Can you have a good culture and not be winning?

Yes, of course you can. Having a good culture doesn't mean you will win every game or always be up the top. But it does determine how you respond to poor results.

And so as not to make the previous post too long (you're welcome BH)

Who has the better 'culture' Sydney or Geelong? Did their strength of culture change from year to year netting them premierships? Eg Geelongs was better in 07, 09, 11 but the swans better in 12?

Has Freo's culture surpassed Geelongs this year? It would seem to be Geelong is the best team of the past 5 years and Freo a team that has been associated with a terrible 'culture' of losing unlosable games. Freo must have done some incredible team bonding excercises in the lead up to the finals.

What happened to Sydney's 'culture' in 06? Did West Coast go past them with their drug-overdosing, captain losing, drunk driving escaping fiasco? Seeing as '05 was decided by less than a kick maybe Leo Barry should tell the football world what culture has to do with taking one good mark.

I know this is an extremely negative way of going about this but seriously, Sydney is constantly under-rated by the football world and then the media has to explain why this happened and uses the buzz word 'culture'. Club culture is far too indistinct to be defining success.

Yes, of course you can. Having a good culture doesn't mean you will win every game or always be up the top. But it does determine how you respond to poor results.

So culture is about having lost then winning? Almost every club has done that, how was our culture in 2000?

Also does this mean Brisbane's culture is weak as after having won 3 premierships in a row they haven't got another one in 9 years?

Sydney won because of the attitude and effort standards they set. They train to high standards, play to high standards, they have non negotiables set by the LG, they pride themselves (the playing group) on being there for each other, being the best they can, and it is displayed like that on the field. Other teams have their own standards. But when it comes down to it, week in week out, the level of consistency of being in the game and competitive and winning is superior to nearly all other clubs. And it is admired. They have a terrific level of work ethic for each other, it's what separates the recognition of those who have it in spades and those who are inferior in standards. Fans and commentators recognise it because it exists, it's out there on display. They become the most skillful, fittest, role playing coached team, because of the standards set by the FD and playing group that make it a terrific environment to thrive and learn in.

There are many player examples that have moved to Sydney an thrived and improved their game significantly in doing their specific role for the team given the chance.

Every team in the league does this, perhaps the players thrive as they are away from the media circus that is Melbourne, thats not culture driven thats location. All teams have non-negotiables, and team rules, the fact is having a better team of players who play together well can get you to a GF then anything can happen. In terms of culture Collingwood suspended D. Swan for three rounds for drinking and breaking team rules. Hawthorn hit Franklin with a small fine and no suspension in the wake of two speeding instances (one with a probated license). I think culturally Collingwood were far stronger. Still got pumped first week of the finals by Hawthorn though. You are defining culture as things all clubs do (some do better than others obviously 1 team has to win 17 have to lose) and as the way players set standards which can be great at losing clubs but ultimately do very little to affect results. Hardly a tangible, accessible, clear route to victory.

What about in rounds 20, 22 and 23? Did the culture suddenly get worse for three rounds resulting in some bad losses?

So any bad losses point to a lack of strong culture?

I've heard the Swans accused of things in the past, but inconsistency is a new one.

If you think it can all be attributed to elite fitness and great coaching that's okay. You can at least agree that this "culture", regardless of your opinion as to the role it plays in their success or even its existence, has been attested to by the playing group. They believe in the club culture and abide by the disciplines it enforces. They are also widely recognised as one of the most successful teams over the past 8-10 years. So whether or not you think it doesn't play a part, the players have bought in and the results are there for all to see.

Alot of what we're talking about isn't rocket science. It's a matter of setting standards on and off field, with zero tolerance towards not meeting those standards.

Can't believe people on here are still disputing the Seans Culture.

Wonders never cease.

Here we go again....

Every club will have a unique circumstance driven by their different location, the different people who make up the football club, the attitude of the playing group, the stereotype given to the supporters etc. The argument here is that these circumstances drive results, I would argue that if it contributes it is in a very small, hardly meaningful way. This "Bloods culture" as elaborated in Micky O's book and espoused by the media has far less to do with their results than having more talented players, good fitness as a result of an elite sports science division, great coaching and being able to keep all needed players, bid on NQR's and be active in Trade week due to the extra million in their salary cap.

If you seriously think that this elusive 'culture' is anything but a buzzword for success then answer me this;

What happened to the 'Bloods Culture' in 2009? Did it suddenly wane, maybe Roosy forgot about it?

