Carlton Supporters Club

Princes Park => Robert Heatley Stand => Topic started by: LordLucifer on May 19, 2015, 04:23:33 pm

Title: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: LordLucifer on May 19, 2015, 04:23:33 pm
At present, Malthouse keeps stating that he is coaching to win matches and makes confusing changes to the line-up on a weekly basis that must be destabilising as well.

Some people like the 'coaching to win' proposition because it gives you something to cheer about and you know, in theory, they are actually chasing a win. The downside to this is that with a list that has a lot of flaws, the chances of winning are dramatically reduced so there is little to be gained by going there.

The other option open to him is to 'play for the future' by stacking the senior team with as many of the younger players as possible and build their exposure to the top level.

I'd prefer to 'play for the future' as it gives me a sense of expectation of how good some of our younger player may be down the track. It also allows them to regularly play together and build some solid camaraderie.

I really don't see a lot of benefit in constantly trotting out the old guys, they are about to be delisted or traded and therefore aren't exactly going to give it their all either.

Here's what I would do every week subject to injury :

B : Smith, Everitt, White  
HB : Docherty, Henderson, Yarran
C : Viojo-Rainbow, Cripps, Buckley
HF : Bell, Casboult, Jaksch
F : Menzel, Watson, Judd
R : Kreuzer, Murphy, Whiley
I/C : Graham, Boekhorst, Byrne, Holman  

Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Lods on May 19, 2015, 04:47:15 pm
We'll have a reasonable VFL side :D
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: MosquitoFleet on May 19, 2015, 04:48:29 pm
We'll have a reasonable VFL side :D

that hasn't won a game yet...
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Lods on May 19, 2015, 04:50:55 pm
that hasn't won a game yet...

With the suggested 'outs' from the senior side they might win one or two. ;)
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Vivian on May 19, 2015, 05:18:52 pm
I argued this issue in another post. It is a good topic and one that polorises folk.

My view is that coaching and playing to win is the first and most important principle. It applies to the short term, as in the game at hand. And it applies to the longer term, in so far as it builds a culture of high standards and attitudes.

Good management in a team environment (any organisation) is about setting expectations, not rules. High expectations are set when the team walks out with an attitude that they are aiming to win and that they believe they can. A loss can then be picked over with the approach that we did some things wrong and they can be fixed.

Playing the kids accepts that you don't believe you can win. It may not be explicit, but it surreptitiously concedes defeat. It also may mean players getting games that have not met a certain standard prior to selection. What better way to confuse a team? Who gets picked and who doesn't is now uncertain. It may be on the basis of age, experience or something else. Melbourne are the extreme of this path. They even had a second year player made captain!

Both these paths are about development. But coaching to win can remain constant, no matter where the team is on the ladder or age profile.

In the Carlton context we have been confused about this for years. We have senior players now that should have spent more time in the seconds developing their craft. They were thrown into a senior team when they were not ready and were led by poor examples, in short, a team that was not fully committed to winning, nor believed they could. Some of the confusion about selection now is the result of the cupboard being a little bare and not alot of talent to pick from. But we are coaching to win now. It is just such a massive task to change the attitudes of over a decade.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: LordLucifer on May 19, 2015, 05:22:52 pm
Both these paths are about development. But coaching to win can remain constant, no matter where the team is on the ladder or age profile.

I agree, with 'playing for the future' you can still be 'coaching for the win' also because if the cohesion and application of the young players improves across the season, we may still pinch a win or two along the way.

There would be genuine excitement in the win plus a sense of achievement, in other words, 'we are improving'.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Vivian on May 19, 2015, 05:35:42 pm
I agree, with 'playing for the future' you can still be 'coaching for the win' also because if the cohesion and application of the young players improves across the season, we may still pinch a win or two along the way.

There would be genuine excitement in the win plus a sense of achievement, in other words, 'we are improving'.

I'm sure we will get a few wins, and the esprit de corps it builds is fundamental. Ideally, a winning team can bring in young players and they can experience a win and strive to meet the high expectations set.

