Interesting discussion on SEN right now about Leadership Groups. Just because it worked for Sydney & Geelong, does it work for all? Is our list suited? Should we just have Cap & V/C with the coaches? All clubs now have Leadership groups...for how long? A club will buck the trend. Does it put too much pressure on a young player off field during the week?

You can never satisfy all.

Edited February 13, 201213 yr by why you little

Rubbish topic.

No club would be stupid enough to "buck the trend" and not appoint a leadership group.

That'd be like "bucking the trend" and going back to not doing preseason training anymore and encouraging the players to get [censored] together after a match.

Rubbish topic.

No club would be stupid enough to "buck the trend" and not appoint a leadership group.

That'd be like "bucking the trend" and going back to not doing preseason training anymore and encouraging the players to get [censored] together after a match.

Tell me Lutz what do they actually do?

I hear lots of comment but most of what I hear is fairly basic and ordinary stuff.

The Dees now have 6 in the group plus two captains if they are all in the side and on the ground then 44% of those playing are "leaders"

Add in 10 from the coaching panel so 18 Chiefs, that does not leave much room for the indians.

But I digress what does the leadership group do?

Tell me Lutz what do they actually do?

I hear lots of comment but most of what I hear is fairly basic and ordinary stuff.

The Dees now have 6 in the group plus two captains if they are all in the side and on the ground then 44% of those playing are "leaders"

Add in 10 from the coaching panel so 18 Chiefs, that does not leave much room for the indians.

But I digress what does the leadership group do?

It's actually 2 playing chiefs, under a non-playing big chief.

I don't think it's necessary to go through the organisational breakdown structure, but the leadership group is vertically and horizontally structured.

The leadership group provides structure and leadership for the playing group, acts as a conduit for communication between the coaching dept and the playing group (and the board), and empowers the players to an extent.

The value of empowerment should not be underestimated.

The leadership group acts to form and cultivate the club culture.

Anyway, whether you understand it or not, all clubs in the AFL have long ago embraced the concept of leadership groups and can see the clear benefits, and it defies logic for any of them to go back to the dark ages.

*and the function of a leadership group goes far beyond the 22 onfield on match day.

The 44% figure is misleading and disingenuous.

Edited February 14, 201213 yr by Lutz

Leadership groups are overated . We've had them at our club for the last 5 years and look at the results . I'm yet to be convinced of their worth . Same as the mindless possession football that's often played - only to turn the ball over after advancing the ball a colossal 30 metres !

Capt , Vice Captain and deputy vice worked for about hundred years . It will only take 1 club to go back to the old system and then watch others follow suit . I'm willing to bet there's a few clubs that would prefer the old system but choose not to "just in case" .

All this time and effort is spent getting the "right" players in there but if you have a losing season it's "We need to look at our leadership group" . And then 3-4 get the boot . And when you're winning they mostly all stay .

If our club wants to have a leadership group I'll support it obviously but I don't think there's any real need . Lets put the onus on Grimes and Trengove . I'm confident both will come through .

To me winning comes down to talent and attitude - by everyone .

Cheers

Edited February 14, 201213 yr by Macca

nice post Macca

i've said it before and i'll say it again; i dont even think the captain is a overly important role on game day, especially if the whole team have the right attidtude

It's actually 2 playing chiefs, under a non-playing big chief.

I don't think it's necessary to go through the organisational breakdown structure, but the leadership group is vertically and horizontally structured.

The leadership group provides structure and leadership for the playing group, acts as a conduit for communication between the coaching dept and the playing group (and the board), and empowers the players to an extent.

The value of empowerment should not be underestimated.

The leadership group acts to form and cultivate the club culture.

Anyway, whether you understand it or not, all clubs in the AFL have long ago embraced the concept of leadership groups and can see the clear benefits, and it defies logic for any of them to go back to the dark ages.

*and the function of a leadership group goes far beyond the 22 onfield on match day.

The 44% figure is misleading and disingenuous.

No so sure the "clear benefits " are quite so clear.

last year there were 17 teams with leadership groups, 15 of them were not up to playing on GF day.

It could be said that if one of them had used a different model they may have improved.

The MFC had a leadership group and we had what may be the worst year in the last 40 years.

The leadership group did not seem to help much in the lead up to the "186" weekend.

