Winning culture

[the claw]

God Claw, have you started fishing with gelignite now?
So are all athletes in AIS programs world standard before enrollment ?

So the TAC programs, AIS scholarships and National championships (under 16 and 18) are not talent identification for elite athletes.

So the whole idea of elite talent identification and training programs (AIS) is flawed?

So the level of achievement improvement (measured by medal counts) due to the AIS program is really due to an increase in the natural abilities of athletes?

So all the current talk about Australia failing to keep the edge in the Olympics by other countries following us (and even outdoing us) in terms of talent identification and training is misguided?

hmm in a word yes.

 

[the claw]

Actually incorrect on your first point. In the mid to late 80's a group of rural girls with only the right wrist measurements, leg lengths and aerobic capacity were trainind into a world championship silver medal winning crew from scratch in three years.

As pointed out above I clearly stated that the minimum requirements need to be met. As pointed out by others that is what the TAC, AIS programs and screening camps will identify. Thus the players that qualify through those competitions and talent camps and have the metrics that the RFC values can be developed into a good team if the correct structures are in place. The metrics that the RFC follow show that there are only a handful of players, drafted since 1999 that are still at AFL clubs more than two standard deviations from the mean. This was all explained by Francis Jackson and Hayden Hill at the 2006 pre-draft night.

If I extrapolate your skill/foot smarts level argument then you should never recruit a Gaelic footballer. And one is currently close to the most valuable player at a recent premiership winning team.

And by the way psychology is only a part of it. Jeff Bond was a part of it, not the instigator, but he understands the program, the building of teams where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. And it has been done in other sports including soccer and basketball, though rowing as pretty much the ultimate team sport is always a favourite indicator of mine.

look imto tired to go into this atm but quite clearly a good percentage of players who make the final nd lists of clubs do not meet minimal requirements in certain areas. i suppose it all depends on where you set the bar for minimal requirements. clearly over the yrs our minimal requirements have been less than most clubs. in fact i would go so far and say if you set a high minimal standard for afl recruits in skills pace endurance etc etc few would get on a list. i suppoose it really is only athletic prowess that can be measured as a minimal requirement. smarts ball winning ability etc are a part of the whole package.they come under performance. sometimes you can have a footballer who is very average in most things athletic but is tough and knows how to get his hands on the ball is outstanding in one skill and because of these traits becomes invaluable greg williams for example.as a youngster theres no way he would ever have been classified as elite in any area. nothing is ever black and white. any way when im not so crotchety more on this interesting subject.

 

[Mac]

I've found the perfect player!

Seen here being put through his paces at the academy...

http://www.rozario.com.au/rozario_files/GetSmartHymie.jpg

 

[the claw]

What did Geelong have in 2007 that it did not have in 2006? What did it not have for 43 years that it suddenly had in the 44th year?

What did Bomber Thompson suddenly discover in his 8th year? In his first 4 years there the Cats finished 7, 12, 9 and 12............ at RFC he would have been out the door by then.

If Geelong was a racehorse then Des Gleeson would have handed out lifetime suspensions to Bomber Thompson, Steve Johnson and Cam Mooney for inexplicable improvements in perfomance.

okay i dont know if thompson had any say in the 1999 draft we can assume his influence on that draft would be similar to wallace when he took over at the end of 2004. so im assuming thompson had a big say in recruits in 1999.

in the 99 draft he bought corey, chapman, ling, enright, and traded for mooney. 2000 was a bad yr for thompson and geelong as far as drafts go. the only player from 2000 to play in the premiership was hunt, all others were gone. they traded selections 11, 27,42, 47, and 57.for kingsley murphy and white.
i will give them their due after this debacle the only draft picks they have traded away is 55 and 12 and 16 for ottens and pick 20 for haynes and pick 42.

2001 thompson got bartel, kelly, gardiner, steve johnson,ablett jr, playfair, david johnson.

2002 secured rooke,and mackie.

