It was the inevitable culmination of the coaching tenure-ending “perfect storm” that had been brewing for a long time and was always going to have dire consequences for a first-time coach after three losing seasons.
Unless you’ve got previous premiership or grand final credits, these sorts of results will inevitably see the coach replaced, especially if his team is 7-15 in year three and the all-important hope and belief around the club is at a low ebb.
The important thing for any coach wanting to keep his sanity is to know and accept that his tenure will end. It’s only ever a matter of timing and circumstance. Always be ready and prepared to go with the flow when it comes.
If the Essendon decision-makers had an overwhelming faith in the Knights coaching ability then maybe they could have persevered.
But anything other than this means that the business case overwhelms the coaching case in terms of giving the club a fresh start, which can pretty much only come with a new coach.
This week I saw an article headlined “Who’s to blame for the Matthew Knights debacle?”
First, I’d say the only debacle was having two years to run on an existing contract.
Second, it’s always amazing how fans will blame the coach for a poor record when he’s sitting in the coach’s box nowhere near the footy. And yet generally they are quite forgiving of the playing skill errors that lead to a losing record.
I feel sorry for Knights like I feel sorry for any coach who suffers a significant life setback, but getting paid for two years of coaching without having to do the work is more than fair compensation.
And while paying out two years is probably one year too many, the incredible public scrutiny a senior coach is under makes it very difficult for a club to always decide that a new coach is required at the exact time when the existing coach’s contract expires.
To me, it just goes with the territory. Mark Williams, released mid-year by Port Adelaide, is a perfect example.
When a club wants to move on then paying out the final year of a contact is quite often a necessary and reasonable alternative.
It’s been a terribly difficult time in a PR sense over recent weeks for Essendon spokesmen, chairman David Evans and CEO Ian Robson.
Clearly the decision to move Knights on wasn’t made from scratch at 8am on Sunday, so they’ve found themselves in no-man’s land, not wanting to be dishonest, but unable to be totally honest either.
The job of the powerbrokers is to do what is best for the club and over recent weeks it became more and more evident that there would be no future for the coach beyond round 22.
It was a storm that grew and grew almost on a weekly basis.
As soon as the coach found himself under such intense public scrutiny the players were unavoidably dragged into the debate. It becomes something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Instead of just accepting and believing that Knights was the best man for the job they were forced to ask themselves ‘Is he really the right man?’ when quizzed time and again by family and friends, and even teammates.
Coaches who have to retire premiership heroes, as Knights had to do, are always in a very difficult situation.
I saw it at Hawthorn in the post-Allan Jeans premiership era, and Knights inherited exactly that predicament when he had to move on club favorites like Matthew Lloyd and Scott Lucas.
If you haven’t coached these players during their premiership years it’s always a tough gig, and like it or not, right or wrong, players will inevitably shoot the messenger without even knowing they are doing so.
As Matthew Knights has proved yet again, there is a bit of a three-year window for coaches to prove themselves.
When I took over at Collingwood in 1986 we did alright from an 0-3 start and were sixth overall, missing the final five on percentage. But after we finished third-bottom in ’87 I knew if we didn’t do a whole lot better in ’88, when we were finalists, it would have been the end of my coaching career.
A new coach basically has three years to make an impact. And in Knights’ case, what transpired at Essendon during his tenure wasn’t sufficient .
I’ve quite enjoyed watching the Bombers over the last couple of years because they’ve played a bit like Geelong. They move the ball quickly and get it back into the centre square which helps make for a good spectacle.
The problem, however, is that Essendon doesn’t have the same skill level as Geelong. On a good day when it works they look pretty good, as was evidenced this year by two wins over St Kilda, plus three other wins over finals sides Western Bulldogs, Carlton and Hawthorn.
But when their skills didn’t stand up, which was more often than not, they got beaten. There is nothing like centre-square turnovers to get the opposition score ticking along and to blunt your own team’s morale and confidence.
So now Essendon will appoint a new coach.
One name that hasn’t been high on the radar but most definitely should be if he was keen to coach again is ex-Melbourne coach Neale Daniher.
I’m a firm believer that any coach will be better in his second stint at the helm.
Armed with the hands-on experience of senior coaching and then a break to reassess and reinvigorate is a fantastic grounding to go again and do it even better second time round.
Neale did a very good job at Melbourne for 10 years, with six finals appearances and a grand final before it became time for a change. After spending a year running the Coaches’ Association he’s had a couple of years at West Coast in charge of football operations.
Importantly, he’s still been in the footy system, and he would be an ideal candidate for any senior coaching job that is going. That he’s a favorite son at Windy Hill is an added bonus.
Under the same second-time principle, Mark Williams and Dean Laidley should be regarded as successful coaches whose tenure ended as all eventually do and should be at the top of the potential coaches list.
The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the clubs or the AFL.
