I'd suggest Hird may get an all new assistant panel.
Clean slate with same head. Group of other people who may be of more help.
Maybe this group just didn’t gel as per the early review statement about x not communicating with y etc…
Sorry but if we get rid of all (or most) of the assistant coaches and retain Hird then this club has truly fkg lost its marbles. That will NOT happen.
why?
So we realise that the coaches box is not functioning, need to make changes, then trim every single person around the unproven nonperforming senior coach that runs the show?
I do not think it will happen and do not want it to happen and I don’t even think it’s really a discussion but if you recognise and decide that there’s a problem you don’t go and do that.
I don’t think anyone was suggesting changing up the assistants because Hird is ■■■■.
I think the idea might be that Hird isn’t ■■■■ but the assistants could be improved.
Then it might make more sense to keep Hird but change the assistants.
But you’re right, if anyone thinks the assistants could be improved at all then must sack Hird.
The possibility that you are unwilling to consider is that maybe Hird isn’t that good a coach. I honestly don’t know myself, but it is quite possible.
I think FS is generally willing to consider most possibilities.
He’s just pointing out that two plus two doesn’t equal five.
Strikes me as odd that you don’t recognise that.
I'd suggest Hird may get an all new assistant panel.
Clean slate with same head. Group of other people who may be of more help.
Maybe this group just didn’t gel as per the early review statement about x not communicating with y etc…
Sorry but if we get rid of all (or most) of the assistant coaches and retain Hird then this club has truly fkg lost its marbles. That will NOT happen.
why?
So we realise that the coaches box is not functioning, need to make changes, then trim every single person around the unproven nonperforming senior coach that runs the show?
I do not think it will happen and do not want it to happen and I don’t even think it’s really a discussion but if you recognise and decide that there’s a problem you don’t go and do that.
I don’t think anyone was suggesting changing up the assistants because Hird is ■■■■.
I think the idea might be that Hird isn’t ■■■■ but the assistants could be improved.
Then it might make more sense to keep Hird but change the assistants.
But you’re right, if anyone thinks the assistants could be improved at all then must sack Hird.
The possibility that you are unwilling to consider is that maybe Hird isn’t that good a coach. I honestly don’t know myself, but it is quite possible.
Nope. Not relevant to the discussion we were having. It was suggested that if any changes were to be made to coaching (specifically if we changed the assistants) it had to include Hird. I was curious as to the reasoning there. I wasn’t arguing one way or the other merely curious as to what seems a flawed logical leap to me.
I checked what thread I’m in, and I’m pretty sure it is a relevant comment.
And you’ve misrepresented Peeto’s post. He questioned why we’d trim everyone but the senior coach, which I think is a fair statement. Your response to that is what prompted my post.
I’d expect Harvey to stay, given his appointment was so recent.
I wouldn’t be surprised if every other assistant coach position was changed, and obviously wouldn’t be dropping to my knees shouting, ‘Why?’ if they did.
I'd expect Harvey to stay, given his appointment was so recent.
I wouldn't be surprised if every other assistant coach position was changed, and obviously wouldn't be dropping to my knees shouting, 'Why?' if they did.
Let’s say hypothetically we get smashed by 100+ in the remaining games, Hawthorn wins the flag, and Clarkson announces he wants a fresh challenge. He’s interested in the job. Does he get it?
I'd expect Harvey to stay, given his appointment was so recent.
I wouldn't be surprised if every other assistant coach position was changed, and obviously wouldn't be dropping to my knees shouting, 'Why?' if they did.
If the end result of the thorough review is Harvey and Hird only keep their jobs and everyone else the boot I’ll make this face:
I'd expect Harvey to stay, given his appointment was so recent.
I wouldn't be surprised if every other assistant coach position was changed, and obviously wouldn't be dropping to my knees shouting, 'Why?' if they did.
