Culture 2008

[benny_furs]

they were saying that the person does well because they don't take themself seriously, but they take their job seriously.

Great way to be.

I've heard the same thing said about many greats in other fields/industries.

I've heard a bit about this too. I remember a little book called "Street Smart" that goes into detail about it and why successful people think in this way. By seperating your ego from your professional ego you increase your composure and don't get sucked into arguing with your emotions, definitely worth thinking about!

 

[Dyer Disciple]

Once again, another poster or detractor not saying anything that different to me...

oh by the way the nine players i would get rid of this yr are. tivendale hyde, pettifer, polak injury,johnson, bowden, sylvestor howat.
i could easily name a few other talls but the dire list situation in this area says we just cant do to many.

The same people who take offense or disagree at me saying trading/delisting twilighters, for all their talking about such are once again practically talking about actually trading two realistically.

What would you get for them in comparison for what you would loose...think for a minute...realistically in probability, ALL FACTORS considered.

I hear all this negative talk about our twilighters and this, that and the next thing, but when it comes down tot he crunch, I only see stalwart posts about...trading two of them at most.

Johnson and Bowden are the most common ones, Johnson is the one most commonly disregarded, so on equal value you will get next to nothing for him.

Bowden, you would be kidding yourself to think you could get a first rounder for, from ANY team.

So let's trade a guy for a pick 19 - 32 (which CAN be highly speculative, not assuredly, but CAN) for a guy who is a integral part of the club on and off field, and has single handedly had a big say in assuring a few wins for us this year.

That makes a lot of sense to me :

 

[Dyer Disciple]

I've heard a bit about this too. I remember a little book called "Street Smart" that goes into detail about it and why successful people think in this way. By seperating your ego from your professional ego you increase your composure and don't get sucked into arguing with your emotions, definitely worth thinking about!

Very much enjoying your posts Benny, you can agree and disagree with people but be logical and open minded about it and it's clear you have the same passion most/nearly all on here have for the yellow and black!

Enjoy reading your posts!

 

[the claw]

Once again, another poster or detractor not saying anything that different to me...

The same people who take offense or disagree at me saying trading/delisting twilighters, for all their talking about such are once again practically talking about actually trading two realistically.

What would you get for them in comparison for what you would loose...think for a minute...realistically in probability, ALL FACTORS considered.

I hear all this negative talk about our twilighters and this, that and the next thing, but when it comes down tot he crunch, I only see stalwart posts about...trading two of them at most.

Johnson and Bowden are the most common ones, Johnson is the one most commonly disregarded, so on equal value you will get next to nothing for him.

Bowden, you would be kidding yourself to think you could get a first rounder for, from ANY team.

So let's trade a guy for a pick 19 - 32 (which CAN be highly speculative, not assuredly, but CAN) for a guy who is a integral part of the club on and off field, and has single handedly had a big say in assuring a few wins for us this year.

That makes a lot of sense to me :

this is where we have opposing views. i know johnson and bowden are not the way forward both have limited time left in the game. if given the choice between pick 19 and 35 iwould take it in a heart beat but im not talking about trading these two im talking about delisting them for two primary reasons. 1. make way for younger players and 2. help address list needs/structure. some players have to go i see no benefit to the club moving forward keeping these two. imo they are not only keeping kids of the list but stifling player development.

 

[BiddiscombeSkills]

When you're trying to identify a trend of cultural change in the RFC's list management, you need to have a decent understanding of metaphysical philosophy. More specifically, it's important to have a good grasp of the mutually exclusive concepts of free will and predestination. That is, I reckon there are some options that just aren't possible for the club to take, at least not without precipitating a cataclysmic supporter/media meltdown that would sunder the very fabric of the universe from the loom of temporal continuity. (Ok, I have no idea what that means, but there's only so many times you can look at a Dr Who avatar without spouting some pseudo-science)

The problem that the club is faced with, is that there are a wide range of circumstantial factors (in many cases unique to the RFC) that hinder the development of the perfect cultural model.

Factor 1: The Coach's contract expires at the end of next year, the last of a 5-year plan that was sold on the basis of delivering the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Assuming the Coach wants to keep his job, his imperative is to deliver short term success to ensure an extension of his contract. He is therefore potentially more willing to compromise a longer term strategy in favour of delivering a more experienced playing group that in turn would offer a greater chance of the success that he needs.

