PDA

View Full Version : Eade vs Roos - When its over - Should we get Roos to review our Operations??



Jasper
05-09-2010, 09:34 PM
Its amazing how these two quality football people's careers have collided. Playing the Swans, if Roos loses it will be his last game as coach. If we lose, Roos gives a big dent in Eade's future.

But rather than just calling for Eade's head, could we look at something else?? Something different, a review like Geelong, a turnaround post Eade like Sydney, yet better for us and Eade and the players?

At season's end, I reckon Paul Roos should be brought in as a consultant to help the Dogs review our operations, not to replace Eade, but to review things, as someone who coached under him, knows Eade's strengths and weaknesses, and how players would be reacting. I believe Roos would be well placed to understand requisite Assistant coach and management personality types that can best complement Eade if he is to stay.

I was looking for articles trying to track back what happened when Eade was replaced by Roos, and I found the below Big footy thread which I found spooky in some its thoughts about Eade.

I also kept seeing how Kirk's career blossomed after Eade left and Roos took over. To be fair to Eade, Gilbee blossomed after Eade took over, I recall speaking to Gilbee at the time of our darkest years, and remember thinking he was all but gone if Rhode stayed.

I have bolded some bits of interest from a Big Footy article comparing Eade and Roos.

I am interested in what people think about reviewing our operations and if we could get Roos (big if) whether we should use him. And if Roos is not available is there someone else from that era in Sydney with knowledge to help (and yes I know we have Paul Williams and Barry Hall, could there be somone else??)

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=288874

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wollongong Represent
Another thread got me thinking about the part that both men played in Sydney's success. I was glad the Swans let Eade go in 2002, but only because his ideas were a bit stale. He is however responsible for recruiting and developing 15 of the 22 premiership players from 2005. He was in charge when the Swans recruited 4 of the top 5 figures at the club (Roos, Hall, Goodes, Kirk) with Barry being the exception.

Under Eade:
2001 - LRT, Hall, Schneider, Kennelly (elevated).
2000 - Buchanan (first time round), Ablett, Williams (now retired obviously)
1999 - O'Keefe, Ball, Kirk
1998 - Fosdike, Bolton
1997 - Goodes
1995 - Roos, Crouch, Matthews

So is Rodney Eade the forgotten man in Sydney's success or has Paul Roos done far better than Eade would of if he had stayed on???


Response: Charlie G

Recruiting, yes. Developing, no.

LRT, Schneider and Ablett had not played a game under Eade. Buchanan had played two. None of them are Rocket's players, in my opinion.

Barry Hall had only been there for half a season, but he was nowhere near the leader he is today. Goodes was an erratic floater who'd been told to do so many different things he had no idea of what his role was - Roos actually told him to do what he thought best, and since then he's won two Brownlows. If you'd said in round 12, 2002 that Kirk would become a captain and b&f winner, you would have been laughed at.
Jude Bolton and Nic Fosdike were promising kids, but both were behind where they should have been after nearly 60 games. Tadhg Kennelly had played less than 20 games and Roosy's first game as coach was probably the breakthrough game for him. Ryan O'Keefe had played about twenty games and, (to be fair to Rocket) due to family tragedy, was not exactly on Planet Football at the time Roos took over.

At the other extreme, Jason Ball and Paul Williams were accomplished players before they arrived at the Swans to play under Rocket. I'll give Rocket his due with some players. He got more out of Mathews than Roos could, and he turned Micky into a star and gave Leo a sense of purpose in 2001 after years of floating around the forward line. But his development record was at best patchy and at worst downright poor.

LostDoggy
05-09-2010, 09:38 PM
Like i said in another thread, 9 players from the Premiership team of 2005 never played under Eade.

I think it was a total disrespect to Roos' coaching, to suggest he was riding on the Eade era.

comrade
05-09-2010, 09:46 PM
I have a feeling Rocket wouldn't be prepared to go through that process with Roos.

mighty_west
05-09-2010, 09:46 PM
Like i said in another thread, 9 players from the Premiership team of 2005 never played under Eade.

I think it was a total disrespect to Roos' coaching, to suggest he was riding on the Eade era.

Me too, would be similar to Terry Wallace taking credits for where Rocket had taken our side, the side he could not take any further!!!!!

GVGjr
05-09-2010, 09:51 PM
Not needed, no value and Roos already has a job.

That would be a very poor outcome for the club.

Jasper
05-09-2010, 09:56 PM
I have a feeling Rocket wouldn't be prepared to go through that process with Roos.

More importantly, why would Roos do it - perhaps a bucket of money was thrown at him, or perhaps he was consulted from afar about how to conduct a review on Eade and the club operations, without actually having him doing the spade work...wonder if Brett Kirk would be interested/appropriate???

But if Eade got told it will happen, like any other employee he will suck it up or resign - just like Bomber Thompson did, even if Cookie and Bomber are not great fans of each other. If Eade resigns we don't have to pay him out, if he sucked it up, it could turn things around.

Jasper
05-09-2010, 10:01 PM
Not needed, no value and Roos already has a job.

That would be a very poor outcome for the club.

