Analysis Is Leppa the Right Man for the Job?

[Bucking Beads]

Time to let Leppa go. He is clearly not the guy that will coach us to a Premiership in 2016...

 

[POBT]

I get that the pressures/attention of an expiring contract are not ideal. However, I don't know if that is a good enough reason to extend the contract. I'd rather see some evidence of what Leppitsch is capable of in terms of improving this team. For whatever reason (list change, injuries, too much reliance on players who aren't ready), I don't feel we've had the opportunity to make an assessment of our current coaching lineup. In other words, if the question is whether Leppa is a good coach, I still don't know the answer to that. It is hard to justify an extension when you don't know if the bloke is actually any good at his job.

Having said that, one year extension approved right now makes some sense. It effectively turns a 3 year contract into 4 years which is not a huge deal. Leppitsch gets 2016 to perform without looming contract pressure. We don't have the risk of a massive contract payout and we get a year to make a better assessment of what he is capable of. And by making that decision now, it gives Leppitsch a full 2 years to make significant improvement.

 

[Elixuh]

POBT I like your reasoning re: the 1 year extension. One question I have is, what is a good coach defined as?

 

[blynd_freddie]

For homework, please complete your assessment of Leppa and hand in for marking scrutinising tomorrow.

1. Leadership Skills

2. Personal Qualities

3. Development and Performance

4. Communication and Interpersonal Skills

5. Vision and Values

6. Technical and Tactical skills

 

[Elixuh]

For homework, please complete your assessment of Leppa and hand in for marking scrutinising tomorrow.

5. Vision and Values

Are Leppa's optometrist records available to the public though?

 

[Kevvo]

I get that the pressures/attention of an expiring contract are not ideal. However, I don't know if that is a good enough reason to extend the contract. I'd rather see some evidence of what Leppitsch is capable of in terms of improving this team. For whatever reason (list change, injuries, too much reliance on players who aren't ready), I don't feel we've had the opportunity to make an assessment of our current coaching lineup. In other words, if the question is whether Leppa is a good coach, I still don't know the answer to that. It is hard to justify an extension when you don't know if the bloke is actually any good at his job.

Having said that, one year extension approved right now makes some sense. It effectively turns a 3 year contract into 4 years which is not a huge deal. Leppitsch gets 2016 to perform without looming contract pressure. We don't have the risk of a massive contract payout and we get a year to make a better assessment of what he is capable of. And by making that decision now, it gives Leppitsch a full 2 years to make significant improvement.

I find this post pretty persuasive, but isn't it also difficult to justify sacking a coach if you haven't been able to evaluate them properly yet?

I ask because most new coaches come at a cost in terms of destabilization and implementation of new systems (beyond just the game plan). If you're confident the new coach is a big improvement, or that the new one is clearly not up to the job, then the positives may validly outweigh those costs. On the other hand, there were presumably reasons we thought he was the right guy two years ago, and (as you say) we haven't had a proper shot to assess how he's going. Unless we're confident that there are markedly better candidates available, extending feels like the lower risk option to me.

That said, I do agree that a year extension would be preferable.

 

[POBT]

POBT I like your reasoning re: the 1 year extension. One question I have is, what is a good coach defined as?

Good question. In the context of a developing list like ours, I'd define it as someone who is making genuine (measurable?) improvements in the development and/or performance of the list.

 

[POBT]

I find this post pretty persuasive, but isn't it also difficult to justify sacking a coach if you haven't been able to evaluate them properly yet?

Are we talking about sacking him though?

FWIW, my preference would be to wait until mid next year to make a decision one way or another. But if we are going to grant an extension without factoring in 2016 performance (and I doubt Swan would have mentioned it if weren't going to), I'd rather do it right now and for only 12 months.

 

[MacMum]

I'm happy to have his contract extended. A full year without major injuries will tell us whether he has us on the right path. Also think it not fair to judge at half way mark when we have such a tough start and playing some top teams twice.

Stability and faith are not to be underestimated.

 

[James North]

It's settled - one year.

I'll take it to the board.

 

[Dicky Fitzwell]

its a whole new beginning and looking much better - Lepper has to stay!

 

[Elixuh]

Good question. In the context of a developing list like ours, I'd define it as someone who is making genuine (measurable?) improvements in the development and/or performance of the list.

I think the development of the list element is a tick. Especially given the turnover of players we've had since the end of 2013. Performance from a fans perspective would have to be said to be not great. But internal measures might say otherwise, I'm not sure. He's had his flaws but I think has been successful enough to justify an extension, albeit a small one.

