Des Hasler!

[Pete W]

I think you will find ball playing forwards were around long before Des. Arthur Beetson was probably the first to "revolutionise' this role. Also our own Malcolm Reilly was a fantastic ball player. Some of the POMS of yesteryear had great hands and ball playing abilities. Des had his brilliant moments but this was not one of them.

We're not talking individual talent and skills, rather tactical on a team level. Props in tandem shifting and playing short as a way the team got around the park. That's all Des mate

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

des and manly was never the issue though , DES and penn,

need to be careful. Evidence on paper-and what's right and wrong can often be miles apart. The journey is always part of the battle and only found in a complete discovery process. it was reported Manly looked at pursuing damages but didnt , maybe there were more examples that supported different outcomes. stuff looks bad in isolation,

As a mere supporter from a comfortable distance, but one who saw and read whatever was available during those years, i'd have to agree it looks like the issue was always between Penn and Des.

One guy who wanted to call all the shots because he had money, the other who wanted to call all the shots because it was a footy team and he knew footy.

Plenty of reports back up the idea that Des tried to lure people to join him at the Dogs. But I always assumed that was only after Penn had put Des in a spot he wasn't prepared to tolerate. Des won't cop being disrespected and nor should he. Once Greenberg had pounced on the unhappy Des for 2013 it was never feasible for him to remain Manly coach in 2012. Any legal action by Des over getting sacked wouldn't get off the ground because he was getting far more from the Dogs anyway. And legal action from Penn over Des's actions post-signing with Dogs would simply air Manly's dirty linen and embarrass him even more than the great 2011 premiership win did.

The fact Penn invited Des back years later said plenty, I thought. No inside knowledge at all but I've met Des, seen him play, watched him build winning sides and i think he's a Manly legend. Penn on the other hand is still to fully earn his Manly stripes in my book.

 

[Spartan Eagle]

Contiki Tour Organisor

😂😂😂😂😂

Hey Contiki man. Can you please organise a European Contiki Tour for us at Silvertails. Make sure you invite bringbackthebiff

 

[jbb/james]

I think you will find ball playing forwards were around long before Des. Arthur Beetson was probably the first to "revolutionise' this role. Also our own Malcolm Reilly was a fantastic ball player. Some of the POMS of yesteryear had great hands and ball playing abilities. Des had his brilliant moments but this was not one of them.

the great Bob Mccarthy looks a classic modern edge forward . from highlights anyway. I onl Found footy in 1974

 

[LeonardCohen]

I think you will find ball playing forwards were around long before Des. Arthur Beetson was probably the first to "revolutionise' this role. Also our own Malcolm Reilly was a fantastic ball player. Some of the POMS of yesteryear had great hands and ball playing abilities. Des had his brilliant moments but this was not one of them.

Didn’t i write that in my post? “The game has always had ball playing forwards” is a direct quote from it. I’m talking about an attacking strategy that involved mass movement of the ball in the middle third of the field through the middle forwards; that was something Des employed.

Further, using the tactic in a manner that led to two grand final appearances Indicates it was quite successful. It ran its course like any trend in the game, but the big man in the middle of the field running shape remains. The Beetson/Reilly method involved offloading and short passing, not running attacking shape…the attacking shapes in the modern professional era are very different to what was used in the 70s and 80s.

 

[manly al]

Still under the impression that the main cause of contention between Des and Manly or more directly Penn in 2011 or premiership time was primarily around Des seeking more money or upgraded contract and the onset of Des 's preference of back ended deals and roster control issues . All associated also with Greenberg "s then apparent underhand and quite unsavory behind the scene 's overtures to Des . Also apparently Penn finally agreeing to Des 's increased salary requests or demands but after Des had already accepted Grenberg 's offer to leave and Des "s complete indifference and lack of concern on how much instability or harm that would then cause for the club "s best interests. Hardly a good look or deserving much credit on both sides but in terms of acting in the clubs best interests at the time , think that Des would have rated a poor second . Certainly credit to Des "s professionalism that he was able to return and manage some good results and improve things on field in the main until some type of a maybe jaded or backward coaching mindset then seemed to kick in and not help matters .

 

[Deleted member 26876]

Didn’t i write that in my post? “The game has always had ball playing forwards” is a direct quote from it. I’m talking about an attacking strategy that involved mass movement of the ball in the middle third of the field through the middle forwards; that was something Des employed.

