Swans' 'Culture'

[deejammin' 2,096]

So a player from the least sucessful team of the modern era goes to Sydney and ignites the culture of one of the least sucessful teams in VFL history....

I would put more credence into Roo's implementation of the flood and congestion heavy football to suit the SCG, Misson and co's fitness regime, a home ground advantage, being away from the media spotlight, drafting recycled players to complement younger draft picks, a extended salary cap over the rest of the competition and a bit of luck.

Edited October 4, 2012 by deejammin'

[satyricon 267]

So a player from the least sucessful team of the modern era goes to Sydney and ignites the culture of one of the least sucessful teams in VFL history....

I would put more credence into Roo's implementation of the flood and congestion heavy football to suit the SCG, Misson and co's fitness regime, a home ground advantage, being away from the media spotlight, drafting recycled players to complement younger draft picks, a extended salary cap over the rest of the competition and a bit of luck.

Sir, I doff my hat to you, beautifully put, you can try reasoned argument on here, it doesn't work, they need a cliche to continually beat the MFC players/coaches/footy department/administration with

[Sir Why You Little 35,170]

So a player from the least sucessful team of the modern era goes to Sydney and ignites the culture of one of the least sucessful teams in VFL history....

I would put more credence into Roo's implementation of the flood and congestion heavy football to suit the SCG, Misson and co's fitness regime, a home ground advantage, being away from the media spotlight, drafting recycled players to complement younger draft picks, a extended salary cap over the rest of the competition and a bit of luck.

like i said. Speak to Maxfield or Paul Kelly. The information is out there.

And i do not dispute a lot of the above examples you have written.

But if you think for a moment the "bloods" culture is a myth, then you are simply wrong.

[satyricon 267]

http://brandonhays.c...e-culture-myth/

http://www.stuff.co....of-team-culture

You will also find that this Culture thing started when Leading Teams became more involved with AFL, now let me think do they do their consulting for free...I think not....perpetuate the myth...that way it is needed

Edited October 4, 2012 by satyricon

[Sir Why You Little 35,170]

http://brandonhays.c...e-culture-myth/

http://www.stuff.co....of-team-culture

You will also find that this Culture thing started when Leading Teams became more involved with AFL, now let me think do they do their consulting for free...I think not....perpetuate the myth...that way it is needed

aah you are an employee of Leading Teams. That explains a bit....

Humour i enjoy.

[dee-luded 2,958]

So a player from the least sucessful team of the modern era goes to Sydney and ignites the culture of one of the least sucessful teams in VFL history....

I would put more credence into Roo's implementation of the flood and congestion heavy football to suit the SCG, Misson and co's fitness regime, a home ground advantage, being away from the media spotlight, drafting recycled players to complement younger draft picks, a extended salary cap over the rest of the competition and a bit of luck.

Yep, flea ridden hacks like him. just an ordinary fella.

Lech Wałęsa

Lech Wałęsa born 29 September 1943, is a Polish politician, trade-union organizer, and human-rights activist. A charismatic leader, he co-founded Solidarity, the Soviet blocs first independent trade union, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983, and served as President of Poland between 1990 and 1995.

Wałęsa was an electrician by trade. Soon after beginning work at the Gdansk shipyards, he became a dissident trade-union activist.

For this he was persecuted by the Communist authorities, placed under surveillance, fired in 1976, and arrested several times.

In August 1980 he was instrumental in political negotiations that led to the ground-breaking Gdansk agreement between striking workers and the government.

He became a co-founder of the Solidarity trade-union movement.

Arrested again after martial law was imposed in Poland and Solidarity was outlawed, upon release he continued his activism and was prominent in the establishment of the 1989 Round Table Agreement that led to semi-free parliamentary elections June 1989 and to a Solidarity-led government.

In 1990 he successfully ran for the 1989-newly re-established office of President of Poland.

He presided over Poland's transformation from a communist,,, to a post communist state.

But his popularity waned. After he narrowly lost the 1995 presidential election, his role in Polish politics was diminished.

However, his international fame remains. Walesa continues to speak and lecture in Poland and abroad on history and politics.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Lech_Wałęsa

Just a nobody really !

