Was Matthew Knights a scapegoat?

[brad]

Other than Fletcher, name them.

I don't need to.

I'm a player sponsor and know that this is the case and I'd be looking for a new player to sponsor IF I decided to sponsor at all.

Don't believe me doesn't faze me at all.

It's not even the players who were out of contract last year BUT the ones who are in contract who would NOT want to stay with the club.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I don't need to.

I'm a player sponsor and know that this is the case and I'd be looking for a new player to sponsor IF I decided to sponsor at all.

Don't believe me doesn't faze me at all.

It's not even the players who were out of contract last year BUT the ones who are in contract who would NOT want to stay with the club.

Am I right in assuming the dissenters were older players, e.g. above 25?

 

[The House]

Essendon have NOT improved on last year AT ALL. Hird not wanting to delist players and give everyone a chance has just put you even futher behind the pack. How long does it take to work out that blokes like McVeigh, Welsh, Hille & maybe even Fletcher shouldn't be getting games. Then he decides to keep some of the worst players in AFL history on your list (Neagle, Quinn etc). Absolutely shocking list management

What a shock a Carlton supporter would post this rubbish.

Last year we played you and lost by plenty....this year we play you with 20 v's 22 men for most of the contest and drew.

Last year we won 7 games......this year we have already won 7.5 games.

Last year we copped many thrashings.....this year we've had one.

This time last year Essendon had conceded 1563 points against. This year we have conceded 1312 against.

This time last year our percentage was 84%. Currently it sits at 110% - stop embarassing yourself and pay some attention.


Anyone who actually watches and honestly thinks Essendon have not improved is either a moron or letting their emotions cause bias.
Like most debates, it's not all one way - Knights did some good and some bad. He most certainly left the list in much better shape than Sheedy did for example.

However Knights also insisted he would impliment a defensive game plan, yet 3 seasons later had failed to do so.

This entire thread is evidence of just how short sighted many on here such as Hyper Aggressive Donk and Kruze Missile are - Essendon lose a couple and all of a sudden they are as bad as last year......then we win a couple and you're nowhere to be seen.

Anyone with half an objective brain in their heads understands that young sides will usually have inconsistent performances over the course of a season, and to be careful not to make bold, sweeping assesments based on a week or 3.....seems like there are a fair few on here that do not.

Once Jimmy has had 2-3 years like Knights was given, then we can discuss IF we can compare the two senarios.

.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Other than Fletcher, name them.

Jetta, Ryder, Myers; and who knows what other domino's would have fallen.

Simple fact is, he blew it. I was his biggest supporter, but it became very clear to me in the second half of 2010 that he had to go. No if's, no but's. The place was poisonous. Knights game plan didn't work.

It's really quite simple. When Hird, Thompson, McCartney, Goodwin et al got to the club they said a) they couldn't believe how poor Essendon's fitness was, and b) how poor their football knowledge was. Apparently they didn't know how to position themselves or where to run in as sophisticated a fashion as Adelaide and Geelong etc. They had to "take them to school" over the preseason. It is blindingly obvious that this year we have a defensive game, which we didn't have under Knights.

Now, how can anyone argue with that? Anyone who does is trolling or is a fool, plain and simple.

Knights did some great work turning over dead wood and fixing some of Sheedy's mess, but we weren't going forwards under him as of the final year of his contract; rather going backwards; and it is silly to suggest we could have somehow magically improved this year given all the above. Yes, the Essendon board made a massive mistake re-signing him, but it was with the good intentions of keeping the media speculation from ruining him, which obviously didn't work.

He wasn't a scapegoat - he tried and failed. It's very simple.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Am I right in assuming the dissenters were older players, e.g. above 25?

definitely not.

 

[brad]

Am I right in assuming the dissenters were older players, e.g. above 25?

Combination.

Too many on the list knew they weren't being coached properly.

You only need to listen to any interviews on radio/tv and hear how things have dramatically changed in just one preseason.

How they have to train a lot harder and this will go up another level this preseason.

Their structures were not visible at all.

I'm not one who thinks that Welsh, McVeigh, Hille, Fletcher will be a part of our next premiership tilt BUT they will have a big role in developing the squad that will.

THEY need to be coached well (with training, game plans etc) to do this as much as Heppell, Crameri, Hurley etc need to be.

