Roast I've lost my faith in Chris Davies

[Ford Fairlane]

Someone to put the entire football department on the same page and to hold the bosses accountable. It certainly seemed that list management, analytics, physical, medical, and coaching weren't or stopped moving in the same direction this season.

This is, or should be, Chris Davies' responsibility. Moreover, he is in charge since 2014. When was our last great season again?

---

Just saw that we were 6-9 in 2015, before winning 6 of our last 7 games. It was too little too late for us, but must have brought a feel-good feeling into the off-season — the opposite of 2018.

---

2013: 11-7 after winning the Showdown; finished 1-3 for a 12-10 record. (eliminated in SF)
2016: 50% footy until 9-9; finished 1-3 for a 10-12 record. (no Finals)

Essentially all he does is manage contracts. Who knows who really runs football operations at Port. Probably Ken just like Choco did.

What's that old saying about those who fail to learn the lessons of the past?

 

[GremioPower]

Essentially all he does is manage contracts. Who knows who really runs football operations at Port. Probably Ken just like Choco did.

What's that old saying about those who fail to learn the lessons of the past?

Then, the answer remains the same: we need an actual Head-of-Football.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Then, the answer remains the same: we need an actual Head-of-Football.

Brian Cunningham made those big calls when he was CE. He made Clarkson an assistant without advising Choco who was not happy. And we trusted Bucky because he was smart strong and credible.

 

[MrMeaner]

Brian Cunningham made those big calls when he was CE. He made Clarkson an assistant without advising Choco who was not happy. And we trusted Bucky because he was smart strong and credible.

Losing Bucky after 2004 was the beginning of the decline. In fact, everything about 04 smacked of “misssion accomplished”.

The problem now is that there seems to be very few people who can play the role we need from a Football Operations Manager. Balme is one, Allen is probably to other. The problem with the role is that none of these guys has an assistant to apprentice and bring in to the role elsewhere. So, you have to take pot-luck.

 

[raptalia]

Take this from an outsider. You play reactive football. You rely on the opposition making mistakes then you pounce. That will work against half the teams in the competition but not the best teams. My view is you have a wonderful midfield, a freak in Paddy Ryder who can play on one leg, a defence that relies on Jonas too much and a forward line depending too much on Dixon.

I think you were extremely unlucky when you ran Hawthorn to a goal in the preliminary final back in 2013. There was a premiership beckoning if you had won that. Then there was there was the 12 month suspension of Paddy Ryder which was a major injustice in my view.

There's nothing you can do about the past. You need to play more proactive risk taking footy where you rely on your judgement and don't die wondering. That's not a coaching or club personality issue. That's purely a playing issue on the field. Win next week and make the finals is the aim. Maybe we meet again in the finals. Both our clubs have a lot of work to do to bridge the gap that Richmond have opened up on us.

A good post and I would welcome a change in our playing style. That said, I am not sure how you can separate changing a playing style from coaching. If you are going to change the way the team plays it has to start with the Coach.

 

[Rexie J]

Then, the answer remains the same: we need an actual Head-of-Football.

Further to Davies background GM. He was head-hunted from the SANFL where he was General Manager - Football.

 

[raptalia]

Then, the answer remains the same: we need an actual Head-of-Football.

That is what Chris Davies is supposed to be. His title is General Manager- Football Operations.

In any case you need to be careful what you wish for. In the NRL the Penrith Panthers have an el supremo in ex NSW Coach Phil Gould. Nothing happens at Penrith without Phil Gould's approval. Gould does not coach the side, he just sits in the background then sacks the Coach if he doesn't like what is happening.

Maybe if we employed Phil Gould he could sack Hinkley for us?

 

[Portmagpies36]

Take this from an outsider. You play reactive football. You rely on the opposition making mistakes then you pounce. That will work against half the teams in the competition but not the best teams. My view is you have a wonderful midfield, a freak in Paddy Ryder who can play on one leg, a defence that relies on Jonas too much and a forward line depending too much on Dixon.

I think you were extremely unlucky when you ran Hawthorn to a goal in the preliminary final back in 2013. There was a premiership beckoning if you had won that. Then there was there was the 12 month suspension of Paddy Ryder which was a major injustice in my view.

