Nick Bendel
How many Bucks would you bet on this Horse?
August 13th 2009 14:20
(Source: The Age)
First Collingwood; now Sydney. Planned coaching handovers, it seems, are the AFL’s new black.
When the press conference was held a fortnight ago to announce Collingwood’s pioneering scheme, president Eddie McGuire could barely contain his glee. As far as Fast Eddie was concerned, he had pulled off a masterstroke. Not only had he secured the medium term future of his club, but he had also been able to accommodate the fantasies of the supporters by initiating a like-for-like replacement (i.e. one cranky bastard for another). Mick Malthouse would remain as head coach for the 2010 and 2011 seasons, during which Nathan Buckley would act as one of his assistants. Then, in 2012, Bucks would take over, while Mick relocated upstairs.
Sydney has now revealed a similar intention. Paul Roos has confirmed that he will end his stint as the Swans’ head coach at the end of next year, before stepping aside for his long-serving assistant and current coaching coordinator, John Longmire.
The Collingwood revelation received mixed reviews. Some breathlessly declared it to be an act of genius- a groundbreaking move that would soon become the norm. Others reacted sceptically, arguing that if a week is a long time in politics, two and a half years is an eternity in footy, suggesting that a lot could have changed by the time of Buckley’s ascension.
More than a few pundits made comparisons with the situation at Brisbane, where another legendary mentor (Leigh Matthews) was unsubtly pushed aside in favour of a charismatic ex-player (Michael Voss) who had formerly been under his tutelage. And the comparisons were generally made favourably- after all, 19 games into his career, Voss has recorded 11 wins and a draw, to steer his team into fifth place.
Fair though the comparisons were, there ought to have been nothing favourable about them. For as Sport: The Australian Disease argued at the time- and as Sport: The Australian Disease continues to argue- Voss should never have been appointed. To quote from that article in September 2008:
Brisbane Lions fans: imagine, if you will, the following scenario.
With your club missing out on the finals for the fourth consecutive year, and with your list featuring a number of impressive youngsters who seem to have the ability to lead you forward, management decides to take a gamble, replacing your vastly experienced coach with a television commentator.
It may seem harsh to describe Michael Voss as a commentator, but that is what he is. He is no longer a player. And, notwithstanding a brief stint as the boss of the AIS’s under-17 team, he has never been a coach. He is simply a commentator. When reduced to such terms, it seems extraordinary that the Lions should have been in such a rush to hire him. Was Bruce McAvaney unavailable?…
Voss has become the new Lions coach not because he is qualified or experienced or the most accomplished, but simply because it warms the hearts of a few influential people. He is nothing more than a commentator with an aura. Granted, Michael Voss was a champion player. But as for Michael Voss the coach, it doesn’t take a Bruce McAvaney to realise that he’s nothing special.
With your club missing out on the finals for the fourth consecutive year, and with your list featuring a number of impressive youngsters who seem to have the ability to lead you forward, management decides to take a gamble, replacing your vastly experienced coach with a television commentator.
It may seem harsh to describe Michael Voss as a commentator, but that is what he is. He is no longer a player. And, notwithstanding a brief stint as the boss of the AIS’s under-17 team, he has never been a coach. He is simply a commentator. When reduced to such terms, it seems extraordinary that the Lions should have been in such a rush to hire him. Was Bruce McAvaney unavailable?…
Voss has become the new Lions coach not because he is qualified or experienced or the most accomplished, but simply because it warms the hearts of a few influential people. He is nothing more than a commentator with an aura. Granted, Michael Voss was a champion player. But as for Michael Voss the coach, it doesn’t take a Bruce McAvaney to realise that he’s nothing special.
Buckley- like Voss- is nothing more than a commentator, and thus should not have had a head coaching job handed to him on a platter. Some may think this a foolish statement. “Hasn’t Voss proven himself to be a fine coach?” they’ll ask. “And doesn’t that therefore mean that special players must automatically make good coaches?”
Well, firstly, Voss has not proven anything. While he has made a fine start, a swallow does not a summer make. To reach conclusions after less than a season is impetuous; at least three seasons are needed to judge the mettle of a man.
Secondly- and most importantly- even if Voss turns out to be a better coach than Hafey and Barassi put together, that wouldn’t prove that his appointment was a judicious one. The more experience a person has in a field- be it teaching or nursing or coaching- the more impressive their performance is likely to be. And so while giving someone a position of responsibility can never be without risk, the more experienced that person is, the less of a risk that’s being taken. Appointing the utterly inexperienced Voss was therefore a big gamble, not all that different to backing Holland to beat England in the recent Twenty20 World Cup. While the Dutch were able to shock the Poms, a wise man would have had his money on the losers. Plumping for Voss was not the percentage option. History may prove it to be the correct one- but it was not the logical one.
The same must be said of Buckley. On the surface, his seems a more rational selection, given that he will at least be doing an apprenticeship before assuming the top job. Yet, upon reflection, it actually turns out to be more illogical. At least Brisbane was decisive about its impulsive roll of the dice. Collingwood, however, is kidding itself that it is having a bet each way, when in reality it, too, is impulsively rolling the dice. The contract has been signed. No matter what weaknesses he may show in 2010 and 2011, no matter in what direction the game evolves, no matter what unknown unknowns may transpire, Buckley will be taking the reins in 2012. The contract has been signed.
Given that nobody can predict what will happen in footy in the next two and half years, to appoint someone so far in advance is reckless in the extreme. And to choose an amateur as that person is to pile one reckless decision upon another. Unfortunately for Buckley, he is damned by the numbers. There are currently 90 coaches- heads and assistants- in the system (not counting VFL coaches). Throw in the unemployed (Laidley, Wallace, Sheedy and the like) and you come to a figure of about 100. That means that when McGuire signed up his former star, he was effectively declaring this unproven and unqualified person to be a better bet than those 100 more experienced and qualified candidates. Again, history may prove this to be the case- but what are the odds? Collingwood has not chosen the logical option. Collingwood has chosen the emotional one.
If Collingwood’s succession plan reeks of foolishness, Sydney’s has the rosy scent of common sense about it. By the time Longmire takes control of the Swans, he will have spent eight years there as an assistant- eight years during which he would have honed his craft; eight years during which he would have gained an intimate understanding of how every little part of the club functioned. Of course, there is the risk inherent in giving him the job so far in advance. However, that is outweighed by the fact that had Sydney not acted now, this extraordinarily qualified individual may have been snapped up by another outfit, such as his previous team, North Melbourne. People as suitable to a position rarely come along. Consequently, the greater risk lay in not appointing him.
Time alone will tell how accomplished Buckley and Longmire will be. Their playing records are of no consequence, because taking to the field and manning the coaches’ box are two different things. All that will count is what happens between the ears. The ex-Kangaroo is highly regarded for the work he has done since 2003 and will have another year to further develop his skills. The ex-Magpie will have just two years in which to cram, and there’s no telling how successfully he’ll do it. If coaching transitions really are to become standard practice, it is not Collingwood’s, but Sydney’s, that should be the model.
| 81 |
| Vote |