Further, using the tactic in a manner that led to two grand final appearances Indicates it was quite successful. It ran its course like any trend in the game, but the big man in the middle of the field running shape remains. The Beetson/Reilly method involved offloading and short passing, not running attacking shape…the attacking shapes in the modern professional era are very different to what was used in the 70s and 80s.

And I think the main point to take out of that is that he doesn't really have a one-stop shop formula for his teams. i.e. he's not like a Sheens where you know exactly what style of play his team will have, so the idea of his coaching methods being 'past it' is fairly hard to quantify.

The bulldogs had some big forwards so their gameplan evolved around that. With Manly 2.0, he let things develop pretty naturally w/ trbo, and we were different again with Manly 1.0.

I think one valid argument would be that his defencive structures were past it; as all his old teams were known for their defence. But then again, I reckon it's equally likely that we have a team with poor edge defenders (as it has been a constant throughout the Barrett, Hasler and now Seibold/Flanagan days w/ minimal squad changes).

It's great to see when our team hunts as a pack, slides, does the one-percenters. But this in itself is a rare sight and usually has to be forced off the back of some poor performances or other reasons (i.e Bozo's death saw us come out and blow the eels out of the water). Just lacking a few genuine competitors (probably born rather than made).

 

[Deleted member 26876]

Blaming the coach is NRL . Oh man its jus sheltering insecure players

when the teams culture was strong, full of smarts and competitotrs back in the last glory era

we changed coaches from des to tooves, lost a stack of talent but still went pretty good because we had the culture.

Then we ate our babies and killed the culture on and off the field

When we changed coaches through barret, des again and siebs , the culture and results and the sloppy style of play are consistent regardless of coaches. Since then those overseeing the culture have failed and will continue to do so until we add major contributions to our game that isnt a coach.

a bellamy or bennet would just be comfortable enough and secure enough to ensure accountability, and be more powerful than the squad, which has been our problem. The acceptance of mediocrity by our leadership on field, and the coaches have all beeen victims in that part of there demise

swing back a decade the coaches were beneficiaries of the culture, the team made coaches. No doubt coaches add enormous value but the desire to challenge your opposite has to be there . Our team needs and overhaul, not a new mechanic

des and manly was never the issue though , DES and penn,

need to be careful. Evidence on paper-and what's right and wrong can often be miles apart. The journey is always part of the battle and only found in a complete discovery process. it was reported Manly looked at pursuing damages but didnt , maybe there were more examples that supported different outcomes. stuff looks bad in isolation,

des, dce, foz, all sold there souls elsewhere and returned.because life at manly sucked
all are treated differently, no doubt des has been the most influential in that time
all were lured back by offers they could not refuse. Nothing less

my opinion, loving most of the others, tolerating a few, ignored a couple , yawned through a bit. choice…..mine.

Well said. Also, while it won't fix all our issues I think it has been a good move to dissolve the Fulton chain of command from recruitment.

If you buy a coach the vision should be unified, and having powerful club figures in both the coaching and lead-recruitment positions is dangerous territory for having a clear direction. At best they agree on some ideas and have minimal conflicts of interest. At worst it's either going to be a bereaucratic 'achieve nothing' affair, or an all in ****fight.

Barrett was a Fulton puppet (and incompetent), so was easily discarded of after the failed rebuild. Toovey and Hasler were two coaches that had presence - so tension was inevitable when paired with a nepotism-webbed chains of authority, and poor upper management.

 

[Bearfax]

End of the day everyone is flawed to an extent. I started following this great club as a 9 year old in 86 and for me there were 2 coaches that have defined this club.

Bob Fulton and Des Hasler.

Both men were driven and brilliant in their own ways while bordering on obsessive compulsive in their drive for success.

Say what you will about 2011 but for this supporter Des will always be a legend in both stints here. And from my point of view where I sit he was shafted each time by the powers that be.

Not may coaches have had to put up with the same amount of noise from the background and still be successful. From snakes court case to Manese to collecting Dylan Walker from the watchouse after his DV issues, like a father his players generally loved him so a bit of loyalty back to then was never a huge issue for me.

Young players always got their shot if they were ready and willing.

And he was a great door opener for his players.

 

[EOL now nesting on the GC]

And he was a great door opener for his players.

id say he was a breaker of doors personally.