There's nothing you can do about the past. You need to play more proactive risk taking footy where you rely on your judgement and don't die wondering. That's not a coaching or club personality issue. That's purely a playing issue on the field. Win next week and make the finals is the aim. Maybe we meet again in the finals. Both our clubs have a lot of work to do to bridge the gap that Richmond have opened up on us.

Would you like a job in our football department next year ?

 

[GremioPower]

That is what Chris Davies is supposed to be. His title is General Manager- Football Operations.

In any case you need to be careful what you wish for. In the NRL the Penrith Panthers have an el supremo in ex NSW Coach Phil Gould. Nothing happens at Penrith without Phil Gould's approval. Gould does not coach the side, he just sits in the background then sacks the Coach if he doesn't like what is happening.

Maybe if we employed Phil Gould he could sack Hinkley for us?

The GM would respond to the CEO. There must be a proper system of checks and balances. Ultimately, it is necessary having the right people in the right positions; but there must be some accountability.

P.S.: I couldn't avoid reading "Phil Gould" as sounding like "Feel Good!"

 

[Macca19]

Im still happy we picked up Motlop, Rocky and Watts.

Trengove held his own in the games hes played, happy to keep him.

Thomas and Mckenzie should be gone though

 

[raptalia]

Brian Cunningham made those big calls when he was CE. He made Clarkson an assistant without advising Choco who was not happy. And we trusted Bucky because he was smart strong and credible.

Geez wish we had a Board with the likes of Brian Cunningham and Warren Tredrea on it instead of some of the non footy credentialed people we have. It is one thing to have business acumen and community profile on the Board but you have to balance it with the footy smarts and knowledge that comes with experience in our core business - Australian Rules Football. We should not be surprised if we get incredible decisions and a perceived 'warm and fuzzy' community focus when we have too many non footy people making and ratifying the decisions. I must add that in AFL terms the composition of the PAFC Board is no exception in any of this but our concern has to be with our Club.

Bucky and Tredders probably would not want the gig but we are allowed to dream.

 

[GremioPower]

Thomas and Mckenzie should be gone though

I would give them both a second year, for different reasons: Thomas adds experience and is a clubman, and we need those in the Maggies; McKenzie was unlucky, and the Power missed someone someone with a deep kick.

 

[crafty_bernardo]

I would give them both a second year, for different reasons: Thomas adds experience and is a clubman, and we need those in the Maggies; McKenzie was unlucky, and the Power missed someone someone with a deep kick.

Not sure there's a place for McKenzie he also seems slow. I think his place in the backline has been filled by Lienert and we have Broadbent & Hammer coming back next year.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Further to Davies background GM. He was head-hunted from the SANFL where he was General Manager - Football.

Davies was a senior manager at the Australian Cricketers Association for a few years, then appointed CEO of Woodville-West Torrens after 2008 season ended, then appointed GM of footy at SANFL after 2012 season finished and then we got him late in 2014 footy season and he spent a month or two working with Peter Rohde before Rohde finished up after a decade as our GM of footy.

 

[Rexie J]

Davies was a senior manager at the Australian Cricketers Association for a few years, then appointed CEO of Woodville-West Torrens after 2008 season ended, then appointed GM of footy at SANFL after 2012 season finished and then we got him late in 2014 footy season and he spent a month or two working with Peter Rohde before Rohde finished up after a decade as our GM of footy.

Certainly agreed REH and ponder one of the most significant weaknesses in Port's management structure. CD self describes as "I'm an adminstrator" in his most recent interview now on the Port site. His administration abilities are not necessarily under any scrutiny but as he is the General Manager Football, those skills maybe challenged.

There has been discussion long before this season's debacle Port urgently needed a "Head of Football" with significant experience in that field and the comments have obviously gathered speed in recent days.

While many barbs have been directed (rightly or wrongly) at Koch and therefore the Board, my view is the failure to appoint an experienced 'Head of Football' may be the most damning criticisim of the current PAFC management structure.

 

[Mr5014]

Certainly agreed REH and ponder one of the most significant weaknesses in Port's management structure. CD self describes as "I'm an adminstrator" in his most recent interview now on the Port site. His administration abilities are not necessarily under any scrutiny but as he is the General Manager Football, those skills maybe challenged.