Just because 18 teams in 2012 have them does not mean tha ta better model does not exist.

It just mean no one has yet tried a different model.

If we followed your logic no one would have moved to leadership groups in the first place because they had a model that had served well for 100 years.

Edited February 14, 201213 yr by old dee

The leadership group will likely remain but it has to be one of the biggest wanks in football. Didn't Yze make ours a few years back...enough said.

To my original post i ask. Is our list at present worthy of a leadership group when we are not sure who the captains should be.

Our list is a lot different to Geelong in terms of maturity.

I have a slight feeling of the lemming

Regardless of the words of 25 above.

Kind of agree I must say . LG is a corporate [censored] designed to alienate individuals who wish to remain so . The only positive may be the reverse psychology effect on BM BG Riv et al .

One strong leader will emerge .

I think JT has shown it with his play and his contract announcement when a certain skunk was stinking up the club .

Rubbish topic.

No club would be stupid enough to "buck the trend" and not appoint a leadership group.

That'd be like "bucking the trend" and going back to not doing preseason training anymore and encouraging the players to get [censored] together after a match.

Doesn't hurt to have a few beers with your mates -it's not illegal yet .

I think it is very important to have a leadership group in the modern game with all the pressure on the young guys in your squad. Its a very diffrent game to 20 years ago so its very important to lead the team by example. To stop the media from chewing kids up and throwing them to the dogs.It also helps with building a strong culture. Which shows why poor leadership = bad culture look at us in the last 5 years weak leadership on ground and a weak culture. I to can see the silly 8 or 10 men leadership could be a bit over the top but i think the 2 jacks will bring a strong culture to all the players over the next decade which will help our club play like demons again. Look at sydney adam goodes and brett kirk have set up that club for the next decade with a strong leadership group which won them a flag and there culture is very strong and got all the bloods fans just what they wanted a flag.I love my club but i think its fair to say we have not known how or what a culture is under dean bailey.No strong leaders has hurt the club bad in the last 3 years. But now we have Mark neeld who will get this team along with the 2 jacks and 6 leaders PLAYING LIKE DEMONS.

Doesn't hurt to have a few beers with your mates -it's not illegal yet .

Tell that to Colin Sylvia and Brett Moloney.

Leadership groups are overated . We've had them at our club for the last 5 years and look at the results .

We had insert-what-you-want-here at the club over the last 5 years and look at the results ....

For me, the problem hasn't been the leadership group, it's been the lack of leaders to put into it. Now, hopefully, we're starting to get a few, on field and off.

Mark Neeld's comment:

"The other really big eye-opener for me was, unless you are working within the inner sanctum of a football club, it is impossible to understand how the club operates - from an on-field perspective right through to the boardroom."

This could very well be applied to some of the slap downs on the concept of leadership in this thread.

Bing's comment "the problem hasn't been the leadership group, it's been the lack of leaders to put into it." is closest to the pin.

I think LG's are a necessity. If all clubs have them, including the last several Premiership teams, what is to say it doesn't work ?

With two young co-captains recently installed, they most likely need the support of a LG behind them.

Agree with you Billy. Well said

To re-iterate what Bing said - lots of confusion on here as to difference between the good workings and benefits of leadership and the lack of leadership talent we have previously had to fill the group.

It's actually 2 playing chiefs, under a non-playing big chief.

I don't think it's necessary to go through the organisational breakdown structure, but the leadership group is vertically and horizontally structured.

The leadership group provides structure and leadership for the playing group, acts as a conduit for communication between the coaching dept and the playing group (and the board), and empowers the players to an extent.

The value of empowerment should not be underestimated.

The leadership group acts to form and cultivate the club culture.

Anyway, whether you understand it or not, all clubs in the AFL have long ago embraced the concept of leadership groups and can see the clear benefits, and it defies logic for any of them to go back to the dark ages.

*and the function of a leadership group goes far beyond the 22 onfield on match day.

The 44% figure is misleading and disingenuous.

Off topic I know, but I'm sick to death the amount of smart arse comments made by a select few Demonland posters, but on a more and more regular basis. It happens in every thread, and it's terribly sad that some posters feel the need to over-power another posters opinion by making personal comments.

