Skip to main content
Topic: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"  (Read 16270 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

"Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"

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  

"The Other Teams Can Rot In Hell"

Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"

Reply #1
We'll have a reasonable VFL side :D



Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"

Reply #4
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.

Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"

Reply #5
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'.
"The Other Teams Can Rot In Hell"

Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"

Reply #6
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.

Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"

Reply #7
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.



"The Other Teams Can Rot In Hell"

Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"

Reply #8
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.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"

Reply #9
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.
Ignorance is bliss.

ONWARDS AND UPWARDS!

Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"

Reply #10
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.
2017 - 16th
2018 - Wooden Spoon
2019 - 16th
2020 - dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021 - Pi$$ or get off the pot

Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"

Reply #11
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.
Ignorance is bliss.

ONWARDS AND UPWARDS!

Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"

Reply #12
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.
2017 - 16th
2018 - Wooden Spoon
2019 - 16th
2020 - dare to dream? 11th is better than last I suppose
2021 - Pi$$ or get off the pot

Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"

Reply #13
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.
This digital world is too much for us insects to understand.

Re: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"

Reply #14
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.