There has been discussion long before this season's debacle Port urgently needed a "Head of Football" with significant experience in that field and the comments have obviously gathered speed in recent days.

While many barbs have been directed (rightly or wrongly) at Koch and therefore the Board, my view is the failure to appoint an experienced 'Head of Football' may be the most damning criticisim of the current PAFC management structure.

We had some of our worst years under Rhode. He was an AFL coach and player, sanfl coach too. Not sure experience in football guarantees you much.

I think the football ops manager isn't going to sack a coach. A coach is answerable direct to boards. I suspect GMs are there to make sure the coach gets what he wants in terms of staff, players etc, manage politics and so on. The coach must be able to run his own kingdom. The problem is when the king is mad...

 

[GremioPower]

Certainly agreed REH and ponder one of the most significant weaknesses in Port's management structure. CD self describes as "I'm an adminstrator" in his most recent interview now on the Port site. His administration abilities are not necessarily under any scrutiny but as he is the General Manager Football, those skills maybe challenged.

There has been discussion long before this season's debacle Port urgently needed a "Head of Football" with significant experience in that field and the comments have obviously gathered speed in recent days.

While many barbs have been directed (rightly or wrongly) at Koch and therefore the Board, my view is the failure to appoint an experienced 'Head of Football' may be the most damning criticisim of the current PAFC management structure.

We had some of our worst years under Rhode. He was an AFL coach and player, sanfl coach too. Not sure experience in football guarantees you much.

I think the football ops manager isn't going to sack a coach. A coach is answerable direct to boards. I suspect GMs are there to make sure the coach gets what he wants in terms of staff, players etc, manage politics and so on. The coach must be able to run his own kingdom. The problem is when the king is mad...

A Head-Coach runs his dominions, but it is only one among those related to football. He cannot run everything. The GM would be responsible for having every football department on the same page. If Davies is an administrator, he is not doing his job properly.

If what you have been telling me so far is true, Ken would be cumulatively holding both head-coach and GM positions. As GM, he responds to Thomas, but as HC, he responds to himself. It is really hard for this to work!

If so, it would make more sense — it would be the simplest practical solution for us:

a) aknowledging that Davies is our List Manager;
b) having Ken only as our full-time GM; and
c) promoting Voss to HC.

 

[Mr5014]

A Head-Coach runs his dominions, but it is only one among those related to football. He cannot run everything. The GM would be responsible for having every football department on the same page. If Davies is an administrator, he is not doing his job properly.

If what you have been telling me so far is true, Ken would be cumulatively holding both head-coach and GM positions. As GM, he responds to Thomas, but as HC, he responds to himself. It is really hard for this to work!

If so, it would make more sense having Ken our full time GM, promoting Voss to HC, and leaving Davies as our List Manager.

I disagree. The coach needs to be able to dictate what he needs from every part of a football department to make his plan work. That's telling a fitness team what he needs players to be able to do, assistant coaches how to train and execute their parts of the game plan, players their role in the team, list managers the type of players he needs. Yes, he can't do that all by himself, which is what the footy ops manager is for - to help make it happen for him.

 

[Mr5014]

Or at least that's how i took it when Rhodey was in charge...

 

[GremioPower]

I disagree. The coach needs to be able to dictate what he needs from every part of a football department to make his plan work. That's telling a fitness team what he needs players to be able to do, assistant coaches how to train and execute their parts of the game plan, players their role in the team, list managers the type of players he needs. Yes, he can't do that all by himself, which is what the footy ops manager is for - to help make it happen for him.

You are describing the GM. The HC is second-in-command and responds to him. The GM does all these things, but is not in charge of the day-to-day practices with the squad. That's the job of the HC.

The GM holds the heads accountable. He does not deal directly with assistants and players. That is the job of the heads; specially, the HC.

 

[Mr5014]

You are describing the GM. The HC is second-in-command and responds to him. The GM does all these things, but is not in charge of the day-to-day practices with the squad. That's the job of the HC.

The GM holds the heads accountable. He does not deal directly with assistants and players. That is the job of the heads; specially, the HC.