Are you saying a rewiew is not needed or Roos not needed.

I am aware Roos is probably impractical, but the view I am putting forth is that Sydney was aware of Eade's issues and addressed them, assuming the issues are similar at the Dogs, why not utilise Sydney's knowledge of Eade and what they implemented, not necessarily via Roos, but through someone else intimately involved at Sydney, not necessarily a player but maybe at management level??

GVGjr
05-09-2010, 10:48 PM
Are you saying a rewiew is not needed or Roos not needed.

I am aware Roos is probably impractical, but the view I am putting forth is that Sydney was aware of Eade's issues and addressed them, assuming the issues are similar at the Dogs, why not utilise Sydney's knowledge of Eade and what they implemented, not necessarily via Roos, but through someone else intimately involved at Sydney, not necessarily a player but maybe at management level??
Roos. It would be a huge slap in the face for the coach and the club and it would set us back.

It's not accurate to suggest that Sydneys knowledge of Eade has any bearing now.

By all means ask for a review of the clubs football department but don't belittle the coach by suggesting that Roos runs the review.

Remi Moses
05-09-2010, 11:34 PM
Not going to happen so it's a mute point or arguement.

Dry Rot
06-09-2010, 01:31 AM
Interesting thread has two elements for me:

1. Need for a review. Totally agree, should be done.

2. Done by Roos. Agree this won't happen, but that shouldn't affect #1 proceeding.

bornadog
06-09-2010, 10:43 AM
Roos. It would be a huge slap in the face for the coach and the club and it would set us back.

It's not accurate to suggest that Sydneys knowledge of Eade has any bearing now.

By all means ask for a review of the clubs football department but don't belittle the coach by suggesting that Roos runs the review.

Couldn't agree more.

Besides we had a review after 2007 and brought in Fantasia who has done a great job. The football department was revamped with less decision making and management requirements given to Eade. It has paid off with three finals appearances. Yes we all want to get to the granny, and hopefully won't be too far away.

Mofra
06-09-2010, 10:48 AM
What would a review tell us? That we had injuries at the wrong time and were forced to play a few guys who were half-fit and some plodders in support roles?

I'd only permit a review if it would actually provide some benefit to the club, which Roos-led review wouldn't. List management is the other angle, but I'm prepared to led Dalrymple have some time given this will be only his second draft and our first two picks are known anyway.

bornadog
06-09-2010, 10:55 AM
What would a review tell us? That we had injuries at the wrong time and were forced to play a few guys who were half-fit and some plodders in support roles?

I'd only permit a review if it would actually provide some benefit to the club, which Roos-led review wouldn't. List management is the other angle, but I'm prepared to led Dalrymple have some time given this will be only his second draft and our first two picks are known anyway.

Well Dalrymple's first draft is a bit of a fizzer, with only Moles playing this year. We haven't seen Howard, Hooper and Tutt in the firsts yet but they look like they could be ok, and not sure if the other rookies will make the grade.

Mofra
06-09-2010, 11:04 AM
Well Dalrymple's first draft is a bit of a fizzer, with only Moles playing this year. We haven't seen Howard, Hooper and Tutt in the firsts yet but they look like they could be ok, and not sure if the other rookies will make the grade.
By way of example Roughead, Jones and Cordy didn't play last year, and I think the 2008 draft will be a ripper if given time.

As for 2009 Thorne & Marcovic I'm not convinced on, but Howard looks talented and disposal by foot will be more important as zones become a bigger part of football, Tutt showed a few glimpses late in the year. I think Hooper will play senior footy for us next year.

In any case, does one draft with a few question marks, well before the kids have been developed anyway, warrant a review? I don't think so.

LostDoggy
06-09-2010, 12:18 PM
Interesting thread has two elements for me:

1. Need for a review. Totally agree, should be done.

2. Done by Roos. Agree this won't happen, but that shouldn't affect #1 proceeding.


Spot on.

mighty_west
06-09-2010, 01:50 PM
Well Dalrymple's first draft is a bit of a fizzer, with only Moles playing this year. We haven't seen Howard, Hooper and Tutt in the firsts yet but they look like they could be ok, and not sure if the other rookies will make the grade.

When you think about it, if we take away the mature recruits [Marko & Thorne], we may do ok from his first draft, like you said, Howard & Tutt look ok, in fact i think Howard looks better than ok, same with Hooper, Panos has also sneaked in a few games in the Willy ones, not a bad achievement given how strong that team is & having a very good forward line, plus the reports on Prato have also been promising for a player with as little experience he had leading up to this season, with his basketball background etc.

bornadog
06-09-2010, 02:02 PM
When you think about it, if we take away the mature recruits [Marko & Thorne], we may do ok from his first draft, like you said, Howard & Tutt look ok, in fact i think Howard looks better than ok, same with Hooper, Panos has also sneaked in a few games in the Willy ones, not a bad achievement given how strong that team is & having a very good forward line, plus the reports on Prato have also been promising for a player with as little experience he had leading up to this season, with his basketball background etc.

Yes time will tell. Apparently Prato is taller than Roughead and has a very good leap. Lets hope he can play football.