 

[Ron The Bear]

OK I'm getting a clearer picture of the other perspective, albeit a slightly vitriolic one. But surely this

Yes, the Essendon board made a massive mistake re-signing him, but it was with the good intentions of keeping the media speculation from ruining him

cannot be true? If the problems were as severe as described, what board in its right mind would've re-signed him at such potential cost to the club? How do you explain an unfit, unhappy, poorly-coached playing list defeating quality opposition on occasion?

 

[Slattery_20]

OK I'm getting a clearer picture of the other perspective, albeit a slightly vitriolic one. But surely this



cannot be true? If the problems were as severe as described, what board in its right mind would've re-signed him at such potential cost to the club?

Hence the 'mistake'. Do try and keep up.

Knights was Jackson's baby. The extension was his last roll of the dice, it was signed off by Robson & Evans but I'm not sure how much input they had into it. Been apparent for a few years that there were problems from board level down, that allowed Sheedy & Jackson (and Knights) to get completely out of touch with developments.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Hence the 'mistake'.
Do try and keep up.

The implication was that the problems have been exaggerated in hindsight. What's to prevent the same people from making further expensive 'mistakes'?

 

[Jesse Custer]

The implication was that the problems have been exaggerated in hindsight. What's to prevent the same people from making further expensive 'mistakes'?

More like Knight's coaching ability has been exaggerated in hindsight....

 

[Lance Uppercut]

OK I'm getting a clearer picture of the other perspective, albeit a slightly vitriolic one. But surely this



cannot be true? If the problems were as severe as described, what board in its right mind would've re-signed him at such potential cost to the club? How do you explain an unfit, unhappy, poorly-coached playing list defeating quality opposition on occasion?

because the kamikaze game plan did occasionally work. In the same way we often got run on's against us of 10+ goals, we sometimes were successful in running forwards of a Jobe Watson handball. it's just that the runs against far outnumbered the runs for, and that didn't change.

Knights kept promising the defence would come. Given the sensibilities around the emotion of Sheedy's departure, the club made a decision to re-sign him and stop any media speculation; based on the successes the team had had and the promise of a more evolved game-plan with better (make that some) defence.

Because that didn't come, it turned out to be a mistake - but you can still understand the reasoning behind it. Not every decision you make is the right one.

The playing group wasn't disillusioned the whole time, only really in the last half of the final year, which made change such a necessity. Everyone was a bit seduced by the good wins. But the bad losses didn't stop.

Eventually it became patently obvious we weren't going in the right direction under Knights; hence the change was made.

 

[Slattery_20]

The implication was that the problems have been exaggerated in hindsight. What's to prevent the same people from making further expensive 'mistakes'?

There's undoubtedly exaggerations going on, on both sides.

Depends which particular people we are referring to and which mistakes.

Jackson's gone - good riddance. (Bev) Knights is gone off the board cough leak cough good mates with Caro cough. Again, good riddance.
Other than that, I'm pretty sure Jonas, Greg Brown, some random bird I can't remember, Robson and Little are all new since Knights was appointed first time.

 

[tylerd83]

After watching Essendon close up again tonight, I really believe my OP was spot on.

Matthew Knights was a scapegoat and treated horribly by Essendon people. I am going to go as far as saying, he was/is a better coach than Jimmy Hird.

After all, Knights didn't have all the highly paid, "genius" assistants that Hird has, and Essendon looked better this time last year under Knights imo.

Essendon have NOT improved on last year AT ALL. Hird not wanting to delist players and give everyone a chance has just put you even futher behind the pack. How long does it take to work out that blokes like McVeigh, Welsh, Hille & maybe even Fletcher shouldn't be getting games. Then he decides to keep some of the worst players in AFL history on your list (Neagle, Quinn etc). Absolutely shocking list management

Gone quiet boys?

Top thread, will revisit.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Gone quiet boys?

Top thread, will revisit.

They are definitely not man enough to come back now. Wait for a couple more losses to the Bombers, then they will be back.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

There was a definite push outside the player group within Essendon to get rid of Knights. It wouldn't have taken long for the politics of that to get embedded into the player group, though.

So, talk about players threatening to leave isn't really a big revelation against Knight. Thats just part and parcel of the destabilizing game that was played.

As for structure, the team played like rabble with no structure for the best part of 2 months. Supporters of Hird said all the time then

"Hirdy was lumbered with a shit list, courtesy of Knights."

Well, now that there is some form coming out, whats the explanation for that? How can a shit list beat the top of the ladder team.

Knights was definitely a scapegoat and his name was slandered. Everyone knows someone who he coached and they all said he was a shit coach to a man. Amazing. But not all that believable. I heard the same character assassination against Blight when he got chopped at St Kilda.

