Heat on Bevo?

[GVGjr]

I am in the same camp.

But selecting players who the coach WILL PLAY is surely part of the Job Description. No good spending capital on players who you know wont tick the non-negotiables list of the coach...

It's a tricky one and it probably depends on what that list looks like from a coach perspective.
It's doesn't all go to shit when a coach, and therefore a new game style, comes into a club if the playing list is strong enough. Coaches are initially happy to work with what they have and it's only later they want the recruiters to address certain types that they prefer. Look at Craig McRae at Collingwood, he inherited a list that was under performing and one that they're paying a highly regarded player 250/300K a season to play against them and one that lost it's highest paid player for a significant chunk of the season and their most talented player who is at the crossroads of his career and yet with all those distractions the Pies are right in the finals mix. He's simply worked with what he's got and hasn't really had a chance to shape the playing list he is coaching.
Who knows how that will play out in time and if he starts insisting on certainly playing types or traits with players.
As a stark contrast David Noble arrives at North who are in all sorts of hurt with the quality of their playing list and he's gone as the coach in his 2nd season.

Years back didn't Rocket want players who's skills were around kicking and as a result we went for Howard and Tutt?
I think we passed over Sam Reid who went to Sydney and selected Tutt and despite some injury challenges along the journey Reid is still playing and is a highly versatile type. We got the player types that Rocket wanted but they were never likely to be 100/150 game type players and that is what builds strong clubs.

If you detour away from the best players too much at the draft table I don't think it serves the club that well in the long term. It's at the trade table where clubs should look to fix their gaps.

I also don't think coaches should have much of a say in he recruitment of the younger players They've seen vision, they have attended the meetings but it's still not their specialty. They are there for their ability to manage players, develop game plans and utilise the talent they have on the playing list.

Our recent history with Bulldog coaches appear to have had different philosophies to draft days and recruitment.

Wallace was very reluctant to get involved, he didn't get to see the players enough and trusted the recruiting team to find the best players. He got very involved in the trade period though and sold the farm for long kicking players like Eagleton. Pace and the depth in kicking seemed to be his preferred traits.

Eade probably had a very balanced view that in the main backed the recruiters. He was certainly across the players in the mix but typically let the recruiters determine the best players. During Eade's time I think we always had a first round selections so he ensured we kept and eye on the future.
We traded some 2nd rounders for experienced players but the recruiting team always seemed to have decent picks to work with.

McCartney appeared to get more involved in recruiting and really wanted someone like Clay Smith because he was a contested ball focused coach and Smith was a contested ball focused player.

Bevo seems to be very involved in recruitment and has strong views on who gets played and who we might recruit. I just question if he should.

In 2014 he inherited a team and immediately got right into molding the team into playing the style of football he impressed on the people that recruited him and he did that to great effect in 2015 getting us into a finals series and playing some sensational football.
Of course he took us even further in 2016 and the results are etched into our minds forever.
This was not a list he necessarily shaped in terms of recruitment but one that reacted positively to his coaching methods. I think this is the most important part of what the coach should be focused on.

Above are some examples of coaches views on recruiting and while there is no perfect example I do believe the coaches should coach and pretty much leave the recruitment up to the list and recruiting managers.

Dalrymple made these observations about recruitment and I think they hold true:
It’s looking at the player’s attributes. Do they fit into the roles that you see them playing at AFL level?
And then if they have the attributes, do they have the temperament and the mental approach to be successful?
And then do they have the physical attributes as part of that? Will they fit into the way your club plays?'

I might be 100% wrong here but do the coaches really know what they need more than the recruiting team? Are they more worried about the now than having a more balanced view on the now and the future?

Dom Milesi arrived at the club in 2020 and he and Sam Power have had to deal with the challenges of Covid and the interruptions to some of the junior development footy programs. Milesi and Power have had to concentrate more on getting draft value index points for top end talent in Ugle-Hagan and Darcy and picks to land Treloar more than bringing in players they have assessed as the right types.
At some point I'd like us to get back to selecting the best footballers.

You're in a vastly better position to determine what the correct approach is or might be but I want the coaches more focused on that job rather than drilling into the recruiting process.

[MrMahatma]

What makes you think Bevo is more involved in who we draft than previous coaches?

[GVGjr]

What makes you think Bevo is more involved in who we draft than previous coaches?

I don't think I'm saying that, he's probably more involved than Wallace and maybe less involved than B-Mac.
I think the coaching job should be the primary focus and input into recruiting right down the list.
With more limited coaching resources he should have even more faith in the recruiting team to back their judgement.

[MrMahatma]

I don't think I'm saying that, he's probably more involved than Wallace and maybe less involved than B-Mac.
I think the coaching job should be the primary focus and input into recruiting right down the list.
With more limited coaching resources he should have even more faith in the recruiting team to back their judgement.

What does this mean then??
“Bevo seems to be very involved in recruitment and has strong views on who gets played and who we might recruit. I just question if he should.”

[GVGjr]

What does this mean then??
“Bevo seems to be very involved in recruitment and has strong views on who gets played and who we might recruit. I just question if he should.”

Coaches are involved and attend the meetings, I think Bevo has strong views on the types of players we recruit and of course play.
I'm questioning how much involvement coaches should have. As I pointed out Bevo did exceptionally well in his first two years with us and would have had minimal input into the playing list.

[Bulldog Joe]

Coaches are involved and attend the meetings, I think Bevo has strong views on the types of players we recruit and of course play.
I'm questioning how much involvement coaches should have. As I pointed out Bevo did exceptionally well in his first two years with us and would have had minimal input into the playing list.

Bevo's first 2 years really show that coaches should develop a plan to suit the list, rather than demand a list that suits the plan.

[jeemak]

I think it needs to be a balance.

With the likes of Trengove and O'Brien, it's not like they hadn't had a chance. Trengove was tried all over and was clearly slowing down in his career. While you could have made an argument to play him you had plenty of reason not to, and for his first two years on the list he was played mostly if healthy.

O'Brien is an interesting one. It might be taking him a while to find his feet/ confidence in our structure, and that's not all that out of the ordinary given the technical nature of the way we defend and running required. He could still come good and just because he's not playing right now it doesn't mean he won't be next year.

I like the idea of drafting for best available in the first two rounds (maybe three if its early) based on an holistic view of your list's strength and weaknesses in mind, and if it's a dead heat between players decide before the process kicks off who has the final say and get on with it. Use the latter part of the draft/ rookie draft and trading to address needs.

[Happy Days]

Shout out to Bevo. Not exactly sure what it was but there was clearly some adjustment made on that prick Oliver after quarter time, which is something we can all be guilty of accusing him being too stubborn to do.

[jeemak]

Shout out to Bevo. Not exactly sure what it was but there was clearly some adjustment made on that prick Oliver after quarter time, which is something we can all be guilty of accusing him being too stubborn to do.

Much less assertive at stoppages it seemed, and looked liked we tried to keep goal side of him at them rather than let him get that clear forward run.

Oliver was still good, just a bit dulled.

[mjp]

Years back didn't Rocket want players who's skills were around kicking and as a result we went for Howard and Tutt?
I think we passed over Sam Reid who went to Sydney and selected Tutt and despite some injury challenges along the journey Reid is still playing and is a highly versatile type. We got the player types that Rocket wanted but they were never likely to be 100/150 game type players and that is what builds strong clubs.

I agree with 99% of your comments and just want to talk about 'these examples' for a minute vs the point I was TRYING (pretty badly) to make.

Selecting one dimensional players like Howard and Tutt was NEVER going to work. That isn't selecting players who the coach 'will play' - that is honing in on one skill possessed by a player and selecting them based on that. Dalrymple did an amazing job for us but the Howard selection/failure is one that has probably influenced his future draft decisions more than any other...it was a monumental stuff up from the start and I say this as much due to WHERE he was selected as WHY he was selected.

When I say 'select players who the coach will play', that is based on NON NEGOTIABLES and not on a single specific skill. Fremantle said they wouldn't take Tom Barass due to his poor endurance. In the Ross Lyon system, Key Defenders do not leave the field...that is a non-negotiable. So instead they focussed in on Alex Pearce, Brennan Cox etc etc and others. They aren't selecting for a SINGLE SKILL - rather they are DE-selecting for a single skill.

Other examples: Selecting a defender under 185cm is pretty much a no-no for a lot of coaches - that doesn't seem to phase Bevo with Caleb Daniel but a lot of coaches simply wouldn't play such a player. So don't draft him - otherwise it will be 2-years and done. I can think of a few that pertain to Bevo but the one that jumps off the page is don't select a ruckman who doesn't also have the ability to play as a forward...just DONT PICK THEM.

And yep, I know what you are saying re- coach changes etc - and I agree with you. That is why you apply the 'pick the best player with an understanding of the non-negotiables' rather than pick A player based on a singular characteristic.

[Bulldog4life]

I agree with 99% of your comments and just want to talk about 'these examples' for a minute vs the point I was TRYING (pretty badly) to make.

Selecting one dimensional players like Howard and Tutt was NEVER going to work. That isn't selecting players who the coach 'will play' - that is honing in on one skill possessed by a player and selecting them based on that. Dalrymple did an amazing job for us but the Howard selection/failure is one that has probably influenced his future draft decisions more than any other...it was a monumental stuff up from the start and I say this as much due to WHERE he was selected as WHY he was selected.

When I say 'select players who the coach will play', that is based on NON NEGOTIABLES and not on a single specific skill. Fremantle said they wouldn't take Tom Barass due to his poor endurance. In the Ross Lyon system, Key Defenders do not leave the field...that is a non-negotiable. So instead they focussed in on Alex Pearce, Brennan Cox etc etc and others. They aren't selecting for a SINGLE SKILL - rather they are DE-selecting for a single skill.

Other examples: Selecting a defender under 185cm is pretty much a no-no for a lot of coaches - that doesn't seem to phase Bevo with Caleb Daniel but a lot of coaches simply wouldn't play such a player. So don't draft him - otherwise it will be 2-years and done. I can think of a few that pertain to Bevo but the one that jumps off the page is don't select a ruckman who doesn't also have the ability to play as a forward...just DONT PICK THEM.

And yep, I know what you are saying re- coach changes etc - and I agree with you. That is why you apply the 'pick the best player with an understanding of the non-negotiables' rather than pick A player based on a singular characteristic.

I saw him play in the Championships as a rover/forward. Had some terrific games. I'm sure when drafted no-one thought he would end up playing back.

[GVGjr]

I agree with 99% of your comments and just want to talk about 'these examples' for a minute vs the point I was TRYING (pretty badly) to make.

Selecting one dimensional players like Howard and Tutt was NEVER going to work. That isn't selecting players who the coach 'will play' - that is honing in on one skill possessed by a player and selecting them based on that. Dalrymple did an amazing job for us but the Howard selection/failure is one that has probably influenced his future draft decisions more than any other...it was a monumental stuff up from the start and I say this as much due to WHERE he was selected as WHY he was selected.

When I say 'select players who the coach will play', that is based on NON NEGOTIABLES and not on a single specific skill. Fremantle said they wouldn't take Tom Barass due to his poor endurance. In the Ross Lyon system, Key Defenders do not leave the field...that is a non-negotiable. So instead they focussed in on Alex Pearce, Brennan Cox etc etc and others. They aren't selecting for a SINGLE SKILL - rather they are DE-selecting for a single skill.

Other examples: Selecting a defender under 185cm is pretty much a no-no for a lot of coaches - that doesn't seem to phase Bevo with Caleb Daniel but a lot of coaches simply wouldn't play such a player. So don't draft him - otherwise it will be 2-years and done. I can think of a few that pertain to Bevo but the one that jumps off the page is don't select a ruckman who doesn't also have the ability to play as a forward...just DONT PICK THEM.

And yep, I know what you are saying re- coach changes etc - and I agree with you. That is why you apply the 'pick the best player with an understanding of the non-negotiables' rather than pick A player based on a singular characteristic.

Thanks for the clarification. Really appreciate getting a coaches perspective.

Just on Daniel, I don't think he was originally seen as a defender and initially came to us to more or less play as a forward.
I used to have a chuckle seeing such a smaller player lining up in the CHF position and remembering the old days of ruck men big blokes like David Cloke or David McKay occupying that position.
I think Daniel and Dale are fantastic examples of where Bevo looks at players and utilises their strengths rather than necessarily being locked into pre-determined idea's.
I wonder if other coaches would have been as adaptable with those two because Dale for example put in some impressive performances as a forward before Bevo identified he wanted to generate drive from the back line.