Edited October 4, 2012 by dee-luded

[dee-luded 2,958]

Not to diminish the fine men who fought on land in New Guinea and South East Asia against the Japanese but the Battle of the Coral Sea had much more impact on the final outcome.

Apologies for inserting historical footnote into otherwise absorbing discussion.

Why do you need to reduce it down to just one home and away game.

The sum of the parts gets the net result.

All who fought off the Japanese Empire worked towards stopping them.

The same with the less skilled Swans, they're complete effort wore the young Hawks down into a loss.

The culture the Swans have collectively developed, with the wags, staff, attending & loyal supporters, coaches etc have built a Community who'll stick thru thick & thin.

They are a band of 'brothers'...

[deejammin' 2,096]

Why do you need to reduce it down to just one home and away game.

The sum of the parts gets the net result.

All who fought off the Japanese Empire worked towards stopping them.

The same with the less skilled Swans, they're complete effort wore the young Hawks down into a loss.

The culture the Swans have collectively developed, with the wags, staff, attending & loyal supporters, coaches etc have built a Community who'll stick thru thick & thin.

They are a band of 'brothers'...

I think your constant quoting of Military History and Polish political movements in relation to football borders on offensive. No offense meant to you personally, we are both demon supporters and I like alot of your contribution to this board, ultimately I am sure we want the same things for our team. However, we are on a forum about a sport, not life and death struggles or political activism and I think comparing the two actually belittles the significance of the latter.

Footballers are not fighting for freedom, or giving their lives up for ideals, they are not activists fighting for an ideal they believe is bigger than them, they are entertainers paid to play a game people like to watch. That is all. Stuart Maxfield was not an activist, and I understand your point, in so much as you mean one seemingly inconsequential person can make a difference. However Football and activism are quite different, activists inspire with integrity, intellegence, empathy, cultural awareness, dedication and an ability to inspire and endure despite all odds. Footballers, as much as they may possess these qualities, play a game that has nothing to do with ones character and a lot to do with being good at being a member of a team in order to get a footy through some big sticks. Wayne Carey, Gary Ablett Snr, Barry Hall and Ben Cousins are all the kinds of people that have done things so far removed from the integrity of your Polish friend that they don't deserve to be mentioned on the same board, yet they are all successful legends of AFL, why? Cause sport is more about fitness, training, skill, teamwork and gameplan than integrity, culture and intelligence.

Edited October 4, 2012 by deejammin'

[dee-luded 2,958]

I think your constant quoting of Military History and Polish political movements in relation to football borders on offensive. No offense meant to you personally, we are both demon supporters and I like alot of your contribution to this board, ultimately I am sure we want the same things for our team. However, we are on a forum about a sport, not life and death struggles or political activism and I think comparing the two actually belittles the significance of the latter.

Footballers are not fighting for freedom, or giving their lives up for ideals, they are not activists fighting for an ideal they believe is bigger than them, they are entertainers paid to play a game people like to watch. That is all. Stuart Maxfield was not an activist, and I understand your point, in so much as you mean one seemingly inconsequential person can make a difference. However Football and activism are quite different, activists inspire with integrity, intellegence, empathy, cultural awareness, dedication and an ability to inspire and endure despite all odds. Footballers, as much as they may possess these qualities, play a game that has nothing to do with ones character and a lot to do with being good at being a member of a team in order to get a footy through some big sticks. Wayne Carey, Gary Ablett Snr, Barry Hall and Ben Cousins are all the kinds of people that have done things so far removed from the integrity of your Polish friend that they don't deserve to be mentioned on the same board, yet they are all successful legends of AFL, why? Cause sport is more about fitness, training, skill, teamwork and gameplan than integrity, culture and intelligence.

You keep mentioning individual players all the time, opposing the idea of the Team culture.

Most sides have their stars, or have had in the past. Many have fallen. You can pull up the selective success stories of Star individuals all you like, but its the team that wins.

It's the team culture that disciplines the team into One Unit, that keeps them all on the same page & working together like a machine.

