SA Footy

With both West Adelaide and South Adelaide looking for new coaches for 2008, will either of the 2 clubs take the opportunity to have a clean out of player stocks, or will any players from either club be wanting to leave because of the coaching changes?

I would have thought that the club would leave a lot of these decisions to a new coach - let them form their own opinions.

However any perceived trouble makers may find themselves moved on prior.

Hopefully South Adelaide dont rush the process and will land themselves an experienced and successfull coach. I do then agree that the coach should have the right to go through the list and clean it right out if neccessary. When a side finishes outside of the five, no player should be a walk up start for next season.

Its one thing I like about the Norwood decision to reinstate Hill and the NFC made this point too, that with a coach staying on for a longer period it means players can't hide and get continual fresh starts with new coaches coming in, this may be a problem facing West and South.

Wedgie wrote:Its one thing I like about the Norwood decision to reinstate Hill and the NFC made this point too, that with a coach staying on for a longer period it means players can't hide and get continual fresh starts with new coaches coming in, this may be a problem facing West and South.

Agree Wedgie, good call

Any coincidence that the successful clubs usually have longer average head coaching stints?

hondo71 wrote:

Wedgie wrote:Its one thing I like about the Norwood decision to reinstate Hill and the NFC made this point too, that with a coach staying on for a longer period it means players can't hide and get continual fresh starts with new coaches coming in, this may be a problem facing West and South.

Agree Wedgie, good call

Any coincidence that the successful clubs usually have longer average head coaching stints?

Or any coincidence that successful clubs have less reason to sack coaches than unsuccessful clubs???????

bosvit wrote:

hondo71 wrote:

Wedgie wrote:Its one thing I like about the Norwood decision to reinstate Hill and the NFC made this point too, that with a coach staying on for a longer period it means players can't hide and get continual fresh starts with new coaches coming in, this may be a problem facing West and South.

Agree Wedgie, good call

Any coincidence that the successful clubs usually have longer average head coaching stints?

Or any coincidence that successful clubs have less reason to sack coaches than unsuccessful clubs???????

LOL. Although I once again bring out the West Ham Utd example - with only 11 managers in over 100 years, but only one period of true "success".

Mind you, in South's case it's not like Pyman was an in-and-out* coach. He was there for four years (well, nearly).

West have gone through more coaches than a Baghdad bus-depot. And you can't blame the AFL draft for THAT!

bosvit wrote:

hondo71 wrote:
Agree Wedgie, good call

Any coincidence that the successful clubs usually have longer average head coaching stints?

Or any coincidence that successful clubs have less reason to sack coaches than unsuccessful clubs???????

Why are those clubs successful in the first place?

Better appointments in the first place and better stability and patience would be part of it

I know the point you are making however how do you explain the fact that clubs that turn-over their coaches quickly never seem to achieve any sustained period of success as a result? Any chance that other things are wrong at those clubs as well as or instead of the head coach himself? And maybe those problems aren't being addressed and instead the club's admin go in search of the coaching silver bullet every 2 years?

Chicken or the egg?

Lots of questions