2003 tenace blake and spencer.

from 99 to 2003 he added 18 players to his squad. with senior players taken prior to 1999 he built a finals side. added to the above 18 are clarke graham grgic harley king kingsley lord molony rahilly riccardi sanderson scarlett spriggs street wojiinsci and others.

come the start of the 2004 season a finals yr thompson would have 33 players on the list that were taken in his time. this is why it took 4 yrs to play finals. he was building his list. come 2004 he had a lot of the pieces of the puzzle in place.by 2007 there would only be 4 players on the list that thompson had no say in geeting to their club.by the end of 05 all the pieces were in place yet they missed finals in 06 why who knows. the only player taken by geelong after 05 who played a significant role in 2007 was selwood.
thompson took his team to finals in his 5th yr and a premiership in his 8th. after basically rebuilding the entire list. if 2011 comes true for us we may well be comparing the time frames of the two clubs. 2009 or 2010 would have to be top 4 finishes for us to compare. with the lists structure i just cant see it.we still have 2 rebuilding drafts to go maybe one more.

so the answer to your first question only selwood.and experience. i think the whole group in 06 expected things just to happen.this is not uncommon.there are many instances of talented sides missing finals after making them the yr before.
whats different from 43 yrs to the 44th. one obvious thing they were the best team in the comp in 07..yes they have made gfs since 63 in almost all of them they were beaten by better teams. in other words their cattle wasnt as good as the premiers.95 carlton wereall conquering. 92 94 wce were just plain better in fact in 93 they missed finals after making a gf the yr before. 89 hawthorn did them one of the best dynastys of all time.and of course 67 polly farmer would have us belive the better team lost.

finally sneezy i dont mind debating footy with you please dont let this turn into another inane tit for tat episode. cheers.

 

[Tigers of Old]

thompson took his team to finals in his 5th yr and a premiership in his 8th. after basically rebuilding the entire list. if 2011 comes true for us we may well be comparing the time frames of the two clubs. 2009 or 2010 would have to be top 4 finishes for us to compare. with the lists structure i just cant see it.we still have 2 rebuilding drafts to go maybe one more.

Thompson took the Cats to the finals in his first year as coach before again doing it in his fifth.
He's never won a wooden spoon either.

 

[Hayfever]

okay i dont know if thompson had any say in the 1999 draft we can assume his influence on that draft would be similar to wallace when he took over at the end of 2004. so im assuming thompson had a big say in recruits in 1999.

in the 99 draft he bought corey, chapman, ling, enright, and traded for mooney. 2000 was a bad yr for thompson and geelong as far as drafts go. the only player from 2000 to play in the premiership was hunt, all others were gone. they traded selections 11, 27,42, 47, and 57.for kingsley murphy and white.
i will give them their due after this debacle the only draft picks they have traded away is 55 and 12 and 16 for ottens and pick 20 for haynes and pick 42.

2001 thompson got bartel, kelly, gardiner, steve johnson,ablett jr, playfair, david johnson.

2002 secured rooke,and mackie.

2003 tenace blake and spencer.

from 99 to 2003 he added 18 players to his squad. with senior players taken prior to 1999 he built a finals side. added to the above 18 are clarke graham grgic harley king kingsley lord molony rahilly riccardi sanderson scarlett spriggs street wojiinsci and others.

come the start of the 2004 season a finals yr thompson would have 33 players on the list that were taken in his time. this is why it took 4 yrs to play finals. he was building his list. come 2004 he had a lot of the pieces of the puzzle in place.by 2007 there would only be 4 players on the list that thompson had no say in geeting to their club.by the end of 05 all the pieces were in place yet they missed finals in 06 why who knows. the only player taken by geelong after 05 who played a significant role in 2007 was selwood.
thompson took his team to finals in his 5th yr and a premiership in his 8th. after basically rebuilding the entire list. if 2011 comes true for us we may well be comparing the time frames of the two clubs. 2009 or 2010 would have to be top 4 finishes for us to compare. with the lists structure i just cant see it.we still have 2 rebuilding drafts to go maybe one more.

so the answer to your first question only selwood.and experience. i think the whole group in 06 expected things just to happen.this is not uncommon.there are many instances of talented sides missing finals after making them the yr before.
whats different from 43 yrs to the 44th. one obvious thing they were the best team in the comp in 07..yes they have made gfs since 63 in almost all of them they were beaten by better teams. in other words their cattle wasnt as good as the premiers.95 carlton wereall conquering. 92 94 wce were just plain better in fact in 93 they missed finals after making a gf the yr before. 89 hawthorn did them one of the best dynastys of all time.and of course 67 polly farmer would have us belive the better team lost.

finally sneezy i dont mind debating footy with you please dont let this turn into another inane tit for tat episode. cheers

Thanks for a constructive answer Claw and for taking the time to structure it into sentences and paragraphs so it easier to follow. I think many lessons can be taken from the Thompson/Geelong era.

Thompson started off from a much healthier base than Wallace did(a wooden spoon in 2004 and 14 losses in a row). Bearing this in mind then Thompson's first 4 years finishing 7, 12, 9 and 12 are nothing to write home about. His next 4 years tell the real story......... finishing 4, 5, 10 and the flag in 2007.