[dpositive 1,600]

I think your constant quoting of Military History and Polish political movements in relation to football borders on offensive. No offense meant to you personally, we are both demon supporters and I like alot of your contribution to this board, ultimately I am sure we want the same things for our team. However, we are on a forum about a sport, not life and death struggles or political activism and I think comparing the two actually belittles the significance of the latter.

Footballers are not fighting for freedom, or giving their lives up for ideals, they are not activists fighting for an ideal they believe is bigger than them, they are entertainers paid to play a game people like to watch. That is all. Stuart Maxfield was not an activist, and I understand your point, in so much as you mean one seemingly inconsequential person can make a difference. However Football and activism are quite different, activists inspire with integrity, intellegence, empathy, cultural awareness, dedication and an ability to inspire and endure despite all odds. Footballers, as much as they may possess these qualities, play a game that has nothing to do with ones character and a lot to do with being good at being a member of a team in order to get a footy through some big sticks. Wayne Carey, Gary Ablett Snr, Barry Hall and Ben Cousins are all the kinds of people that have done things so far removed from the integrity of your Polish friend that they don't deserve to be mentioned on the same board, yet they are all successful legends of AFL, why? Cause sport is more about fitness, training, skill, teamwork and gameplan than integrity, culture and intelligence.

Excellent post DJ

One of the best I have seen to both acknowledge the chicken and egg nature of the culture word.

I would add that Carey Ablett etc are all part of the football culture and probably significant references within their own club cultures. And all possess some of those ephemeral features of the Australian western culture that DL was referring to. I suppose the nature of culture also is that while it is a keystone it is also flexible. But I will still maintain and supported by your points that the players determine and are determined by the Culture. As your examples attest did Carey etc determine or respond to the culture of their team? was their part in that culture successful ? Gosh too much for my addled brain Think I'll go back and read your thoughts again it is all entertainment!

[Dr. Gonzo 22,689]

Fair enough, so good culture is playing Brownlow medalists?

Are you being purposefully obtuse or do you just fail in basic comprehension?

[H_T 2,941]

So a player from the least sucessful team of the modern era goes to Sydney and ignites the culture of one of the least sucessful teams in VFL history....

That's not right. A leadership group with input from individuals set some high standards as a collective and it grew from there.

I don't dismiss individuals input either.

[deejammin' 2,096]

Are you being purposefully obtuse or do you just fail in basic comprehension?

In this case I was purposefully being obtuse, however I gave the Goodes example to show you that Sydney don't stick to steadfast rules which contrast to other clubs, they have played out of form players several times and had the faith that they would come good when it counted, fortunately for them they came good, unfortunately for us the opposite has happened many times.

[deejammin' 2,096]

That's not right. A leadership group with input from individuals set some high standards as a collective and it grew from there.

I don't dismiss individuals input either.

Surely you admit HT that leadership groups at all clubs set high standards and that many in the comp at the same time as Sydney had almost identical standards but were not as sucessful due to multiple football related factors that had little to do with culture.

Also it still strikes me as curious that Sydney's main competition during its 2005-06 period was a team with an infamously terrible drug culture and yet they still came away 1-1. If its about leadership groups setting high standards why did they not have it over a coked up WC team every time?

[deejammin' 2,096]

I am sure everyone on this board is sick of me talking about this, so unless I am asked direct questions on this topic I willl stop saturating this board with my opinion and go back to using it for info on our team etc. I like this board as it gives me a way to talk to my fellow dees supporters and I would rather discuss our club and get excited/not for next season with you all than keep talking about this however:

So far I have heard that the swans culture (which I think has reached mythical proportions, not in the sense that it doesn't exist but in the sense it is talking about in hushed tones as the reason the swans are so good) boils down to:

Leadership groups setting standards: It is my belief all clubs do this, the swans weren't the first to do it, they didn't have any more strenuous standards than alot of sucessful clubs and clubs with very little sucess have layed out similar standards for their players. All modern clubs have leadership groups setting standards and across the league these tend to be very similar. Also many teams with terrible off field cultures (Eagles circa 2005-6 is the most poignant example) have enjoyed sucess completely independant of their 'culture'.

