News Leppitsch's contract extended until 2017

[Ironmonger]

My 2 cents worth:

He walked into a train wreck in 2014 with absolutely no say in or control over the GH5 situation, not to mention the rest of the turmoil surrounding the club after the sacking of Voss and a dysfunctional and out of touch Board.

We were all optimistic about a better performance in 2015 but our hundreds of (injuries time playing weeks ) soon put an end to that . From memory, that was something like a figure of 240, compared with the AFL average of 80.

How anyone can even attempt to quantify Leppa's performance over the last 2 years is beyond me.

In fact, considering that we were widely regarded as cannon fodder even before the Injury Toll from Hell set in 2015, one could probably mount a cogent argument that he actually did pretty well.

The upset win over the Dogs in the last Round was as exhilarating as it was unexpected

He needs to get a decent go at it with a bit of room to breathe.

I fully support the decision to give him a two year extension.

That's a contradiction. If it's possible to argue he's done pretty well, then it's possible to assess his performance.

Mount that cogent argument. Let's put it out there and try to pick it apart.

For mine, I have two significant positives from Leppitsch's time at the club. The first is the way he's integrated new players seamlessly into the team, and the second is our improvement at stoppages. On the other hand, I have a shopping list of negatives.

 

[LongLion]

That's a contradiction. If it's possible to argue he's done pretty well, then it's possible to assess his performance.

Mount that cogent argument. Let's put it out there and try to pick it apart.

For mine, I have two significant positives from Leppitsch's time at the club. The first is the way he's integrated new players seamlessly into the team, and the second is our improvement at stoppages. On the other hand, I have a shopping list of negatives.

But..... would Roosy and now lets throw Clarkson into the picture have done much better ove the last 2 years?

 

[Ironmonger]

But..... would Roosy and now lets throw Clarkson into the picture have done much better ove the last 2 years?

Almost definitely.

And I'm sure if we'd retained Voss for the last two years we'd have done better, although ultimately our overall position would still be pretty bleak.

But I don't want to judge Leppitsch against the absolute best, or even against the last guy. Leppitsch seems to have a very firm set of strategies and a clear direction for the club, and that involves a bit of necessary pain. I'm not sure I agree that we needed more instability on top of what we already had, but I can understand how it could work out for us. But it will only work out for us if we make significant progress in these years, and so many players have become stuck in a rut that our long term prospects really don't look any brighter.

I wanted to see some firm signs that we have the right guy in charge before we chase our losses with a contract extension. That doesn't have to mean winning more games - although it could do and probably should - but it does mean better development of young players, the emergence of a more coherent gameplan, and some tangible signs of confidence within the playing group.

 

[M Malice]

But..... would Roosy and now lets throw Clarkson into the picture have done much better ove the last 2 years?

very unlikely, they may have secured 1 or 2 more wins and a slightly better percentage but couldn't see us roaring up the ladder. we have to remember that many geelong people and scribes wanted mark thompson sacked for much the same reasons being put forward against leppa pre 2007. there has been a complete re building of the club from board level down over the last 2 years, lets back the clubs judgement in and see where it takes us.

#runandgun #greatnessiscoming #committednotinvolved

 

[T Rick]

Personally, I am delighted that Leppa has been given an extended contract and struggle to understand how changing coaches at this point in the development of our list would make any sense whatsoever. We need to give our revamped list and young cubs time to develop and likewise our coach needs time and some consistency with players on the park. Leppa now has a lot of good people around him also a Football Director who knows something about coaching on the Board...poor Vossy didn't have a chance in hell.

 

[Kevvo]

I think what this comes down to is that some posters (Ironmonger and Dylan12 for example) think you need clear reasons to keep a coach, where some of us take the view that at this point in our development you need clear reasons to sack a coach.

From my perspective, either position is probably valid. I don't think it's an argument over facts.

The last two years have been complex and painful. Even the posters who don't like the re-signing would probably accept that Leppitsch has been dealt a hard hand with a lot of factors beyond his control. Equally, I can see how they reasonably reach the view that it's not clear yet that he will be a good long term head coach. So, I don't think we've seen clear evidence he'll be great, nor do I think we've seen clear evidence he'll be bad. That being the case, my default preference is stay the course and promote some stability. Theirs isn't. Fair enough. We're not going to talk each-other around on this.

 

[Ironmonger]

I think what this comes down to is that some posters (Ironmonger and Dylan12 for example) think you need clear reasons to keep a coach, where some of us take the view that at this point in our development you need clear reasons to sack a coach.

From my perspective, either position is probably valid. I don't think it's an argument over facts.

