Goodes let off

[swanniez1983]

Thanks a lot, Mancey.

If posters like Dr Jolly want to make such hypocritical and patronising remarks, then I'm more than happy to take them up on it.

And I like your work too, btw.

Oh can you feel the love

 

[Bernie Quinlan]

Some of the points you make are entirely valid. The Swans do have some embarrassing moments in their history, though some need to be viewed in the context of a struggling club uprooted to a strange city without the proper infrastructure in place and with the VFL (as was) clearly having little appreciation of the challenges they faced to make it work.

I wouldn't claim the Swans to be a powerhouse of the comp, that's for sure. They are still vulnerable financially and still represent a niche sport in their home market. Huge strides have been taken over the last decade but when the off-field performances drop - which they inevitably will in time - who knows how rough a ride the Swans will have financially and within the media until they are able to climb up again. Compared to the likes of Essendon, West Coast, Adelaide and the Pies they have no claims to be a powerhouse at all.

I am, however bewildered by your comments on the Swans treating Eade appallingly. Care to elaborate? Eade quit halfway through a season after the board indicated they weren't, at that stage, prepared to extend his contract beyond the end of that season. The vast majority of coaches will land up being sacked - or resigning under pressure - by at least one club during their careers. I'd have thought Eade's "treatment" was very mild compared to the way some other coaches have been treated.

Thanks Liz; I appreciate the comments in your first couple of paragraphs.

Re Eade, perhaps what I said was a bit strong. But I thought the fact that they weren't prepared to extend his contract at all was gobsmacking at the time. The guy had been an amazing coach for Sydney - and, from memory, in the course of even his first 6 years or so, won more games than any other coach in the entirety of the Swans' history?

Then, as soon as there was a season where they weren't going too well, the board turned on him big-time.

That he 'quit' mid-season was an indictment on the club, imo. No coach quits at that sort of time (indeed, a coach rarely quits at all) unless the administration is giving him very little in the way of support. He was pushed to leave, and shown no loyalty at all despite a brilliant record. That's how I read it, anyway.

 

[Tuco]

Re Eade, perhaps what I said was a bit strong. But I thought the fact that they weren't prepared to extend his contract at all was gobsmacking at the time. The guy had been an amazing coach for Sydney - and, from memory, in the course of even his first 6 years or so, won more games than any other coach in the entirety of the Swans' history?

Then, as soon as there was a season where they weren't going too well, the board turned on him big-time.

That he 'quit' mid-season was an indictment on the club, imo. No coach quits at that sort of time (indeed, a coach rarely quits at all) unless the administration is giving him very little in the way of support. He was pushed to leave, and shown no loyalty at all despite a brilliant record. That's how I read it, anyway.

I was a big fan of Eade's work. But we had had 3 very poor seasons in a row, there had been some shocking recuitment blunders (such as Lockett's return) and most importantly he had lost the playing group. It's not very well known, but Kirk, Fosdike and Goodes were all about to leave the club or be traded if Eade had stayed. We got Roos just in time, and almost the first thing he did was assure Kirk that he was a required player.

Eade wasn't treated well. I agree. But the Board were looking after the club first, and the were proven right within a matter of weeks. Who knows where we'd be now if he'd lingered for another season or two?

 

[liz]

Re Eade, perhaps what I said was a bit strong. But I thought the fact that they weren't prepared to extend his contract at all was gobsmacking at the time. The guy had been an amazing coach for Sydney - and, from memory, in the course of even his first 6 years or so, won more games than any other coach in the entirety of the Swans' history?

Then, as soon as there was a season where they weren't going too well, the board turned on him big-time.

That he 'quit' mid-season was an indictment on the club, imo. No coach quits at that sort of time (indeed, a coach rarely quits at all) unless the administration is giving him very little in the way of support. He was pushed to leave, and shown no loyalty at all despite a brilliant record. That's how I read it, anyway.

As Tuco points out, things weren't that simple.

The Swans were stuck in that middle of the table rut, not apparently having a squad capable of doing damage in the finals (though their 2003 performance and that of the next couple of years kind of puts pay to that impression). The Swans performances had been largely driven by a small number of very experienced senior players yet Schwass had clearly lost his enthusiam and was struggling, and there was a strong expectation that Dunkley and Kelly might call it quits at the end of the year - possibly even Cresswell too. Eade hadn't succeeded in bringing on any of the younger brigade to any great heights.

It wasn't necessarily Eade's fault - sometimes change is needed for change's sake - but surely you can understand a board being reluctant to extend a coach's contract mid-season when there are real question marks over what is needed. Eade forced the situation so he has to take at least part of the responsibility for things coming to a head mid-season.

If Peter Rhode had approached the Dogs' board midway through his final season, do you think the board was obligated to extend his tenure just because he asked?