For us it is very difficult. Senior players not performing well, and not a whole lot of young talented players to come in. We have a few though. The arrival of Cripps has been great to see along with Docherty. Some of our other younger players have shown glimpses here and there too. For them to get a win it will give a great lift.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: LordLucifer on May 19, 2015, 07:12:58 pm
I'm sure we will get a few wins, and the esprit de corp it builds is fundamental. Ideally, a winning team can bring in young players and they can experience a win and strive to meet the high expectations set.

For us it is very difficult. Senior players not performing well, and not a whole lot of young talented players to come in. We have a few though. The arrival of Cripps has been great to see along with Docherty. Some of our other younger players have shown glimpses here and there too. For them to get a win it will give a great lift.



(http://www.robertdexter.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Hands-in-a-group1-300x208.jpg)
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Baggers on May 19, 2015, 07:33:34 pm
The two things need not be mutually exclusive. No need for either / or thinking here.

We can 'coach to win' AND 'play for the future'. And this is the balancing act that is in front of our club.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: PassIt2Carrots on May 19, 2015, 07:38:11 pm
The two things need not be mutually exclusive. No need for either / or thinking here.

We can 'coach to win' AND 'play for the future'. And this is the balancing act that is in front of our club.

And that's what I've been trying to say for the last few weeks.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Gointocarlton on May 19, 2015, 08:29:21 pm
And that's what I've been trying to say for the last few weeks.
Correct me if I am wrong (and I know you will) but I thought one of you said previously a rebuild involved playing the kids and sacrificing wins for the now. I'm confused.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: PassIt2Carrots on May 19, 2015, 08:35:06 pm
Correct me if I am wrong (and I know you will) but I thought one of you said previously a rebuild involved playing the kids and sacrificing wins for the now. I'm confused.

Play the kids at the expense of a few wins, nothing was said about deliberately losing by me, that was the argument against me. My point was you can play the younger kids and still try and win.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Gointocarlton on May 19, 2015, 08:37:10 pm
Play the kids at the expense of a few wins, nothing was said about deliberately losing by me, that was the argument against me. My point was you can play the younger kids and still try and win.
Ok mate, fair enough.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Mantis on May 19, 2015, 08:44:17 pm
The two things need not be mutually exclusive. No need for either / or thinking here.

We can 'coach to win' AND 'play for the future'. And this is the balancing act that is in front of our club.

I agree. You can do both as some of the senior players are not pulling their weight. What worth is there playing senior guys that are not up to the challenge. Would it really hurt to have a few senior guys getting a couple of games in the seconds to boost their own confidence? I'm not talking about 10 of them, but maybe 2 or 3. Balance is probably the hardest thing to get right.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: kruddler on May 19, 2015, 09:09:28 pm
I'm with Viv on this and have agreed with this line of thinking in other threads too.

I'll just add this.
You can actually hurt your future by playing the kids.

A lot has been said about kreuzers body breaking down constantly and part of the blame for that is the amount of games we expected him to play as soon as we drafted him.
Then we relied on him more so we forced him to bulk up in an off-season. The extra weight made him breakdown again....and again.

There is a fine line when you 'play the kids'. Play them too much and they get too fatigued. Get too fatigued and your risk of injury skyrockets.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Mantis on May 19, 2015, 09:15:13 pm
I agree with the Kreuzer theory. He had to carry a load his body wasn't ready for. How can a coach expect a baby to be a key ruck for almost every game and still not suffer. He has just a kid, and now he is a broken adult. Bring players in for 2 to 4 games and then give them a few weeks off. Surely by the time they have had a dozen games in their first season, they know what they need to work on to improve. They have had exposure and know what to expect in terms of the speed of the game at AFL level. You can't play every kid in every game. Balance.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Gointocarlton on May 19, 2015, 09:20:23 pm
I agree with the Kreuzer theory. He had to carry a load his body wasn't ready for. How can a coach expect a baby to be a key ruck for almost every game and still not suffer. He has just a kid, and now he is a broken adult. Bring players in for 2 to 4 games and then give them a few weeks off. Surely by the time they have had a dozen games in their first season, they know what they need to work on to improve. They have had exposure and know what to expect in terms of the speed of the game at AFL level. You can't play every kid in every game. Balance.
And this is where Hawthorn (sorry Carrots) get it absolutely spot on IMO. I heard Bolton recently say in an interview that they put heavy focus on ensuring that recruits do there time in the 2's and are not picked until they are 100% ready. When they are selected in the ones, they fit in and perform.There's that effin D word again!
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on May 19, 2015, 09:22:53 pm
Play the kids and look for the No 1 pick........
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Baggers on May 19, 2015, 09:36:12 pm
Play the kids at the expense of a few wins, nothing was said about deliberately losing by me, that was the argument against me. My point was you can play the younger kids and still try and win.