Factor 2: The legacy of the previous coach was a gaping hole in the middle-age band of the list, in all positions across the board. This exacerbates the problems faced by the current regime, in that they not only have a big experience gap to fill, but they have no comparably aged players to use as trade bait. A direct swap of a 30y.o. for a 25y.o. is a rare thing these days. The alternative to bringing middle-aged players in from other teams is of course to draft teenagers and wait eight years for them to develop. You control your own destiny a bit more this way, but this brings us to...

Factor 3: The RFC has played in 2 finals series since the early 80s, and supporters feel that by now, they have been waiting long enough. Bottoming out is a hell of a lot easier to take if you've just won a premiership - ask a West Coast supporter (Claw, you there? :hihi) Imagine the pressure of being just the latest in a long line of coaches (or footy managers, or presidents) to front up to the fans to ask for their patience through the next rebuilding phase that your shattered list from 2004 is screaming out for. Imagine going to potential sponsors, and trying to give them reasons to stick their brand on the jumper. What do you say when they ask how you reckon you'll do for the next couple of years after you ditch your "twilighters" to stock up on no-name schoolboys? Of course, what makes it really hard is...

Factor 4: "Turmoil at Tigerland" sells papers, "Gradual improvement in Tiger Cubs" does not. In the information age of the scoop and the sensationalist headline, the Tigers are an easy target for the media in slow news weeks. Say something in the media long enough and loud enough, and eventually people start to believe it. There's only so many times that success-starved Tiger Supporters can read about "Richmond's atrocious recruiting record" without a bit of frustration building up. Tambling instead of Buddy the biggest recruitment blunder of the century? Really? And exactly how many inches of print have been devoted to unfavourable comparisons of Ryan Griffen to Lance Franklin? The ever-increasing level of media coverage devoted to footy acts like a lens - at the right place at the right time in can bring things into sharp focus, but applied indiscriminately it will more likely blur the image and give you a headache.

Ok, that was all a bit long-winded. My point is that as a result of the way in which these factors interrelate with each other and with the needs of the footy club both in the short and long term, it's bloody difficult to second-guess the club's strategic direction as an outsider looking in.

I do however believe that it is important for us, the supporters, to understand that identifying and applying the perfect recruitment model is not just a matter of designing it and doing it. External factors will always play a role, probably more significantly at Tigerland than any other club (except perhaps Freo) as a result of our long term lack of success. Compromise is inevitable, and so the way forward can only be to find the compromise that works on as many levels as possible.

I don't pretend to know what that is, but I suspect it's a balance thing. Sure, get rid of some of the older list cloggers, but keep the truly important ones for at least one more year. Fill some gaps in the list if you can. Send duds to Freo in exchange for champions. Whatever works. Just make sure it's part of an overall, long term plan - even if stage 1 of the plan is to achieve some stabilising success next year to get some breathing space before the next dip.

Either that, or just clone David Bourke 21 times, and field a team of deadset matchwinners.

 

[pahoffm]

Nice post BS.

I'd like to give my short opinion on each of these factors.

Factor 1: The Coach's contract expires at the end of next year, the last of a 5-year plan that was sold on the basis of delivering the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

As said previously, somewhere, the football department structure should separate the coach from long term strategy. The coach should only have to prepare & deliver on the list that is given to him each year. He should only be accountable for their short term performances.

Factor 2: The legacy of the previous coach was a gaping hole in the middle-age band of the list, in all positions across the board.

It has been some time since Frawley has departed.
The Tiger list has now developed quite strongly, with a couple of notable holes, up to 22/23yo age level.
Continued improvement will ensue by recruiting & developing from below that age level, also ensuring that the current couple of holes receive priority & attention.

Factor 3: The RFC has played in 2 finals series since the early 80s, and supporters feel that by now, they have been waiting long enough.

Supporters will be happy if the club & team continue to improve. Supporters are not stupid and have a clear idea of where the club is sitting.
Tiger supporters on the outside are genuinely optimistic. It's the inner Tigers who have concerns in particular areas.

Factor 4: "Turmoil at Tigerland" sells papers, "Gradual improvement in Tiger Cubs" does not.