No dhead policy: First of all Barry Hall almost got himself put out of a GF with one of the most undisciplined acts of all time in the 2005 Prelim. It is my belief he should have got weeks and would have if not for the romantic notions of the Tribunal at the time. He may be a nice bloke off-field but onfield he was a colossal dhead punching players, head high bumping well outside the rules, breaking cheekbones behind the play and getting himself suspended so often it hurt the team. He was kept around in spite of this policy as long as he was playing well enough and until the swans literally had no choice after he seemed to have actually gone insane. Several other players at the swans have entered the club with bad reputations so I hardly think this policy exists. Maybe the swans like to think that they are all great blokes and coined this policy to make themselves sound really good, this smacks of being a bunch of arrogant dheads to me.

Traditions of the bloods: The Bloods were one of the least sucessful teams in VFL history it makes no sense that their culture would all of a sudden be more sucessful than any other club.

The unique feel of a club as determined by location, people within the club and the relative sucess of the club in a given era: This is the version of culture I give creedence too, of course this exists and of course when a club is sucessful they like to site this as the fact is hard training, good coaching, good recruiting, certain advantages (salary cap, home ground, being out of media spotlight) are far less glamourous sounding as a reason. The fact is that all clubs have this and the factors I have just mentioned have far more to do with sucess than this version of culture, I would say this is such an intangible indirect concept that it can not be seen as a factor in determining results.

There's what I have come to in this thread.

Edited October 5, 2012 by deejammin'

[pitmaster 3,139]

Why do you need to reduce it down to just one home and away game.

The sum of the parts gets the net result.

All who fought off the Japanese Empire worked towards stopping them.

The same with the less skilled Swans, they're complete effort wore the young Hawks down into a loss.

The culture the Swans have collectively developed, with the wags, staff, attending & loyal supporters, coaches etc have built a Community who'll stick thru thick & thin.

They are a band of 'brothers'...

At the risk of reigniting a footnote, from the point of the Coral Sea naval battle, which resulted in a flogging of the Japanese navy, they were, in football terms, rooted. They went in at half time 15 goals down on a wet track. Yes, your Kokoda heroes were magnificent, and those who fought in the Pacific driving the Japanese back were extraordinary people, but the turning point was on the water.

If you want to cite military history then best read a bit more widely.

Another apology to all for whom this is a diversion but I had to come back on this point...it's just me.

[pitmaster 3,139]

Back on topic, the Swans are admirable right now, but deejammin's on the right track IMO. There's a lot of self serving BS flying around from the Swannies. Hopefully we can engage in the same in a few years' time.

[dees64 104]

They have the results....

3 GF in 7 yrs with 2 flags

They turn around players from other clubs & get the max out of them

They didnt bottom out & get early picks

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

I suppose the least that can be said for you is that you've given up on the stupidity of trying to disavow the existence of a club's 'culture' and retreated to an attempt to attack the Swan's version of it. But you haven't given up the reductionist logic that runs through everything you've deposited on this thread, most obviously in your puerile equations that can be expressed as: premiership = good culture, losing = bad culture/no culture.

But you can go on trying to 'demonstrate' that the Swans don't have the culture they say they have till you're red and white in the face. While your 'proofs' rely on the same level of reductive thinking, they prove nothing much at all. There's a long history to their efforts to reform Barry Hall and other 'troubled' players which your self-justifying summary overlooks. They also got rid of Hall, I think you'll find (though, according to you he'd gone 'insane' by then. Curiously, the Bulldogs didn't seem to notice that but I hope you get the chance to tell him some time). And, sure, leadership groups 'set standards'. The operative word there is 'set'. The cultural thing is about the kind of belief the whole team has in those standards, and how they enact them on the oval, as well as what those standards express of an idea about the club and its values.

But it's about the Bloods that you haven't got a clue. Your efforts at dismissing the influence of this because of South Melbourne's history is another effort to prosecute your simpleminded equation of culture with success. The revival of the idea/identity of 'the Bloods' was, in fact, precisely about that history and that lack of success. They were at it again on the weekend, grabbing the microphone and yelling 'for the Bloods'. That's for the Bloods. It's a recuperation of history, an expression of solidarity and continuity with those old teams that allows present victories to overcome the failures of the past; and more importantly it's a gesture of solidarity with all those followers who remember the old South Melbourne and its various failures and stuck with the Swans regardless. It probably also helps them bundle up the failures of the early Sydney Swans (when, in Paul Roos' words about us, they stood for nothing) and get rid of them as well.

