Skip to main content
Topic: "Coaching To Win" VS "Playing For The Future"  (Read 21087 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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

Reply #30
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.
Ignorance is bliss.

ONWARDS AND UPWARDS!

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

Reply #31
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.

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

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

Reply #32
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.

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

Reply #33
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.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

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

Reply #34
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.

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

Reply #35
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.



"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

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

Reply #36
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.
Ignorance is bliss.

ONWARDS AND UPWARDS!

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

Reply #37
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. 
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

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

Reply #38
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.
Ignorance is bliss.

ONWARDS AND UPWARDS!

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

Reply #39
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.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

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

Reply #40
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.

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

Reply #41
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.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

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

Reply #42
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......

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

Reply #43
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.

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

Reply #44
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.
You can fool some of the people some of the time.......................................