My personal experience of the Press is that they are accurate and treat people fairly. If clubs/individuals show repetitive behaviour the Press, like anyone, will identify this and stereotype it, as anyone would.
The Press can be read, each article should be taken on its merit and nothing should be taken too much to heart.
Everyone, including the Press, has a different opinion and it doesn't make them, nor anyone, right or wrong.

So that's my response to the well-identified factors you've presented. It's my opinion only. I may not be right but, equally, a may not be wrong.

 

[tigersnake]

I agree our culture seems to be on the up. Its a function of drafting good young players who grow and improve through the ranks together, rather than approaching the list with a caulking gun and some tubes of No More Gaps.

On the topic of how many vets to keep. For me the key players are Bowden and johnson. Ideally, one should have retired gracefully at end 08. Prefer to keep JB, I still like him a lot, but bigger picture issues at stake. Wouldn't have been sorry to have seen both of them retire gracefully. Keeping both is not ideal for the long term, but shouldn't be fatal as long as TW isn't allowed to put his spudeske 'lock and load' delusion into practise.

Draft more kids. Probably JB, KJ and one or both of MR and NB all retire end 09.

 

[Dyer Disciple]

When you're trying to identify a trend of cultural change in the RFC's list management, you need to have a decent understanding of metaphysical philosophy. More specifically, it's important to have a good grasp of the mutually exclusive concepts of free will and predestination. That is, I reckon there are some options that just aren't possible for the club to take, at least not without precipitating a cataclysmic supporter/media meltdown that would sunder the very fabric of the universe from the loom of temporal continuity. (Ok, I have no idea what that means, but there's only so many times you can look at a Dr Who avatar without spouting some pseudo-science)

:hihi :clap

Love the last line!

 

[TOT70]

A couple of excellent posts, gentlemen.

The "excesses" of the Frawley days can no longer be used as an excuse. Essentially, recruiting between 1998 and 2003 was non-existent. Ancient history that, unfortunately, still resonates somewhat.

Since 2003, a very large number of players have joined the club and they are progressing at varying rates. In 2006, you could argue that we had very few players aged 22-27 and that would have been fair enough. It is harder to take this position in 2008 and likely to be impossible in 2010. Start with Kelvin Moore at age 24 now and work down and you will see where we are headed.

Enhancement of the strategies of the last few years is needed to get the list "into balance." Imbalances need addressing but they are not as all-encompassing as they were. This is not as difficult a job as it was three years ago. To suggest that nothing has changed since 2005-6 is simply ignorant.

 

[Dyer Disciple]

Great discussion guys. Interesting reading.

I've spoken on my views enough, a lot of us who post more on this or similar topics are just starting to repeat ourselves.

It's heartening to see we are all mostly on the same page, just with some slight differences/tweaks that you'll always get in group discussions of course.

From discussions with Phantom I've come to strongly agree with his stance on list management (in that it should be independant of the coach, not determined by or influenced by his contract).

I don't think we can be letting ourselves be influenced by fears of supporter/media backlashes either. Supporters have to be respected but as Phantom pointed out, they are not stupid. If your doing the right thing most will understand, many don't get into this level of thought/discussion either.

I've said enough about the media for now in other discussions, the onyl thing I will say in relation to them is if a football starts being dictated to or influenced by the media in list decisions, then that club is in serious trouble.

 

[IanG]

My personal experience of the Press is that they are accurate and treat people fairly. If clubs/individuals show repetitive behaviour the Press, like anyone, will identify this and stereotype it, as anyone would.
The Press can be read, each article should be taken on its merit and nothing should be taken too much to heart.
Everyone, including the Press, has a different opinion and it doesn't make them, nor anyone, right or wrong.

If this repetitive behaviour is years in the past then the press should be able to look beyond perceived stereotypes at the actual facts, anything else is being inaccurate and treating people unfairly, as they have been and done recently.

 

[Azza]

As said previously, somewhere, the football department structure should separate the coach from long term strategy. The coach should only have to prepare & deliver on the list that is given to him each year. He should only be accountable for their short term performances.

This begs the question of how Terry should be assessed given he's been meddling in drafting to an unknown extent. It could be argued that the list structure issues aren't his responsiblility and he's down ok with what he's been given.

If you start to assign responsibility for the list to him, the question is how much is his fault that should be taken into account when judging in his performance.

The waters are very muddy.