Swans' 'Culture'

[dee-luded 2,959]

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.

Most probably. I haven't read any of the history, but was trying to sue the analogy that it isn't winning one battle that counts, it's all of them that count, wins & losses, when weighing up the end result.

So IMO in footy, the club with the better culture, will have the advantage over a similarly strong club which doesn't have the same bonding. The culture will help to get over the line.

and make the club strong going forward instead of dropping off when players finish up.

Nothing more than that.

[dee-luded 2,959]

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.

Anytyhing that doesn't have a physical mass, smell, appearence, or is felt by the finger tips could most likely be a Meyth.

But then, are you really there?

[P-man 13,366]

deejammin, as long as we're clarifying that it is a A reason for success. You are speaking about culture as though it is being proposed as the be all and end all.

Of course there are many factors that go into a successful football club, that goes without saying.

Edited October 6, 2012 by P_Man

[deejammin' 2,370]

I would argue that it is too intangible to be A reason for sucess and that if it can be argued this way its influence would either be too obtuse to quantify or infantesimally small. Yet many in the media, on this board, in the football public speak about said culture as if it is the be all and end all, that is the very attitude I am arguing against. Also I think it is so unique it cannot be replicated so it bears little to no relation to our club.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,227]

deejammin, as long as we're clarifying that it is a A reason for success. You are speaking about culture as though it is being proposed as the be all and end all.

Of course there are many factors that go into a successful football club, that goes without saying.

Exactly. Having a good culture doesn't guarantee success. But you would be hard-pressed to find a successful club that doesn't have a good culture. Even the WCE teams of 05-06 may not have had the best off-field culture but that doesn't mean they didn't have a dedicated culture on the track and on the field. Ben Cousins used drugs but also left nothing on the field and pushed himself to the point of exhaustion and physical sickness just to make sure his team was successful.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Exactly. Having a good culture doesn't guarantee success. But you would be hard-pressed to find a successful club that doesn't have a good culture. Even the WCE teams of 05-06 may not have had the best off-field culture but that doesn't mean they didn't have a dedicated culture on the track and on the field. Ben Cousins used drugs but also left nothing on the field and pushed himself to the point of exhaustion and physical sickness just to make sure his team was successful.

The habits aren't mutually exclusive Dr.

[Hannibal 5,814]

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.

OK, I think I've got it.

The players believe in it, the coaches believe in it, the supporters believe in it, but it's a myth. But because it's a myth it holds an element of truth. But even though it holds some truth it can't be held responsible for any subsequent successes. Even though the clubs that seemingly have a strong myth tend to be the ones that have the success with it.

And of course something as intangible as 'culture', sorry, I mean myth, and its relation to success can't be proved, or disproved.

Obfuscation at its finest.

Thanks.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

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.

Actually I said it was your arguments that were puerile and simpleminded. Didn’t say a thing about you, don’t know you from a duck’s bum. Didn’t use the word simpleton, either. That’s your turn on my words, which were trying to make observations about you logic, into descriptions about you. Of course I’m tempted to dust off the old cliché about caps fitting and so on, but I wouldn’t be that cheap.

Didn’t say you equated Swans culture with success either. I did offer a kind of formula to describe what seemed to be your belief that repeated, inane questions like “So culture is about having lost then winning?” and so on ad nauseum, amounted to some kind of argument. It doesn’t. It’s an attempt to prosecute a reductio ad absurdum, but to do that you’ve got to know the logic of someone else’s argument. If you don’t, and you don’t (or at least you don’t show any signs of being able to acknowledge the full dimensions of what anyone else has had to say), it just ends looking inept.