 

[yodellinhank]

There was a definite push outside the player group within Essendon to get rid of Knights. It wouldn't have taken long for the politics of that to get embedded into the player group, though.

So, talk about players threatening to leave isn't really a big revelation against Knight. Thats just part and parcel of the destabilizing game that was played.

As for structure, the team played like rabble with no structure for the best part of 2 months. Supporters of Hird said all the time then

"Hirdy was lumbered with a shit list, courtesy of Knights."

Well, now that there is some form coming out, whats the explanation for that? How can a shit list beat the top of the ladder team.

Knights was definitely a scapegoat and his name was slandered. Everyone knows someone who he coached and they all said he was a shit coach to a man. Amazing. But not all that believable. I heard the same character assassination against Blight when he got chopped at St Kilda.

The difference is Blight's runs on the board. Flags at Adelaide, grand finals at Geelong and winning seasons all over the shop.

Knights went at around 30% win/loss all around. He did a pretty job of convincing the knockers himself.

 

[pazza]

The thing that concerns me throughout all of this is that - it's not the first time that such instability has occurred at Essendon in such a public way.

The story goes back to the Sheedy era in the late 1990's. A certain former player and then board member, got together with another former player and then vice-president, to try to oust the coach.

The media got wind of it fairly quickly. Somehow, Sheedy survived thanks to the president, who he played with at Prahran.

I do feel that coterie groups and board members should have absolutely nothing to do with the coach of the club, unless in the case of the latter, to re-sign his contract.

 

[Slattery_20]

The thing that concerns me throughout all of this is that - it's not the first time that such instability has occurred at Essendon in such a public way.

The story goes back to the Sheedy era in the late 1990's. A certain former player and then board member, got together with another former player and then vice-president, to try to oust the coach.

The media got wind of it fairly quickly. Somehow, Sheedy survived thanks to the president, who he played with at Prahran.

I do feel that coterie groups and board members should have absolutely nothing to do with the coach of the club, unless in the case of the latter, to re-sign his contract.

LOL, so boards are only allowed to sign & re-sign people, never sack them.
Pazza you've done it again.
You love Knights because he came through Bendigo and you're a Bendigo man first & foremost, isn't that right?

When a bloke makes a direct promise to a board - a simple, concrete, unambiguous thing like 'we will put in a better defensive effort and be competitive in this game against Adelaide in round 14, 2010'; and gets whacked by 80+, he's made his own bed.

 

[Beth]

There was a definite push outside the player group within Essendon to get rid of Knights. It wouldn't have taken long for the politics of that to get embedded into the player group, though.

So, talk about players threatening to leave isn't really a big revelation against Knight. Thats just part and parcel of the destabilizing game that was played.

As for structure, the team played like rabble with no structure for the best part of 2 months. Supporters of Hird said all the time then

"Hirdy was lumbered with a shit list, courtesy of Knights."

Well, now that there is some form coming out, whats the explanation for that? How can a shit list beat the top of the ladder team.

Knights was definitely a scapegoat and his name was slandered. Everyone knows someone who he coached and they all said he was a shit coach to a man. Amazing. But not all that believable. I heard the same character assassination against Blight when he got chopped at St Kilda.

Ok I'll admit it I'm actually just assuming he was a shit coach from a player who played along side him who said he was a shit people person as a captain...

 

[MF]

His time was probably up but Essendon supporters had ridiculous expectations on a team who's core players were very inexperienced.

I've seen much worse coaches stay in a job for longer.

 

[Slattery_20]

His time was probably up but Essendon supporters had ridiculous expectations on a team who's core players were very inexperienced.

That's true, to a point, but again, doesn't mean he was the guy to go forward.
He would still have a job had he overcome those problems, or at least showed good signs he could. And not ignored his assistants' best advice.

I've seen much worse coaches stay in a job for longer.

And did that end up being a positive for the club, or not?

 

[Call Me Cake]

I'm so relieved he's not the coach any more.

Even his name makes me shudder.

This video is a true representation of what it felt like to be an Essendon supporter during his 'reign' at the club,

[youtube]NmNObROcBOo[/youtube]

 

[cash]

yes he was a goat.

 

[Big Red is back]

Hirdy lol

 

[Zahki]

Gotta feel sorry for Hird. He didn't really want to coach but was pressured into it by the coteries only to find out that coaches really don't have all that much influence over how a side performs, 90% of it is the cattle they have, and he has absolutely nothing to work with. 3+ year rebuild coming up and I suspect he won't enjoy a minute of it.