Of course it's mythological. It's an idea, an invention. It's BS as Pitmaster wants to call it. But it works because it has also become a shibboleth, a word that marks membership of their group and sums up the values they've chosen to believe in, to 'buy into'. And it's one of the things they use to motivate themselves, to follow their leadership group rather than just listen to them.

But go on dissing the Swans and their culture. It's a useful way of ignoring the problems with ours, even if it's also just a bit smug and lazy ... oh, but then that's what we're supposed to be, isn't it?

[Hannibal 5,814]

Great post Dr !

There's no doubt that every club tries to have a winning culture, but to use the words of Denis Pagan, "if it was that easy everyone would be doing it". It's not easy. In a current article on the club's website Nathan Jones says, "I’m just looking forward to seeing how guys really take on that challenge, because I think we can improve pretty quickly if everyone buys in." He's still talking about players being prepared to "buy" in. To get 40 players, or even 25+ on the same page at a club would be very difficult, especially when many will have an axe to grind if they're not getting a game. But even more damning are these comments from Jones, “I think there’s a lot of talent on our list, but we didn't have the work ethic ingrained into us as a group". After 4 years of Bailey they're only now realising they didn't have anything like the work ethic required.

Leigh Matthews states that the two ingredients he holds above all others when looking to draft a player is "talent and leadership". The talent aspect speaks for itself, but the leadership component is critical. Leadership allows a player to join a group and quickly assess what is important. To come to the belief that team success is more important than individual success. Many experienced players will tell you that it took them many years to embrace this aspect, which is why some consider leaving unsuccessful clubs when they're suddenly staring down the end of their career. But some players, like Trent Cotchin, embrace the team ethos from a young age. Sydney's leadership group is fantastic in instilling their standards and behaviours on new players coming into the club and they're left in no doubt early on that they won't get a game unless they implement the Sydney way.

Great culture won't last forever. There's no point talking about the old Sth Melbourne, as they're no longer relevant. There's no point talking about the great Brisbane sides, as that culture has also gone with the great players that left. Culture isn't static and nor is it a forlorn hope. It's attainable with persistent hard work from talented individuals with the right leadership qualities to drive it. All clubs want it, but some are a mile away from having the personnel in place to deliver it.

[Goodvibes 3,596]

Nice post Dr. We should never underestimate the value of a self-perpetuating myth, particularly if that myth is built upon concepts such as teamwork, courage and hardness. At some point the myth becomes a reality. But it has to start somewhere and as H has said, it's usually the senior players. Trengove, Grimes, Jones, Clark, Frawley and Viney will be pivotal.

[Goodvibes 3,596]

The only thing I can add about culture from my experience is that it can take a long time to build but can crumble very quickly if you forget what you stand for and your work ethic dwindles.

[Rolling Stone 107]

To understand the good doctor's post and that of B-H and Goodvibes is to understand the enormity of the task facing Mark Neeld and his new regime in the post Daniher/Bailey era.

It will also help us understand many of the changes in playing personnel that are taking place and why it was so essential to instal a new leadership group right from the get go.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,689]

In this case I was purposefully being obtuse, however I gave the Goodes example to show you that Sydney don't stick to steadfast rules which contrast to other clubs, they have played out of form players several times and had the faith that they would come good when it counted, fortunately for them they came good, unfortunately for us the opposite has happened many times.

Yes but the point I was making is that it's easier to show faith in players when they already have the runs on the board and in this case not just a few runs but a couple of centuries. I was comparing this to some former MFC players (particularly under Daniher) who coasted along on reputation when based on their history they had no right to as they constantly wilted in big games when the pressure was on.

[deejammin' 2,096]

I suppose the least that can be said for you is that you've given up on the stupidity of trying to disavow the existence of a club's 'culture' and retreated to an attempt to attack the Swan's version of it. But you haven't given up the reductionist logic that runs through everything you've deposited on this thread, most obviously in your puerile equations that can be expressed as: premiership = good culture, losing = bad culture/no culture.