I know Dr Gonzo has already asked you about your basic capacities with comprehension (which, perhaps tellingly, you didn’t bother responding to) but to turn what I’ve said into some suggestion that your “what about this win? What about that loss?” is my saying what you believe, is simply boggling. I wasn’t doing anything more than pointing out how puerile … yes puerile … that sort of reduction of others’ more comprehensive (and comprehensible) positions to a simpleminded … yes, simpleminded … cause/effect equation actually was. No one that you have dumped on throughout this thread has ever proffered “culture” or “good culture” or “Swans’ culture” as the singular and immediate cause of grand final success. They’ve suggested it’s one factor, and an important one at that (a necessary but not sufficient cause as the philosophers are wont to say). And FWIW I agree with them.

Talk about misrepresention.

Meanwhile you can call other posters, who want to talk about the importance of “culture” on this thread, idiots; and you can defame Barry Hall into the bargain. And that’s all ok is it?

I make no apologies for using a word like puerile. Check its meanings in a dictionary some time. I presume you didn’t bother (it’s more convenient to puff up your outrage if you don’t know what someone else has actually said, let alone what they’ve said it about … but then that’s a characteristic of all your posts, whether there’s outrage attached or not). Puerile comes from the Latin puer, a boy. Puerile logic is juvenile logic, unpractised, boyish. As a description of your arguments it probably ought to be taken as a compliment, because it suggests there is in fact some logic to the way you prosecute your case when there isn’t.

So the only thing I really need to apologise for is giving you enough oxygen to find one more way to splutter the same old nonsense. At the risk of doing that all over again, I think I have to make a couple of other points about all this culture stuff that you think you’re aguing about or against or whatever:

i. your claims that amount more or less to saying that all it takes is good players, commitment to training, will to win blah blah itself assumes all sorts of cultural values and beliefs (we could start with the idea of the heroic individual if you like and go on from there but I see no point in providing an inventory). You can’t really reduce, marginalise or dismiss the relevance of culture in what others are talking about while you depend entirely on your own unexamined cultural position and the perspectives you hold as a result (which, sorry to mention this, are likely to be in good measure based on myths as well, like the sort of Ayn Randish tomfoolery that underwrites current versions of the heroic individual, for example);

ii. without going into detail about this, nobody on this thread is using the word “culture” with anything like the full scope it actually has. One useful thumbnail definition of culture that tries to encompass that scope is “the way of life of a people” but it needs to be added that the cultural part is not just the way of life but how that way of life is expressed (hence art, music, football games are acts of culture) … and so culture is something that, in its totality, says “this is who we are” of a people or group because “this is how we do things”. Far from something insubstantial, intangible and so on, it’s actually the very fabric of everything any group or tribe or organisation does.

A football club’s culture is much the same: the word names everything the club does, everything that can be identified as expressing “this is who we are”. Most of it, the routine, day to day stuff, would have to be examined pretty closely to distinguish it from what any other club does (that doesn’t stop it being cultural, though, all clubs are part of larger cultural circuits: the AFL, the business community).

But there’s something else, a point of difference that can be developed between clubs, something the Swans (and not just the Swans) have managed to parlay into their identity in this “for the Bloods” thing. It’s not actually the whole of the Swans’ culture and it probably doesn’t entirely sum up who the Swans actually are or what the club stands for in toto. But it’s a shibboleth, as I said before, it’s a touchstone, it’s a way of identifying what the team “is”, how the team plays, how it’s expected to play. “Culture” probably isn’t the best word for it, but it’s one way of condensing, crystallising a far broader (and, yes, difficult to name) sense of what the club wants to be seen as standing for, how the team is expected to play to express a sense of “this is who we are.”

I’d prefer to call it team identity, but that’s neither here nor there. However we describe it, it works as a way of organising the team, of giving them a sense of “who/what we’re playing for”, of naming something like a common cause (and if you don’t think that some way of expressing that isn’t important in how a team goes about things on the ground I’m glad I never played in one with you). You may think that a win, a premiership is an end in itself … but for the Swans, what they’ve done is find a way to say that a win is for something (let’s win one for the Gipper, as Ronnie Reagan used to say). That is, a premiership is for something, not just the players, not just the team, not just the club (and not even just for the Gipper, either). And it says something about who they are, which includes the fact that they're dual premiership winners in the last decade.