Let’s say hypothetically we get smashed by 100+ in the remaining games, Hawthorn wins the flag, and Clarkson announces he wants a fresh challenge. He’s interested in the job. Does he get it?
Yep, despite the fact that I don’t like the plick.
I’d pay for him personally, and Fyfe as well, from my hypothetical lottery win.
I'd suggest Hird may get an all new assistant panel.
Clean slate with same head. Group of other people who may be of more help.
Maybe this group just didn’t gel as per the early review statement about x not communicating with y etc…
Sorry but if we get rid of all (or most) of the assistant coaches and retain Hird then this club has truly fkg lost its marbles. That will NOT happen.
why?
So we realise that the coaches box is not functioning, need to make changes, then trim every single person around the unproven nonperforming senior coach that runs the show?
I do not think it will happen and do not want it to happen and I don’t even think it’s really a discussion but if you recognise and decide that there’s a problem you don’t go and do that.
I don’t think anyone was suggesting changing up the assistants because Hird is ■■■■.
I think the idea might be that Hird isn’t ■■■■ but the assistants could be improved.
Then it might make more sense to keep Hird but change the assistants.
But you’re right, if anyone thinks the assistants could be improved at all then must sack Hird.
The possibility that you are unwilling to consider is that maybe Hird isn’t that good a coach. I honestly don’t know myself, but it is quite possible.
Nope. Not relevant to the discussion we were having. It was suggested that if any changes were to be made to coaching (specifically if we changed the assistants) it had to include Hird. I was curious as to the reasoning there. I wasn’t arguing one way or the other merely curious as to what seems a flawed logical leap to me.
I checked what thread I’m in, and I’m pretty sure it is a relevant comment.
And you’ve misrepresented Peeto’s post. He questioned why we’d trim everyone but the senior coach, which I think is a fair statement. Your response to that is what prompted my post.
" if we get rid of all (or most) of the assistant coaches and retain Hird then this club has truly fkg lost its marbles. That will NOT happen." - Peeto
Where’s the question mark?
Though if you want to call it a question then my questioning the logic of his definitive statement does fall down a bit.
Do you need to pretend that was a question for your response to me to be relevant?
edit: also, how does you misrepresenting what I said become more relevant dependent on the thread?
I'd expect Harvey to stay, given his appointment was so recent.
I wouldn't be surprised if every other assistant coach position was changed, and obviously wouldn't be dropping to my knees shouting, 'Why?' if they did.
If the end result of the thorough review is Harvey and Hird only keep their jobs and everyone else the boot I’ll make this face:
I'd expect Harvey to stay, given his appointment was so recent.
I wouldn't be surprised if every other assistant coach position was changed, and obviously wouldn't be dropping to my knees shouting, 'Why?' if they did.
Let’s say hypothetically we get smashed by 100+ in the remaining games, Hawthorn wins the flag, and Clarkson announces he wants a fresh challenge. He’s interested in the job. Does he get it?
Yep, despite the fact that I don’t like the plick.
I’d pay for him personally, and Fyfe as well, from my hypothetical lottery win.
I'd expect Harvey to stay, given his appointment was so recent.
I wouldn't be surprised if every other assistant coach position was changed, and obviously wouldn't be dropping to my knees shouting, 'Why?' if they did.
Let’s say hypothetically we get smashed by 100+ in the remaining games, Hawthorn wins the flag, and Clarkson announces he wants a fresh challenge. He’s interested in the job. Does he get it?
Yep, despite the fact that I don’t like the plick.
I’d pay for him personally, and Fyfe as well, from my hypothetical lottery win.
I'd suggest Hird may get an all new assistant panel.
Clean slate with same head. Group of other people who may be of more help.
Maybe this group just didn’t gel as per the early review statement about x not communicating with y etc…
Sorry but if we get rid of all (or most) of the assistant coaches and retain Hird then this club has truly fkg lost its marbles. That will NOT happen.
why?