I liked Eade as a coach for most of the time and the contribution he made to bringing some credibility to the club was very important. But I think that history has shown that both he and the Swans were better off breaking off their partnership when they did. The Eade you are witnessing at the Bulldogs at the moment looks to be a very different Eade to the one that was in charge of the Swans in 2001-2002.

There are plenty of coaches who really have been treated badly by their clubs - like Damien Drum who heard of his sacking via the media, and Grant Thomas, where it was pretty evident even at the time that it wasn't totally his coaching abilities that were the reason for his sacking. Or Stan Alves, who was inexplicably (to an outsider) sacked a year after taking his team to a Grand Final.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Oh can you feel the love

Almost puke-worthy isn't it?

 

[TheBloods]

Whoa, respect Bernie.

Quite possibly the best post i've ever seen on this website.

Awesome work

Now I know that the vast majority of posts on this site are crap, so there's not much competition, but you'd be hard pressed to consider that post to be one of the best.

 

[Mancey]

Sorry mate, but with the amount of diatribe and plain fallacies being thrown around by some swans fans....it had to be said.

Good on him.

Boil on the ####, wtf fellas?

 

[Bernie Quinlan]

Now I know that the vast majority of posts on this site are crap, so there's not much competition, but you'd be hard pressed to consider that post to be one of the best.

Awww. Someone's bitter. It might be best for you to cease posting so much superficial dross, and then someone might compliment you one day too.

I was a big fan of Eade's work. But we had had 3 very poor seasons in a row

Three very poor seasons? In a row? Eh?! Excluding the year in which he departed mid-season, they finished in the finals every year but once in Eade's time at the club (1996, 97, 98, 99 and 01), did they not? I'm not sure what your definition of "very poor" is - but it's clearly a lot different to mine.

there had been some shocking recuitment blunders (such as Lockett's return)

Eade was hardly solely responsible for this. And can you imagine what would have happened if he'd intervened and said 'no' to the idea of a Lockett return in any case?

Kirk, Fosdike and Goodes were all about to leave the club or be traded if Eade had stayed.

Have never heard that before - but I'd suggest that says as much about the three players concerned as it does about Eade. In just about all cases (maybe if it was a Hird, a Voss or a Judd, I'd be inclined to reconsider), it's arrogant for any player to assume that he's bigger to the organisation than the coach - and to try and tell the administration to get rid of him.

Eade wasn't treated well. I agree. But the Board were looking after the club first, and the were proven right within a matter of weeks.

Proven right? And within a matter of weeks? You can't conclusively prove the first point is true (who's to say what would have happened if Eade had stayed and had been given the luxury of a better relationship with the Board) - and the second is plainly incorrect.

The Swans were stuck in that middle of the table rut, not apparently having a squad capable of doing damage in the finals (though their 2003 performance and that of the next couple of years kind of puts pay to that impression). The Swans performances had been largely driven by a small number of very experienced senior players yet Schwass had clearly lost his enthusiam and was struggling, and there was a strong expectation that Dunkley and Kelly might call it quits at the end of the year - possibly even Cresswell too.

I'd argue (and I think many other people would too) that this was a legacy of recruiting practices from some years earlier. The Swans targeted mature players from other teams to try and lift themselves up the ladder. They wanted success in a reasonably short period of time - and made a conscious decision to look as much at experienced players as bringing decent young guys through (the Schwass-Grant trade being one obvious example). Even still, many of the current Swans' stars were nevertheless recruited at the time when Eade was coach, were they not? In which case, you could easily argue that he balanced the mix pretty well - and set the club up very well for the future.

surely you can understand a board being reluctant to extend a coach's contract mid-season when there are real question marks over what is needed.

Most Boards would manage the situation better. How often do you see a coach being so unsure of where he stood mid-season - and effectively having no choice but to ask?

Eade forced the situation so he has to take at least part of the responsibility for things coming to a head mid-season.

While that may be the Sydney administration's (and most Swans supporters') spin on the matter, I strongly doubt this would be Eade's version of events.

If Peter Rhode had approached the Dogs' board midway through his final season, do you think the board was obligated to extend his tenure just because he asked?

No - but, as stated above, the situation shouldn't ever need to arise. And you wouldn't ever expect your club to place itself in this unacceptable kind of position. It's bad management, plain and simple.

There are plenty of coaches who really have been treated badly by their clubs - like Damien Drum who heard of his sacking via the media, and Grant Thomas, where it was pretty evident even at the time that it wasn't totally his coaching abilities that were the reason for his sacking. Or Stan Alves, who was inexplicably (to an outsider) sacked a year after taking his team to a Grand Final.

Of course. But two (or more) wrongs never make a right. Just because Freo sacked Drum and St Kilda axed Thomas and Alves doesn't in any sense excuse the way the Swans treated Eade.