You never play anyone at the expense of a few wins. Never.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: PassIt2Carrots on May 19, 2015, 09:49:24 pm
You never play anyone at the expense of a few wins. Never.

Well it's worked before, and it will work again. So I'd say you're wrong!
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Baggers on May 19, 2015, 09:59:43 pm
Well it's worked before, and it will work again. So I'd say you're wrong!

Examples? Who?
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Mantis on May 19, 2015, 10:13:46 pm
Play the kids and look for the No 1 pick........

I was waiting to see how long it would take for you to post this.  ;) ;D
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: ItsOurTime on May 19, 2015, 10:21:50 pm
And this is where Hawthorn (sorry Carrots) get it absolutely spot on IMO. I heard Bolton recently say in an interview that they put heavy focus on ensuring that recruits do there time in the 2's and are not picked until they are 100% ready. When they are selected in the ones, they fit in and perform.There's that effin D word again!

Why do Hawthorn have 3 times as many games in their U23 players than we do?
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Gointocarlton on May 19, 2015, 10:39:22 pm
Why do Hawthorn have 3 times as many games in their U23 players than we do?
Sorry I don't get it. I just went to Footywire and our U23s actually have 3 times the number of games than theirs!! (i.e. Us 156 games, Them 56)
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Gointocarlton on May 19, 2015, 10:41:19 pm
Sorry I don't get it. I just went to Footywire and our U23s actually have 3 times the number of games than theirs!! (i.e. Us 156 games, Them 56)
Apologies, I made an error.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Gointocarlton on May 19, 2015, 10:43:53 pm
Apologies, I made an error.
My mistake, its US 156, Them 137 for the U23's. Still less games for them than us.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: ItsOurTime on May 19, 2015, 11:17:53 pm
The number I was remembering was over the journey rather than as a snap shot. So if you have a 25 year old who played 30 games when U23 and 40 games afterwards ...  My bad.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Gointocarlton on May 19, 2015, 11:25:24 pm
The number I was remembering was over the journey rather than as a snap shot. So if you have a 25 year old who played 30 games when U23 and 40 games afterwards ...  My bad.
No matter, at the end of the day, it was one of the comments that you often hear that resonates in your head and stays there. I just am sick of watching other teams bring kids in and they do well and more importantly they look confident where as ours looks like dears in spot lights.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Thryleon on May 19, 2015, 11:42:59 pm
No matter, at the end of the day, it was one of the comments that you often hear that resonates in your head and stays there. I just am sick of watching other teams bring kids in and they do well and more importantly they look confident where as ours looks like dears in spot lights.
me too, but I suspect it's got to do with how well drilled the team they join is.

Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Vivian on May 20, 2015, 02:01:40 am
No matter, at the end of the day, it was one of the comments that you often hear that resonates in your head and stays there. I just am sick of watching other teams bring kids in and they do well and more importantly they look confident where as ours looks like dears in spot lights.

And this is one of the reasons we find ourselves in such a pickle. Plonking lots of first and second year players into our side carries risks. We don't have strong personalities around them to give them pointers, help them to concentrate and provide support. Bringing in a few disgards from other clubs has been an attempt to add a bit of grit, but as we have seen, this also has issues if they aren't much chop as players.

Players like Menzal are a good example of the difficulty. Highly talented, he has already played a fair bit of footy, and had some injuries. He has not perhaps come on as much as some may have hoped. It was no bad thing in my mind to have him play in the NB for a bit when coming back. Murphy got a fearsome belting in his first few years, slotting straight into the senior ranks. Maybe this has had a negative effect on him.