The last two years have been complex and painful. Even the posters who don't like the re-signing would probably accept that Leppitsch has been dealt a hard hand with a lot of factors beyond his control. Equally, I can see how they reasonably reach the view that it's not clear yet that he will be a good long term head coach. So, I don't think we've seen clear evidence he'll be great, nor do I think we've seen clear evidence he'll be bad. That being the case, my default preference is stay the course and promote some stability. Theirs isn't. Fair enough. We're not going to talk each-other around on this.

I respect the intention to bridge the gap here, but I just don't agree with that assessment. You need clear reasons to both sack a coach and to retain a coach. You need clear reasons for every decision, even if it's to maintain the status quo.

There is clear evidence that Leppitsch is a bad coach. Maybe not conclusive evidence, but the failure to get the best out of so many players, the player retention problems, the confusion on the field, the tapering development of young players and the starkly poor results are about as clear evidence as we are ever going to get.

And, as we've discussed, there is some evidence that Leppitsch is a good coach. Although in my opinion it is greatly outweighed right now. Maybe in six months time there'll be a bit more balance.

I won't talk you around, Kevvo, but discussing these kind of issues is the point of this forum.

 

[Kevvo]

I respect the intention to bridge the gap here, but I just don't agree with that assessment. You need clear reasons to both sack a coach and to retain a coach. You need clear reasons for every decision, even if it's to maintain the status quo.

There is clear evidence that Leppitsch is a bad coach. Maybe not conclusive evidence, but the failure to get the best out of so many players, the player retention problems, the confusion on the field, the tapering development of young players and the starkly poor results are about as clear evidence as we are ever going to get.

And, as we've discussed, there is some evidence that Leppitsch is a good coach. Although in my opinion it is greatly outweighed right now. Maybe in six months time there'll be a bit more balance.

I won't talk you around, Kevvo, but discussing these kind of issues is the point of this forum.

Fair enough, I take your point. I'm also not arguing that there is no point debating things in detail, and I've certainly been talked around on a lot of issues by posters on this forum. On this particular topic, the same conversation has gone around in circles all preseason with very few new facts, except for him actually being re-signed. To me, it seems like peoples' perspectives at this point reflect to a large extent their default position

That said, I'm not sure I agree any of those critical bits of evidence you've listed are clear. The following other factors would be likely to contribute to all of those outcomes:

• poor training facilities
• support staff like Burton or Manny Lynch appear not to have done their conditioning or welfare jobs to a standard the club finds acceptable
• it's incredibly difficult to develop players when most weeks you are patching big holes in your side with kids off the rookie list.

If your view is that a coach has to show results regardless, then you could look at those things and say that Leppa hasn't done enough. In context though, he inherited a lot from a previous regime that was quite public about trying to do things on the cheap. Add to that list upheaval and a phenomenal rate of injury.

So, from my perspective, he hasn't passed a lot of on field markers but I think it's nearly impossible to isolate which of those things are controllable by a coach and which are just making him accountable for the sum of parts across the club.

 

[notliondown]

Almost definitely.

Based on what? A hunch? A guess? A crystal ball?

You lambaste others for making statement that seem unsubstantiated in your view like injuries being a major factor, then make a baseless comment like that.

Lets ask Eade. I'm sure you would agree a vastly more experienced and credentialed coach than Leppa. Maybe not the new messiah (apparently) Clarkson standard but pretty good none the less. Had a superior list too according to most. Not quite sure he or GC met expectations either.

But of course, injury would have had nothing to do with that either.

 

[Dylan12]

I think what this comes down to is that some posters (Ironmonger and Dylan12 for example) think you need clear reasons to keep a coach, where some of us take the view that at this point in our development you need clear reasons to sack a coach.

Its not that clear reasons are needed to keep a coach, although they obviously contribute. At no stage have I espoused that view or been of the view that Leppa should not see out his third and final year (prior to signing the one year extension).

I have certainly advocated that any decision should wait until the conclusion of the 2016 season at such time as Leppa's entire body of work over three years can be properly analysed. At this stage over the first two years, irrespective of the injuries in season two and other examples provided, particularly by Ironmonger, including the lack of development of many players and the confusing game plan that many players have note adapted to, not to mention players still wanting out, and I am not seeing a great deal that warrants an extension.

If those issues still persist by the end of 2016, even with the additional resources that Voss could only have dreamt, then I am at a loss as to why we have locked ourselves in for 2017 and a potential pay out if we do part ways.

Of course, I hope things click for Leppa in 2016, I am just yet to be convinced that extending his contract at this early stage was even warranted.

 

[notliondown]

I don't get the player retention thing being wheeled out yet again as evidence of bad coaching. Beams, Robinson, Christensen, Bell, Walker, Bastinac, Jansen. Not all are elite (but time will tell), but hardly individuals willing to risk their careers and futures by coming to a club they see as having a poor coach and little future - regardless of other factors.

