AFL shouldn't copy football's shameful treatment of coaches

#morebeer ....and nor does the corrupt FIFA and the inept FFA have sole ownership of 'football'. That's why - - I fully advocate a policy of disambiguation. Thus my proposed alternative which would tick all those boxes. Do you have any issue with that?

...seriously, get over it...if you can type a response without any serious syntax errors, you, and the other readers of the article get the context...the descriptor 'football' is not the intellectual property of the troglodytes in the AFL command and control bunker...

Nice article but confusing title. Maybe all the writers should just stick to calling the code they are writing about football, we can figure out what you are on about.

Firstly - annoyance - I assume the editorial policy to refer to 'soccer' as football in an article about Australian Football and refer to that as AFL. ON a multi sport site with 4 professional football codes..... It's interesting, the SMH and Age have gone with 'soccer' while the Murdoch media run with 'football', I know who I'd rather align with. Anyway - the ridiculous reading of the headline "AFL shouldn't copy football's shameful treatment of coaches" is that Association Football (aka Soccer) have 'Managers' and not 'Coaches' in this context. So - the headline just makes no sense......how about "AFL shouldn't copy Soccer's shameful treatment of managers". That would be clear, concise, unambiguous and on the AFL tab it would cater more appropriately to the likely audience instead of being partially insulting.

The coach accepts ultimate responsibility. It's the only way it works. Otherwise what is the point of a head coach? You might as well just employ a tactician to direct the players. You could probably come up with an application that spits out optimal field placements and tactics against x team. These ridiculous 5 year plans are a cop out. I can't think of any occupation where you are given half a decade to prove you are competent.

Australian football fans need not call soccer "football" without qualifier in an Australian football article! I can't believe that anyone thinks the AFL is actually heading in the direction of coach scapegoating that exists in soccer. The head coaches of the AFL clubs on the weekend were the same as those that coached in round 1 last year.

It was a typical media beat-up from what I can see, someone asked Hird about coaching and he said "never say never" - this was a response to a question about coaching in general I might add, at any of 18 clubs conceivably, not a "Would you return to Essendon" question And naturally this turns into some reporter asking Worsfold if he'd entertain Hird returning specifically to the Bombers - I mean, talk about the media making the news, such a pile of crap.

I'm not quite that optimistic but I think a 'wait and see' approach is warranted!

It must have been annoying for Worsfold to have been asked that question regarding Hird. I would have thought it obvious that Hird couldn't be involved in coaching at Essendon for quite some period into the future. Having said that though, I believe Hird would make an excellent assistant coach at another club, preferably outside Victoria and given the chance and further development could be a good future senior coach.

Or 2012

I agree James, do not write off Woosha or his team, they will bounce back, they will make the finals.

What 'fixture-inflated' run? From round 9 onward, 8 of Essendon's 14 games were against eventual finalists, with only 4 games against sides that finished below them (12-18). Of the 8 games against those finalists they had a 4-4 record, including wins away against GWS and WC, losing three of the other four by 15 points or less. Nothing soft or unaccountable there. The jury is out on Woosha's ability as a coach but whatever is happening at the moment has nothing to do with 2018.

I haven't thought much of Woosha since his final year at WC when the Eagles were looking lost and playing for themselves, not the jumper – much like Essendon is doing now. Nice guy and all but the game has passed him by. Last years second half fixture inflated run has blinded people to to one way unaccountable soft football Woosha has the Dons playing.

Stuck in moderation eh? 100% of the responsibility for a teams success falls on the coach? You must be living in the dark ages.

Not sure what has provoked this article - AFL hasn't come close to copying football's approach to managers in recent years, indeed, some coaches have held their jobs who probably should have been sacked, mainly because now clubs have to eat the cost of paying out their coach - I rather like it to be honest, as clubs can stop weathervaning and actually stick with their original choice and back them in to succeed in the long run. Worsfold absolutely should be getting a bake. If your side is as listless as the Bombers are in the first two rounds after a whole off-season to prepare you have to wonder what he was doing. He also doesn't help his case by sitting there like Pontius Pilate up in the coaches box, blankly washing his hands while disaster unfolds. if he doesn't want that pressure he could always quit. Not like he's got a gun to his head. Not sure he's that thrilled about being asked about being replaced by James Hird either, maybe that will inspire him to show a bit more passion. It's the downside of coaching a big club like the bombers - the expectations are a lot higher than Richardson down at St Kilda

It is too easy to blame the coach when things aren't going well, the coach is the head of the coaching panel in the modern game. In the past a coach had to be good on game day, but David Parkin once delegated responsibility on game day to Wayne Brittain. Either the coach or someone in the box has to be good on tactics during a game, Worsfold doesn't have the reputation of being a good game day coach but every coach would rely on their assistants to a significant extent. Coaches generally have a significant say in the appointments of some of their assistants so if there is a deficiency in the box they have some responsibility for that. Matters go beyond the coaches box too, the football department is very important and I don't believe it is an accident that success has followed Neil Balme around. I am concerned about the depth of talent in the present Essendon coaching panel. Who would be acting coach if Worsfold was unavailable for some reason?

Well said. I think, though, that clubs are starting to move away from the knee-jerk sackings of 5-10 years ago when they hadn't learned to cope with the pressures of fans seeking instant gratification. Think Ratten, Knights, McKenna, Harvey - these guys were all moved on prematurely based on flimsy reasoning and the lure of a popular potential coach (Malthouse, Lyon, Hird, Eade). Three of those moves ended in disaster with the remaining coach under pressure coming into 2019. Clubs are beginning to realise that they won't get anywhere by giving in to the impatient masses. Hardwick and Buckley both could have been moved on after a few seasons of mediocrity but their clubs took a more measured approach to the issues plaguing their sides. Now one is a premiership coach and the other is leading a 2019 flag favourite, having been a kick away last year. The calls to sack Woosha are patently ridiculous. The jury is out on whether or not he can lead the Bombers in a flag tilt but we'll never know if he goes now. The one thing that will be certain is that the club will essentially have to start again with a new coach and a new gameplan, having essentially wasted another few years. As much as I hate seeing the way the team played in the first two rounds - and the gloating of fans of the Hawks, Pies, Blues, Tigers, etc - kneejerk reactions only hurt clubs. 2019 is the first year Woosha has led the team where there haven't been significant personnel changes in the offseason. It hasn't started well but it's barely begun. Let's see what he can do with the rest of the year.

I think the industry and fans are far too lenient on coaches. They're paid enormous money for a reason -- the buck stops with them. They accept ultimate responsibility for the performance of a side. If coaches can't handle that pressure then get out of the business. Get a regular job like other people. What makes them think they are entitled to an $800k per year job? Essendon has started 2019 much like they started 2018. They've learned nothing. Either the coach has not prepared his players properly (incompetence) or the players aren't giving full commitment to the coach (coach has lost the players for a multitude of reasons). The only reason coaches hang on to their jobs as long as they do in the AFL despite no justification (Richardson, Lyon, Bolton, Brad Scott) is because the CEO of each club would have to put up his hand and say I made a blunder i re-signing this coach. The CEO and Board are saving their own hide. In other sports around the world, you generally have private owners putting up their own money. No owner putting up his own money would tolerate a coach talking about 5 year rebuilds, green shoots, restumping and rewiring, and other such nonsense. They either get the job done or the next person in line is given an opportunity. They know they have limited time to turn things around. This creates an environment of urgency. Coaches talking about requiring a 5 year rebuild to be competitive creates the exact opposite environment -- one where mediocrity is tolerated. Players and coaches know they don't have to give 100%.