Players of course need opportunity, but getting smashed about can be pretty damaging. The first professional job for anyone can be very formative, and a few bad experiences can affect a career. They are all human after all.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: PassIt2Carrots on May 20, 2015, 06:23:10 am
Examples? Who?

GWS come to mind. Hawthorn in the 2000s. Baby Bombers in 1993. Those three come to mind this morning just as I have woken up. I'm sure there are plenty more.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Thryleon on May 20, 2015, 10:51:35 am
I think its important for players to win their spot on the team, not be given it for their own benefit.

Effectively we need to ensure that the player's focus is on the team's developement, and contributing rather than their own.  They will often find that the two are mutually exclusive anyway.

Where it gets tricky is like Vivian alluded to.  At what point are we no longer giving a kid a game for them to learn?  When does the team become "ready"? Is it at the point that we start winning?  No, I think we should always have an eye on developing people further, be it getting them to learn another role, or getting them to become leaders, or developing them as people outside of football where they take on business and developement of their skills. 

In cicumstances where teams have played the kids, you will find that they have moved the senior members of the team playing a similar role on, rather than just replacing a more senior, ready player with the kid and pushing the senior player back in the pecking order. 

I don't know the balance.  Im not a senior coach.  I don't know what instructions are given, but focussing on team form can be tricky also as we don't know what is going wrong with some players performances, where the system is falling down and what impact that has and what the next guy has done to get a game.

I.e. Watson.  Many were critical of Jones and his inability to play well as reason to get Watson into the team.  He got his chance, and due to the way our team is playing, he tanked in a fairly big way.  Was that Watson?  I suggest partly.  It just compounds the issues we were facing because he played differently to Liam.

The lesson to learn, is that familiarity to the system is more important than anything else.  People denigrate the game plan, the coach, the players, but stepping back and looking at things holistically it appears more as though we can get things going well (evidenced by some really good quarters of footy by our guys), and then something changes within the way we are playing or our opponent is playing to result in a chain reaction where things start falling over.

The coach will wear the heat, and so he should, but I would suggest that when you have elements of a team that are so unfamiliar with what is trying to be achieved, or perhaps doing something that is unusual, you get excess pressure falling on places where we are not as strong as we could or would like to be.  I.e. Watson.  For all Liam Jones shortcomings, despite how badly things were unravelling he was hitting contests, putting on a chase (even infrequently) and trying to give an option despite it not working.  Watson seemed unfamiliar with what the expectation was, or completely off the pace (not for the first time).  This will probably result in a lot of game plan's failing, but here is where I think we have an important point.  How do we expect our guys to become familiar with a game plan, if they don't play it because they are not very good at executing it?  Sure, people can say they are unsuited to said plan, but I think that this might be a bit of a firthy, as one of our major problems seems to be execution of skills, rather than option.  I saw Menzel miss Murphy with a fairly regulation handball on the weekend by roughly 2 metres.  Menzel can handball he is better than that, he just forked it at that moment.

Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: ItsOurTime on May 20, 2015, 11:51:55 am
GWS are the most talented side in the competition, yet they were being belted each week. Except for very rare players:

Experience >>>>>>>>>> Talent

Which is why premiership sides have a large group with 80-150 games to their name.

You therefore should consider that in where you are and where you need to be. Giving a game to Ellard who you will piff at the end of the year when it could have gone into Graham is a dumb investment when you're last.

Imagine if guys like Graham had 40 games to his  name instead of a quarter here and there... He'd be a superior player, we wouldn't be so reliant on the old guys and we may have been looking up instead of still being in free fall.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Thryleon on May 20, 2015, 01:29:43 pm
GWS are the most talented side in the competition, yet they were being belted each week. Except for very rare players:

Experience >>>>>>>>>> Talent

Which is why premiership sides have a large group with 80-150 games to their name.

You therefore should consider that in where you are and where you need to be. Giving a game to Ellard who you will piff at the end of the year when it could have gone into Graham is a dumb investment when you're last.

Imagine if guys like Graham had 40 games to his  name instead of a quarter here and there... He'd be a superior player, we wouldn't be so reliant on the old guys and we may have been looking up instead of still being in free fall.

