That's an interesting observation Andrew.
Certainly coaching a football team of any code is a thankless task for most , & one which I wouldn't undertake .
But how does Stonecutters hypothesis relate to you as West Harbour's coach in 2011, i.e did the Board tell you they felt you lacked ability in spotting talent ?
I presume you don't believe that you do ?
Insofar as my posts relate to Myles Hunkin ,on looking through my 2011 programmes ,I see that Myles Hunkin played a few games in 3rd grade , which you mention above was so he could play with his mates, but played the vast majority in 2nd grade.I note you only selected him once in 1st grade ,preferring mostly Reg de Jager , who was captain , but also Todd Pearce , & on one occasion John Tato , while Myles warmed the bench.
Couple of questions there Done that. I'll try and answer each as clearly as possible.
1. My tenure at West Harbour began in mid January 2011 and concluded in September that year. My replacement was announced before the semi finals were concluded, so it was a short run. The ability to spot talent was not a reason for my departure. Given that more than a dozen colts players from 2010 made their debut that year in first grade, I'd say I encouraged young talent. As my tenure was short, I basically 'got what I was given' in terms of recruitment. The club had re-signed a number of players prior to the second round of my season to avoid the walkout caused by the instability at the end of the year prior.
2. An internal review into first grade took place without my involvement. A number of players expressed their concerns in my ability to coach, which was upsetting to say the least. I don't know who the players were, but I really did try my best to help all the guys in the side. The club delivered the line to me that it was easier to recruit a new coach than recruit a new team, and they risked losing players. So I moved on to the under 12s at West Harbour. Once again, I think I coach for the right reasons and improve the lives of young men, so you could say I was shattered.
3. Reg is a fine man and player, and the captain at the beginning of the year. I had a number of really good and versatile front rowers at the beginning of the year, Vaughan Lomax was playing great footy at tighthead- but could also hook and play loose head, and Todd had converted from hooker to loose head- a position we thought he was more adept. Reg was first selected hooker, but could play tight head as well. When Rodney Blake returned from the Rebels, I took the decision that Reg, who's throwing had gone south a tad, was the player to go to seconds- a very painful decision given my respect for his character and ability. But 4 into 3 just don't go.
4. By midway through the season, we had a number of injuries. Michael Aalatoa was playing loose head, Reg and Todd were injured and I wanted to play Myles at hooker, given his throwing and work around the paddock. Unfortunately he wanted to do his own thing, so I chose someone who really wanted to play firsts, and that was John, I even tried Patrick Andrews until he too succumbed to injury. In all Myles could have possibly played 7 or 8 more first grade games. We finally got him to play and he got injured! Particularly after getting maximum Best and Fairest points. Perhaps my inability to connect with Myles was the reason he didn't want to play 1sts, and some could point towards that, however, I think some of his mates at the time who were serial club switchers had dragged him into their protest.
5. To add to Stonecutter's hypothesis, I would argue that a number of players' unhappiness had allowed them to remove Stu, and the same process was used to remove me. I could speculate that this very process has been used to bring Matt Briggs in to work with Daniel, after Daniel possibly received some dodgy reviews. Both Stu and I, while able to present to the coach selection committee, had no involvement in the review. Ultimately a culture such as this places responsibility away from the players and onto the coach. I guess you can see where I'm going with this.
So to summarise, Myles was a player of first grade ability at Wests, even if he didn't play so many games. Given his head in the right place, he may have displaced some of the guys I mentioned earlier. And Stonecutter, yes, I think if the club backed the coach rather than the players, the players may have to take responsibility for their performance. If they lose players through that policy,so be it. But I think there may be too many club hoppers at Wests anyway.
