Coaches on the boundary? or stay in the box?

[McRooster]

Definately becoming more popular but as the inaugurator of it, Paul Roos has said "often you're on the phone to upstairs to ask 'what happened there?' "
Neil Craig showed some guidance/man love while whispering into Rory Sloane's ear with his arm around him last Friday night.
Alistair Clarkson says it can be a useful tool to deliver a more forceful message.
Damien Hardwick, Vossy, Mark Harvey, Malthouse late in the quarter have been doing it, who else?
Any advantage? or just stay in the box?

I think Clarkson has the balance right. Deliver the forceful message yourself so it is heard and seen to have come direct, not softened by the messenger. Player feels the impact more when the directive comes face to face. Plus you do need to have the eagle eye view and technology at hand to implement game winning moves.

[bunyip]

You get a better view from the coaches box. Personally I like to see coaches on the boundary. I reckon it looks great. They are in the heat of the battle and have their hands on the pulse of the game. As you would know from watching the game, when you're in the grand stand you don't feel like your part of the game, but if you sit on the fence you get to touch the ball sometimes, abuse the umpie, jeer at an opposition player as he shoots for goal. It's great stuff.

[ossie85]

^ well said bunyip, have to agree

[Justin Bieber]

Bunyip sums it up well. They can really get what they want to say across much better than over a phone.

Sure they can't see what's happening, but they can have more say on the players coming on and off and have a word to them on the side. That would be much more effective than watching a game from above and giving orders through a phone.

[Master Q]

Coach on the boundary is good, but the Assistant Coach is then given a lot more work and tons of pressure.

He becomes sort of the Co-Coach, but a little less power in the game if you know what I mean.

[roo boys!]

Did Chris Connolly go on the boundary Q? ;D