Do games automatically = growth?

I don't necessarily believe so.

If they are not done in the right way, it could (not necessarily would or will) hinder them further.  I.e.  Murphy smashed his shoulder in his first season with us.

2012, he smashes the same shoulder again when he was just at the peak of his powers.  He hasnt been the same since.

Andrew Walker had a similar issue which actually stopped him getting on the park consistently for a few years there.

At the end of the day, there is no perfect science, but simply a matter of who earned a game.

FWIW, I hope Graham gets a game soon.  Did you think Watson got a lot out of his match on saturday??  Id say no.  It might have killed what little confidence he had built over the last year or so.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: ItsOurTime on May 20, 2015, 01:53:31 pm
I doubt there is a player who is worse with 50 games under their belt than 2, so I believe senior game time equals growth. As with everything, it takes smart management. You can't look at one game in isolation, if Watto has has been told: you have 6 weeks to cement your spot, then I see no damage in that one game. If he is performing well, gets his time in the seniors, then is immediately dropped for it - I believe that causes plenty of damage and mental issues.

Murphy was rated as the best player in the game by coaches, he's hardly an example of a bad outcome and collision injuries 7 years after he started aren't a reflection of him getting early game time IMO.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Thryleon on May 20, 2015, 04:01:41 pm
I doubt there is a player who is worse with 50 games under their belt than 2, so I believe senior game time equals growth. As with everything, it takes smart management. You can't look at one game in isolation, if Watto has has been told: you have 6 weeks to cement your spot, then I see no damage in that one game. If he is performing well, gets his time in the seniors, then is immediately dropped for it - I believe that causes plenty of damage and mental issues.

Murphy was rated as the best player in the game by coaches, he's hardly an example of a bad outcome and collision injuries 7 years after he started aren't a reflection of him getting early game time IMO.

Kane Lucas was no better a footballer at 42 games than he was at game 1.  In fact there was more promise about him with less games under his belt than more.

The manner in which players learn during that time is of the utmost importance.  You can learn more from 1 game than you can from 10 depending on what occurs during that match.

In any case, there is no guarantee that getting games into players is a sure fire way to make them a better footballer.  Statistically speaking there would be as many players that played many games and walked away from the game an unfulfilled talent, as there would be guys that got games and fulfilled their talent.

Experience is but one component of learning and there are plenty of people who learn nothing from experience.



Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: PassIt2Carrots on May 20, 2015, 08:10:36 pm
Kane Lucas was no better a footballer at 42 games than he was at game 1.  In fact there was more promise about him with less games under his belt than more.

The manner in which players learn during that time is of the utmost importance.  You can learn more from 1 game than you can from 10 depending on what occurs during that match.

In any case, there is no guarantee that getting games into players is a sure fire way to make them a better footballer.  Statistically speaking there would be as many players that played many games and walked away from the game an unfulfilled talent, as there would be guys that got games and fulfilled their talent.

Experience is but one component of learning and there are plenty of people who learn nothing from experience.

If they learn nothing from experience they're not worth persevering with, and I guess that's where our man Watson comes into it. We should know by now whether he's good enough but he has not been given a proper run at it once in five years so he still remains in the hope that he is good enough. Playing the youth expedites the process, you get a better idea about  each player in a shorter space of time, as opposed to playing Ellard, Rowe and Armfield, who we know are neither top line players nor will they be there in our next premiership. Even a bloke like Andrew Walker is fast approaching this list.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Thryleon on May 21, 2015, 12:08:07 am
If they learn nothing from experience they're not worth persevering with, and I guess that's where our man Watson comes into it. We should know by now whether he's good enough but he has not been given a proper run at it once in five years so he still remains in the hope that he is good enough. Playing the youth expedites the process, you get a better idea about  each player in a shorter space of time, as opposed to playing Ellard, Rowe and Armfield, who we know are neither top line players nor will they be there in our next premiership. Even a bloke like Andrew Walker is fast approaching this list.

We know if he is good enough.  Frankly, he has a good kick and size going for him and it pretty much ends there.

