AFL Coaches. Are they paid too much?
I think there is a very dangerous trend occurring in AFL clubs where other clubs simply copy teams that have done well and then panic and either copy teams training/tactics etc or even more an issue poach coaches without vigorous research.
Now the odds of getting it right are okish given some team has to improve and others of course slide. But often this “panic buy” has not reflected the full rationale of why a team has done well. There are so many variables that contribute to success and these added to player ability and team balance should be critically examined before rushing into spending massive amounts on coaches and assistant coaches.
Very few of these overpaid gurus are going to rewrite Bompas book of periodization or come up with a complex model of skill acquisition for training. Most clubs have great IT back up now and also statistical coverage and interpretation. Obviously some of these coaches are very ambitious at first and often really show infectious enthusiasm on the track. That is great and then “Chinese whispers” inflate the value of these guys. It often reminds me of the 1979 movie BEING THERE with Peter Sellers and Shirley Mclaine. Chance the gardener looked distinguished but actually was of pretty low IQ. Anyway he said something in front of dignitaries once and then rose to the top of the pile in politics. Very funny but scary. His famous quote was “I like to watch” when Shirley Mclaine was undressing but little did she know he was watching TV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_There
I have met a few chancys in AFL and good luck to them! HA. One was so poor he cost a team a big final but could sell snow to eskimos and a quote reminds me of him. “It is a great art to know how to sell wind”. But it is quite odd how each team quickly copies the “best” team’s tactics. Usually gleaned from other sports anyway. And other clubs are desperate to find out some IP.
Media, public and those men in suits that run clubs create perceptions and then panic buying occurs. And boards need to be very wary of those men in suits that now invade middle management in AFL footy departments. Many work in the best interests of the club but many just jump on the marketing/perception bandwagon and then hope success comes and hope more they can keep their job.
I have seen some pretty average coaches get paid massive amounts simply because they were linked to a successful club. AFL is a sanitized competition. It is cyclical.
There is a good chance that a club may have a surplus of a certain type of player that can carry out new tactics. Maybe a heap of midfielders with pace & endurance OR defenders with perfect kicks OR a perfect blend of 2 or 3 big defenders and heaps of attacking defenders. Whatever! Often then one can create a system around the cattle one has. Bang they win, everyone copies and 2 years later tactics change. Think! So what happens to those guru coaches who are paid millions and developed amazing tactics 2 years ago that are now redundant. They are now seen as passé and new gurus get paid more money.
Those men in suits need to think a little and not get affected by having mobile phones too close to their brain hinder their logic. Also what I call the ‘AM coffee plus newspaper” research model that occurs. Add this research reading the papers plus a call to an ex mate in the AFL and ‘whack” there goes another 500,00o bucks of AFL money to a coach who really could not take the next step in a long term elite sporting environment..
That is why Alistair Clarkson was an inspired choice. Had done the hard yards in coaching. Was academically astute. Has done well.
Clubs need to really work out why success comes. They must realize it is biased young and that it takes almost a decade to rejig. Then not panic cull OR more so panic buy!
loris bertolacci 
I think there can be too much of a bias toward those with academic abilities and qualifications, it’s a sort of darwinian outlook on things.
Experience is the key. If you took a harvard professor of war studies with an IQ upwards of 160 and a war general who had been on the front lines of combat but only has an IQ of say 110, I’d rather fight alongside the guy without the 50 extra IQ points to be honest. If you can get a guy with both, then all the better but…
Look at boxing as another example, some of the better coaches didn’t have the opportunity of higher education Ray Arcel Eddie Futch, Angelo Dundee, Jack Blackburn, Cus D’Amato etc. Freddie Roach suffers from Parkinson disease and is very slow of speech but he’s got manny who’s won 10 world titles thus far. Many of these trainers had no computers, statistics, strength and training coaches and yet produced multiple world champions of arguably better quality and much tougher than most of todays fighters (who do have all that) all because they had ‘been there and done that’, save D’Amato who never fought in the ring.
I agree with everything you say. Clarkson was an isolated example. Simply my thrust was that a bidding war has started for coaches in the AFL and too many are getting bundled up as “guru status” or are deemed to have some amazing IP. Of course there is that even split between art and science with coaches and in the AFL there are some trailblazers and amazing coaches that are worthed and are either more artists or scientists. My point simply was that clubs panic now and without much research spend big on coaches and assistant coaches and even fitness staff simply because they were attached to winning teams and their worth has often skyrocketed without too much justification. How many highly experienced coaches that can do wonders with almost any list of players exist? I think there are some but not many. How many coaches in OZ coach sprinters? But how many coach sprinters to consistently run fast over many eras whether they are 20 or 70 or unschooled or have phd’s. Not many! So the concern is clubs spend too big on average talent given the talent pool must be really small in Australia. For sure Pay for the best but be sure they are the best.