To emphasize the power a coach has in a club, Clarko got a CEO and a chairman kicked out. You might be right in that's how a club should be run, but it's not. It's for that reason I don't reckon a footy ops manager could sack a coach, but I bet a coach could get a footy ops manager kicked out - that's the pecking order

 

[GremioPower]

To emphasize the power a coach has in a club, Clarko got a CEO and a chairman kicked out. You might be right in that's how a club should be run, but it's not. It's for that reason I don't reckon a footy ops manager could sack a coach, but I bet a coach could get a footy ops manager kicked out - that's the pecking order

Players can sack a coach, too. Those are examples of power struggles. Someone brought an example of a powerful GM. Each club will be different from one another, depending on its organization and the adjustment of the people within.

Still, my point is that those powerful HC, they are more than HC. They play more than one role; regardless whether this is officially recognized or not. Someone can be GM-in-name-only; president-in-name-only; HC-in-name-only; capitain-in-name-only; etc.

One needs to see beyond the titles. It is who-does-what that matters the most. I have a model that I am using as measure, indeed. But that's an acceptable technique. Maybe my model is wrong, but I am trying to make it clear how my model is. Simplifying, considering football only:

President (Club Outside)
\/
CEO (Club Inside)
\/
GM (Football)
\/
HC (Squad)
​

In our particular case, below the HC, I would split into Power and Magpies. The Magpies Coach would be on the same level as the Power Assistent Coach.

Does this make sense?

 

[1954]

To emphasize the power a coach has in a club, Clarko got a CEO and a chairman kicked out. You might be right in that's how a club should be run, but it's not. It's for that reason I don't reckon a footy ops manager could sack a coach, but I bet a coach could get a footy ops manager kicked out - that's the pecking order

Kern must have had something to do with Sean Hart being removed ( no longer seen ) in the coaching box not long after their tap on the shoulder, raised fist altercation, that has been shown numerous times on this site.

I'm not sure of the exact timing of Hart being moved backwards and sideways to what was obviously a much lesser role than the one he had originally been hired for, but from memory it was done at the end of the same season, but it is still arguably the last really tough decision KT, Koch and the board made, and you didn't have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to work out Hart and the club would part ways as soon as his contract expired.

Interestingly, I believe it was Hart who recommended Voss to the club, who has now received a contract extension that numerous big footy Port supporters aren't happy about, so if big footy is as I suspect a microcosm of Port supporter's opinions, then there will obviously be a lot more fall out to come if they got that wrong.

 

[GremioPower]

Certainly agreed REH and ponder one of the most significant weaknesses in Port's management structure. CD self describes as "I'm an adminstrator" in his most recent interview now on the Port site. His administration abilities are not necessarily under any scrutiny but as he is the General Manager Football, those skills maybe challenged.

There has been discussion long before this season's debacle Port urgently needed a "Head of Football" with significant experience in that field and the comments have obviously gathered speed in recent days.

While many barbs have been directed (rightly or wrongly) at Koch and therefore the Board, my view is the failure to appoint an experienced 'Head of Football' may be the most damning criticisim of the current PAFC management structure.

I disagree. The coach needs to be able to dictate what he needs from every part of a football department to make his plan work. That's telling a fitness team what he needs players to be able to do, assistant coaches how to train and execute their parts of the game plan, players their role in the team, list managers the type of players he needs. Yes, he can't do that all by himself, which is what the footy ops manager is for - to help make it happen for him.

I am really glad to see that I am NOT talking nonsense. Everything I was trying to say has already been pointed before. Geelong saw the issue 12 years ago:

Ok lets compare this to Geelong's review...

The key is transparency!!

Here is what Geelong said they would do and also their findings. It was a 5 or 6 week process.

Remember Bomber Thompson was contracted until 2007 and publically showed he didn't like the review. But it made some big changes which were embraced by him and all the club and you see the results of this over the last 2 seasons.

Cook's role was also questioned if he could be impartial, no different to what some of you are asking about Choco and Rhode.

Cats' footy review underway

12:00 AM Wed 16 August, 2006

The Geelong Football Club directors met recently to discuss several areas of the club’s business plan. In relation to the football department, the 2006 season at this stage has fallen below the expectations and objectives of everyone associated with the Club.

As Geelong Football Club President Frank Costa has previously flagged, a review of the reasons behind our performance in 2006 as well as proposed changes for 2007 would be instituted.

