From an article in the Financial Review:

http://www.afr.com/business/sport/darwins-theory-of-sporting-evolution-20170323-gv4yuj

An interesting insight into why some recruiting methods ( like buying players) don't work, and why other methods do.

His theory is based on team cohesiveness and:
"It's based on three measures – long-term cohesion, which is the time team members have spent playing together more than two years ago; medium-term cohesion – which is the time spent within two years and finally the in-season cohesion, which has the highest weighting."

Importantly the author has identified in the AFL the following:

"Hawthorn, Geelong and the Swans in the AFL are high-cohesion units but he says St Kilda and Melbourne are improving and North Melbourne could spring a surprise".

 

 

This guy has put numbers and statistics into something I have thought for a long period.

The main reason the Cats and Hawks were so successful is that they built their sides from the ground up and were able to build incredible cohesion and teamwork. Obviously recruiting goes a long way as well, but by building a team first ethos it made them nearly unbeatable.

Fast forward to now and they are both spending big, trying to lure players to keep staying on top. It is this reason why I believe they will not win another flag if they continue with this method. Obviously the Hawks are only in the second season since they won, but the theory is still the same and I'll be very interested in how they go over the next few seasons.

I am very happy with where are team is at and they seem to be building a great team first mentality. Whether that translates into a premiership only time will tell.

12 hours ago, george_on_the_outer said:

From an article in the Financial Review:

http://www.afr.com/business/sport/darwins-theory-of-sporting-evolution-20170323-gv4yuj

An interesting insight into why some recruiting methods ( like buying players) don't work, and why other methods do.

His theory is based on team cohesiveness and:
"It's based on three measures – long-term cohesion, which is the time team members have spent playing together more than two years ago; medium-term cohesion – which is the time spent within two years and finally the in-season cohesion, which has the highest weighting."

Importantly the author has identified in the AFL the following:

"Hawthorn, Geelong and the Swans in the AFL are high-cohesion units but he says St Kilda and Melbourne are improving and North Melbourne could spring a surprise".

 

 

Next week st.  Kilda lose to meth coast, by over 80 points, they have cohesion but their two most

Yeah, remember when Strauss, Blease and Watts all played for the same under-age teams and how great that would be for their cohesion. And how Tapscott and Trengove were absolute best makes since way back?

Ok, I'll concede, that comment was a bit snarky and the basic concept of the article if perfectly valid. But I do think it is a bit overstated, certainly the idea that it can be measured in terms as simple as 'time spent in shared experiences'.

I think there's something a bit backwards to the reasoning. Like the false reasonings of having players with 100+, 150+ games in your side being a factor in premierships. It is not that having 150 games to their name that makes them good - they've played 150 games because they are good. All it says, to have a bunch of experienced and veteran players on your list, is that you have a bunch of good AFL-quality players on your list!

Similarly, saying 'this playing group is stable, therefore achieving and united' is nothing more than the reverse of saying 'this playing group is united and achieving, therefore stable'.

Oh, what's the other one that keeps coming up in population health.... oh yes 'Being in a stable relationship greatly reduces the risks of severe psychosis'. That actually gets trotted out periodically by the 'silent majority' types.

 

 

I think it was WJ who earlier this year posted an article on another group who predicted who would go up the ladder and who down. Apparently they predicted the rise of the Bulldogs a couple of years ago. Whatever the system was could be used for any sport.

Their two improvers this season were the Tigers and Us. And the team most likely to fall was ......Collingwood. I did like that article.

28 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

Yeah, remember when Strauss, Blease and Watts all played for the same under-age teams and how great that would be for their cohesion. And how Tapscott and Trengove were absolute best makes since way back?

Ok, I'll concede, that comment was a bit snarky and the basic concept of the article if perfectly valid. But I do think it is a bit overstated, certainly the idea that it can be measured in terms as simple as 'time spent in shared experiences'.

I think there's something a bit backwards to the reasoning. Like the false reasonings of having players with 100+, 150+ games in your side being a factor in premierships. It is not that having 150 games to their name that makes them good - they've played 150 games because they are good. All it says, to have a bunch of experienced and veteran players on your list, is that you have a bunch of good AFL-quality players on your list!

Similarly, saying 'this playing group is stable, therefore achieving and united' is nothing more than the reverse of saying 'this playing group is united and achieving, therefore stable'.

Oh, what's the other one that keeps coming up in population health.... oh yes 'Being in a stable relationship greatly reduces the risks of severe psychosis'. That actually gets trotted out periodically by the 'silent majority' types.

 

 

How does the aforementioned 'time spent in shared experiences' relate to your guys relationships and cohesion...ARF ARF ARF ARF ARF ARF

8 minutes ago, fndee said:

I think it was WJ who earlier this year posted an article on another group who predicted who would go up the ladder and who down. Apparently they predicted the rise of the Bulldogs a couple of years ago. Whatever the system was could be used for any sport.

Their two improvers this season were the Tigers and Us. And the team most likely to fall was ......Collingwood. I did like that article.

is this article like the almanac in Back to the Future - where we can get a lot of coin??

46 minutes ago, Little Goffy said:

I think there's something a bit backwards to the reasoning. Like the false reasonings of having players with 100+, 150+ games in your side being a factor in premierships. It is not that having 150 games to their name that makes them good - they've played 150 games because they are good. All it says, to have a bunch of experienced and veteran players on your list, is that you have a bunch of good AFL-quality players on your list!

 

There is a bit of "cargo cult science" to this, confusing cause and effect. (I am agreeing with you, Goff.)

Bailey's thing was to get a group of kids and "get games into them". Because flag winning teams had groups of (ex-) kids that had played together for a long time. Voila! The winning formula! Or: could it be that they played together for a long time because they were GOOD PLAYERS and didn't get dropped?

Unfortunately under Bailey all our group learned was how to get the [censored] kicked out of them week in and week out. But I emphasise that I don't condemn Bailey. He was working under constrained circumstances and we never got to find out how good a coach he was.

 

Having said all that, I think Darwin's Theory has more substance to it than cargo cult science. But ultimately, cohesive or not, your players must have the skill level to be able to execute. Otherwise you'll be cohesive at the bottom of the ladder.