Lutz - so what if Old Dee "doesn't understand". Actually, what is it that he doesn't understand? Your opinion? Maybe you don't understand his either, but I don't see him question you about "understanding".

There's always things I don't agree with, and more to the point, a lot of my opinions people don't agree with, but when you continually here things like "whether you understand it or not" or "it's quite simple, but for billy2803, maybe not", etc, etc, where do you posters get off? Unless it's a misinterpretation of a rule, most other things we discuss are all based on our own opinions, and just because you don't agree doesn't mean you're wrong, but it also doesn't mean you're right. But whichever way it is, personal attacks or smart arse comments are totally unacceptable..

I apologise for being "melodramatic" (according to one poster it's something I suffer from), and "those" posters would most likely advise me to read a different site. Well, I, like most of you, live and breath MFC, and when you're an interstater (in the non-AFL-dominant area of South East Queensland), this is the best way I can get my daily Demon fix. I enjoy the posts of most, especially the likes of Old Dee, and I would hate to see him crack the sh!ts and not contribute due to someone else going on their little power trip.

We are passionate, we want the best for the Club, we want a premiership and lots of them. Don't be scum supporters like Collingwood and Richmond, we are all Melbourne fans and should respect each others views in a constructive way, not degrading, disrespectful and immature.

End rant.

Thanks. Just a pity that's the 2nd time I've had my post removed with no explanation.

Yes i read it to bily. I agree with what you said but you didn't see my reply.

The leadership group will likely remain but it has to be one of the biggest wanks in football. Didn't Yze make ours a few years back...enough said.

It's an indictment on the quality of leaders at the club, and Yze, not leadership groups themselves.

We had insert-what-you-want-here at the club over the last 5 years and look at the results ....

For me, the problem hasn't been the leadership group, it's been the lack of leaders to put into it. Now, hopefully, we're starting to get a few, on field and off.

The problem I have is that when teams have poor seasons it's nearly always the LG that cops a caning . If so much time and effort is put into picking these players , why abandon some or half of them after ( often ) 1 bad year ? And I'm not necessarily talking about our blokes this year .

A winning season and the LG mostly stays and a losing season often means "heads will roll" . It is effectively using the LG as a scapegoat if the team doesn't perform . I'd like to see a team "stick pat" with their LG when times get tough . Or better still , just not have them if they can't show some patience .

And just on our blokes , I'd love to have a full explanation from somebody on why Green , Moloney , Davey and Rivers are now deemed not worthy of being in the LG . More so looking at the clubs explanation if possible .

I'm with a few others here - Capt , VC and Deputy VC was a great system .

Cheers

Edited February 15, 201213 yr by Macca

It's an indictment on the quality of leaders at the club, and Yze, not leadership groups themselves.

In the past we had a captain, a vice captain and a deputy vice captain. Clubs then usually had several others who led on or off the field or both. These days thanks to everything corporate we call them leadership groups. get your hand off it folks they are nothing new. When players such as Yze are assigned to these groups you realise how pointless they are. He couldn't lead a school group to 7 Eleven.

Mark Neeld's comment:

"The other really big eye-opener for me was, unless you are working within the inner sanctum of a football club, it is impossible to understand how the club operates - from an on-field perspective right through to the boardroom."

This could very well be applied to some of the slap downs on the concept of leadership in this thread.

Bing's comment "the problem hasn't been the leadership group, it's been the lack of leaders to put into it." is closest to the pin.

From the same article...

"When I was coaching at Collingwood, we would look at Melbourne, as an assistant coach, in the lead-up to Queen’s Birthday. Once the game is played, you move on to the following week.

So, in a season where Collingwood played 26 games last year, I really got to look at Melbourne for probably three and a half days. You do not have a thorough understanding [otherwise]."

So what you are saying is Neeld and the new coaches that have looked at the team "probably three and a half days" a season prior to being signed on for a few months of "inside knowledge" already have a better understanding of the club than the supporters?

Seems pretty rich Mr richards.

So what you are saying is Neeld and the new coaches that have looked at the team "probably three and a half days" a season prior to being signed on for a few months of "inside knowledge" already have a better understanding of the club than the supporters?

Seems pretty rich Mr richards.

Definitely. I reckon Neeld could just look at the Club year book for 5 mins and be better informed than some of the supporters on MFC.