I don't see a problem with this at all.
If you have a junior coach, and you think he has potential and want to persist with him - and we have to assume that this is the case - then it makes perfect sense that he has an experienced coach to mentor him through that.
It makes even more sense if your junior coach has come from being an assistant in a town like Melbourne to a media-circus like Parra. Kearney himself has said that he didn't realise the amount of extra "stuff" he has to do.
Perhaps the fact that he is junior and wasn't prepared for all the extras shows that it was a hiring mistake, but - like I said - if you are going to stick with him then having someone like Anderson makes sense.
It also makes sense that you haven't brought in someone who might take Kearney's job, as that only causes more unrest and uncertainty (And can even lead to player unrest if the director takes over and the players feel the coach has been backstabbed).
If, for example, two years ago, the club had announced Anderson as coaching director and Kearney as coach, and specifically stated that they saw Kearney as a promising coach and wanted to give him some assistance (and if we can somehow put aside the pro-Daniel Anderson faction and just concentrate on the scenario as outlined here) then that would have seemed reasonable.
But because we have had two years of people complaining about him, and that Anderson was sacked, and that we are coming last, people complain about this.
As for Anderson himself, obviously his one-marker idea was a farce, but he is now in a position where he can come up with ideas and discuss with Kearney, and Kearney gets final decision on what to implement. And I' sure Anderson is older and wiser for having gone through the "one-marker debacle". He can let Kearney know of the positives and potential pitfals of trying certain things, like - for example - dropping Sandow to Wenty, as he has been through it.
So it all makes logical sense to me. How it plays out is another story.