This review has been initiated by the Board and is being coordinated by Geelong Football Club chief executive Brian Cook and will incorporate analysis of every aspect of the football department, including and in no particular order:


Administration
All coaching areas
Fitness, medical and sport science
List management
Player leadership
Recruiting
Welfare and development

The process will see consultation with individuals and groups within these areas. The review and recommendations will be forwarded to the Board by the end of September.

Until the review has been completed and considered by the Board it is not appropriate to give updates or provide interim findings.

http://www.gfc.com.au/GeelongNews/NewsArticle/tabid/3933/Default.aspx?newsId=30662


http://www.gfc.com.au/GeelongNews/NewsArticle/tabid/3933/Default.aspx?newsId=33438

Review findings in the mail

12:00 AM Tue 03 October, 2006

As all Geelong Football Club members and supporters would know, everyone associated with the Club was disappointed with the 2006 season. We did not meet our expectations on the field and in a season that we entered with such high hopes, we have been seeking answers as to why this occurred.

The Club’s Chief Executive, Brian Cook was asked to head a review of our entire football operations and make recommendations that will enable the Club to move forward and have the success that we all crave.

The review took over five weeks and was concluded on Sunday 24 September when the Club’s Board met and determined the path we need to take. It would be fair to say that the review that Brian undertook was the most comprehensive process that any AFL Club has completed.

This is not just our view. David Parkin believes that this review will be seen as a blueprint for Clubs in the future. Some people have raised the fact that it would be difficult for Brian to complete this review in an impartial manner given that he has close relationships with the many people working in and associated with our Club.

Brian’s background in the game has seen him work as a CEO with both West Coast and Geelong for the past 17 seasons, and there is nobody more equipped or qualified to lead this process than him. He should be commended for the manner in which this review has been completed and the recommendations that have come from it.

The review incorporated interviews with around 50 people. This included all coaches, the Club’s player leadership group, players at various stages of their careers with the Club – i.e. first year, third year etc, football and medical staff and some people from outside the Club such as David Parkin, Andrew Bews and player managers.

We have been transparent in this process, in some ways to our detriment and the discomfort of people directly involved in the process. We felt it was important that our supporters knew how we were going about this review.

There was one fundamental question that we asked in this process – what do we need to do to make our football operations better to allow the Club to have greater success? To do this we looked back at how the Club went about all elements of its football operations. We have not looked to provide lip-service or window dressing.

Many people saw this review as being only about whether or not our senior coach Mark Thompson remained in that position. This is an over simplistic view of the reason we undertook this review. We looked at all areas of our football department in determining what we needed to do.

We want to make sure that you, our members and stakeholders, are aware of what will be happening at the Club.

Coaching
Mark Thompson will continue in his role as senior coach. This is the belief shared by those people that we spoke with. The senior players spoke of a man for whom they had deep respect. Others spoke highly of his tactical acumen and others of his ability to teach and develop players. This reinforced the view that we have of him.

What we did find though was that Mark had become too involved in areas that were not about coaching, e.g. recruiting, information technology, welfare and development, fitness, medical, rehabilitation and administration.

The structure of our football department and indeed those at most league Clubs, has continued to grow, and in many ways we did not foresee the impact that this has had on the coach’s role.

Much of Mark’s time was spent in dealing with non-coaching issues rather than focusing on managing and coaching the players. The Club wants and needs Mark to primarily coach and manage the player group, not be encumbered with much of the day-to-day administration roles.

We will restructure the way our football department is set up to ensure that this occurs. The Club will appoint a new General Manager of Football Operations who will have broader responsibility than previously was the case.

The General Manager of Football Operations will be responsible for taking on many of the day-to-day management roles.

The person will supervise all areas of the football department including:
• total player list management
• the continued development of the player leadership group
• all budgeting in the football department
• final sign-off on all football appointments and contracts
• integrating all elements of the football department

The General Manager of Football Operations will be a more substantial role than that of most other AFL Clubs, and more in line with the structure of the Sydney Swans.

Until such time as a person is appointed to this position, Brian Cook and Steve Hocking will serve as interim leaders of the department. Brian will also focus more of his energy with the football department in the future.

This role of General Manager of Football Operations will be filled by a yet to be appointed person that has a strong background in both AFL football and management.