 

[POBT]

I think the development of the list element is a tick. Especially given the turnover of players we've had since the end of 2013. Performance from a fans perspective would have to be said to be not great. But internal measures might say otherwise, I'm not sure. He's had his flaws but I think has been successful enough to justify an extension, albeit a small one.

I can't measure development of the list yet. Turning over lots of players doesn't necessarily mean that we've developed. We might have simply replaced older average/substandard players with young average/substandard players.

 

[James North]

The other point that I'd consider in this discussion is that I'm not sure what another coach could've done (particularly last year) given the list and the injuries.

If we had Malthouse, Lethal, Clarkson in their prime - would we have done a whole lot better?

To me it's difficult to say that Leppa is doing a *bad job* because of some special circumstances and possibly also the mandate/directive he's been given to shape the list.

I can understand arguments that he's not showing a lot in terms of doing a *good job*, but how do you assess that with a pretty young and not that great list who suffered injuries to its best players pretty much all year?

 

[Roylion]

I'd be giving Leppitsch another two years and signing him until the end of 2018. Brisbane is clearly in a list rebuild and this is going to take time to bring to fruition. There's been a large turnover of players since 2013 (mostly unforced but half a dozen players have also left that the Lions would have preferred to keep - and in my view most of them have not been due to Leppitsch's supposed shortcomings). 2016 will be a consolidation year irrespective of whatever our injury toll is. As a comparsion Brendan Bolton is going to need five-six years to rebuild Carlton's list into a finals contender and in my view Leppitsch should be afforded a similar time period to see what he can do. The end of 2018 will mean that Leppitsch will have had five years to stamp his mark and game plan on the Lions list - a reasonable time to do so.

Paul Roos the supposed 'super-coach' has had the same number of wins as Leppitsch has in the last two years. I understand Roos has his previous record to fall back on, but I have no doubt that Melbourne would extend Roos' contract for another couple of years if he was willing to do so. Why not afford the same luxury to Leppitsch, especially in light of our situation as a club in developing market that has difficulties in retaining players and accessing football resources the equal of many of the Victorian clubs?

 

[Ironmonger]

I think his greatest success has been coaxing a lot of strong and resilient performances from young players asked to carry a disproportionate load (I'm particularly thinking of Taylor, Clarke, Andrews, Paparone, 2014 Gardiner and Robertson through the earlier part of the season). Unsurprisingly they've had their ups and downs, but by and large I think we've done pretty well in the circumstances. Some players (particularly Mayes) have responded less well, but to develop more kids than not when the team is acutely short handed does count for something.

Also, despite the inconsistency, we've shown glimpses of playing exciting and smart football over the past couple of years. I do think that we've laid good groundwork on being able to play fast, attacking football (Bulldogs rd 23) and controlled disciplined football (the loss to GWS away this year where we held them at bay for most of the game) and to transition between the two. Leppa has come in for some criticism for not having a clear plan or style. I think that is a bit misplaced. I think where other sides have just picked an obvious style and gone hammer and tongs (Port and more recently the Bulldogs), we've tried to develop more than one way to win. IMO that's a slower, harder way to go about it, but one I can see bearing fruit in the long term. To be fair, we've played some atrocious football over that stretch too, but as we've gone back and forth over a few times, I think there are some important mitigating factors there.

I did say it was a trap.

You've quickly segued from saying what Leppitsch has done well to defending him against criticism, and to me that's the problem with this discussion.

I'd argue that there needs to be a strong positive case to grant Leppitsch a contract extension, not just important mitigating factors. After all, there are only eighteen head coaches of AFL clubs; it is the absolute elite position in Australian Rules coaching.

And at the risk of putting words in your mouth, I'd suggest that we agree that the positive signs you've identified are overwhelmed by the depressingly poor performances?

Most likely we can make a stronger case to extend Leppa's tenure at the end of 2016, but if we can't, then he shouldn't continue in the role, in my opinion. This is too important for us to just hope that the first three years can be explained away.

 

[MacMum]

Who would you bring in to replace him?

 

[James North]

I did say it was a trap.

You've quickly segued from saying what Leppitsch has done well to defending him against criticism, and to me that's the problem with this discussion.

I'd argue that there needs to be a strong positive case to grant Leppitsch a contract extension, not just important mitigating factors. After all, there are only eighteen head coaches of AFL clubs; it is the absolute elite position in Australian Rules coaching.

And at the risk of putting words in your mouth, I'd suggest that we agree that the positive signs you've identified are overwhelmed by the depressingly poor performances?

Most likely we can make a stronger case to extend Leppa's tenure at the end of 2016, but if we can't, then he shouldn't continue in the role, in my opinion. This is too important for us to just hope that the first three years can be explained away.