 

[LeonardCohen]

And I think the main point to take out of that is that he doesn't really have a one-stop shop formula for his teams. i.e. he's not like a Sheens where you know exactly what style of play his team will have, so the idea of his coaching methods being 'past it' is fairly hard to quantify.

The bulldogs had some big forwards so their gameplan evolved around that. With Manly 2.0, he let things develop pretty naturally w/ trbo, and we were different again with Manly 1.0.

I think one valid argument would be that his defencive structures were past it; as all his old teams were known for their defence. But then again, I reckon it's equally likely that we have a team with poor edge defenders (as it has been a constant throughout the Barrett, Hasler and now Seibold/Flanagan days w/ minimal squad changes).

It's great to see when our team hunts as a pack, slides, does the one-percenters. But this in itself is a rare sight and usually has to be forced off the back of some poor performances or other reasons (i.e Bozo's death saw us come out and blow the eels out of the water). Just lacking a few genuine competitors (probably born rather than made).

I think the problem is a perception that when you start losing games, you haven't evolved or kept up with the times. I don't agree with this notion in the context of Hasler. I think he was always innovative, it's just that his early innovations we more successful than his later innovations. He was still coming up with new ways of doing things, they just didn't always work.

I think you also correctly point out that the players used to implement a game plan may be part of the problem. You only have to look at what Barrett did with the Dogs to see this concept in action. Essentially, he took the Penrith game plan and approach to the Bulldogs and it failed. Does that mean Penrith's plan is the problem? Of course not. Maybe Des had good ideas but the wrong cattle to implement them. We'll never know. I just hold the belief that he was always innovative, just to varying degrees of success.

 

[EOL now nesting on the GC]

Maybe Des had good ideas but the wrong cattle to implement them. We'll never know. I just hold the belief that he was always innovative, just to varying degrees of success.

Id say the implementation in 19 and 21 were pretty good. 2020 was Covid And vball and 2022 was Tommy injured and Rainbowgate. Was he perfect.... NOOOOO. Was he Manly? Hell yes.

 

[silvereagle]

Didn’t i write that in my post? “The game has always had ball playing forwards” is a direct quote from it. I’m talking about an attacking strategy that involved mass movement of the ball in the middle third of the field through the middle forwards; that was something Des employed.

Further, using the tactic in a manner that led to two grand final appearances Indicates it was quite successful. It ran its course like any trend in the game, but the big man in the middle of the field running shape remains. The Beetson/Reilly method involved offloading and short passing, not running attacking shape…the attacking shapes in the modern professional era are very different to what was used in the 70s and 80s.

I take your point. However I don't agree this was a Des innovation. If you watch some the 80's games from the Eels under Jack Gibson and from the Dogs under both Warren Ryan and (subsequently) under Phil Gould, they all had pretty obvious ball playing tactics amongst their forwards. This was well before Des became a coach. I think you give Dessie too much credit on this particular "innovation".

 

[EOL now nesting on the GC]

I take your point. However I don't agree this was a Des innovation. If you watch some the 80's games from the Eels under Jack Gibson and from the Dogs under both Warren Ryan and (subsequently) under Phil Gould, they all had pretty obvious ball playing tactics amongst their forwards. This was well before Des became a coach. I think you give Dessie too much credit on this particular "innovation".

What's old is new again. It's like music and this copyright malarkey going on at the moment. Artists from 40 years ago suing left right and centre for rifs and sounds that look or even sound like stuff from back in the day.
You could easily say any tactic used by a modern coach has been done before at some point. There really is only so many ways you can skin a cat before the cat don't got no skin left.
The very best coaches innovate for the rules and players they have at the time. They don't care that something was sort of done 40 years ago or so and so was that type of player 60 years ago.
Des was an innovator and perhaps one of the best at it of his generation. Things like the gps tracking of players at training to ensure each player was exactly where they needed to be at any point in time. Had it been done before somewhere else? Possibly sure
Had it been done in the NRL. Nope.

The mobile ball playing forwards at the dogs? Had there been players like that before? Sure.... but not in the last 20 years so to bring that back was an innovation for the time.
In stint one at manly he used to give all the players a laptop with detailed personal gameplans of opponents. That was pretty new.
2021 and DW as a super sub.... that was a pretty good idea.
The top coaches all innovate and Des was and still is a top coach. Albeit unemployed.