So we realise that the coaches box is not functioning, need to make changes, then trim every single person around the unproven nonperforming senior coach that runs the show?
I do not think it will happen and do not want it to happen and I don’t even think it’s really a discussion but if you recognise and decide that there’s a problem you don’t go and do that.
I don’t think anyone was suggesting changing up the assistants because Hird is ■■■■.
I think the idea might be that Hird isn’t ■■■■ but the assistants could be improved.
Then it might make more sense to keep Hird but change the assistants.
But you’re right, if anyone thinks the assistants could be improved at all then must sack Hird.
The possibility that you are unwilling to consider is that maybe Hird isn’t that good a coach. I honestly don’t know myself, but it is quite possible.
Nope. Not relevant to the discussion we were having. It was suggested that if any changes were to be made to coaching (specifically if we changed the assistants) it had to include Hird. I was curious as to the reasoning there. I wasn’t arguing one way or the other merely curious as to what seems a flawed logical leap to me.
I checked what thread I’m in, and I’m pretty sure it is a relevant comment.
And you’ve misrepresented Peeto’s post. He questioned why we’d trim everyone but the senior coach, which I think is a fair statement. Your response to that is what prompted my post.
" if we get rid of all (or most) of the assistant coaches and retain Hird then this club has truly fkg lost its marbles. That will NOT happen." - Peeto
Where’s the question mark?
Though if you want to call it a question then my questioning the logic of his definitive statement does fall down a bit.
Do you need to pretend that was a question for your response to me to be relevant?
edit: also, how does you misrepresenting what I said become more relevant dependent on the thread?
You’re right. It was a statement that questioned the logic of replacing everyone but Hird. As I said, a fair “statement”.
I'd expect Harvey to stay, given his appointment was so recent.
I wouldn't be surprised if every other assistant coach position was changed, and obviously wouldn't be dropping to my knees shouting, 'Why?' if they did.
Let’s say hypothetically we get smashed by 100+ in the remaining games, Hawthorn wins the flag, and Clarkson announces he wants a fresh challenge. He’s interested in the job. Does he get it?
Yep, despite the fact that I don’t like the plick.
I’d pay for him personally, and Fyfe as well, from my hypothetical lottery win.
And would you free?
PS: You must be loaded!
Why settle for hypothetical Clarkson. If we’re making ■■■■ up I’d have Nietzsche back from the dead where he’s spent the past 100+ years studying football on a higher plane of existence. He could use Essendon’s dynasty of success as an example that helped guide man through the next stage of our existential revolution. Like footballing Bill and Ted
I'd expect Harvey to stay, given his appointment was so recent.
I wouldn't be surprised if every other assistant coach position was changed, and obviously wouldn't be dropping to my knees shouting, 'Why?' if they did.
Let’s say hypothetically we get smashed by 100+ in the remaining games, Hawthorn wins the flag, and Clarkson announces he wants a fresh challenge. He’s interested in the job. Does he get it?
Yep, despite the fact that I don’t like the plick.
I’d pay for him personally, and Fyfe as well, from my hypothetical lottery win.
And would you free?
PS: You must be loaded!
Why settle for hypothetical Clarkson. If we’re making ■■■■ up I’d have Nietzsche back from the dead where he’s spent the past 100+ years studying football on a higher plane of existence. He could use Essendon’s dynasty of success as an example that helped guide man through the next stage of our existential revolution. Like footballing Bill and Ted
Leaving Hird aside, because honestly if you want to discuss his coaching throw a virtual (if not hypothetical) brick around here, how do you rate our Assistant Coaches?
I'd expect Harvey to stay, given his appointment was so recent.
I wouldn't be surprised if every other assistant coach position was changed, and obviously wouldn't be dropping to my knees shouting, 'Why?' if they did.
If the end result of the thorough review is Harvey and Hird only keep their jobs and everyone else the boot I’ll make this face:
Why?
We already know(?) Bassett’s leaving.
