lines of code and it nothing works (doesn't compile and you can't run the software at all). It might be mostly developed and very close but anyone on the outside thinks everything is a mess. You get a project manager who doesn't understand or is susceptible to pressure from above/outside then they might scrap it or request a re-design when it doesn't need it. This can be the worst scenario because you've already spent a couple of years to get it to this point and might only be days or weeks away from getting it working at a base level.

If you get calm management then you may fix that and get it running so it can be tested and you can iron out the bugs/issues as different scenarios are presented/tested. At this point the managers can see some progress and relax a little.

At some point you get most issues ironed out if given time and the right resources. At this point if you've got the right developers (coaches) and resources (players), the software will run well and it can be deployed/released. There will always be some issues over time the more it gets tested by the public (opposition during games) but you can resolve them as they come. After some years it might require a re-design or to add major new functionality but generally if it's a good design it will get good results.

I see us as in the first part, we might be close but for various reasons it's not there yet and everything looks a mess. We need calm management to resist pressure. If they are starting to interfere when they aren't the experts (hearing they have requested game plan adjustments), we need an external review to ensure the management is appropriate because it sounds like they are not remaining calm and providing a shield to the pressure on the coach and players from above and outside.
Click to expand...

I know a few years back Melbourne were working on implementing the defensive structure they have now (AFAIK it's mostly the same) but were missing a few key players with May & Lever rarely fit and playing, and players weren't getting the structures right reliably, so kept getting opened up, which was made all the worse due to insufficient pressure through the middle of the ground.

Fast forward a few years on, they've got the personnel to make it work where even the second string guys 'get it' now, and the structure is reliably right.

Things like Shiel covering the corridor, then giving up the corridor to chase the ball, opening it up for an easy i50 are the kinds of things that are your errors in the code example.

The system might be sound, but relies upon most or all players doing what they need to do, when they need to do it. Between lack of players and still learning the system, we're currently making a lot of errors.

Rutten, Caracella, Giansiracusa and Tapping are too experienced a coaching group for the system being implemented to be fundamentally poor IMO. Which means it's an execution thing.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Thing is it’s not the first time recently that we’ve had issues with bedding on gameplans. Happened a couple of times under Worsfold..and the stupid Neeld situation where all the assistants reported through Neeld to talk to Worsfold… and we started the season similar to this one.

I can’t remember too many other teams having this issue as clear as us.
 
The Donners said:
He still has time but was expecting a more professional football side no matter the win/loss. You could say it’s either the players aren’t listening or they’re simply not up to it but this has been carrying on for more than a decade.
Click to expand...
Maybe there are too many professionals... train hard, do everything that is asked of them, but heart isn't in it.
 
300-700k a year and we have to dumb it down.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

If we're going to be using injuries as an excuse every time the team shows insipidness and a lack of effort then we've truly fallen off the trajectory of what builds a solid team structure.

You look at other teams, who also suffer injuries to key players, and while they may not win games with as big of margins or may lose more of them, it won't be at the expense of trying or playing to a structure. The result isn't ideal but you walk away knowing you executed to the best of your ability because that's what the structure has provided - a structure which is handed down by the coach regardless of who is sitting in front of him.

We can talk about cakes all we like but if your entire trajectory, or layer, evades you and you endlessly make the same repeated obvious mistakes and only attempt 50 tackles a game as an entire unit then you have far deeper issues than injuries. That's a cultural and accountability/consenquence issue.
 
Call Me Cake said:
If we're going to be using injuries as an excuse every time the team shows insipidness and a lack of effort then we've truly fallen off the trajectory of what builds a solid team structure.

You look at other teams, who also suffer injuries to key players, and while they may not win games with as big of margins or may lose more of them, it won't be at the expense of trying or playing to a structure. The result isn't ideal but you walk away knowing you executed to the best of your ability because that's what the structure has provided - a structure which is handed down by the coach regardless of who is sitting in front of him.

We can talk about cakes all we like but if your entire trajectory, or layer, evades you and you endlessly make the same repeated obvious mistakes and only attempt 50 tackles a game as an entire unit then you have far deeper issues than injuries. That's a cultural and accountability/consenquence issue.
Click to expand...
You don't think injuries have played any part at all in where we find ourselves currently? Is anybody actually blaming injuries exclusively for this?
 
The Donners said:
Injuries have played no part in the lack of endeavour but perhaps they have in the inability to run both ways.
Click to expand...
injuries have played a part in the inability of the team to implement the system the coaching staff have been trying to implement. i think.
 
Beerfish said:
injuries have played a part in the inability of the team to implement the system the coaching staff have been trying to implement. i think.
Click to expand...
I don’t recognise you with this avatar.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Coaching Staff Former Coach Ben "Truck" Rutten - Sacked for real this time - 21/8

Similar threads

TheUnicorn
Delisted #49: Jaiden Hunter - Heading home - 15/8
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
465
Views
38K
bombreys
B

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top