New Leadership Group

[montasaurus 0]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,2...1-23212,00.html

Mo, Forgive my ignorence buy what does a loose cannon cricketer at the end of his career do with the leadership group at MFC. I hope your not trying to tar Brock with the same brush.

[Roost It 1,434]

Leadership groups are the most overrated and irrelevant part of football. Every player should train and play at their utmost, regardless of their leadership status.

In a playing group of 40+ players leadership groups serve an important function. They allow all players easy access to designated leaders. That access involves both someone to look upto, someone to ask questions and also someone to pull you up when your performance is below what is axpexted. This can be done at training and more importantly in the heat of a match. Peer review is a very powerful tool in getting the best out of players. Strong leadership groups are far from irrelevant. In fact they have grown out of the very need for them to exist.

[mo64 5,881]

Mo, Forgive my ignorence buy what does a loose cannon cricketer at the end of his career do with the leadership group at MFC. I hope your not trying to tar Brock with the same brush.

Symonds has been a loose cannon for most of his career. His previous punishments were decided by his peers, ie; the leadership group. I'm just making the point that having your peers decide on punishments doesn't have any greater impact than that of a coach or board. In fact, given the mateship amongst the players, it can lead to disharmony.

And as I previously stated, I didn't believe that Brock's misdemeanours warranted any action. His suspension from the leadership group didn't change the way he trained or played. It reaffirms my belief that leadership groups are irrelevant.

[e25 5]

Symonds has been a loose cannon for most of his career. His previous punishments were decided by his peers, ie; the leadership group. I'm just making the point that having your peers decide on punishments doesn't have any greater impact than that of a coach or board. In fact, given the mateship amongst the players, it can lead to disharmony.

And as I previously stated, I didn't believe that Brock's misdemeanours warranted any action. His suspension from the leadership group didn't change the way he trained or played. It reaffirms my belief that leadership groups are irrelevant.

Well i think it definitely DID change his behaviour off-field.

Surely thats the aim of the punishment.

Maybe for this particular player it didn't need to come from the leadership group.

But I still maintain that any punishment handed down by your peers will have more of a positive impact for the majority of players.

And who are you to say that leniency wasn't appropriate in Symond's case..?

[Sydney Pennski 299]

I would have liked to see a representative form the backline in there as well.

No problems with those that have been selected though, maybe one more though to cover the whole ground on game day.

Agreed. Jared Rivers IS the natural leader of our backline. As soon as he proves his fitness he should be added to the leadership group.

[e25 5]

Agreed. Jared Rivers IS the natural leader of our backline. As soon as he proves his fitness he should be added to the leadership group.

But isn't the leadership group voted on by the players..? Makes it hard to select a player based on position.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

After plateauing for the past two years or so I am not sure where Davey as a player is at the moment. I question his temperament in big games and his explosion and performance in the 2006 elimination final was enough to suggest to me that he is not a leader in my book.

Prefer others and let him concentrate on his game.

I would prefer others if there were others screaming out to be let into the group. Miller is, in my mind, just as NQR as Davey. Moloney has had his problems, not all of them injury related. Brock has even struggled to really get 22 games into a season (though I would suggest leaving him out of the leadership group would be a major oversight at this stage) Green, Bruce and JMac are in the correct spots given their histories, and their respective 2008s.

Having said that, in a stronger list, I would agree with you. I think we'll find him back in sooner rather than later, but it's just as valuable having him EARN it again. Letting him concentrate on his game is the right move... As you said.

FWIW, having met Beamer and spoke with him at a couple of functions I have found him personable and honest and was not aware of any reputational issues that he had. His efforts with the kids is consistent with the impressions Beamer has made with me.

Well there you go. Another vote of confidence, albeit an unofficial one from a fan website. But it all helps. Good on him. He's a hard player not to like, is Beamer.

[mo64 5,881]

And who are you to say that leniency wasn't appropriate in Symond's case..?

Read the article. A fine was the maximum penalty the ACB could hand down to Symonds because previous misdemeanours couldn't be factored in, because they were dealt with by the leadership group.

A bloke with his track record doesn't deserve leniency. And part of the problem is that his mates/peers have taken the softly, softly approach in the past when it came down to handing out punishments.

[e25 5]

Read the article. A fine was the maximum penalty the ACB could hand down to Symonds because previous misdemeanours couldn't be factored in, because they were dealt with by the leadership group.

A bloke with his track record doesn't deserve leniency. And part of the problem is that his mates/peers have taken the softly, softly approach in the past when it came down to handing out punishments.

Once again - who are you to say that Symonds did not deserve leniency?

I think he's a talented cricketer but just not a really smart guy, especially when it comes to dealing with the media.

In regards to this recent incident I don't think he was trying to be malicious or that giving him a more harsh penalty would achieve anything.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I know that there aren't any emoticons in the article, but see if you can comprehend this:

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,2...1-23212,00.html

Who constitutes the leadership group and what process do they make the decisions? I note you did not comment on my quote on who decided the Ashes 2005 punishment. No wonder Mo.