Because Harvey would be the first one I’d be moving on, mostly.
I'd expect Harvey to stay, given his appointment was so recent.
I wouldn't be surprised if every other assistant coach position was changed, and obviously wouldn't be dropping to my knees shouting, 'Why?' if they did.
If the end result of the thorough review is Harvey and Hird only keep their jobs and everyone else the boot I’ll make this face:
Why?
We already know(?) Bassett’s leaving.
Because Harvey would be the first one I’d be moving on, mostly.
Eh. I wasn’t keen on him myself, but having said that I have no idea what any of them do or how well they do it.
Leaving Hird aside, because honestly if you want to discuss his coaching throw a virtual (if not hypothetical) brick around here, how do you rate our Assistant Coaches?
Are they unsackable for some reason?
I’ve got no idea if any of them are good or otherwise. I’m not sure how anyone can really evaluate the worth of assistant coaches unless they are working directly with them. I’m not even sure if Hird can coach (due to mitigating factors), and the public has a lot more information at their disposal to assess the performance of a senior coach than they do line coaches.
I'd expect Harvey to stay, given his appointment was so recent.
I wouldn't be surprised if every other assistant coach position was changed, and obviously wouldn't be dropping to my knees shouting, 'Why?' if they did.
Let’s say hypothetically we get smashed by 100+ in the remaining games, Hawthorn wins the flag, and Clarkson announces he wants a fresh challenge. He’s interested in the job. Does he get it?
Yep, despite the fact that I don’t like the plick.
I’d pay for him personally, and Fyfe as well, from my hypothetical lottery win.
And would you free?
PS: You must be loaded!
Why settle for hypothetical Clarkson. If we’re making ■■■■ up I’d have Nietzsche back from the dead where he’s spent the past 100+ years studying football on a higher plane of existence. He could use Essendon’s dynasty of success as an example that helped guide man through the next stage of our existential revolution. Like footballing Bill and Ted
Clarkson or Hird if you could pick?
In the context of what’s actually happened to our club and Hird over the past few years? It it was about winning at all costs, I’d pick Clarkson. If it was about me giving much of a ■■■■ if Essendon wins anything ever again I’d stay with Hird.
I'd expect Harvey to stay, given his appointment was so recent.
I wouldn't be surprised if every other assistant coach position was changed, and obviously wouldn't be dropping to my knees shouting, 'Why?' if they did.
Let’s say hypothetically we get smashed by 100+ in the remaining games, Hawthorn wins the flag, and Clarkson announces he wants a fresh challenge. He’s interested in the job. Does he get it?
Yep, despite the fact that I don’t like the plick.
I’d pay for him personally, and Fyfe as well, from my hypothetical lottery win.
And would you free?
PS: You must be loaded!
Why settle for hypothetical Clarkson. If we’re making ■■■■ up I’d have Nietzsche back from the dead where he’s spent the past 100+ years studying football on a higher plane of existence. He could use Essendon’s dynasty of success as an example that helped guide man through the next stage of our existential revolution. Like footballing Bill and Ted
Clarkson or Hird if you could pick?
In the context of what’s actually happened to our club and Hird over the past few years? It it was about winning at all costs, I’d pick Clarkson. If it was about me giving much of a ■■■■ if Essendon wins anything ever again I’d stay with Hird.
Can you give an answer without qualifications? What would you do?
Leaving Hird aside, because honestly if you want to discuss his coaching throw a virtual (if not hypothetical) brick around here, how do you rate our Assistant Coaches?
Are they unsackable for some reason?
I’ve got no idea if any of them are good or otherwise. I’m not sure how anyone can really evaluate the worth of assistant coaches unless they are working directly with them. I’m not even sure if Hird can coach (due to mitigating factors), and the public has a lot more information at their disposal to assess the performance of a senior coach than they do line coaches.
Then…doesn’t that make Peeto’s statement a bit silly?