Arguing that the loss of Aish is sign of poor coaching is as big a stretch as saying Buckley should have been able to stop Beams leaving.
Luey left because he saw no future - and he had every right to pursue his.
Redden - well who knows. I suspect there is more to that story than most will ever know, but sometimes sh*t just happens.
Patfull - really? Really?? Crisp??? Including these guys in that discussion is beyond grasping at straws.

It's clear Brisbane set out 2 years ago to renovate its list. Whether all of the changes were by accident or design that's whats happened since. Arguing player turnover as evidence one way or the other is pointless in light of a stated desire to do just that.

Subjectively you could argue on win/loss Leppa should be booted. However on further stat breakdowns there's evidence the team improved this year (even ignoring injuries!).

Impatience and over expectation leading to disappointment are no more a basis to sack a coach than optimism and blind faith to keep one. But in the interest of a club that's been ravaged by off field instability and changes, as well as a large chunk of the list turnover, more change, given mitigating circumstances, simply seems unwise.

32 players have either debuted, are going to debut, or joined the club based on Leppa being the coach. And while I'm sure that not every step of that journey was necessarily a good one, that group seems pretty united and determined. If the ideas have changed then they've been there. If the structure has changed they were there.

Personally I just don't see any upside to ripping that apart because the win/loss ratio doesn't meet supporter expectations yet. A few years ago I would have never said this, but right now I'll back the club in 100%.

 

[Ironmonger]

Based on what? A hunch? A guess? A crystal ball?

You lambaste others for making statement that seem unsubstantiated in your view like injuries being a major factor, then make a baseless comment like that.

Lets ask Eade. I'm sure you would agree a vastly more experienced and credentialed coach than Leppa. Maybe not the new messiah (apparently) Clarkson standard but pretty good none the less. Had a superior list too according to most. Not quite sure he or GC met expectations either.

But of course, injury would have had nothing to do with that either.

I don't think I've lambasted anybody.

Not quite sure what Eade has to do with anything. I don't think he's done a very good job either.

I was asked whether Clarkson and Roos would have done better, so I answered. If you read the whole of the post, you'll get some idea as to what that comment is based on. But I wouldn't want you to put yourself out, NLD.

 

[Kevvo]

Its not that clear reasons are needed to keep a coach, although they obviously contribute. At no stage have I espoused that view or been of the view that Leppa should not see out his third and final year (prior to signing the one year extension).

I have certainly advocated that any decision should wait until the conclusion of the 2016 season at such time as Leppa's entire body of work over three years can be properly analysed. At this stage over the first two years, irrespective of the injuries in season two and other examples provided, particularly by Ironmonger, including the lack of development of many players and the confusing game plan that many players have note adapted to, not to mention players still wanting out, and I am not seeing a great deal that warrants an extension.

If those issues still persist by the end of 2016, even with the additional resources that Voss could only have dreamt, then I am at a loss as to why we have locked ourselves in for 2017 and a potential pay out if we do part ways.

Of course, I hope things click for Leppa in 2016, I am just yet to be convinced that extending his contract at this early stage was even warranted.

Again, fair enough and sorry if I mischaracterised your position. The best answer I can think of for that position is that the club thinks they're more likely to keep him than not, and the show of longer term thinking might help sell a vision to the players.

 

[notliondown]

I don't think I've lambasted anybody.

Not quite sure what Eade has to do with anything. I don't think he's done a very good job either.

I was asked whether Clarkson and Roos would have done better, so I answered. If you read the whole of the post, you'll get some idea as to what that comment is based on. But I wouldn't want you to put yourself out, NLD.

I read your post Ironmonger - and for the most part agreed. And believe it or not I didn't actually put myself out either.

But when you claim another coach could have done better you need to be able to back that up. Clarkson, Roos you stated would have done better. Eade would fall into that category too if you are trying find supposedly better coaches. How? based on what? Your gut? You're unhappy when anyone else uses something other than you consider concrete evidence so how about you put up some to back up your assertions?

I didn't intimate that. I said I hope you're right, but that I suspect you're not.

We don't need to know whether he's a bad coach. We do need to know that he's a good coach. If we still don't know that much after three years then he shouldn't get a fourth. But now he will.

There is almost no limit to the things Leppitsch could have achieved. There are all kinds of ways a club can make progress, even with an unstable list and with injuries. We've had a lot of players fall out of form, and not be able to get back into it. We look listless and confused much of the time on the field. Players still seem to be disgruntled. Apart maybe from how well he's integrated new recruits into the team, and the isolated case of Marco Paparone's development, it's hard to find even low-level areas where Leppitsch has made progress. I don't think that's good enough for two years, and definitely not for three years if we can't substantially add to that.

Absolutely sometimes you need to 'change horses in midstream'. Organisations need to constantly assess the path they're on and the key staff that are in charge. It's not good practice to defer judgement for three or four years while you wait for the whole of the plan to be completed.