So essentially you give him one year now that he's got the staff/players he's chosen?

 

[Elixuh]

I can't measure development of the list yet. Turning over lots of players doesn't necessarily mean that we've developed. We might have simply replaced older average/substandard players with young average/substandard players.

I suppose I saw that as partly performance related as well and something which I don't think can really be assessed for another 1-3 years. But you're right that the turnover of players provides no guarantees.

 

[M Malice]

unless you are involved in the lions or have a direct association with an insider, all of our talk on big footy is pure speculation, which is fine. that's what BF is all about.

For homework, please complete your assessment of Leppa and hand in for marking scrutinising tomorrow.

1. Leadership Skills

2. Personal Qualities

3. Development and Performance

4. Communication and Interpersonal Skills

5. Vision and Values

6. Technical and Tactical skills

the only evidence that you can go by is the pure facts and figures ie. the ladder/player movement. my speculation would be that the lions have had a massive turnaround off field since leppa arrived/substaintially new board/craig lambert/austin etc. player turnover since the go home 5 is no worse than any other club that has been down for an extended period. i think we should back leppa in for 2016/17 on field and see how it all pans out. the injury list last year was a massive factor in our performances surely it can't be that bad again.

 

[Ironmonger]

So essentially you give him one year now that he's got the staff/players he's chosen?

Making the best of what you've got is just part of being a coach, I'm afraid. No one ever gets exactly the staff and players they want, because there are seventeen other clubs out there who want them too.

I get that the pressures/attention of an expiring contract are not ideal. However, I don't know if that is a good enough reason to extend the contract. I'd rather see some evidence of what Leppitsch is capable of in terms of improving this team. For whatever reason (list change, injuries, too much reliance on players who aren't ready), I don't feel we've had the opportunity to make an assessment of our current coaching lineup. In other words, if the question is whether Leppa is a good coach, I still don't know the answer to that. It is hard to justify an extension when you don't know if the bloke is actually any good at his job.

Having said that, one year extension approved right now makes some sense. It effectively turns a 3 year contract into 4 years which is not a huge deal. Leppitsch gets 2016 to perform without looming contract pressure. We don't have the risk of a massive contract payout and we get a year to make a better assessment of what he is capable of. And by making that decision now, it gives Leppitsch a full 2 years to make significant improvement.

It's a fine middle ground, but it seems like we're just backing that we'll be able to make a decision with four years worth of performances that we can't make in three. Or perhaps more accurately with three years rather than two, if we're always going to make decisions a year ahead of time.

I think we might as well just make full use of the time we've signed up for. As you say, negative media coverage isn't a good enough reason in itself to extend a contract we don't want to extend.

 

[James North]

I think we might as well just make full use of the time we've signed up for. As you say, negative media coverage isn't a good enough reason in itself to extend a contract we don't want to extend.

The stress on the coach and their family with all that speculation is pretty full-on. I think it's a pretty strong reason to do it.

Bu why would they extend a contract they don't want to extend anyway? That makes no sense!

 

[Ironmonger]

The stress on the coach and their family with all that speculation is pretty full-on. I think it's a pretty strong reason to do it.

Bu why would they extend a contract they don't want to extend anyway? That makes no sense!

I meant that you shouldn't extend a contract that you wouldn't have extended if it wasn't for potentially negative media coverage.

The media tends to laud winners and shun losers. If we give Leppitsch an extension, and we have another crappy year, there'll still be pressure, stress and speculation. Admittedly probably not as much speculation, but I don't think the difference is worth changing our approach.

 

[POBT]

I think a lot depends on how we see 2015. Was it a write-off due to injury and list instability? Or were our results a relatively true reflection of the development of our list?

If 2015 was a write-off, then a 1 year extension simply means that Leppa gets a full three years to prove himself.

Alternatively (and this is probably my preferred view), we need to take 2015 into account, even if it is with an asterisk, when assessing Leppa as head coach. As bad as things got in terms of injury to key players, the performances were still largely unacceptable. This is why I don't support a longer extension.

 

[POBT]

The stress on the coach and their family with all that speculation is pretty full-on. I think it's a pretty strong reason to do it.

I don't agree with that. That's what he signed up for. We should help Leppa manage that stress but we shouldn't offer him contract extensions because it will make his life easier.

There's this weird paradigm shift happening in football where contracts are almost deemed to be terminated 12 months in advance. If you haven't signed on a year before your contract expires, the footy world assumes you're either being given the arse or you are planning to leave. If you buy into that, then you are just perpetuating the cycle. I don't think that's a good reason to extend a contract on someone you don't know is right for the job.