The wheels almost fell off in 2006. Call it their "7 year itch". It was a year when everything seemed to go wrong, both on and off field. The club faced the easy choice of sacking Thompson, or showing strong leadership and holding firm. To me the major difference at Geelong from 2006 to 2007 was cultural. They wore 2006 as a shocker and stood firm, worked out where things went wrong and backed themselves to the hilt. Key off-field(Balme etc) and captaincy changes were made. Thompson, Johnston and Mooney had total form reversals............ they had their minds totally on the job. Leadership and direction had finally arrived at Sleepy Hollow. All the while Geelong Football Club was financially stable........ something foreign to them before the recent regime took over.

I therefore cannot understand the hysteria of some people calling for Wallace's head after only 3 years. Like Thompson he deserves a 4th and 5 year to prove himself and repay the Club's faith in signing him. If we are following the "Geelong model" then finals in year 5 is a fair and reasonable expectation. Like Geelong we are again financially sound and politically stable. Decent investment in facilities and skilled specialist resources is finally a reality. These are key factors in creating a climate and culture conducive to building a team capable of finals football again.

Geelong proved it can be done. It takes time and patience and strong leadership throughout the club. Most of all they did not listen to the negative wailings from the usual media hounds and retired coaching experts(e.g. Caro and Parkin) and their own doubting supporters. The faithfull were finally rewarded.

 

[Tigers of Old]

I therefore cannot understand the hysteria of some people calling for Wallace's head after only 3 years.

The 'Geelong Model'. :frustration :frustration :frustration :frustration :frustration :frustration :frustration :frustration :frustration :frustration :frustration
We are not following the Geelong model at all. Stop pushing that barrow already. :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah

Besides which I'm not calling for his head yet.
Terry has this season to show he is heading in the right direction.

but please enough of the Geelong crap.

 

[Hayfever]

The 'Geelong Model'. :frustration :frustration :frustration :frustration :frustration :frustration :frustration :frustration :frustration :frustration :frustration
We are not following the Geelong model at all. Stop pushing that barrow already. :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah

Besides which I'm not calling for his head yet.
Terry has this season to show he is heading in the right direction.

but please enough of the Geelong crap.

Talk about hysteria :duhman

 

[Tigers of Old]

Talk about hysteria :duhman

You ain't seen nothing yet. ;D

 

[Tigers of Old]

Category	Performance (average per game)	League Ranking
Clearances	29.6	16th
Contested Possessions	36.9	14th
First use of the ball	32.5	15th
Tackles	60.9	16th (10% behind 15th)
1%ers	68.6	16th
Inside 50's	49.5	15th
Errors to disposals	16.37%	3rd

I suppose this is following the 'Geelong Model' is it Mr Sneeze?

Most of these stats have barely improved over 3 seasons?
Will they improve over 4?

 

[Col.E.Kurtz]

interesting thing about stats, I know I dredged Discos stat's up, but I've been doing a bit more thinking armed with the AFL Prospectus and the clearance stats aren't quite as bad as they seem.

WE play a high possession 'keeping off' off game and in our games neither team gets many clearances or contested ball.

Last year we only averaged 2 less clearances that the opposition a game, not good, but certainly not the worst either.

We also averaged marginally more contested possessions than our opponents, actually a strength, believe it or not!

The errors to disposal ratio is really bad though if you are playing a possession game, which probably helps explains why we chased blokes who can kick (or supposedly can).

Where we really sucked was hitouts, fortunately Foley came number one in the league in hitout sharks so we could still win clearances.

 

[the claw]

Thanks for a constructive answer Claw and for taking the time to structure it into sentences and paragraphs so it easier to follow. I think many lessons can be taken from the Thompson/Geelong era.

Thompson started off from a much healthier base than Wallace did(a wooden spoon in 2004 and 14 losses in a row). Bearing this in mind then Thompson's first 4 years finishing 7, 12, 9 and 12 are nothing to write home about. His next 4 years tell the real story......... finishing 4, 5, 10 and the flag in 2007.

The wheels almost fell off in 2006. Call it their "7 year itch". It was a year when everything seemed to go wrong, both on and off field. The club faced the easy choice of sacking Thompson, or showing strong leadership and holding firm. To me the major difference at Geelong from 2006 to 2007 was cultural. They wore 2006 as a shocker and stood firm, worked out where things went wrong and backed themselves to the hilt. Key off-field(Balme etc) and captaincy changes were made. Thompson, Johnston and Mooney had total form reversals............ they had their minds totally on the job. Leadership and direction had finally arrived at Sleepy Hollow. All the while Geelong Football Club was financially stable........ something foreign to them before the recent regime took over.

