New Coach Must Make Some Changes

Apparently, the word on the street is the Saints will be hiring Alan Richardson as next head coach.

I don't know enough about him to form a strong opinion on the matter, but I do have a few thoughts on what he needs to do.

First, establish trust.  Trust, which goes hand-in-hand with loyalty, has been all but depleted at the club.  The club leadership, the players, and the fans need to be able to trust the coach.  I don't know whether the players trusted Watters, but the Board certainly didn't.  And fans were getting to the point of incredulity too.  Everyone knows now that the schisms in the club were deep, and the new coach will need to repair them immediately.  Personally, I am disappointed Richardson lied to his own club and publicly about considering the StK position, especially when a move from assistant to head honcho is met with near-universal plaudits, even from the club one is leaving.  But he did hide it, so let's hope that's just part of the business (doesn't make it right, though).

Second, the new coach needs to have and communicate a clear vision.  For most of the season, it was difficult for us to understand what Watters was trying to accomplish.  The list changed every week, young players were used in situations they could not handle, and Watters did little to re-assure us he had a clear idea of where he was heading.  The new coach needs to bring a strong plan for success, and make sure we can all get on board with it.

Finally, the new coach has to win.  Sorry if that sounds like a lame, simpleton's comment, but it's the truth.  Like silliness from beautiful women, the faults of winning coaches are largely overlooked.  If the Saints are no better in three years, I promise you we'll be having this same discussion.  If they make the finals and have strong showings against most opponents, there won't be much to debate.  I've said before that I don't envy Collingwood and Essendon because I think their culture is so toxic, but one can't deny their success.  So a lot of things go unnoticed that might be concerns at less-successful clubs.

Nothing with Richardson is official yet, but regardless who takes over next, these things will be crucial to having a rewarding tenure at StK.

Draft Positions Not That Impressive

Since the end of the season, we've been hearing this line from StK about getting "three draft picks in the top 20" as if that were somehow the great secret of stealing the draft.  Well that sounds kind of impressive at first, if you imagine those picks being sort of spread out across the top twenty.  Like maybe picks 3, 11, and 19 or some such.  But after frittering away two strong players, the Saints are left with 3, 18, and 19.  And if this draft is as shallow as everyone is saying, that won't be much to brag about.

I think that when you trade away a current player for a draft pick, you should get a pick that's likely to yield a similar caliber player.  I think that's where the Saints completely fell short.  Meaning, I don't think pick 18 or 19 will get them a player the likes of Dal Santo or McEvoy.  I understand they got a few other players in the McEvoy trade, but certainly not ready-to-go difference-makers.  And they did not even know what draft pick they'd get because the AFL had not yet announced how Hawthorne would be compensated for losing Franklin.

Looking at the top 20 picks, I think Collingwood are the clear winner.  GWS has the best picks, but that comes along with being the worst team in the league.  Collingwood, however, haven't missed the finals for quite a while, and they didn't weaken their list to get draft slots.  So considering that, having pick 6 and 10 is a minor coup.

I truly hope StK's draft picks and incoming players are able to make a huge difference in the coming years.  Otherwise we'll all look back on this year's trade period with bitter regret.

Interchange Cap: Horrible Idea

The AFL is about to implement a cap on the number of interchanges (bench rotations, in American parlance).
Here's an article discussing how the cap may affect each club and certain players.
Here's a little background.


The AFL argues that the game is getting too fast, that the value of extreme physical fitness is being diminished, and that managing fatigue is part of the game, for both players and coaches.
I'm not sure about the game getting too fast; that doesn't really seem possible.  I do agree with the other points, though.  Top physical form should be paramount, and playing all-out should always be measured against saving something for later in the game.  When players can simply take a quick breather on the sidelines whenever they want, getting a drink and a leg rub, they are able to have an impact on the field without being as physically fit as possible.  This is disappointing, especially for a game in which fitness has traditionally been both a prerequisite to success and a point of pride.

The interchange cap, however is a terrible way to fix this.

Just think how this will play out.  The job of keeping exact count of every interchange will be extremely difficult, and inevitably, something will go wrong.  It won't be long before game review shows that a winning side made too many interchanges.  What then?  Change the result?  Penalize the club in some way?  What a mess.

Instead of a cap on interchanges, I suggest reducing the number of interchange players.  I think allowing one interchange player and three substitutes would work well.  There would be only one player available for resting at any given time, so while unlimited interchanges would be allowed, there's only so much resting that can be done with only one player on the bench.  And players who need some additional conditioning will simply have to choose how long they can remain in the game.  Sorry, Dane Swan, but if you can't hack it the whole game, maybe you should just play half the game.

I just don't want to see any controversies from this cap, but I think we will.

Why the Saints Shouldn't Pick Harvey

There's been a bit of talk lately about StK hiring former club star Robert Harvey.  And while fans might see that as a positive move amongst all the chaos and drama, I advise against it.

My reason is simple: Harvey is currently the number 2 at Collingwood.  I've addressed the idea of club culture in previous posts, and if there's one culture I don't want to see at StK, it's the culture they've established at Collingwood.

The Pies have certainly had success over the years, but there's just something about that club the turns my stomach.  They're jerks.  Just as I loathe the Yankees in every way possible, the Maggies make me root for whomever is opposing them.  If there is a coach who absolutely oozes with jerk-juice, it's Buckley.  Malthouse was not much better.  They scream obscenities at the slightest mistake on the field, often taking their anger out on the poor booth phone.  Call me unfair, but there is just nothing I like about anything that Collingwood represents.