What about in rounds 20, 22 and 23? Did the culture suddenly get worse for three rounds resulting in some bad losses?

Would Gunsten and Franklin kicking more accurately in the Grand Final have anything to do with culture? Were the Hawks not playing as a unified team?

Did WC have a good culture in 2006? Collingwood in 2010? St Kilda in 09/10? These clubs seemingly did well in the face of off-field turmoil.

Can you have a good culture and not be winning?

No-one is saying that culture by itself will win you a flag. You also need the prerequisite talent. Hawthorn have a very good culture, but didn't win the flag, so too Collingwood.

But it allows clubs to stay in the game and maximise their potential. Do a bit more reading about Sydney from ex-players and you'll start to understand. The articles are out there if you do a quick search. And then listen to ex-players like Mooney and Archer. Or ex-coaches like Eade and Thompson.

No-one is saying that culture by itself will win you a flag. You also need the prerequisite talent. Hawthorn have a very good culture, but didn't win the flag, so too Collingwood.

But it allows clubs to stay in the game and maximise their potential. Do a bit more reading about Sydney from ex-players and you'll start to understand. The articles are out there if you do a quick search. And then listed to ex-players like Mooney and Archer. Or ex-coaches like Eade and Thompson.

I have done quite a lot of reading, also of books by club champions in unsuccessful clubs. I have read most of what you just mentioned, and my conclusion is that its natural for players to want this to explain their success, all successful organisations want to believe they are special and better than everyone else. I think the reality is most AFL clubs have a good culture, its a combination of talented players, good facilities, smart planning, good coaching, making the most of small (sometimes not entirely legal) advantages and luck that makes their success. But for three straight kicks the swans would have no flags in the past 83 years.

So any bad losses point to a lack of strong culture?

I've heard the Swans accused of things in the past, but inconsistency is a new one.

If you think it can all be attributed to elite fitness and great coaching that's okay. You can at least agree that this "culture", regardless of your opinion as to the role it plays in their success or even its existence, has been attested to by the playing group. They believe in the club culture and abide by the disciplines it enforces. They are also widely recognised as one of the most successful teams over the past 8-10 years. So whether or not you think it doesn't play a part, the players have bought in and the results are there for all to see.

Alot of what we're talking about isn't rocket science. It's a matter of setting standards on and off field, with zero tolerance towards not meeting those standards.

With all due respect, if wins = good culture, then surely losses = bad culture. I think setting standards is a football club norm accross the competition, Sydney's standards are incredibly similar to Geelongs, Hawthorns, Collingwoods, West Coasts, St Kilda's in fact almost every team in the comp, the reason they have been a successful team has far more to do with their playing groups football ability and the small advantages they are afforded by being in another state, having a home ground, being propped up by the AFL, having a larger cap and having great facilities. I'm not saying this 'culture' thing doesn't exist, I think every club and every workplace have their own unique feel, but I think the explanation that the swans have been a good club because of their culture is a bit of a smokescreen, or a buzzword, which ever you prefer.

You just don't get it. Do you seriously think all AFL clubs have a good culture even when they allow their senior players to coast along and get games on reputation, don't hold them to account to put in the hard yards on the track, do the team things in games, put their bodies on the lines etc

(BTW I'm talking about the MFC here)

You just don't get it. Do you seriously think all AFL clubs have a good culture even when they allow their senior players to coast along and get games on reputation, don't hold them to account to put in the hard yards on the track, do the team things in games, put their bodies on the lines etc

(BTW I'm talking about the MFC here)

I think you need to define culture. Also, no I don't think that is good practice for any sporting organisation. But Adam Goodes played several ordinary games in the second half of this year with quality players knocking down the door for Sydney, he held his spot by reputation and put in a stellar final series, I don't think the swans never play any of their players on reputation and always drop players if they are out of form.

Also I never said all, I said most, if you are so intent on discrediting me go up a few posts and answer the questions I asked.

So any bad losses point to a lack of strong culture?

I've heard the Swans accused of things in the past, but inconsistency is a new one.

Also P-Man, I am not calling the Swans inconsistant, I am asking that if strong culture is the defining feature of a winning club and the swans have possessed it since the Roos - Kelly era what happened in the years / games they lost? Clearly there are more important factors determining results and this 'culture' seems to be so intangible that no one can actually say categorically how it affects the results of football games. Maybe instead of debating how we can get the swans 'culture' we should look at their playing list, their recruitment strategies, their game day strategies, their training regime, their coaching structure and their finances for something to emulate.

