Roy Laird is a far better coach than Neil Craig

[Psyber]

Centrals are a big fish in a small pond. So is Laird.
Neither have been tested in a big pond.

Centrals are a big fish in a pond that has plenty of room for the other 8 clubs to grow to the same size as them. The Dogs are just better than the other 8 "fish" at getting to the surface of the pond and getting the feed, growing stronger.

How is it their fault that the other "fish" are just treading water at the bottom of the pond ? Neither the club or Roy Laird has been tested you say, but what do you suggest as a means of testing them in the bigger pond ? A trial game against an AFL club maybe or just give them a 3rd SA based AFL club license and throw them to the wolves of the national comp and see how they go ?

I agree with you entirely about why Centrals are the big fish. The other sides are at fault and need to follow Centrals lead and get professional too.
I was pointing out that the comparison is untestable and this thread is purely speculative despite the certainty some posters express.

[johntheclaret]

How do you tread water at the bottom of a pond Biggy

[mal]

LAIRD gets the very very very very very very best out of a very very very very very very good team
CRAIG gets the very very very very very very best out of a very very very very very very ordinary team

Reverse phycology time
reverse the roles CRAIG = CD coach ...LAIRD = AC coach
I think this would be the equation
NEITHER MAN COULD DO AS GOOD AS EACH OTHER

A lot of people will question my high rating of Craig as AC seem to be perennial finals failures under his tenure
My views are simple, AC has a list of players that should be finishing bottom 5 , for Craig to get them into finals is quite an achievement

[test]

Centrals are a big fish in a small pond. So is Laird.
Neither have been tested in a big pond.

Centrals are a big fish in a pond that has plenty of room for the other 8 clubs to grow to the same size as them. The Dogs are just better than the other 8 "fish" at getting to the surface of the pond and getting the feed, growing stronger.

How is it their fault that the other "fish" are just treading water at the bottom of the pond ? Neither the club or Roy Laird has been tested you say, but what do you suggest as a means of testing them in the bigger pond ? A trial game against an AFL club maybe or just give them a 3rd SA based AFL club license and throw them to the wolves of the national comp and see how they go ?

I agree with you entirely about why Centrals are the big fish. The other sides are at fault and need to follow Centrals lead and get professional too.
I was pointing out that the comparison is untestable and this thread is purely speculative despite the certainty some posters express.

what a ridiculous thing to say, that centrals and roy laird are big fish in small ponds. as big phil said they simply run their club better, they struggled for 40 years and now they are big fish in a small pond??? as for roy laird, again its a ridiculous statement, he played 12 years of senior football for 98 league appearances. started as league runner, was then reserves coach, got the senoir job two months before the start of a season and has been able to keep the team strong and consistent, hardly the background for a "big fish in a small pond"

[Psyber]

"test", the SANFL is by definition a small pond compared to the AFL, in scope, finance, and talent.
Centrals and Laird are on top and are therefore the big fish in that environment.
That's what the terms mean.
I agreed with Phil about why.
What are you on about?

[holden78]

Y E S !

[G]

MAL you would hardly say the Crows were ordinary in 05 and 06 until September and werent too bad in 07 until their embarrassing exit.
I think Craig is a top coach during the pre season and during the week, but on match day his game plans have flaws.
- I must say I havent noticed the same problems down at the Kennel from Laird.

[doggies4eva]

Laird has done as well as humanly possible given his role.

Has Craig?

[David Votoupal]

With Neil Craig, keep in mind that he took over a Crows side that were having a poor season in 2004, yet were not hopelessly uncompetitive even then- apart from the thrashing they copped in Brisbane, most of their losses were pretty narrow ones which showed in their % The following season was a pretty open one and the Crows were able to take advantage of that to qualify for the finals.

I've heard the kind of argument trotted out about coaches time after time like "any old fool can win with that team" blah blah and while it's certainly true in many cases, no two are the same and surely a coach of considerable ability is able to keep a dynasty going for as long as it has.