But you can go on trying to 'demonstrate' that the Swans don't have the culture they say they have till you're red and white in the face. While your 'proofs' rely on the same level of reductive thinking, they prove nothing much at all. There's a long history to their efforts to reform Barry Hall and other 'troubled' players which your self-justifying summary overlooks. They also got rid of Hall, I think you'll find (though, according to you he'd gone 'insane' by then. Curiously, the Bulldogs didn't seem to notice that but I hope you get the chance to tell him some time). And, sure, leadership groups 'set standards'. The operative word there is 'set'. The cultural thing is about the kind of belief the whole team has in those standards, and how they enact them on the oval, as well as what those standards express of an idea about the club and its values.

But it's about the Bloods that you haven't got a clue. Your efforts at dismissing the influence of this because of South Melbourne's history is another effort to prosecute your simpleminded equation of culture with success. The revival of the idea/identity of 'the Bloods' was, in fact, precisely about that history and that lack of success. They were at it again on the weekend, grabbing the microphone and yelling 'for the Bloods'. That's for the Bloods. It's a recuperation of history, an expression of solidarity and continuity with those old teams that allows present victories to overcome the failures of the past; and more importantly it's a gesture of solidarity with all those followers who remember the old South Melbourne and its various failures and stuck with the Swans regardless. It probably also helps them bundle up the failures of the early Sydney Swans (when, in Paul Roos' words about us, they stood for nothing) and get rid of them as well.

Of course it's mythological. It's an idea, an invention. It's BS as Pitmaster wants to call it. But it works because it has also become a shibboleth, a word that marks membership of their group and sums up the values they've chosen to believe in, to 'buy into'. And it's one of the things they use to motivate themselves, to follow their leadership group rather than just listen to them.

But go on dissing the Swans and their culture. It's a useful way of ignoring the problems with ours, even if it's also just a bit smug and lazy ... oh, but then that's what we're supposed to be, isn't it?

Great post, ultimately I agree with your conclusion that it is a myth the players buy into and stick with what I have said above. In fact the only eason you seem to think you are arguing with me is because you have completely misread my opinion. i disagree on Barry Hall however (it is my belief that he would have been out the door after the 05 prelim if culture came before needing to have a good power forward), and I also like what Ben H has said about players buying in, it is incredibly important and obviously having players buy into some sort of myth helps with this process.

But I didn't equate swans culture with success, this has been the media, many on this board, Paul Roos' etc argument from the beginning of the year and remains many people's explanation for why the swans are such a good team. In fact the idea culture has anything to do with success is the argument I have been refuting since the beginning of this thread. I have no doubt that this culture feels great for the club and people involved but, as you said, I see equating culture with any sort of success as reductive in the same way lack of culture can't blamed for lack of success. In fact the equation you called puerile is not mine at all, it is the very equation I have been arguing against, I never stated I thought culture didn't exist, I said it had nothing to do with success! I said in arguments above that those that are positing 'culture' as the reason for success are the ones who are being, in your words, "simpleminded". But hey, misrepresent my argument and litter your post with personal attacks, good on you!

As for Bloods culture, yet again, I am sure the players did do it for their long suffering supporters and that the Bloods culture is about solidarity with their faithful. But this has nothing to do with results, as I have said before and you seem to have agreed with. The reason I used the Bloods results from the VFL era was to refute the idea that somehow in reigniting this culture the swans found the magical secret to success, not to argue that there was no long standing desire to make up for the lack of success in the clubs past. I have no doubt that when our club lifts a cup they will declare it was for us, yet our support from year to year apart from keeping the club going doesn't have a direct line to results.

If you want my equation how about reading between the lines in my posts rather than accusing me of opinions I do not hold and never stated:

Culture = intangible concept unique to each club that has nothing to do with success, yet is sited by said club as reason for success as they like to justify it this way.

Those that associate said culture with results = idiots buying into a concept that in this context becomes a myth or smokescreen for the real reasons behind the success.

This has always been my argument. If you want to engage in dialogue in future how about keeping insults like simpleton and puerile to yourself.

Edited October 6, 2012 by deejammin'