I therefore cannot understand the hysteria of some people calling for Wallace's head after only 3 years. Like Thompson he deserves a 4th and 5 year to prove himself and repay the Club's faith in signing him. If we are following the "Geelong model" then finals in year 5 is a fair and reasonable expectation. Like Geelong we are again financially sound and politically stable. Decent investment in facilities and skilled specialist resources is finally a reality. These are key factors in creating a climate and culture conducive to building a team capable of finals football again.

Geelong proved it can be done. It takes time and patience and strong leadership throughout the club. Most of all they did not listen to the negative wailings from the usual media hounds and retired coaching experts(e.g. Caro and Parkin) and their own doubting supporters. The faithfull were finally rewarded.

only one point. in turning over 33 players in the first 4 yrs i think thompson did well to not achieve a bottom 4 finish. a rebuild is a rebuild and geelong did it by not truly bottoming out. they also did it wasting 1draft to trades.

 

[the claw]

Thompson took the Cats to the finals in his first year as coach before again doing it in his fifth.
He's never won a wooden spoon either.

yes you are right on the back of aging players in his first yr geelong made finals. but his rebuild started in 99.

and i think he has done well in the fact while rebuilding he has never finished bottom 4. geelong have clearly done lots of things better than us.
dont get me wrong oldie im not defending wallace. i have always maintained wallace was not the man to rebuild a list. but was the man to take over once the list had been built. many on here still believe in wallaces philosphy.

 

[Hayfever]

only one point. in turning over 33 players in the first 4 yrs i think thompson did well to not achieve a bottom 4 finish. a rebuild is a rebuild and geelong did it by not truly bottoming out. they also did it wasting 1draft to trades.

I agree. Wallace clearly tried to follow this same path in 2005-6 and with 10 and 11 wins respectively looked like he might even pull it off. Not bad for a wooden spoon side coming off 14 straight losses in 2004. Thompson had a few more luxuries than Wallace started with.

After the disastrous start to 2007 Wallace then had to bite the bullet. Clear evidence I believe comes from his thinking on the experienced defenders. A scorched earth approach would have said "get rid of both Kellaway and Gaspar". Rather he chose to keep Gaspar to help ease the changeover for the younger backman....... but was then forced to abandon that approach. It was the right decision under the changed circumstances.

The main point though is that this coaching caper is like a Melbourne Cup race. It's not where you are at the 2 or 4 furlong mark, it's where you are at the finish. Thompson only got himself into the race at the 2000 metre mark. Let's at least judge Wallace's ability to rebuild a list at the same point. After all....... as the saying goes..... there's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[the claw]

I agree. Wallace clearly tried to follow this same path in 2005-6 and with 10 and 11 wins respectively looked like he might even pull it off. Not bad for a wooden spoon side coming off 14 straight losses in 2004. Thompson had a few more luxuries than Wallace started with.

After the disastrous start to 2007 Wallace then had to bite the bullet. Clear evidence I believe comes from his thinking on the experienced defenders. A scorched earth approach would have said "get rid of both Kellaway and Gaspar". Rather he chose to keep Gaspar to help ease the changeover for the younger backman....... but was then forced to abandon that approach. It was the right decision under the changed circumstances.

The main point though is that this coaching caper is like a Melbourne Cup race. It's not where you are at the 2 or 4 furlong mark, it's where you are at the finish. Thompson only got himself into the race at the 2000 metre mark. Let's at least judge Wallace's ability to rebuild a list at the same point. After all....... as the saying goes..... there's more than one way to skin a cat.

melbourne cup analogy is a good one. ive maintained wallace will see his 5 yrs out minimum. my problem is by the end of 2009 i cant seeus being in a position to win the race.timewill tell. also in giving him his 5 yrs it does not mean he should be allowed to sweep his mistakes under the carpet and theres been plenty.

 

[Hayfever]

melbourne cup analogy is a good one. ive maintained wallace will see his 5 yrs out minimum. my problem is by the end of 2009 i cant seeus being in a position to win the race.timewill tell. also in giving him his 5 yrs it does not mean he should be allowed to sweep his mistakes under the carpet and theres been plenty

Fair enough Claw...... but in the Melbourne Cup there is no time to hop off and start looking back at what you may have done wrong.

The Tigers copped a severe check passing the winning post first time around. They are now on the bit again entering the back straight with 2000m still to travel. Think Big, Gold and Black......... our latest rookies are a Vintage Crop. This is no time to be throwing away your ticket.