He isn't up to it.  What you see is what you get.  Another player who we gave a game to, sat him on Travis Cloke when he was the best forward in the competition and that's all she wrote.

he might come good, but he probably won't.

Regarding Ellard, Walker, Armfield and co, we are on a slippery slope.  they could be part of our next flag, but it depends on the rest of the squad. speaking of which, if we lose Judd, Carrazzo, Simpson to retirement these three become important stop gaps for us.

I get the idea.  Play email early find out if they are good enough, but sometimes it's counter productive. They get drafted which means they have some ability but it's harnessing and using it.  I don't think it's a coincidence that the bottom sides who consistently get high draft picks, end up with unfulfilled talent and often it's because they are expected to perform too much too soon..Cripps is one who gas had very few senior games over two years and is blossoming for it. Had he not broken his leg last year, he might not have employed a running coach and come back in ripping condition.   Sometimes it's better that they earn it.

They appreciate it more, and then perform accordingly. 
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: PassIt2Carrots on May 21, 2015, 06:00:37 am
We know if he is good enough.  Frankly, he has a good kick and size going for him and it pretty much ends there.

He isn't up to it.  What you see is what you get.  Another player who we gave a game to, sat him on Travis Cloke when he was the best forward in the competition and that's all she wrote.

he might come good, but he probably won't.

But my point still remains, we should know by now. I certainly don't, others may beg to differ.

Quote
Regarding Ellard, Walker, Armfield and co, we are on a slippery slope.  they could be part of our next flag, but it depends on the rest of the squad. speaking of which, if we lose Judd, Carrazzo, Simpson to retirement these three become important stop gaps for us.

I disagree, thee blokes are doing nothing for our culture and nothing for our future. The only bloke that even looks like he really busts his guts is Army but he needs to be just a fraction off and he's not very good.

Quote
I get the idea.  Play email early find out if they are good enough, but sometimes it's counter productive. They get drafted which means they have some ability but it's harnessing and using it.  I don't think it's a coincidence that the bottom sides who consistently get high draft picks, end up with unfulfilled talent and often it's because they are expected to perform too much too soon..Cripps is one who gas had very few senior games over two years and is blossoming for it. Had he not broken his leg last year, he might not have employed a running coach and come back in ripping condition.   Sometimes it's better that they earn it.

They appreciate it more, and then perform accordingly. 

But in this case, when you look at who is playing instead of them, it's really a no brainer who should play.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Thryleon on May 21, 2015, 11:13:03 am
But my point still remains, we should know by now. I certainly don't, others may beg to differ.

I disagree, thee blokes are doing nothing for our culture and nothing for our future. The only bloke that even looks like he really busts his guts is Army but he needs to be just a fraction off and he's not very good.

But in this case, when you look at who is playing instead of them, it's really a no brainer who should play.

Sure, but have a think about the message you send the group too.

Armfield honest trier, not overly talented but has elite pace commits 100%.
Ellard knows his way around a footy field but isnt outstanding, can kick a goal commits 100%.
Walker has ability, but on his day can be a game breaker but has been found.  Usually busts a gut at worst, but gets found out defensively not from a lack of want I might add.  Commits 100%.

These guys have limitations in their game. Its plain as day, but its worth remembering that Ellard and Armfield regularly perform at similar standard at VFL level to our current best performers most weeks.  Currently they are being rewarded for their efforts.  Walker has hardly played VFL footy but he too dominates whenever he does as in the one game he played there about 4 weeks ago.

We shouldnt just stop with them, we could go further, but there is a limit to how far you can go.  Sam Rowe is one who wouldnt and maybe shouldnt get a game, but it wouldnt help Jaksch or any other future key defender to get smacked every week whilst at the moment he actually has been one of our better performers of late (says more about the team than him but its still worth remembering).  Daniel Talia developed well at Adelaide because he had Ben Rutten leading the way rather than just leaving him to get smacked at one point.

I maintain a previous point.  Kids develope better elsewhere due to the system they go into.  Selwood was a fresh faced bloke, who joined an outfit that was cherry ripe to start dominating the AFL in his first year.  Put him in with Kelly, Ling, God junior, Bartell and the rest of their mids, and as a result, they were able to bring him through a system where everyone knew what was happening, and what role they had to play.  So, rather than 5 dear in the headlights, they had 1, and a bunch of players setting the standard around him.  As a result they were able to bring him up to their level quickly.