Oh, and one other thing about “culture” and how a team expresses it: a strong club or team culture can be sustained even through long years of failure or underachievement; it guarantees nothing on the field other than that the players will try (whether they’re good enough to do so or not) and try to fulfil the expectations they’ve been given for themselves. The difficulty with years of failure is that they can erode whatever belief a team might have in itself, in the club and its traditions and identity and so on; they're years that can accustom players to lower their expectations and then to become satisfied with whatever approximations they can muster in meeting those diminished expectations.

I hate to say it but this seems to be what’s happened to the MFC of late, although others have named different internal club issues as factors too. Whatever the causes, the erosion of the club’s sense of itself, of any apparent capacity to articulate a common cause, should be the real question for us … and learning from the success of the Swans, the Hacks, the whoevers, ought simply to be a necessary and understood part of whatever self-examinations the club goes through. Merely trying to argue away what the Swans themselves take to be a crucial aspect of their success I called smug and lazy before. It’s more than that, though, it’s an astonishing level of arrogance that guarantees one thing: continued failure. Those who refuse to learn from history … blah blah

As others have already added to this thread, this sense of who we are, what we’re playing for (our “culture”) and how we express it is a really hard question given the trough we’re in. Right now it might even seem insurmountable … at least if trivial gestures like blazers are meant to give us common cause, an identity, to say who we think we are.

I suspect we might even need a different thread, a thread free of your insistence on travestying everyone else’s positions with pointless reductions and misrecognitions, and of the pointless hope in waiting for a few good players to tell us who we think we are just by playing a few good games. I suspect we need to ask, to paraphrase Lara Bingle, "who the bloody hell are we?"

Edited October 7, 2012 by Dr John Dee

[deejammin' 2,370]

As you don't want me to reply, as you say in the last two paragraphs, I won't, but:

Here is me replying to Gonzo which you insinuate I didn't.

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.

Oh, and I know what puerile means, clearly calling my arguments boyish and unpracticed is meant, at least at base level to be insulting. I also understand tone, and your tone towards me in this thread has been condecending and patronising, perhaps you will give me the latin meanings of these. Also I shouldn't have used the word idiot, you are right. But I make no apologies for attacking the integrity of a player who regularly punched other players on the field, I have met Barry Hall and as I said, have found him to be a nice bloke off the field.

Thats all, you made it clear you want no more of my input, so thats it from me in this thread. I would have thought that there would be room for people who's opinions contradict those of others on a public forum, and if as you say my argument is so unpracticed and boyish I wouldn't have thought it would do you any harm to set me right. Also I feel I have tried to engage everyone I have spoken to directly in a friendly manner. I certainly don't want to attack my fellow demons supporters. I would have more to say on the subject of your description of culture (which to me seems split into many parts and facets and then coalesced into a whole in a largely solipsitic argument), but given your desire for me to leave this thread for you and others to debate how the demons acheive your version of "culture" I will leave you to it.

Edited October 7, 2012 by deejammin'

[Sir Why You Little 37,049]

As BH has stated above.

If the players, coaches & supporters believe it to exist. Then the culture is there & is real.

That is all. The End.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

... if as you say my argument is so unpracticed and boyish I wouldn't have thought it would do you any harm to set me right.

What on earth do you think I was trying to do with extended efforts to point out the problems in your arguments, particularly your taste for reductionism?

But once again you’re conflating comments about your arguments (such as they are) with personal criticism of you. Haven’t done that. Once again, all I’ve addressed is what you’ve said and what sense that does or doesn’t make.

Didn’t tell you to leave anywhere. Just said a thread without your travestying the arguments of others would be nice. And that was about how you characterise and misinterpret the words of others in your postings, not about who you are. Given the number of times you attribute attitudes to me in your last posting it seems impossible for you to differentiate between comments on words and comments on their writer. That’s not my problem, it’s yours.