The Club will also make changes to its coaching staff, with a new assistant coach to be sought. Andy Lovell, who is one of the most respected people at our Club, will not have his contract renewed. This has been painful for everyone associated with the Club. Andy is the type of person that any Club would want, but we looked at the strengths and weaknesses of the coaching group and believe that we had to make a change.

Leadership
Unfortunately Steven King has been plagued by injury ever since he was made captain four years ago. Whilst Steven sees the captaincy as a great honour, the time has come for him to concentrate on his role as one of the premier ruckmen in the AFL. Steven communicated this to the Club and we agree with his view on the captaincy.

Tom Harley will be the Club Captain for 2007. Tom has earned enormous respect throughout the Club and indeed in the wider football community. He is a player that has worked as hard as anyone to have a successful career. Everyone knows that we are a much better team when Tom is on the field and he again showed this in 2006.

We will continue to work with our players to generate greater leadership from our players.

We understand that the player leadership group was a new initiative and would take time to have the impact that we need it to have.

We will encourage the player leadership group greater responsibility in assisting the planning the likes of pre-season, match committee, core Club KPI’s and values, and delistings and trade activity.

Other Clubs have gone down this path and we understand that these programs take time to reach the desired outcomes.

Fitness/ training
There has been a lot of comment as to our physical preparation ahead of the 2006 season.

When it became clear to us that our players were not physically ready for the 2006 season, the Club sought an independent expert to assess our players’ fitness and importantly what we needed to do about it.

That review found that our players’ pre-season running workload was down significantly from the same period in 2005.

A conservative plan was in place in the early part of 2006 in an attempt to get our players through the year. We had 22 players on injury awareness programs during the pre-season.

There was a clear agreement among all of those that were involved in the past season that we were not fit enough, strong enough and did not train long enough or with the intensity required to succeed at the highest level.

This was altered mid-season, and even though we were playing catch-up, the team’s performances and results improved markedly over the second half of the year. An unfortunate element of these required changes was the dramatic increase in workload meant that on occasions some of our players felt they had not fully recovered from previous games and training and they were lethargic.

We are adding greater support in our fitness this summer, in particular the regime will be harder and more scientific and directly relevant to the changes in the game due to the new rules that were introduced in 2006.

The Club will be enhancing its rehabilitation programs and is seeking to form alliances with organizations to develop greater depth in the area of sports science infrastructure and testing.

It would be simplistic to say that we will work harder in the pre-season. The reality is that our fitness regime will be developed in an integrated and scientific way.

These are the major outcomes of this review.

Some people may feel we have not gone far enough. Others may feel that we have been too drastic with the changes. Some may take a wait and see approach.

We understand each point of view. We know that if you put 10 passionate Geelong members in a room each may have a different point of view. This is a great part of being a true supporter.

But when you are considering what we have determined, just remember this - every decision we have taken has been done to provide the Club with the best chance to have success. We are all passionate supporters of the Club and we want success as much as any Geelong supporter. We would never make a decision that was not in the best interests of the Club.

The Board of Directors and Administration are also very committed to improving their performance in line with our football team. We are all part of a committed group to improve from this point.

You should also be aware that a special meeting has been called for Wednesday, 11 October 2006 at 6pm in the Fred Flanagan Room at Skilled Stadium. The purpose of this meeting is to allow members to ask questions about the 2006 season and what plans we have for 2007 to address issues that have been identified.

We believe that this comprehensive review will see the changes that we need to make. We encourage all members to attend this meeting. It is a wonderful opportunity for you to ask us questions and to have a dialogue with the Club.

Thank you for your on-going support.

Yours sincerely,


Frank Costa (President)
Gareth Andrews (Vice President)
Helene Bender
Nicholas Carr
Alistair Hamblin
Greg Hywood
Doug Wade

I don't know about you, but the Geelong review is a blueprint that I am happy Port are following.

I wouldn't be surprised if we are facing precisely the same issues Geelong has found in 2006. I think the time is ripe for such a "soul searching." I've even written about this here:
http://farwestfooty.blogspot.com/2018/08/operation-what-happened-power-port-58.html

 

[Enviable Tradition]

Very good in the presser today.

If his actions match his words he is definitely part of the solution not the problem.

It's time for the off field version on the Summer of George!

Perhaps time for a thread title change?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk