06-24-2021, 11:12 AM
I've finished my review. I have no recommendations yet.
Bolton came into the job with a brief to develop a young rebuilding list.
He came with the idea that he’d work first on the defensive side of things and get that settled, then build on that foundation.
Silvagni came into his job wanting to build a well- rounded list, not one to finish eighth but one that would enjoy a ‘sustained period of success’.
His first draft secured a Key forward, key back, a tall utility, a mid-fielder….and Jack (a good start)
David Teague came on board as an assistant coach (forwards) after a successful stint working with the forwards at Adelaide
Bolton played the younger players in many positions usually taken by the more experienced, especially midfield, while the older player adopted secondary roles. The aim was to develop these youngsters by giving them early responsibility. How this was received by some of the older players is uncertain but they seemed to perk up when returned to their previous responsibilities.
2019 and suddenly wins took precedent over development. Bolton out the door.
With development pushed to the side Teague now looks for wins or at best good results. Senior players replace the younger group in important roles (have a look at Dow’s 2019 stats before and after Teague took over).
Teague enters the job talking a revolutionary idea that the practices of the recent past (by most AFL sides), a concentration on defence first, could be overwhelmed by an all-out attack.
He sees an opportunity to change the way the game is played and at the same time gain a ‘competitive advantage’.
Prior to taking on the senior role and in the months after he went after and advocated for a couple of players from his old club who would help his cause in McGovern and Betts
He had reason to be optimistic coming into 2021. He could perhaps see a time later in the year where he had a forward line that looked a bit like this…
F: Betts, McKay, McGovern (A fit one)
HF: Martin, Curnow, Silvagni.
That would have been a forward line hard to cover had they all been fit and firing at their best. (wishful thinking maybe)
The key was getting the ball to them. A fully fit Cripps, Walsh and Williams (who could also play an attacking half-back role), attacking half backs in Saad and Docherty…and suddenly the all-out attack didn’t seem too far-fetched. If they scored a 100 we’d score 110-120.
The first problem of course was we were never going to have that full list, fully fit.
Instead, we had
- players on long term injury,
- players playing injured or
- form slumps with players inconsistent or well below their best.
And the reality was that the attacking mid-field depth was dependent on players stepping up, which just hasn't happened.
All of this has contributed to an extra work- load on a smaller group who were just getting worn down over time. While there were parts of our game that were very good, it just wasn’t sustainable. As a result we probably have a bit of a kick-back from some players. They question the ability to play a game style we don’t have the players to implement. There are queries as to why some players are selected over others. Attempts to correct things are difficult having had a style of play drilled into them. Compromises need to be made but there are no easy games in 2021 and making adjustments mid-season is complicated.
It's not so much a lack of faith in the coach. It's more a result of the circumstances we find ourselves in. The incoming President picks up on this and brings forward a review hoping to have things evaluated and settled before preparations for 2022 can begin.
The second problem is just a guess that flows from the above, but it may go some way to providing an explanation for the way Silvagni left.
Silvagni’s aim would have been for a team that was evenly balanced. All of a sudden his plans are disrupted by a change in focus to this attacking style. The move to bring Betts into the side being an example. Was there this argument over attack v balance and did Liddle and Lloyd side with Teague’s approach. Silvagni was planning to stay a little longer but the rug was pulled out from underneath him. The impression was he didn’t fight too hard to resist.
The third and major issue that probably won’t get a mention in any review is that from the point when this rebuild was planned and announced none of the architects or builders managed to see it through.
The folks in charge at different points will have put their own marks and twists on what is occurring and as a result it may have lost its way.
Bolton came into the job with a brief to develop a young rebuilding list.
He came with the idea that he’d work first on the defensive side of things and get that settled, then build on that foundation.
Silvagni came into his job wanting to build a well- rounded list, not one to finish eighth but one that would enjoy a ‘sustained period of success’.
His first draft secured a Key forward, key back, a tall utility, a mid-fielder….and Jack (a good start)
David Teague came on board as an assistant coach (forwards) after a successful stint working with the forwards at Adelaide
Bolton played the younger players in many positions usually taken by the more experienced, especially midfield, while the older player adopted secondary roles. The aim was to develop these youngsters by giving them early responsibility. How this was received by some of the older players is uncertain but they seemed to perk up when returned to their previous responsibilities.
2019 and suddenly wins took precedent over development. Bolton out the door.
With development pushed to the side Teague now looks for wins or at best good results. Senior players replace the younger group in important roles (have a look at Dow’s 2019 stats before and after Teague took over).
Teague enters the job talking a revolutionary idea that the practices of the recent past (by most AFL sides), a concentration on defence first, could be overwhelmed by an all-out attack.
He sees an opportunity to change the way the game is played and at the same time gain a ‘competitive advantage’.
Prior to taking on the senior role and in the months after he went after and advocated for a couple of players from his old club who would help his cause in McGovern and Betts
He had reason to be optimistic coming into 2021. He could perhaps see a time later in the year where he had a forward line that looked a bit like this…
F: Betts, McKay, McGovern (A fit one)
HF: Martin, Curnow, Silvagni.
That would have been a forward line hard to cover had they all been fit and firing at their best. (wishful thinking maybe)
The key was getting the ball to them. A fully fit Cripps, Walsh and Williams (who could also play an attacking half-back role), attacking half backs in Saad and Docherty…and suddenly the all-out attack didn’t seem too far-fetched. If they scored a 100 we’d score 110-120.
The first problem of course was we were never going to have that full list, fully fit.
Instead, we had
- players on long term injury,
- players playing injured or
- form slumps with players inconsistent or well below their best.
And the reality was that the attacking mid-field depth was dependent on players stepping up, which just hasn't happened.
All of this has contributed to an extra work- load on a smaller group who were just getting worn down over time. While there were parts of our game that were very good, it just wasn’t sustainable. As a result we probably have a bit of a kick-back from some players. They question the ability to play a game style we don’t have the players to implement. There are queries as to why some players are selected over others. Attempts to correct things are difficult having had a style of play drilled into them. Compromises need to be made but there are no easy games in 2021 and making adjustments mid-season is complicated.
It's not so much a lack of faith in the coach. It's more a result of the circumstances we find ourselves in. The incoming President picks up on this and brings forward a review hoping to have things evaluated and settled before preparations for 2022 can begin.
The second problem is just a guess that flows from the above, but it may go some way to providing an explanation for the way Silvagni left.
Silvagni’s aim would have been for a team that was evenly balanced. All of a sudden his plans are disrupted by a change in focus to this attacking style. The move to bring Betts into the side being an example. Was there this argument over attack v balance and did Liddle and Lloyd side with Teague’s approach. Silvagni was planning to stay a little longer but the rug was pulled out from underneath him. The impression was he didn’t fight too hard to resist.
The third and major issue that probably won’t get a mention in any review is that from the point when this rebuild was planned and announced none of the architects or builders managed to see it through.
The folks in charge at different points will have put their own marks and twists on what is occurring and as a result it may have lost its way.