Still, if you want to characterise as patronising and condescending my pointing out problems with your arguments and/or (in the case of puerile) explaining my own words, go right ahead. And inflate your sarcasm as much as you can, too, but all you’re doing is producing one more turn on your insistence on reducing anything anyone else says to your own terms.

But I suppose, to risk another accusation of condescension: perhaps you ought to read the beginning of my comments on culture a bit more carefully. I said I was only providing a thumbnail version. The word you might be looking for is tautological, or, perhaps totalising, because that’s how it is with culture: as I said, it's everything we do to express who we are. Unlike solipsism, which is a characteristic of persons, singular persons of course, not arguments, and relies on refusing to acknowledge anyone or anything else except in the solipsist’s own terms. Much like the way you seem to go about things, I guess, or I would guess if I existed.

One last thing: you didn’t question Barry Hall’s “integrity” you questioned his sanity.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Dr John Dee

[dpositive 1,665]

Well What a pity

DEejammin and Dr John have finally engaged in some real indepth and I reckon valuable analysis of "the culture thing" and they both make some excellent points

If I could figure out how to collect and store these insights in a single thread with other mentions of culture I think we would have something valuable in allowing us to identify the culture that our club can take forward to success.

I do know that when I have tried to obtain a more significant response from others who insist that the culture is "set' or "determined" by the players or in some cases the leadership group I have not received any such useful detail.

It is a complex issue and it is difficult to coherently and comprehensively describe ,but I am becoming more confident that we are at least thinking a little more deeply about it and may be able to offer something more valuable to the club. I would at least hope that the club is undertaking a similar process to provide us all with a culture that we can recognise and proudly associate with and will be confidently expressed when we are basking in our assured success

Oopps maybe tooo far

But really do enjoy your thoughts back to the trade and draft diversion.

[deejammin' 2,370]

OK, I think I've got it.

The players believe in it, the coaches believe in it, the supporters believe in it, but it's a myth. But because it's a myth it holds an element of truth. But even though it holds some truth it can't be held responsible for any subsequent successes. Even though the clubs that seemingly have a strong myth tend to be the ones that have the success with it.

And of course something as intangible as 'culture', sorry, I mean myth, and its relation to success can't be proved, or disproved.

Obfuscation at its finest.

Thanks.

I am sorry that you find my argument so unclear. But in regards to what you are saying there are multiple examples within society of many people buying into things that may or may not exist, obviously religious examples could be given, examples of cult or guru mentality, scientology, etc. I think there are many examples of all these people buying into something that may or may not exist and arguing for it as a reason for almost everything.

In regards to football reporting look at the difference between the way Mitch Clark and Kurt Tippetts (potential) trades have been described. Mitch Clark was descibed as money hungry, no one even remotely argued he would be coming to MFC for the culture, to represent the oldest team and bring it back to former glory, etc. He was coming to Melbourne for more money and security for his GF. Kurt Tippett however, is going to Sydney, "for the culture" in the words of his manager "who wouldn't want to go to Sydney right now". The money has been sited far less as the key reason. Through my eyes both circumstances seem very similar, both are going primarily for the money and the security, for the potential success and because it was the best option to move to at the time. It seem the media is buying in to the swans culture as the reason, but is it nescessarily the truth?

[jabberwocky 2,301]

It's about playing roles.

We have so many lost and incomplete footballers on our list and have had for so long.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

Kurt Tippett however, is going to Sydney, "for the culture" in the words of his manager "who wouldn't want to go to Sydney right now". The money has been sited far less as the key reason.

I'd be pretty sure that this is an example of the culture thing being reduced entirely to cliche. Probably sounded to Kurt like a good reason since everyone's been referring to' Sydney culture' recently. But I read in the SMH on the weekend that he wanted to go to the Swans because of Longmire and how he (Tippett) has never been coached by anyone over 5'9". Even in these days of total professionalism he still can't bring himself to cough up the real reason.