And I don't see any value in bringing in a coach who comes from that dark, toxic place.

Culture Crumbling

Could the club leadership at St. Kilda make it any harder on players and fans to find something to cling to?  It seems not.

Their coach of two years is gone, in a bizarre, soap-opera-esque charade that has defined the club since the end of the 2013 season.

So, what's going on?  Well, start with almost a decade of very poor list management, with almost no high profile draft picks (thanks, Lyon).  Then add a seeming inability to hold on to mid-career talent (Ball and Goddard come to mind).  Then mix in the departure of two well-loved, high-caliber players (see: Dal Santo and McEvoy).  Spread this on a team full of inexperienced youngsters who seem to be taking their time reaching their potential (hello Milera, Stanley, Siposs, Maister, Dennis-Lane, Markworth, and others), and a few aging stars who will not be able to carry this group much longer, if at all (Hayes and Reiwoldt).  Finish with a sprinkle of off-field drama (Saad, Milne, and Jones).  And you've got yourself a recipe for disaster.

So what are the ramifications?  First and foremost, the playing group is in disarray, preparing for a trip to Colorado and months of adjusting to new players and a new system.  Secondly, the club will probably have to give away memberships to fill the stands.
But the biggest problem is the disintegration of the club culture.

Positive club culture is essential for sustainable success.  There has to be something for fans and players to believe in, something for them to get behind.  It's what makes great players stay.  It's what makes people want to buy a membership.  It's what makes young players dream of playing at the club.  And it's what leads to great on-field chemistry and, ultimately, victories.

They've got very little to offer right now.  Fans are confused.  Players are worried.  The management is apparently angry and ready to throw out anyone they think is part of the problem.  It's certainly possible that Watters was not all that great as a coach.  And it's possible the Saints will benefit from the trades made this year.  But when it feels like no one can trust anyone else, no one performs well and those who can get out do so at first opportunity.  Remember those players at other clubs who said they wanted to trade to St. Kilda?  They may have been excited to play for Watters, or at least saw something good going on there.  I would be surprised if they still feel the same.

American sports have always been, to me, the model of everything that's wrong with big-time pro sports: no loyalty to anything but money, big egos controlling everything, huge rows between club owners and the city where they play; about the only thing more disgusting is Euro soccer's practice of "loaning" players to other clubs.  But it seems the AFL and its clubs are trying to emulate this dysfunctional state of affairs.

If the AFL doesn't get a grip on how to manage free agency and St. Kilda doesn't figure out what they stand for, things are not going to improve.  And my guess is the current Board of Directors at this club will not be able to sort this out.

Not just losing two great players

By now you should be aware that Ben McEvoy and Nick Dal Santo are no longer with the StK football club.  Many fans are disappointed at losing two players who still had a lot to contribute on the field.  I share that disappointment (they were two of my favorite players), but I think there's a bigger problem.

StK is a club that is about to lose it's leadership.  Milne, Kosi, and Blake have all retired and it won't be long for Reiwoldt and Hayes.  So who will be left?  Maybe Montagne?  I had thought the plan included Dal and Ben, but now, of course, it doesn't.  So it looks like the next club captain will be a younger player, because there's a huge, empty gap between the veterans and the up-and-comings.

But the most damaging aspect of these two losses is the message it sends to the young players.  Loyalty is huge in footy.  To be successful, a club needs a combo of experienced veterans, strong mid-career players who are planning to stick around, and eager newcomers who are excited to learn and show their potential.  In order to achieve that, those mid-career players have to be loyal to the club.  They're the ones who eventually become the stalwart veterans.  If great players routinely depart with 4-6 years left on their careers, all you're left with is washed-up has-beens who are only around because no other club wants them.  I haven't seen a premiership team yet who has any of that sort of players.

And loyalty begets loyalty.  When the mid-careers show their loyalty to the club, it inspires loyalty in the younger players.  When the club shows loyalty to the mid-careers, it makes the younger players excited to be a part of the club.  If I were a young player like Curren, Lee, Steven, or Webster (all likely to be very good players), the lesson I'd learn from this (and Goddard's departure) is that if this club thinks they can get more use from trading you than from playing you, they'll ship you off in a heartbeat.  It took them about three hours to shake hands on McEvoy and they held out as long as they could for the best deal on Dal Santo (but clearly, they had every intention of trading him).  And in both cases, the club did not know exactly what it would get in return.

Yes, I know it's part of the game.  And sure, the players could have protested.  But honestly, would you want to play for a club that would really rather have draft picks and lesser-caliber players instead of you?

This leaves a foul odor in the air, and I think the overall effect on the younger players will be negative.

I couldn't even watch...

Call me a fair-weather fan or maybe just take away my die-hard card, but after the first quarter on Sun, I had to turn it off.  It was that bad.

Here's the thing with sports.  A major component of the enjoyment I derive from watching them is the excitement of finding out who will win.  That means if I know who's going to win after one quarter of the game, the remaining three quarters lose pretty much all of their allure.

And now and again I enjoy an amazing display of sport despite knowing the outcome, especially in the case of re-living a great memory.  But there was nothing impressive going on in StK's Round 10 match.  Even the goals rolling off the boots of the NM forwards were less impressive because it seemed like a practice scrimmage against the VFL players.

So, yes, I had to turn it off.  I can spend only so much time watching footy every week, and I want it to be exciting.