I have no doubt in my mind, that had we taken Selwood, and they Gibbs, Gibbs would be the current Geelong captain, and would be revered in much the same way Selwood is.  Would Selwood have gone okay with us? He might have done better than Gibbs has, but I believe that things would have been different for him, and he wouldn't be as dominant as he is today. 

This predates any one coach.  The trouble stems from the mentality of bring in what we need on money rather than develope our own, and is probably the thing that Elliott was most guilty of.  We bought what we needed and what we wanted.

This is where I was hoping Malthouse would help us.  Implement a system that brings in the next bloke for the guy departing.  It hasn't worked for whatever reason.  Hopefully the next guy we get in will be able to implement a system that nurtures, developes and grows all of our players in a manner that makes them champions of the game, and better people.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: ItsOurTime on May 21, 2015, 11:32:32 am
The message you send is we don't tolerate list cloggers. That if you don't have your eyes on a flag, you're not part of our future.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Thryleon on May 21, 2015, 11:41:34 am
The message you send is we don't tolerate list cloggers. That if you don't have your eyes on a flag, you're not part of our future.

We have been trying to send that message for 6 years and that message reads as follows:

If you are not good enough to win a flag TODAY perhaps you should search elsewhere as we are unable to help you.

Mind you, they are the first guys that we will be ruing not being here if they move on and we play guys like Boekhorst for the next 2 years whilst we wait for Skittles to play senior footy particularly if Carrazzo, Simpson, Judd, Walker and Jamison all pull up stumps, and all of them very well might.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: ElwoodBlues1 on May 21, 2015, 12:35:23 pm
Selwood is a better player than Gibbs regardless of the fact he has played for a better team. He is harder, leads by example and impacts games......
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: ItsOurTime on May 21, 2015, 12:52:25 pm
We have been trying to send that message for 6 years and that message reads as follows:

If you are not good enough to win a flag TODAY perhaps you should search elsewhere as we are unable to help you.

Mind you, they are the first guys that we will be ruing not being here if they move on and we play guys like Boekhorst for the next 2 years whilst we wait for Skittles to play senior footy particularly if Carrazzo, Simpson, Judd, Walker and Jamison all pull up stumps, and all of them very well might.

To take it away from theory, i would have a simple policy:

- You are maturing or
- You have cemented a spot in the team

There is no in between. 25 year olds who are fringe players kill you IMO because the temptation is to give them a game for a quick win.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: cimm1979 on May 21, 2015, 12:56:34 pm
To take it away from theory, i would have a simple policy:

- You are maturing or
- You have cemented a spot in the team

There is no in between. 25 year olds who are fringe players kill you IMO because the temptation is to give them a game for a quick win.

Might add a year or so for talls, but yeah, seems about right.

Good players can have form slumps but those that tease and tease and tease really need to be screwed off.

Jordan Russellesque.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Jofo on May 21, 2015, 01:40:55 pm
A coach must both coach for the win and have an eye on the future. When a team plays poorly, he must focus more on building. When it's winning, he sticks to the formula that's earning the victories. So, what's wrong with building in our situation?
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: Thryleon on May 21, 2015, 02:07:43 pm
Might add a year or so for talls, but yeah, seems about right.

Good players can have form slumps but those that tease and tease and tease really need to be screwed off.

Jordan Russellesque.

Mind you no one should be given a game, and thats where it all falls over.

These guys as much as everyone thinks they are holding up developement, are putting pressure on the youngsters to earn a game, and that cannot be a bad thing.
Title: Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"
Post by: PassIt2Carrots on May 21, 2015, 04:11:29 pm
Mind you no one should be given a game, and thats where it all falls over.

These guys as much as everyone thinks they are holding up developement, are putting pressure on the youngsters to earn a game, and that cannot be a bad thing.

It's a bad thing when you consider we need to expedite the development of these youngsters by playing them collectively as many times as possible, which is what a rebuild is all about.