Read the article. A fine was the maximum penalty the ACB could hand down to Symonds because previous misdemeanours couldn't be factored in, because they were dealt with by the leadership group.

A bloke with his track record doesn't deserve leniency. And part of the problem is that his mates/peers have taken the softly, softly approach in the past when it came down to handing out punishments.

Cricket Australia has had every opportunity to act in the past and has chosen not to and left it as "the leadership group" (containing only Ponting as a player at least at the Ashes 2005 ) to suspend him for two matches both times. Hardly softly softly and their penalties were stiffer than the Code of Conduct. What would you suggest a public hanging?

If anything the penalties applied by the leadership group have made a fool of you once again.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I would prefer others if there were others screaming out to be let into the group. Miller is, in my mind, just as NQR as Davey.

Davey has more football ability than Miller. However, he does not have the maturity, temperament or character to lead like Miller. I agree that Miller needs to keep performing as a player to keep his spot though.

[mo64 5,881]

Who constitutes the leadership group and what process do they make the decisions? I note you did not comment on my quote on who decided the Ashes 2005 punishment. No wonder Mo.

Cricket Australia has had every opportunity to act in the past and has chosen not to and left it as "the leadership group" (containing only Ponting as a player at least at the Ashes 2005 ) to suspend him for two matches both times. Hardly softly softly and their penalties were stiffer than the Code of Conduct. What would you suggest a public hanging?

If anything the penalties applied by the leadership group have made a fool of you once again.

I'm glad that you agree with me that punishments shouldn't be left up to leadership groups.

And are you saying that CA could have imposed further penalties on Symonds after the leadership group had handed down their penalties?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I'm glad that you agree with me that punishments shouldn't be left up to leadership groups.

And are you saying that CA could have imposed further penalties on Symonds after the leadership group had handed down their penalties?

As usual Mo you got it wrong. All you have proved in both Brock's and Symonds case is that the leadership group did get it right and did impose harsh penalties without any episode or evidence of mates backing mates.

Furthermore, CA supported the use of the leadership group (note Mo made of only one player and included Cricket department officials) and acquiescenced its opportunity to effect other punishments directly. Clearly CA were involved in the leadership groups decision in 2005 and took their own measure at the time to threaten Symonds with the sack but never acted on it. If you are looking for issues of leniency then you should be looking at CA and not the leadership.

[Alf Stewart 73]

ladies, ladies , ladies stop the bickering. pllllllzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Yencks 8]

So elaborate on "big say in a lot of team decisions" And what, you need to elect a group to determine punishments for bad behavior? Why can't the football department make the decision? And look at the leadership group within the Australian cricket team. When it comes to handing out punishments, it's been a farce because of the mateship amongst the players.

As for team selection, are you saying that the leadership group has a bit of a say in the selection process? Rubbish, the captain may get asked for his opinions, but that's where it ends.

okey dokey. from someone that is just out of school, this is the best way i can describe my opinion on this.

think of a leadership group as a school comitee system or prefect system or the like. The student vote forms the school captain and the vice-captain, and then, depending on the institution, often a number of "prefects" are chosen from these votes. Now these "leaders" have been chosen by the students. The fact that they have been chosen by the students and not the teachers, shows that they are well liked and are the best fit people to lead the views and values of the student body. If the teachers choose, people that are not so well respected will be given the gig, which is unrepresentative ot the student body. The fact that they were chosen by the students gives a lot of weight to their position and gaurantees that the majority of the population respect their views and values.

No matter how much responsibility these people have (changing from institution to institution, or club to club) they are going to most likely be representative of the students.

Now, what does the leadership group do? It changes from club to club, but as other people have said, peer analysis is much stronger, powerful and more scrutinising than football departent analysis. For example, a leadership group decision at Melbourne was to decide on the punishment for Colin Sylvia last year.

Now, if there was not a leadership group in place, this decision would have been decided by the Football Department. However, as I am trying to explain, this punishment would not carry nearly as much weight to it. Rather than just been handed down the punishment from the coaches, Colin was punished by his very own team mates. A real sense of letting down ALL of his team mates is felt in this situation.

All of this Brock McLean nonsense, about how he played as well after he got dropped etc etc, does not prove a point. The leadership group is in place, not for themselves, but for every player. They have responsibility to do the right thing and put the team first in a manner that represents the entire football club. They can be looked up to. They can be trusted by the younger players' to open up to, because they are their representatives, and in 99/100, will try to their utmost, to do what's best for their team mates, if the entire process is treated with respect.

-------------

Mo, How do you know that it ends with the captain? How many times have you played with an AFL club?

and to your other question, the football department have their own role to play, but instead of spoon feeding the players, it is better for these players to develop their own sense of indapendence and responsibility, because when push comes to shove, they are the ones out there on the field making their own decisions and doing their own thing. sydneys coaching system is a prime example of this, with paul roos' old philosophy, "let the players work it out."