This post was a reply to someone including injuries in his argument that an extension was warranted. So a hard fact that we had injured players doesn't carry weight, yet the fact that he didn't achieve "unlimited other things" (sic), "make progress" (sic) count? What are those things he should have achieved? What is that progress he didn't make?

More importantly where are the disgruntled players exactly? Who are they? Are they still here? Or have they gone? Are they disgruntled solely because of the coach? Is it all Leppas fault?

If its unreasonable that some want to use injury as basis for argument, listing undetermined fantasies as counter argument is just as unreasonable. And if making a link between players leaving and the coach as a sole determinant is ok then we are clearly ignoring all of the vagaries of human nature when it comes to the performance of the team too.

I don't consider the context of injuries and player movements as irrelevant, but they are just context. What I object to is presenting them as reasons in themselves to extend his contract.

I would like to know - or at least be able to guess at - what real standard Leppitsch could have possibly reached in order to justify an extension.

I respect the intention to bridge the gap here, but I just don't agree with that assessment. You need clear reasons to both sack a coach and to retain a coach. You need clear reasons for every decision, even if it's to maintain the status quo.

There is clear evidence that Leppitsch is a bad coach. Maybe not conclusive evidence, but the failure to get the best out of so many players, the player retention problems, the confusion on the field, the tapering development of young players and the starkly poor results are about as clear evidence as we are ever going to get.

And, as we've discussed, there is some evidence that Leppitsch is a good coach. Although in my opinion it is greatly outweighed right now. Maybe in six months time there'll be a bit more balance.

I won't talk you around, Kevvo, but discussing these kind of issues is the point of this forum.

So, in one post injuries and player movement are just context and in the next they are clear evidence?

And then we go back to retention. Who was it again we had trouble retaining purely because of the coach?

As for player performance, have you drilled down on the stats on the individual players you think are suffering to see if those relate in anyway to the benchmarks the coaches set for them? Oh wait... you don't know what those were? Ok then. So we're not actually sure as supporters whether or not the player are actually tapering or stalling in their development?

I get we agree to disagree on this. And I do actually enjoy your posts. But it'd be good for you to substantiate your ideas more than using the same sort of "vagaries" that you disagree so strongly on with his supporters.

 

[Ironmonger]

Well there is no way I'm reading all of that.

 

[notliondown]

Well there is no way I'm reading all of that.

No, I wouldn't want you to put yourself out.

 

[Ironmonger]

No, I wouldn't want you to put yourself out.

Good.

Hope you enjoyed writing it, whatever it was.

 

[notliondown]

Good.

Hope you enjoyed writing it, whatever it was.

 

[M Malice]

there will always be disgruntled players at clubs, it's just the level of disgruntability that is the issue and how it is handled by the staff at the club.communication is key and with leppa admitting he needed improvement in this area and the lamberts coming on board i am confident this situation is under control.
in a group of 40 or so young men in an extremely competitive environment not everyone will get on like a house on fire. some will think they should be in the side, think their being played out of position, why do we play this game style etc...
good/great clubs all bind and work together for the common cause and can look past their differences and follow the direction the board and head coach have set out.

 

[Tairy Greene]

**** YEAH BABAY!!! FOOTY'S BACK!!!

 

[Elixuh]

If you put as much of the relevant material as possible in front of you in order to make some kind of assessment on Leppa then IMO it is difficult to assess the negatives in a way which attaches sole or even substantial fault (to Leppa). Many of the negatives can be tempered by understanding other factors which have had a severe impact since the end of 2013.

2017 feels right in terms of having enough of a body of work to assess Leppa by. Leppa and the entire organisation have had to sift through and make significant changes to off-field aspects of the organisation as well as having to deal with issues from previous years...to name a few...

I also don't think 2016 is a free pass. If we get to the end of the season and he really looks to have mucked things up then who knows if he will even see 2017.

 

[dlanod]

Well there is no way I'm reading all of that.

Good.

Hope you enjoyed writing it, whatever it was.

For someone who likes to talk about the pros of respectful debate on occasion, it seems like you probably could've just not worried about making those posts?

 

[M Malice]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-03-...tsch-ready-to-get-on-with-the-job-of-coaching

ashley browne talks with leppa. it's time.

 

[LongLion]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-03-...tsch-ready-to-get-on-with-the-job-of-coaching

ashley browne talks with leppa. it's time.

Great quote from article 'Leigh Matthews used to stay fatigue makes cowards of us all. The longer you have been in the game and last longer the more you look stronger. That's the way it works."

 

[Ironmonger]

For someone who likes to talk about the pros of respectful debate on occasion, it seems like you probably could've just not worried about making those posts?

Fair point.