At least you understand that culture isn't simply a buzz word, but a set of standards and behaviors that are consistently and vigorously endorsed and protected. Satyricon seems to think that you just go out and play and give your all. If only it was so simple. When you have 40 players on a list and ages that can vary by up to 15 years (or more) you need a stringent set of standards and behaviours that are driven by your leadership group. And much thought goes into those values and behaviours.

Where you get it wrong - continuously, is that you don't understand that the culture of a club is determined by your players and in particular your leadership group. I've argued this point with you so often I know it falls on deaf ears, but even on Monday night's final episode of AFL 360 Bomber Thompson and Eade were both asked who set the culture at a club, i.e. was it the coaches, or the players, and in unison they answered that it was definitely the players. I know you'll wax on that it comes from the President all the way down to the receptionist and boot studder. But you're wrong. It's the players and in particular the leadership group.

Coaches, I think, can have a strong influence in setting the culture, but they rely on the leadership group to implement it.

The coaching dept can set standards and give guidance, but it is really down the leadership group to ensure their peers adhere to these ideals.

I think the president and the board can influence the club culture, but to a much lesser extent.

Supporters even less.

Sydney have always had the "no [censored] policy". I'm all for it, regardless how good a player they are if they're [censored] they will ultimately bring the club down. I don't need to show examples where this has happened.

Sydney have always had the "no [censored] policy".

I really wanted to post a picture of Capper but I couldn't bring myself to do it. I had so many options on Google images. So many.

I really wanted to post a picture of Capper but I couldn't bring myself to do it. I had so many options on Google images. So many.

I would've gone the meter maid option.

I really wanted to post a picture of Capper but I couldn't bring myself to do it. I had so many options on Google images. So many.

It can happen. No D/H's.

Adam Goodes played several ordinary games in the second half of this year with quality players knocking down the door for Sydney, he held his spot by reputation and put in a stellar final series, I don't think the swans never play any of their players on reputation and always drop players if they are out of form.

Hmm Adam Goodes, dual Brownlow Medallist, premiership player struggles for form coming back from his first long term injury and is persisted with due to having the runs on the board.

Compared to MFC legends Yze, Johnstone, Bruce, White, Robertson etc who for the better part of 10 years got games on a reputation that was undeserved due to crumbling in big games when the pressure was on.

Hmm Adam Goodes, dual Brownlow Medallist, premiership player struggles for form coming back from his first long term injury and is persisted with due to having the runs on the board.

Compared to MFC legends Yze, Johnstone, Bruce, White, Robertson etc who for the better part of 10 years got games on a reputation that was undeserved due to crumbling in big games when the pressure was on.

Fair enough, so good culture is playing Brownlow medalists?

Can't believe people on here are still disputing the Seans Culture.

Wonders never cease.

Have you forgotten this is Demonland, WYL?

Sydney have always had the "no [censored] policy". I'm all for it, regardless how good a player they are if they're [censored] they will ultimately bring the club down. I don't need to show examples where this has happened.

Umm, Barry Hall says hi, also Rhys Shaw hasn't always had the best reputation....

The point is we stopped the Japanese empire. They didn't takeover our lands. The diggers fought tooth & nail & held them out. Many quarters were lost & many soldier lost.

Across all the fronts collectively we stopped them.

But the battle was Won, achieved thru guts & camaraderie.

My father was hit & cutup by artillery shrapnel . He hated Wars & would never talk it up, or talk about it.

The point is the pacific was saved against overwhelming odds thru sheer guts, & lives.

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.

Have you forgotten this is Demonland, WYL?

WYL just finds to hard to reconcile that some people don't agree with him, nice to see that there are some more non-culturists out there....and it is not just a sad simpleton like me

WYL just finds to hard to reconcile that some people don't agree with him, nice to see that there are some more non-culturists out there....and it is not just a sad simpleton like me

you are free to disagree. But at least put up some good counter points please.

you are free to disagree. But at least put up some good counter points please.

I did but you don't seem to be able to either see or comprehend, you only denigrate, but that's your choice and right

If you want to believe there is such an animal as Culture in footy then that's ok by me, I just don't believe it exists

I did but you don't seem to be able to either see or comprehend, you only denigrate, but that's your choice and right

If you want to believe there is such an animal as Culture in footy then that's ok by me, I just don't believe it exists

go and speak to Stuart Maxfield. It was he that reignited the "Bloods" culture. Why an import from Richmond did it, i do not know-maybe he was a South supporter as a kid.

But for you to refer to it as a media "buzz" word is far more denigrating than anything i have said.